Florida Water Resources Journal - September 2018

Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:

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

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

Michael Delaney Rick Harmon Patrick Delaney Buena Vista Publishing

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

Moving?

The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not count on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of address changes by the 15th of the month preceding the month of issue.

Please do not telephone address changes. Email changes to changes@fwrj.com, fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

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

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

For Other Information DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-957-8448 Florida Water Resources Conference: 407-363-7751 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.com FWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.org FSAWWA: www.fsawwa.org FWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.org Florida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademark symbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publication necessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspondence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subject to editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons.

Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members, representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

News and Features

Columns

4 Red Tide Wreaks Havoc in Florida 6 Florida Section Executive Director Honored With AWWA Award 50 Regulation Division Recognized for Excellence 52 WEF HQ Newsletter: Water Workforce Development—Katherine Saltzman

Technical Articles 8 The Evolution of Master Planning: Integrated Planning for the City of St. Petersburg— Leisha L. Pica and Claude Tankersley 30 Harmful Algal Bloom Control Using Recycled Concrete Aggregate Coated With Quaternary Ammonium Compounds—Ikenna Ezeodurukwe, Jared Church, Mikaeel Young, Jinwoo An, Swadeshmukul Santra, Boo Hyun Nam, and Woo Hyoung Lee 40 Water Balanced: A Fairer Allocation Method for Florida’s Water—Scott Knight 44 How Sustainable is It? Approaches for Quantifying Sustainability With Case Studies Spanning Water, Wastewater, and Biosolids Treatment—Stephanie Ishii, Ruth Borgmann, Amy Hanna, Erika Bailey, T.J. Lynch, Evan Bowles, Christopher Kish, Jorge Acevedo, and Jose Saucedo

13 14 24 26 29 38 54

FWEA Focus—Kristiana S. Dragash Reader Profile—Shelby Hughes C Factor—Mike Darrow Let’s Talk Safety Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak FSAWWA Speaking Out—Bill Young FWEA Chapter Corner: West Coast Chapter Hosts Successful Spring Luncheon—Isaiah Shapiro

Departments 57 Service Directories 60 Classifieds 62 Display Advertiser Index

Education and Training 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 37 41 51 55

FSAWWA Fall Conference Calendar FSAWWA Fall Conference Registration FSAWWA Fall Conference Overview FSAWWA Fall Conference Students and Young Professionals Activities FSAWWA Fall Conference Poker Night and Golf Tournament FSAWWA Fall Conference Competitions FSAWWA Water Distribution Systems Awards FSAWWA Water Conservation Awards for Excellence CEU Challenge Florida Water Resources Conference FWPCOA Training Calendar TREEO Center Training

Volume 69

ON THE COVER: The ultrafiltration process at the City of Daytona Beach Advanced Purified Water Demonstration Facility is the first of three barriers in the process and provides removal of turbidity, algae, and bacteria from water. The city will test four different ultrafiltration membranes throughout the demonstration period, including the first ceramic membrane to be tested for potable reuse in the United States. (photo: Dave MacNevin)

September 2018

Number 9

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 • September 2018

3

Red Tide Wreaks Havoc in Florida Coastal regions in the Gold of Mexico, including the west coast of Florida, are experiencing an unusually severe case of red tide—a burst of algae growth in the ocean that can kill marine wildlife and negatively affect humans.

Red tide, which scientists call a harmful algae bloom, is caused by a naturally occurring

4

alga (a plant-like microogranism) called Karenia brevis or K. brevis, which can turn ocean water red, brown, or green. The ongoing toxic algae bloom is considered to be the longest red tide outbreak for the Gulf of Mexico in over a decade, and officials say it will most likely last until 2019.

High concentrations of toxic algae, known

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

as blooms, have affected parts of the Gulf of Mexico coast since November 2017. This is the longest stretch since a red tide lasted for about a year and a half in 2005 and 2006. Currently, the tide is at high levels in Lee County, and is also affecting Sarasota County, Charlotte County, and Collier County.

Red tides occur naturally in nature and their duration depends on several factors, including sunlight and wind currents. If they more toward the shore, they can be prolonged and intensified by runoff of nutrients, like farm fertilizer and treated sewage that has been released into waterways.

Officials say nearly 300 sea turtles have died because of the toxic bloom. Pelicans, manatees, several varieties of fish, and a whale shark have also washed ashore since this unprecedented bloom started.

Not only does red tide affect marine life, but it also poses health risks to beachgoers. Wave action can break open K. brevis cells and release these toxins into the air, leading to respiratory irritation. For people with severe or chronic respiratory conditions, such as emphysema or asthma, red tide can cause serious illness.

Red tides are not new; the first reported incident was in Florida in 1844. Research hasn’t yet found a definitive link between the severity of red tides and climate change, and whether climate change will make them more frequent in the future is something that scientists and public officials don’t yet know.

S

Florida Section Executive Director Honored With AWWA Award Peggy Guingona, executive director for the Florida Section American Water Works Association, received the Jack Hoffbuhr Award at the 2018 AWWA Annual Conference and Exhibition (ACE18) in June.

The award was created to honor the legacy of Jack Hoffbuhr (retired executive director of AWWA) by recognizing outstanding performance and accomplishments by a section professional staff member of the association.

To qualify for the award the nominee must have shown continuous dedication above and beyond normal duties to the section business of AWWA by demonstrating loyalty, reliability, responsibility, leadership, and excellent service to the membership of the section and the association.

In addition, the successful candidate must be viewed as a team player and a good communicator.

The section staff eligible for this award includes paid, contract, or part-time staff, or staff that works for an association management company employed by the section. The committee that selects the awardee consists of the AWWA president and deputy chief executive officer, section services manager, and the immediate past five recipients of the Jack Hoffbuhr Award. The committee selects a candidate for the award and reports its nominee to the board of directors for approval at its winter meeting.

The citation approved by the board in January of this year reads as follows:

Guingona (front row, fourth from left) poses with Florida Section officers and members after receiving her award. Others in the front row (from left): Tyler Tedcastle, Terri Holcomb, Jackie Torbert, Ana Maria Gonzalez, Ashley Longmore, and Richard Anderson; back row: Mike Bailey and Bill Young.

Peggy Guingona’s effective leadership has been instrumental in allowing AWWA to benefit Florida’s water community. She is honest, loyal, reliable, and a good communicator in addressing the needs of our organization to provide the highest-quality member services.

Peggy epitomizes the qualities that make a better world through better water.

Guingona receives her award at ACE 18 from Brenda Lennox, AWWA president (left), and David LaFrance, chief executive officer of the association (right).

6

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Peggy live and Peggy on display.

Guingona was recognized as the award winner at the Florida Water Resources Conference that was held in April in Daytona Beach, and received the actual award at ACE18.

She had the title of section operations manager from 2007 and has been the executive director of the section since 2013.

S

F W R J

The Evolution of Master Planning: Integrated Planning for the City of St. Petersburg Leisha L. Pica and Claude Tankersley he City of St. Petersburg (city) is developing an integrated water resources master plan (IWRMP). The city is situated on a peninsula between the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay. Recreational water quality is a vital component of the local economy, and as such, it’s imperative the city ensures that the wastewater effluent and stormwater discharges to surface waters exceed water quality standards.

In addition to these challenges, the city experienced sewer overflows during tropical storm events in 2015 and 2016. These extreme rain events impaired the city’s collection system, caused widespread flooding, and overloaded the capacity of treatment facilities. The intensity and duration of storm events also prompted concerns regarding climate science and the forecasted sea level rise (SLR) for the St. Petersburg and Tampa Bay areas. The city desires to develop a capital program that addresses the challenges it faces today,

T

as well as those into the future—including utilizing stormwater as a resource.

City leadership requested a long-term strategy to address all community and infrastructure needs, including the following: protecting human health, improving water quality, managing stormwater as a resource, supporting economic benefits, supporting quality of life attributes, enhancing the vitality of communities, mitigating potential climate change impacts, and developing integrated water resources solutions. The IWRMP will address all capital needs for the city’s public works department, including transportation, water supply, drinking water, wastewater, biosolids, reclaimed water, stormwater, and surface waters.

Methodology The city is exploring innovative solutions that focus on sustainability and resiliency; capital

Table 1. Capital Improvement Program Considerations for Integrated Water Resources Master Plan

Figure 1. Anticipated Results of the City of St. Petersburg’s Integrated Planning Methodology

8

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Leisha L. Pica. P.E., is a program manager at Jacobs Engineering Group in Tampa.

Claude Tankersley. P.E., is a public works administrator at City of St. Petersburg.

improvement projects are no longer advanced without considering these important tenets.

Today, individual projects must consider the following criteria before projects are advanced for funding: 1. Community. Potential community enhancements that can be coordinated with the project (such as lighting, drainage, and tree canopy).

2. Infrastructure. Adjacent infrastructure warranting repair or replacement (piping, manholes, hydrants, valves, etc.).

3. Coordination. Construction coordination with other investments (transit, roadway improvements, utilities, parks, greenways, blueways, and urban redevelopment corridors).

4. Sustainability. Long-term benefits with respect to urban heat islands, energy conservation, SLR, microburst weather, and extreme tropical events.

To fully adopt the city’s vision, these considerations require an integrated planning methodology to ensure they are fully vetted at the capital improvement program (CIP) level versus individual discrete project requests. The integrated planning framework published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2012 was customized for the city to develop a plan that addresses both the short- and long-term needs listed in Table 1.

The IWRMP goes well beyond basic CIP forecasting, addressing local economic impacts and the community’s quality of life. The seven tenants of integrated planning applied to the city’s priorities are shown in Figure 1 and summarized in the following bullet points: S Protect Human Health. Implementing an industry-standard asset management program will ensure that the city is able to provide the appropriate levels of service to its utility customers, while minimizing service outages, sewer overflows, and unauthorized discharges.

S Improve Water Quality. Quantifying potential sources of impairment to local surface waters will assist with developing strategies for improving recreational water quality. The impact of low baseflow conditions, reclaimed water irrigation systems, and stormwater runoff will be determined so remedies can be incorporated into local and regional projects.

S Manage Stormwater as a Resource. The city desires to utilize stormwater that is historically discharged to local surface waters. Utilization strategies to be evaluated include stormwater reservoirs for water supply augmentation, rainwater harvesting opportunities, reclaimed water augmentation, surface water baseflow augmentation, aquifer storage recovery, and flood protection strategies.

S Support Other Economic Benefits. Areas and corridors for potential development and redevelopment will be evaluated to coordinate the ultimate sizing of infrastructure. An inventory of blighted properties will be reviewed to find suitable locations for future stormwater utilization systems.

S Support Quality of Life Attributes. Neighborhood plans will be reviewed to coordinate priority infrastructure improvements and reforestation corridors. Opportunities for improving the interconnectivity and functionality of greenways and blueways will also be considered.

S Enhance Vitality of Communities. Opportunities to coordinate infrastructure with improvements needed for natural systems including parks, recreation centers, and habitat-sensitive areas, will be assessed. As the IWRMP is being developed, new ways to engage and keep the public involved will be explored.

S Integrated Water Resources Solutions. Investments offering regional benefits will be considered with local stakeholders. The integrated solutions will optimize the connectivity of infrastructure and prioritize capital needs across all water resources divisions (potable water, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment, reclaimed water, stormwater, and surface water). Additionally, a baseline condition will be created to facilitate benchmarking performance, including the metrics to be monitored.

Figure 2. Approach for Developing Integrated Water Resources Master Plan

Table 2. St. Petersburg’s STAR Certification Final Score by Goal Area

Approach The approach for developing the IWRMP methodology is comprised of the five discrete tasks shown in Figure 2. A key component of the IWRMP process is acquiring complete knowledge of local issues, problems, and concerns from all stakeholders, including city staff, political leadership, regulatory agencies, county departments, Contninued on page 10 Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

9

Contninued from page 9 neighborhood associations, regional planning organizations, environmental groups, academic institutions, business districts, developers, wholesale customers, technical task forces, and city residents.

In order to address current and future challenges in a holistic manner, all challenges must be clearly identified and prioritized. The city advocates a strong public outreach program that extends beyond notifying people of activities.

The city also desires to actively engage people with developing meaningful and lasting local solutions. Public engagement began with Task 1, as the public possesses critical information related to existing infrastructure problems and community expectations.

The information acquired from stakeholders will be combined with the results and recommendations from multiple concurrent city programs and initiatives to customize the integrated planning framework.

Sources for data compiled under Task 1 include the following:

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

Institutional Knowledge City Departments Prior Technical Reports Flow Monitoring Rate Studies Financial Evaluations Literature Reviews Regulatory Permits Hydraulic Models Condition Assessments Asset Inspections Customer Complaints Stakeholder Feedback

The data-collection phase will determine opportunities to coordinate work for developing the IWRMP with other ongoing city initiatives, including but not limited to the following (details are provided for a few of these initiatives): S Complete Streets Program S Florida Department of Transportation CIP Program S Sustainability Planning

Figure 3. St. Petersburg’s Comparison Ratings to Other STAR-Certified Communities

Figure 4. St. Petersburg’s Climate and Energy Points Achieved

10

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S S S S S S S S S

Resiliency Planning Envision Rating System STARTM Community Rating Climate Science Modeling Pinellas County Wastewater/Stormwater Task Force Planning Pinellas County Sustainability Vulnerability Assessment Comprehensive Plan Updates Land Development Regulations State-Sponsored Stormwater Management Master Plan

Resiliency Planning The city is using the STAR Community Rating System certification process to baseline and track progress toward improving overall resiliency. A nationally recognized certification program for evaluating communitywide resiliency, STAR encompasses economic, environmental, and social performance measures. The city achieved 381 of the total 720 points, thereby receiving the certified 3-STAR community rating in December 2016 (Table 2).

A closer examination of the city’s point totals in each goal area, compared to other certified communities, reveals areas of strong performance, as well as opportunities for improvement. Figure 3 illustrates how the city performed relative to the other 58 STAR-certified communities.

The city’s scores are generally in the median ranges, with the greatest opportunity for improvement in the goal areas of natural systems and climate and energy. The climate and energy goal area is comprised of seven objectives (Figure 4), including climate adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation, greening the energy supply, industrial sector resource efficiency, resource-efficient buildings, resource-efficient public infrastructure, and waste minimization. For the majority of these objectives, the city falls in the lower 50th percentile, as compared to other STAR-certified communities. This goal area aligns well with existing city programs and comprehensive plan elements focused on renewable energy, carbon footprint reduction, preparing for SLR, and mitigating urban head island impacts. These considerations will be incorporated into the IWRMP. The IWRMP will help the city achieve its sustainability resiliency goals related to 50 percent green space, 100 percent clean energy, reduction of its carbon footprint, planning for SLR, and improving recreational water quality (Figure 5).

Climate Science Modeling The city is surrounded on three sides by water, with 60 mi of coastal frontage, including Tampa Bay. The Tampa Bay region is known to be

vulnerable to wind damage, coastal flooding from storm surge and extreme rainfall events, and SLR. With approximately 48 percent of the city’s population living less than 10 ft above sea level, these events create enormous risks to the safety, wellbeing, and property of the residents. The intent is for the entire city to be resilient, not just before and after acute weather events, but during the more gradual changes to the environment.

The University of South Florida is working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide local SLR forecasts for the city. Historical data measured at the NOAA St. Petersburg tide station indicate that the city has already experienced a documented SLR of approximately 6.6 in., or approximately 1 in./decade (Figure 6).

Several groups have been actively studying climate for the Tampa Bay region, including the University of South Florida, Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel, and Florida Climate Institute. Experts agree that local governments need to begin making decisions about responding to climate science, including the impacts of SLR and changes in the frequency and intensity of short-term flooding events.

Local sea level changes are due to a variety of factors, including vertical land motion (subsidence or uplift), changes in estuarine and shelf hydrodynamics, regional oceanographic and atmospheric circulation patterns, and rainfall and river flow changes.

The regionally adjusted NOAA projections for SLR through 2100 (Figure 7) predict a rise ranging from 0.93 to 6.89 ft. Each of the four curves reflects varying degrees of information.

Local studies remain ongoing by the city to determine which SLR forecast curve is most appropriate for the IWRMP. The regionally adjusted SLR forecast scenarios suggest the city may face significant impacts to its infrastructure over time. Potential impacts may include: S Pipelines. Existing pipeline corridors subject to salt water environments may warrant cathodic protection or relocation. Increased groundwater levels may impact infiltration and inflow into the city’s sewer system.

S Facilities. Existing treatment facilities located in low-lying elevations may require relocation, sea wall protection, or grade and elevation adjustments.

S Flood Control. Innovative approaches may be warranted to develop flood control systems, as SLR compromises critical infrastructure and densely populated residential areas.

S Natural Systems. Freshwater habitats may be encroached upon by salt water, requiring species relocation or extensive protection of the existing natural habitat areas.

Figure 5. Overview: How Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Supports STAR Certification Program

Figure 6. Mean Sea Level Trend in St. Petersburg at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tide Gauge

The IWRMP will include consideration of possible climate change, including storm intensity and frequency (as well as SLR), into its longterm capital planning efforts. Since approximately 48 percent of the city’s population resides in special flood hazard areas prone to tropical weather events, the city must perform a vulnerability assessment and develop a climate change adaptation plan.

Putting It All Together Via Integrated Planning The IWRMP will determine how the city can address the multiple concurrent and forwardlooking capital needs in a holistic and reasonable manner. Innovation has the potential to reduce

overall capital costs and provide a greater benefit sooner to ratepayers, as compared to traditional approaches for managing water resources assets.

The IWRMP will consider innovative concepts once thought to be unattainable related to south Florida water resources. The roadmap for creating an IWRMP is a simple concept surrounded by well-orchestrated coordination efforts of longterm planning scenarios that utilities are likely to encounter (Figure 8).

Today The activities performed under the “Today” category are related to documenting the current condition of assets, environmental issues, regulatory requirements, built systems, and comContninued on page 12

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

11

Contninued from page 11 munity priorities. Under this category, technical evaluations will determine the level of capital investment to maintain the status quo for infrastructure for another 40 years.

S Comply with consent-order mandates.

S Inventory community needs and public priorities and expectations.

S Perform condition assessments and determine remaining useful life.

S Update hydraulic model to evaluate severe weather events.

S Assess areas for redevelopment, blight, and potential public beneficial use.

S Quantify infiltration and inflow priority basins.

S Review existing city policies, programs, and initiatives.

S Evaluate tidal influences on critical assets and utility systems.

S Coordinate planned capital investments with city, county, state, and federal agencies that may impact utility infrastructure.

Future The activities performed under the “Future” category are related to evaluating the “what if ” scenarios and determining the best strategies for mitigating multiple risks. Under this category, technical evaluations will determine how innovation can be applied across the city.

S Establish levels of service that policy makers desire for each utility asset class.

S Apply population forecasts to service area demands.

S Identify assets at risk of impact from SLR. S Evaluate costs and benefits of constructing new systems versus replacement of existing assets with in-kind processes, units, and systems.

S Consider utility infrastructure that would be constructed in the absence of funding constraints S Explore options for mitigating localized salt water intrusion impacts.

S Expand low-impact development and best management practices for managing stormwater with the goals of retaining flows and/or reusing stormwater.

S Identify corridors for expansion of reclaimed water distribution systems to new retail and wholesale customers.

S Consider the impact that pending or future regulatory requirements may have on utility infrastructure, particularly for the areas of greenhouse gas mitigation and nutrient reduction.

Plan

Figure 7. Relative Sea Level Change Scenarios for St. Petersburg at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tide Gauge

Figure 8. High-Level Roadmap for Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Development

12

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The activities performed under the “Plan” category are related to developing a phasing and implementation plan for long-term capital improvements. Ratepayer affordability will dictate the total duration of the IWRMP. S Calculate local ratepayer affordability in accordance with EPA guidelines for financial capability indicators.

S Conduct financial evaluations to determine the potential range of rate increases that would be required to fully implement the IWRMP. Identify potential revenue sources, in addition to capital funding sources, that would support the IWRMP. S Identify opportunities for regional utility interconnects to improve the sustainability and resiliency of potable water and wastewater systems throughout the region.

S Use risk-based criteria for prioritizing and integrating projects into annual capital programs and consider sustainability and resiliency criteria for capital investments.

S Identify climate-science trends that may trigger strategic mitigation investments over time to ensure costs are not expended unless conditions begin to manifest as they were forecasted.

S Continue to engage members of the public regarding their expectations and priorities as related to long-term capital investments for the city.

FWEA FOCUS

Upon completion of the IWRMP, the city will have a process in place to prioritize needs and update the annual CIP based upon changed conditions. The implementation phase of the work includes equipping the city with the resources, staffing plan, software, and processes needed to fully implement the long-term IWRMP.

I Encourage You to Fail

Conclusion The city is tasked with the challenge of protecting the environment from human activity (built systems) and protecting the population from the naturally occurring activities (flooding, shoreline erosion, weather, and SLR). Extreme weather events spurred the need for developing approaches to ensure that the city and its utility infrastructure are sustainable and resilient.

Master planning has evolved from the traditional approach of developing a capital forecast for management of discrete utility assets to coordination of the asset needs with citywide programs, community needs, and forwardlooking sustainability and resiliency planning criteria.

The IWRMP will require the city to rethink how capital priorities are set, as utility systems can no longer be considered in silos. A consolidated and integrated approach will result in cost savings from economies of scale, as well as regional collaboration opportunities. This is a sustainable approach to long-term utility planning that considers the potential impacts resulting from climate change and SLR for coastal communities. The information will provide a roadmap for other utilities and municipalities interested in implementing comprehensive integrated water resources planning.

References

Kristiana S. Dragash, P.E. President, FWEA n a call with the FWEA executive committee earlier this week the topic came up of writing these monthly articles for the magazine. As usual, the committee had a great suggestion— tying the article in with a football theme since this article is for the September issue.

They’re brilliant, I know. Problem is, though I do love a good tailgate or party during football season, I don’t actually know or care very much about football!

I actually scheduled the annual FWEA Leadership Development Workshop the same day as the Super Bowl one year—completely by accident, of course.

That being said, I instead want to share something authentic and thought-provoking that I’ve come across in the last month, minus the football references.

I recently attended a leadership event for Carollo Engineers Inc., getting training in workshops that were focused on coaching, accountability, critical feedback, and conflict resolution. Amidst the vast amount of information and resources presented, there were some quotes that resonated with me. One such quote was, “I

O

encourage you to fail.” I know, it sounds odd. Especially considering that many of us are Type A personalities, driven by success and solving problems.

Failure doesn’t seem like something we should be encouraged to do. The thing is though, if you’re not failing every once in a while, you’re not growing. Quite honestly, I don’t know why I didn’t realize this sooner. After all, I didn’t learn how to do a cartwheel by doing it perfectly in my first try; it took time, effort, and a few spills along the way. I’m not sure why I never transferred that same concept over to academics and my career, but when I heard that quote, it triggered a healthy change in perspective for me. Instead of feeling bad about something that didn’t turn out in a way one might consider successful, I saw it for what it was: an opportunity to learn.

I did my best, and now I know what I’ll do differently next time.

Personal and professional growth is a requirement to progressing in any industry, especially ours, which constantly changes due to new technology and regulations.

So next time you do something that’s not a success, don’t worry about it or beat yourself up—it’s part of the growth process. Be proud that you did your best and use everything you can from that experience to learn and succeed in the future.

S

• G. Mitchum, University of South Florida. August 2011. "Sea Level Changes in the Southeastern United States: Past, Present, and Future."

• United States Environmental Protection Agency. June 2012. “Memorandum: Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework.”

• Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel.

August 2015. "Recommended Projection of Sea Level Rise in the Tampa Bay Region."

• STAR Communities. December 2016. "STAR Certification Results Report, City of St. Petersburg, Florida, Certified 3-Star Community."

• Urban Land Institute Tampa Bay. April 2017.

"Realizing Resiliency Social Equity + Economic Opportunity."

S Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

13

FWRJ READER PROFILE Work title and years of service.

I’m a civil engineer and have worked at Kimley-Horn for four years. Before that I was an intern at Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) for two years.

Shelby Hughes, E.I. Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc., Tampa

What does your job entail?

I’m an engineering consultant responsible for a variety of water, wastewater, and reclaimed water projects for both private and municipal entities. My day-to-day experience is a combination of team and project management, project design, construction management, business planning, and marketing.

What education and training have you had?

I have a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Florida. I’ve done continuous education and training through my job experiences, Kimley-Horn, and AWWA, taking advantage of as many technical sessions and workshops that I can.

I’m a member of the National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NAASCO) and have received certification in the pipeline assessment and certification program, manhole assessment and certification program, and lateral assessment and certification program (PACP/MACP/LACP). I’ve also done hydraulic modelling training with InfoWorks and Bentley.

What do you like best about your job?

I love the team I get to work with, the flexibility of being able to focus on what I’m passionate about, and the clients I have the privilege to serve. It’s exciting when you become invested in the progression of the municipalities you’re working with. The problem solving can be tough, but finishing a project is really rewarding when you can make a positive impact in the community. I also love meeting new people, forming new professional relationships, and general marketing. It’s just as much fun as it is work!

What professional organizations do you belong to?

I’m passionate about the water industry and hold board positions at the regional and state level for Florida Section AWWA: S FSAWWA Young Professionals Section vice chair S FSAWWA Public Affairs Council – Model Water Tower Competition (MWTC) chair • 2017 Chairs Award of Excellence for Distinguished Service S FSAWWA Region IV – MWTC chair S 2016 Young Professional of the Year Award

Hughes prepares for the 2017 Model Water Tower Competition registration with Pam London-Exner (left) and Bernice Williams (center).

How has the organization helped your career?

I’ve been given many opportunities by AWWA to influence the water resources industry from the time I was an intern at GRU. I’ve been able to greatly expand my professional network and I’ve been exposed to a multitude of opportunities because of it.

The association has paired me with several valuable mentors across the Florida Section.

When you start to get involved regularly and grow in your career, you realize how small the industry really is, and how important it is to develop and maintain relationships.

A few examples of how creative the model water towers can be.

14

Kelly Belly, the four-legged fur baby.

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

What do you like best about the industry?

Our industry is unique—drinking water and wastewater management are necessities, but

they often go unnoticed by people who don’t work with it every day. People turn on a faucet and don’t think twice about how the water gets there or if it’s safe to drink. We get to be the people that make the “behind the scenes” stuff happen! We’re constantly innovating water and wastewater treatment, distribution, and collection methodology, looking for ways to provide a better-quality product, and we’re passionate about it! The industry as a whole is really small,

Relaxing outside during a recent trip to Austin, Texas.

but we’re such an integral part of the community. It feels great to be part of a team that makes a difference, even if it’s not always obvious.

What do you do when you’re not working?

My favorite things to do are traveling, hiking, camping, scuba diving, snorkeling, anything related to live music, and yoga. I’ve been to Croatia, Venice (Italy), Montenegro, New York, Boston, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Maine, North

Carolina, and several places around Florida, all in the last year! So many amazing things to see in the world—get out there and explore!

I have a 10-year-old shepherd mix, named Kelly Belly, who I love dearly.

I enjoy having a large network of friends and family outside of work. I also try to stay active in the community. Right now I’m involved with Onbikes, a Tampa community organization with the mission to provide bikes to at-risk children. S

2015 Onbikes Winter Wonder Ride.

Onbikes and Kimley-Horn donate over 100 bikes for at-risk kids!

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

15

C FACTOR

Your Signature is Your Seal Mike Darrow President, FWPCOA

s operators, we sign many documents and reports. We all know our own operator number by heart and use it daily at work for verifying compliance, and on many other things, including monthly operational reports, discharge monitoring reports, sampling plans, biosolids residuals reports, laboratory compliance sampling, quality control laboratory work, process control data and readings, log book entries, backflow reports, and water management reporting.

All of these documents are signed with your name and operator’s license number. The signature and number are a stamp, or seal, of attesting to the results in the report or entry in the logbook. We take pride in using our signature and operator number.

One area where we need to focus our attention when we sign as operators is on someone’s actual experience when he or she is working toward a water/wastewater or water distribution operator’s license. We need to make sure that the experience submitted is valid before signing the application form submitted by that applicant.

Recently, FWPCOA has had some questions come in on what actually counts for a licensed operator’s experience. This is pertaining

A

24

to water, wastewater, and water distribution operator licenses issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) operator certification program.

I thought in this month’s column I would go over the verification of experience needed for a license and remind you of the importance of your review as the signer on the license application. Your signature is everything and is directly tied to your operator’s license when you sign for someone. Some operators are getting confused on what is eligible for experience to count toward a state operator’s license, so some clarification on the subject would be important to us all and keep us on the same page.

In June of this year, at the FWPCOA state board meeting in Lake City, Ron McCulley of the FDEP operator certification program was in attendance and talked about this very issue. He cleared up a lot of questions operators had on the subject of actual experience, and if you had an opportunity to attend the Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA) annual “Focus on Change” session this year, Ron talked about this topic there as well.

A lot of the following information came directly from Ron; the Florida Adminstrative Code (FAC), which is the official compilation of the administrative rules and regulations of state agencies; or from the FRWA meeting I mentioned.

Florida Administrative Code Criteria The FAC 62-602.250, Criteria for Determining Eligible Experience, is the key to un-

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

locking many questions. It’s the basis for detailing the actual experience that counts for the FDEP operator license process found in 62602.300, Qualifications for Operator Licensure.

Read both rules to understand the entire process for licensing.

The current version of 62-602.250 came into effect in 2007; the previous version was in effect from 2002 to 2007. The main difference between the two is that water distribution experience was added to the rule in 2007 when the water distribution operator’s license was added.

With this new addition, some water distribution time can now count partly toward a water treatment plant operator’s license (less than one half of the time), but the experience in 62602.250(1)(a) must be the predominate experience.

Rules for Experience Let’s look at the rules for experience for treatment plant operators to meet the requirements.

A person working at a domestic wastewater or water treatment plant, or electronic control system, as an employee, volunteer, or contractor preforming process control work, would be eligible. (a) Process control actives include operational control tests, and evaluation and interpretation of the test results; preparation of plant process control reports, logs, or records; and analysis and disposal or distribution of the waterwastewater plant’s product and the residuals from the treat-

ment process. Also, control of the hydraulic system and necessary chemical adjustments in its operation. (b) Water distribution system operation and maintenance as described in FAC 62602.250(7), sample collection and analysis, electronic surveillance system monitoring, and plant maintenance can be counted for water treatment plant operators, but it would be less than half time.

A person employed in the daily onsite operational control of an industrial wastewater treatment plant can use this experience to meet the requirements of the Class A, B, or C wastewater operator license. Industrial wastewater treatment plant means the structures, equipment, and processes required to treat wastewater, primarily organic in composition, in a plant using a biodegradation or physical-chemical treatment process, similar to the domestic wastewater secondary, tertiary, or advanced treatment processes.

A person employed in the daily onsite operational control of an industrial water production process water treatment plant can use this experience to meet the requirements of the Class A, B, or C drinking water operator license.

Industrial production process water treatment plant means the structures, equipment, and processes required to treat water in a plant using a physical-chemical treatment process similar to drinking water treatment processes.

Now let’s look at the rules for experience for water distribution operators to meet the requirements.

A person working in a water distribution operator system as an employee, volunteer, or contractor would be eligible. Here, too, the experience listed in paragraph (a) would predominate the experience time for distribution as well.

-

(a) Cleaning (swabbing, pigging, scraping, or air purging) water mains; installing, tapping, repairing/replacing, pressure testing, or disinfecting water mains and appurtenances (including fittings, valves, and hydrants); cleaning or disinfecting finished-water storage tanks; operating or adjusting pumps or control valves as necessary to regulate water distribution system flows or pressures; evaluating and interpreting water quality measurements in water distribution systems and troubleshooting to determine causes of water quality complaints; and estimating and justifying water distribution system operation and maintenance budgets. (b) Flushing water mains; installing or repairing/replacing water services lines and appurtenances (including fittings, valves, and meters); establishing or implementing a cross connection control program (including installing, repairing/replacing, or testing backflow preventers); testing and maintaining water meters; locating and marking water mains or service lines; operating or exercising isolation valves; testing and maintaining fire hydrants; repairing/overhauling water pumps, control valves, or meters; performing water quality measurements in water distribution systems; collecting and analyzing water samples; reading or updating water distribution system maps; and preparing water distribution system operation and maintenance records.

What does not count as actual experience?

Again refer to FAC 62-602.250, Criteria for Determining Eligible Experience.

Experience for treatment plant operators that does not count includes: 1. Experience in wastewater systems where sep-

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

tic tanks, filter beds, or lagoons are the sole means of treatment.

Experience in water systems used for swimming.

Experience in construction or design of treatment plants, or well drilling.

Experience in the installation or servicing of water softening or conditioning devices installed in residences or commercial establishments for the purpose of altering the aesthetic quality of the public water supply.

Experience limited solely to driving a sludge truck, monitoring an electronic surveillance system, facility maintenance, or laboratory work.

Periods of employment as directors of public works, utility managers, regulatory inspectors, or in other occupations that do not include the experience as defined in the rule section.

Moving the Profession Forward Be mindful of all of this the next time you are signing for someone’s experience; it could affect your operator’s license if the information is found negligent or false. Remember that your time working in a treatment plant or distribution system directly involved in operations and maintenance is your best bet to gain counted time toward your license.

We owe it to our profession and our future to make sure that this rule is applied effectively and correctly every time you sign on the dotted line. Operators are going to need all the direct experience they can get with new technologies advancing our profession.

We wish you the best in your time gaining the wisdom and experience to be successful when getting licensed. Do the right thing, and be ethical in your approval of this time; it makes us all better operators in the long run!

S

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

25

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

Quick Tool and Equipment Checks Can Prevent Accidents ecause of a concern for the safety of you and your family, you probably periodically conduct a safety inspection of your car, looking at things such as tire wear and working brake lights, and your home, checking things like smoke alarms, electrical wiring, and kitchen hazards. But do you do the same type of inspection on the job? If not, you should, because it can effectively reduce workplace accidents and keep employees safe.

Tools are such a common part of our lives that it’s difficult to remember that they may pose hazards. Tragically, a serious incident can occur if steps aren’t taken to identify and avoid or eliminate tool-related hazards.

Unfortunately, we usually neglect to keep a close watch for flaws in our tools and equipment that might give us an advanced warning of a hazardous condition. For instance, fiber rope is a much used, and often abused, tool that is seldom inspected for flaws. Fiber rope damage, wear, and strand failure often occur beneath the surface and can sometimes only be detected by a visual inspection of unraveled strands. Wire rope slings also require regular inspection because the first signs of failure often are not readily noticeable. A rope failure could result in a crippling injury or even death.

The employer is responsible for the safe condition of tools and equipment used at the worksite. Employers shall not issue or permit the use of unsafe hand tools. Employees should be trained in the proper use and handling of tools and equipment. Workers should be able to recognize the hazards associated with the different types of tools and the safety precautions necessary.

Employees and employers should work together to establish safe working procedures. If a hazardous situation is encountered, it should be brought immediately to the attention of the proper individual for hazard abatement Safety checks of tools and equipment should be a regular part of the daily job routine. The

S If a chisel is used as a screwdriver, the tip of the chisel may break and fly off, hitting the user or other employees.

S If a wooden handle on a tool, such as a hammer or an axe, is loose, splintered, or cracked, the head of the tool may fly off and strike the user or other employees.

S If the jaws of a wrench are sprung, the wrench might slip.

S If impact tools, such as chisels, wedges, or drift pins, have mushroomed heads, the heads might shatter on impact, sending sharp fragments flying toward the user or other employees.

B

inspections don’t need to be a time-consuming chore, but they need to done to maintain safety.

Here are work items you should regularly inspect: S Tool handles: Look for splinters, splits, and loose metal parts.

S Air hose fittings: Look at their condition and security.

S Pipe wrench jaws: Are they worn out?

S Vibrating-type air tools: Look for cracks, flaws, or other failures.

S Chains used for hoisting or pulling: Look for cracks, wear, link elongation, or deformed hoods.

Employees, when using saw blades, knives, or other tools, should direct the tools away from aisle areas and away from other employees working in close proximity. Knives and scissors must be sharp; dull tools can cause more hazards than sharp ones. Cracked saw blades must be removed from service.

Iron or steel hand tools may produce sparks that can be an ignition source around flammable substances. Where this hazard exists, spark-resistant tools made of nonferrous materials should be used where flammable gases, highly volatile liquids, and other explosive substances are stored or used.

Appropriate personal protective equipment, such as safety goggles and gloves, must be worn to protect against hazards that may be encountered while using hand or power tools. Workplace floors shall be kept as clean and dry as possible to prevent accidental slips with or around dangerous tools.

Power Tool Pitfalls

Hand Tool Hazards Hand tools are tools that are used manually and include anything from axes to wrenches.

The greatest hazards posed by hand tools result from misuse and improper maintenance. Some examples include:

Power tools must be fitted with guards and safety switches; they are extremely hazardous when used improperly. The types of power tools are determined by their power source: electric, pneumatic, liquid fuel, hydraulic, and powderactuated.

To prevent hazards associated with the use of power tools, workers should observe the following general precautions: S Never carry a tool by the cord or hose.

S Never yank the cord or the hose to disconnect it from the receptacle.

Contninued on page 28

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

26

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

NJ STATE AFL-CIO MACHINE GUARDING CHECKLIST MACHINE GUARDING CHECKLIST MACHINE GUARDING CHECKLIST Yes

Questions

No

REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL SAFEGUARDS 1. Do the safeguards provided meet the minimum OSHA requirements?

2. Do the safeguards prevent workers hands, arms, and other body parts from making contact with dangerous moving parts?

3. Are the safeguards firmly secured and not easily removable?

4. Do the safeguards ensure that no objects will fall into the moving parts?

5. Do the safeguards permit safe, comfortable, and relatively easy operation of the machine?

6. Can the machine be oiled without removing the safeguard?

7. Is there a system for shutting down the machinery before safeguards are removed?

8. Can the existing safeguards be improved?

MECHANICAL HAZARDS The point of operation: 9. Is there a point-of-operation safeguard provided for the machine?

10. Does it keep the operator s hands, fingers, body out of the danger area?

11. Is there evidence that the safeguards have been tampered with or removed?

12. Could you suggest a more practical, effective safeguard?

13. Could changes be made on the machine to eliminate the point-of-operation hazard entirely?

Power transmission apparatus: 14. Are there any unguarded gears, sprockets, pulleys, or flywheels on the apparatus?

15. Are there any exposed belts or chain drives?

16. Are there any exposed set screws, key ways, collars, etc.?

17. Are starting and stopping controls within easy reach of the operator?

18. If there is more than one operator, are separate controls provided?

Other moving parts: 19. Are safeguards provided for all hazardous moving parts of the machine, including auxiliary parts?

NONMECHANICAL HAZARDS 20. Have appropriate measures been taken to safeguard workers against noise hazards?

21. Have special guards, enclosures, or personal protective equipment been provided, were necessary, to protect workers from exposure to harmful substances used in machine operation?

ELECTRIC HAZARDS 22. Is the machine installed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association and National Electrical Code requirements?

23. Are there loose conduit fittings?

24. Is the machine properly grounded?

25. Is the power supply correctly fused and protected?

26. Do workers occasionally receive minor shocks while operating any of the machines?

TRAINING 27. Do operators and maintenance workers have the necessary training in how to use the safeguards and why?

28. Have operators and maintenance workers been trained in where the safeguards are located, how they provide protection, and what hazards they protect against?

29. Have operators and maintenance workers been trained in how and under what circumstances guards can be removed?

30. Have workers been trained in the procedures to follow if they notice guards that are damaged, missing or inadequate?

Protective Equipment and Proper Clothing 31. Is protective equipment required?

32. If protective equipment is required, is it appropriate for the job, in good condition, kept clean and sanitary, and stored carefully when not in use?

33. Is the operator dressed safely for the job (i.e., no loose-fitting clothing or jewelry?

MACHINERY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 34. Have maintenance workers received up-to-date instruction on the machines they service?

35. Do maintenance workers lock out the machine from its power sources before beginning repairs?

36. Where several maintenance persons work on the same machine, are multiple lockout devices used?

37. Do maintenance persons use appropriate and safe equipment in their repair work?

38. Is the maintenance equipment itself properly guarded?

39. Are maintenance and servicing workers trained in the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.147, lockout/tagout, and do the procedures for lockout/tagout exist before they attempt their tasks?

Source: OSHA 3067 Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

27

Contninued from page 26 S Keep cords and hoses away from heat, oil, and sharp edges.

S Disconnect tools when not using them, before servicing and cleaning them, and when changing accessories, such as blades, bits, and cutters.

S Keep all people not involved with the work at a safe distance from the work area.

S Secure work with clamps or a vise, freeing both hands to operate the tool.

S Avoid accidental starting. Do not hold fingers on the switch button while carrying a plugged-in tool.

S Maintain tools with care; keep them sharp and clean for best performance.

S Follow instructions in the user's manual for lubricating and changing accessories.

S Be sure to keep good footing and maintain good balance when operating power tools.

S Wear proper apparel for the task. Loose clothing, ties, or jewelry can become caught in moving parts.

S Remove all damaged portable electric tools from use and tag them as "do not use."

Equipment Checklist The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has developed a machine guarding checklist (see page 27) that can be adapted for the needs of your utility or jobsite. This checklist covers topics such as safeguards, mechanical hazards, nonmechanical hazards, protective equipment, machinery maintenance, and electric hazards. Or you can customize your own checklist to identify areas of concern or those in need of attention or corrective action before any maintenance situation becomes an emergency.

For additional information go to the OSHA website at www.osha.gov.

S

28

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Test Yourself

Water Quality for Drinking Water and Wastewater Donna Kaluzniak

1. Per the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 62-550, Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting, the ultimate concern of the public water system supervision program is the quality of water for human consumption when the water reaches the consumers. This rule establishes MCLs and MRDLs, which are maximum contaminant levels and a. b. c. d.

maximum regulatory detection levels. maximum residual disinfectant levels. minimum residual disinfectant levels. minimum regulatory detection levels.

2. Per FAC 62-550, in lieu of MCLs, the rule can require water systems to implement technology that leads to the reduction of contaminant levels, called a. b. c. d.

MCL alternatives. modernization retrofit requirements substitute removal technology. treatment technique requirements.

3. Per FAC 62-550, all public water systems must have a microbiological sampling plan that includes location, timing, frequency, and rotation. Water systems serving more than 1,000 persons must take monthly total coliform samples in the distribution system. The number of samples is based on the a. average daily flow of the system. b. disinfection level at the entry to the distribution system. c. maximum hourly system demand. d. population served by the system.

4. Per the Groundwater Rule, 40 CFR 141.402 (Subpart S), a groundwater system must conduct triggered source water monitoring if it does not complete at least what level treatment of viruses? a. 2-log treatment of viruses b. 4-log treatment of viruses

c. Basic disinfection for virus removal d. High-level disinfection for virus removal 5. Per FAC 62-302, Surface Water Quality Standards, with certain exceptions, the surface waters of the state of Florida are designated as what class of waters? a. Class II – Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting b. Class III – Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, WellBalanced Population of Fish and Wildlife c. Class IV – Agricultural Water Supplies d. Class V – Navigation, Utility, and Industrial Use 6. Per FAC 62-302, thermal limits prohibit discharge of heated water into a fresh water stream if the temperature at point of discharge (POD) is more than a. 3°F higher than the stream’s ambient temperature. b. 5°F higher than the stream’s ambient temperature. c. 10°F higher than the stream’s ambient temperature. d. 15°F higher than the stream’s ambient temperature.

would lower ambient water quality. These are OFWs, or a. b. c. d.

Old Florida Watersheds Outstanding Fresh Waterways Outstanding Florida Waters Oxygen-Fixating Watersheds

9. Per FDEP’s website, what is the scientific determination of the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a surface water can absorb and still meet the water quality standards that protect human health and aquatic life? a. b. c. d.

Basin management action plan (BMAP) Impaired waters limit (IWL) Total maximum daily load (TMDL) Water quality assessment result (WQAR)

10. Per FAC 62-610, Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application, permittees must provide what type of plan to monitor reuse effects on groundwater? a. b. c. d.

Aquifer protection plan Groundwater monitoring plan Wellfield sampling and testing plan Wellhead protection plan

Answers on page 62 7. Per FAC 62-302.530, Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria, the limit for which parameter is described as “Shall not be increased to exceed values which would cause dissolved oxygen to be depressed below the limit established for each class and, in no case, shall it be great enough to produce nuisance conditions”? a. b. c. d.

Alkalinity Ammonia Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) pH

8. Per FAC 62-302 and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) website, certain waters are designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission as worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes. The FDEP cannot issue permits for direct discharge to these waters that

References used for this quiz: • FDEP’s website: www.floridadep.gov • FAC 62-550 - Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting • FAC 62-302 - Surface Water Quality Standards • FAC 62-610 - Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application • 40 CFR 141.402 (Subpart S) – Groundwater Rule

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 • September 2018

29

F W R J

Harmful Algal Bloom Control Using Recycled Concrete Aggregate Coated With Quaternary Ammonium Compounds Ikenna Ezeodurukwe, Jared Church, Mikaeel Young, Jinwoo An, Swadeshmukul Santra, Boo Hyun Nam, and Woo Hyoung Lee he following quote is from U.S. Geological Survey, “The Science of Harmful Algal Blooms,” October 2016: “Toxic cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms (cyanoHABs) have caused human and animal illness and death in at least 43 states in the United States (Graham et al., 2009; Hudnell, 2008). In August 2016, there were public health advisories in at least 19 states on cyanoHABs (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016). The toxins produced by some species of cyanobacteria (called cyanotoxins) cause acute and chronic illnesses in humans. The HABs can adversely affect aquatic ecosystem health, both directly through the presence of these toxins and indirectly through the low dissolved oxygen concentrations and changes in aquatic food webs caused by an overabundance of cyanobacteria.

Economic damages related to cyanoHABs include the loss of recreational revenue, decreased property values, and increased drinking water treatment costs.”

T

CyanoHABs result from various human activities (mainly in urban centers), groundwater inflow, and atmospheric deposition, which generate surplus nutrients in water resources (Anderson et al., 2002; Nam et al., 2016).

Cyanobacteria are single-celled, colonial, or filamentous widespread notorious bloom formers that have persisted through geochemical and cli-

matic changes by morphological, physiological, and ecological modifications that exist in the widest range of ecological habitats (Gupta et al., 2013; Mur et al., 1999; Paerl et al., 2001).

Cyanobacteria flourish in nutrient-enriched freshwater and brackish ecosystems, causing serious ecological problems, and thus, substantial economic losses.

The primary concern of HABs is their production of a wide variety of cyanotoxins that are consumed via ingestion of contaminated drinking water, inhalation during recreational activities, and consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. CyanoHABs also produce toxic compounds, like geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol, that impart undesirable taste and odor to surface water (Graham et al., 2010), alter the food web by producing bioactive compounds (Table 1), or create anoxic conditions that causes mortality to aquatic life (Glibert and Burkholder, 2011).

Thus, HABs have been an emerging global issue in terms of clean water loss and water quality deterioration, which requires an urgent need for effective algal bloom control. Typically, physical, biological, and chemical methods have been used to control and manage HABs in water bodies (Table 2). Among them, chemical controls are considered the most fast-responsive method (Rosen and Kunjappu, 2012), but may pose a threat to nontarget organisms through

Table 1. Toxic compounds produced by cyanobacteria and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory levels.

30

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Ikenna Ezeodurukwe and Jared Church are graduate research assistants, Jinwoo An is a postdoctoral researcher, and Boo Hyun Nam and Woo Hyoung Lee are assistant professors in the department of civil, environmental, and construction engineering at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. Mikaeel Young is a graduate research assistant and Swadeshmukul Santra is a professor in the NanoScience Technology Center at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

the uncontrolled release into the environment (Kidwell, 2015). To exploit the effectiveness of chemical controls without the negative impacts to the environment, recent studies have aimed at fixing biocides to substrate surfaces to provide a fixed source of antimicrobial properties (Kidwell, 2015).

Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) represents an economically viable substrate for coating biocides. It’s a major construction waste and has gained considerable attention due to its environmentally friendly nature and economic viability in reuse, and has drawn attention from engineers for nonstructural applications in a variety of sustainable ways (Ding et al., 2016; Nam et al., 2016), such as use for exfiltration and French drain systems. It provides benefits, such as conservation of primary resources, beneficial reduction of landfill disposal (Wagih et al., 2013), and reduction in transportation costs (Sagoe-Crentsil et al., 2001).

Quaternary ammonium compounds (Quats) are Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved cationic surfactants that are effective at very low concentrations against a variety of microorganisms and leave a residual germicidal effect on surfaces (Garcıa et al., 2001; Zhang et al., 2015). Quats have low toxicity compared to metal-based nanomaterials, low corrosivity, and are constituents of disinfectant and/or antiseptic formulations used in homes,

healthcare facilities, agriculture, and industry (Tezel and Pavlostathis, 2015). Quats are chemically structured and based on a hydrophobic hydrocarbon chain connected to the positively charged central nitrogen atom (Tezel and Pavlostathis 2015; Zhang et al., 2015) and can disrupt bacterial cell membrane’s physical and ionic stability (Church et al., 2017; Tezel and Pavlostathis, 2015; Wessels and Ingmer, 2013).

Toxicity of Quats in the environment can be mitigated due to its high adsorption affinity onto materials (e.g., sediments, clay, and sludge), depending on its structure, the nature of surfaces, and environmental parameters (van Wijk et al., 2009; Ying 2006). Use of a sol-gel process in fixing Quats on surfaces has been effective against microorganisms without undesired chemical release (Church et al., 2017; Saif et al., 2008).

In this study, to establish a point-of-use water treatment system for cyanoHABs control, a composite of silica-quaternary ammonium compound (fixed-Quat) containing didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) was coated to the surface RCA using a sol-gel technique to limit undesired discharge of Quat in suspension, while retaining its antimicrobial viability (Santra et al., 2014; Song et al., 2011). It is expected that fixed-Quat will adhere to the hydrophilic RCA surface (i.e., silica) through solid intermolecular forces, such as hydrogen bonding. In a preliminary test with E. coli (1×105 CFUs/mL), fixed-Quat RCA exhibited 99 percent reduction of E. coli (K-12 strain S 4362, ATCC 29181) within two hours in a 0.01 M phosphate buffer saline (PBS) solution at pH 7 (Church et al., 2017). With the antimicrobial activity of the fixed-Quat RCA, in this study, its algaestatic capability was further investigated for control and mitigation of Microcystis sp. in water.

Material Preparation Recycled Concrete Aggregate The RCA (1.5– 2.5 in. in diameter) was obtained from a local construction and demolition waste recycling facility in Orlando. The aggregate was then washed three times daily with deionized (DI) water for three days to disconnect deleterious materials (i.e., debris and fines) at room temperature (i.e., 23°C). Then, the washed RCA samples were put in an oven (Model 40 GC lab oven, Quincy Lab Inc.) at 50°C for three days to dry the examples until the moisture content under 0.5 percent of the total mass was accomplished (Church et al., 2017).

Preparation of Quaternary Ammonium Gel The gel-type fixed-Quat was used to coat the RCA, which demonstrated better execution

Table 2. HABs and HABs toxins control and mitigation methods.

and firm adherence to the substrate RCA compared to the particle-type fixed-Quat (Church et al., 2017). The gel-type fixed-Quat is a composite biocide medium in which Quat is integrated with a silica gel matrix. The material was prepared by combing 60 mL of 37 percent sodium silicate (Fisher Scientific) with 910 mL DI water and left to mix at 150 revolutions per minutes (rpm) for six hours. Then, 30 mL DDAC were added to the blend and mixed for an additional 24 hours.

Biocide Coating on Recycled Concrete Aggregate Substrate Twenty-three RCAs were submerged in 2 liters of the prepared quaternary ammonium gel and mixed at 150 rpm for 72 hours using a machine stirrer (Electric Stirrer 6000, Arrow Engineering). Afterwards, RCA samples were washed carefully to remove superficially bound quaternary ammonium gel. To firmly develop the siloxane bond between fixed-Quat and RCA surface, the samples were ovenheated (Fisher Scientific isotemp oven, Model 615f ) for 48 hours at 50°C (Church et al., 2017). For surface characterization of Quatcoated RCA, a scanning electron microscope (SEM; JEOL JSM – 6480) with an X-ray energy-dispersive spectrometer (EDS) was utilized for surface investigation after samples (uncoated and fixed-Quat RCA) were sputtercoated with gold (Emitech K550) for three minutes at 20 mA.

Algal Cultivation To maintain optimal algal growth conditions, Bold’s basal medium (BBM) was prepared using the protocol from Canadian Phycological Culture Centre (CPCC), University of Waterloo (Stein, 1973). Cyanobacteria culture of Microcystis aeruginosa (UTEX 2385) was grown at 28°C in two photobioreactors with continuous white-fluorescent-light illumination of 2,000 lux (Figure 1). Two reactors (Fixed-Quat gel RCA and uncoated RCA) were colonized with 1 liter of nutrient-enriched exponentially growing M. aeruginosa with the initial density of 5.8×106 cells/mL (concentrations of algal blooms targeting between 105–106 cells/mL).

Algal Growth Inhibition Tests and Water Analysis For the test of algaestatic activity, fixedQuat RCA samples were first washed to avoid inactivation by fixed-Quat in suspension. The RCA samples were rinsed 10 times with 1 liter of deionized (DI) water in a 4-liter flask, gently swaying for 10 minutes, and followed by 20 minutes of undisturbed submersion (Church et al., 2017). Then, the RCA samples were immersed into a photobioreactor with a one-toone ratio (w/w) of RCA to cyanoHABs culture solution (total of 23 rocks per reactor). A peristaltic pump was installed to recycle the water in reactors and provide continuous contact between RCA samples and cyanobacteria cells.

Cell density was tallied with a disposable Contninued on page 32

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

31

Contninued from page 31 hemocytometer (Fischer Scientific) under a microscope (LW Scientific Revelation III Binocular). Chlorophyll-a (Chl-a), an important molecule in the conversion of light to chemical energy, was used to estimate changes in the efficiency of photosynthesis in each sampling time. Cyanobacterial Chl-a content was extracted with 90 percent acetone after disruption using an ultrasonic probe (Fisher Scientific, Model 505 sonic dismembrator) in a fume hood (Hemco, Independence, Mo.; CAT: 4940-CF-031019). The acetone extracts of Chl-a were transferred to cuvettes and analyzed using a portable spectrophotometer (HQD, Hach) and Chl-a was calculated using Standard Methods (19th edition, 1995). All measurements were conducted in triplicate with glass wares autoclaved at 121°C for 20 minutes. Efficiency of Chl-a was calculated per the following: Figure 1. A schematic diagram of photobioreactors with fixed-Quat-coated RCA versus uncoated RCA samples.

Inhibition Ratio (IR)=(Co-Ct)/Co× 100 where, Co and Ct represent Chl-a (mg/m3) at initial time and at time=t, respectively (Zeng et al., 2015).

The RCA produces a substantial amount of calcium carbonate when exposed to moisture and carbon dioxide (Nam et al., 2014). Thus, both RCA samples (uncoated and fixed-Quatcoated) were immersed in DI water and pH was measured continuously using a pH meter (DR1900, Hach) to monitor pH changes probably due to the cement rehydration that may cause experimental bias.

OD660 was used to estimate algal cell concentrations (DR1900, Hach).

Results and Discussion Figure 2. SEM images of the surface of RCA samples: (a) uncoated RCA (×350 magnification) and (b) fixed-Quat-coated RCA (×350 magnification) at 25 kV.

Table 3. EDS analysis results with element compositions of RCA samples.

Surface Characterization of Recycled Concrete Aggregate The XRD analysis confirmed the constituents of RCA to be hydrated cement, sand, and limestone (Kim et al., 2014; Nam et al., 2014). The SEM images of uncoated and fixedQuat-coated RCA (Figure 2) displayed the undefined nature of the Quats on the surface RCA, which signifies the modification of the RCA surface. The EDS examination (Table 3) shows an increase in Si concentration (wt/percent), which validates the covalent silica bond between the coating blend and RCA. The SEM and EDS analysis of the surface of RCA samples confirmed successful coating of fixedQuat gel on the RCA surface.

Contninued on page 34

32

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

33

Contninued from page 32 Algaestatic Activity Time course measurements of Chl-a in the reactor containing uncoated RCA samples revealed no inhibition on the photosynthetic activity M. aeruginosa in the uncoated RCA mixture (208.3 ± 16 to 213.6 ± 7.6 mg/m3), as shown in Figure 3; however, the fixed-Quatcoated RCA successfully decreased the Chl-a contents in the reactor. It seems that during a period of nine hours, photosynthetic activity would be damaged by the contact between M. aeruginosa and fixed-Quat-coated RCA and no Chl-a content was detectecd after nine hours.

Chl-a concentrations were reduced 36, 67, and 100 percent proportionally after three, six, and nine hours of treatment, respectively (Figure 4).

The pH measurements during the experiments showed an initial dramatic pH increase in the presence of concrete compared to the reactor without RCA samples (Figure 5). The initial pH of the media (BBM) was only 5.8 and was increased by approximatley two units after three hours of duration; the pH was then maintained within the 7–8 range for 27 hours of the experiments. The pH increase at the initial time was possibly from the result of cement rehydration; however, OD660 measurments showed that cement rehydration had no significant impact on the algal growth or inhibition within this pH range (Figure 6).

Figure 6 shows algal growth of M. aeruginosa in three reactors over 32 hours: uncoated RCA (positive control),

fixed-Quat-coated RCA, and no RCA (negative control) reactors. It was observed that the algal biomass in the reactor containing fixedQuat-coated RCA samples decreased over time and remained at a certain level (within 0.01–0.02 of OD660) after a 24-hour contact period, whereas the reactor with uncoated RCA showed a remarkable increase of algal biomss in the same time frame. Microscopic observation of the fixed-Quat-coated RCA samples showed lower algal cell population at the surface compared to the bottom of the reactor, indicating that cell membranes would be damaged from contact with the fixedQuat-coated RCA. At initial time (t=0), two reactors (fixedQuat gel RCA and uncoated RCA) were filled with M. aeruginosa with the initial density of

Figure 3. Changes in Chl-a contents between uncoated and fixed-Quat-coated RCA samples.

Figure 4. Algaestatic efficiency of fixed-Quat-coated RCA samples in contact with M. aeruginosa.

Figure 5. The pH changes in three reactors for 27 hours of algal growth: uncoated RCA (positive control), fixed-Quat-coated RCA, and no RCA (negative control) reactors.

Figure 6. Growth of M. aeruginosa in three reactors: uncoated RCA (positive control), fixed-Quat-coated RCA, and no RCA (negative control) reactors.

34

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

5.8×106 cells/mL (Figure 7[a] and [b]). After 32 hours of experiments, the reactor in the presence of the fixed-Quat-coated RCA samples lost green color, indicating algicidal activity against M. aeruginosa, while the bulk solution in the reactor containing uncoated RCA samples showed dark green coloration, indicating algal growth over time without any inhibition (Figure 7[c] and [d]). It was also observed that the algal biomass without the fixedQuat RCA samples is in good suspension (Figure 8[c]), while inactivated algal cells from the contract with the fixed-Quat RCA samples are precipitated at the bottom of the reactor (Figure 8[b]).

The results showed that physical contact between antimicrobial-coated RCA and cyanoHABs species is required to inhibit the algal growth. This was also confirmed by the observation of attached growth of algal biomass on the uncoated RCA samples (Figure 8[c]) compared to the fixed-Quat-coated RCA samples without algal growth on the surface (Figure 8[d]). Overall, this study showed the excellent performance of the fixed-Quat-coated RCA for algal growth control and mitigation.

Figure 7. Pictures of the reactors with (a) uncoated RCA and (b) fixed-Quat-coated RCA at initial time (t=0) and the reactors with (c) uncoated RCA and (d) fixed-Quat-coated RCA at 32 hours of exposure.

Conclusions In eutrophic rivers or lakes, HABs can lead to significant water quality degradation and algal toxin production, affecting drinking water quality. There is an urgent need to develop a novel and sustainable method for effective HABs control and mitigation without secondhand pollution or hazardous byproducts generation. In this study, antimicrobial-fixed Quat was successfully coated onto the surface of RCA by sol-gel technique to control M. aeruginosa.

Approximately 61 percent reduction of Chl-a was achieved within six hours of exposure and the complete removal of Chl-a was possible within nine hours, showing that the fixedQuat-coated RCA could be an efficient solution for algal growth inhibition of harmful algal species (e.g., M. aeruginosa). Overall, by potentially eliminating regulated disinfection byproducts (DBPs) formation and minimizing release of nanomaterials (NMs) into the environment, the ammonia-Quat-coated materials could be a promising and sustainable alternative to conventional disinfection methods in engineered aquatic systems and HABs mitigation in natural water systems.

References • Ahn, C.-Y., Park, M.-H., Joung, S.-H., Kim, H.-S., Jang, K.-Y. and Oh, H.-M. (2003).

Figure 8. Pictures taken after 32 hours exposure of M. aeruginosa to RCA samples between (a) uncoated RCA and (b) fixed-Quat-coated RCA. Comparison after drying the RCA samples in air between (c) uncoated RCA and (d) fixed-Quat-coated RCA.

Growth inhibition of cyanobacteria by ultrasonic radiation: laboratory and enclosure studies. Environmental Science & Technology 37(13), 3031-3037.

• Anderson, D.M., Glibert, P.M. and Burkholder, J.M. (2002) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25(4), 704726.

• Baek, S.-H., Sun, X.-X., Lee, Y.-J., Wang, S.-Y., Han, K.-N., Choi, J.-K., Noh, J.-H. and Kim, E.-K. (2003) Mitigation of harmful algal blooms by sophorolipid. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology 13(5), 651-659.

• Church, J., Kannan, H., An, J., Lee, W., Santra, S. and Nam, B. (2017) Recycled concrete aggregate coated with quaternary ammonium Contninued on page 36

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

35

Contninued from page 35 compounds for water disinfection. Environmental Science and Technology, 14(3), 543552.

• Ding, T., Xiao, J. and Tam, V.W. (2016) A closed-loop life cycle assessment of recycled aggregate concrete utilization in China. Waste Management 56, 367-375.

• Garcıa, M., Ribosa, I., Guindulain, T., Sanchez-Leal, J. and Vives-Rego, J. (2001) Fate and effect of monoalkyl quaternary ammonium surfactants in the aquatic environment.

Environmental Pollution 111(1), 169-175.

• Glibert, P.M. and Burkholder, J.M. (2011) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication:“strategies” for nutrient uptake and growth outside the Redfield comfort zone. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology 29(4), 724-738.

• Graham, J.L., Loftin, K.A. and Kamman, N. (2009) Monitoring recreational freshwaters.

Lakelines 29, 18-24.

• Graham, J.L., Loftin, K.A., Meyer, M.T. and Ziegler, A.C. (2010) Cyanotoxin mixtures and taste-and-odor compounds in cyanobacterial blooms from the Midwestern United States.

Environmental Science & Technology, 44(19), 7361-7368.

• Gupta, V., Ratha, S.K., Sood, A., Chaudhary, V. and Prasanna, R. (2013) New insights into the biodiversity and applications of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae)—prospects and challenges. Algal research 2(2), 79-97.

• Hudnell, H.K. (2008) Cyanobacterial harmful algal blooms: state of the science and research needs, Springer Science & Business Media.

• Kidwell, D. (2015) Mitigation of harmful algal blooms: The way forward. PICES Press 23(2), 22.

• Kim, J., Nam, B., Behring, Z. and Al Muhit, B. (2014) Evaluation of recementation reactivity of recycled concrete aggregate fines. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (2401), 44-51.

• Kim, Y.S., Lee, D.-S., Jeong, S.-Y., Lee, W.J. and Lee, M.-S. (2009) Isolation and characterization of a marine algicidal bacterium against the harmful raphidophyceae Chattonella marina. Journal of Microbiology 47(1), 9-18.

• Lee, T., Nakano, K. and Matsumara, M. (2001) Ultrasonic irradiation for blue-green algae bloom control. Environmental Technology 22(4), 383-390.

• Li, H. and Pan, G. (2015) Simultaneous removal of harmful algal blooms and microcystins using microorganism-and chitosan-modified local soil. Environmental Science & Technology 49(10), 6249-6256.

• Mitra, A. and Flynn, K.J. (2006) Promotion of harmful algal blooms by zooplankton preda-

36

tory activity. Biology Letters 2(2), 194-197.

• Mur, R., Skulberg, O.M. and Utkilen, H. (1999). Cyanobacteria in the Environment.

• Nam, B.H., Behring, Z., Kim, J. and Chopra, M. (2014) Evaluate the use of reclaimed concrete aggregate in french drain applications.

• Nam, G.S., Lee, E.H. and Chang, K.H. (2016) Application of an Algal Bloom Control Technique using Large Zooplankton Predators in An Eutrophic Agricultural Reservoir: A Preliminary Study. Irrigation and Drainage 65(S2), 230-238.

• Paerl, H.W., Fulton, R.S., Moisander, P.H. and Dyble, J. (2001) Harmful freshwater algal blooms, with an emphasis on cyanobacteria.

The Scientific World Journal 1, 76-113.

• Park, J., Church, J., Son, Y., Kim, K.-T. and Lee, W.H. (2017) Recent advances in ultrasonic treatment: Challenges and field applications for controlling harmful algal blooms (HABs).

Ultrasonics sonochemistry 38, 326-334.

• Rodea-Palomares, I., Boltes, K., FernándezPiñas, F., Leganés, F., García-Calvo, E., Santiago, J. and Rosal, R. (2010) Physicochemical characterization and ecotoxicological assessment of CeO2 nanoparticles using two aquatic microorganisms. Toxicological Sciences 119(1), 135-145.

• Rosen, M.J. and Kunjappu, J.T. (2012) Surfactants and interfacial phenomena, John Wiley & Sons.

• Sagoe-Crentsil, K.K., Brown, T. and Taylor, A.H. (2001) Performance of concrete made with commercially produced coarse recycled concrete aggregate. Cement and concrete research 31(5), 707-712.

• Saif, M.J., Anwar, J. and Munawar, M.A. (2008) A novel application of quaternary ammonium compounds as antibacterial hybrid coating on glass surfaces. Langmuir 25(1), 377-379.

• Santra, S., Bazata, J. and Young, M. (2014) Core-shell quaternary ammonium nanomaterials, methods and applications, Google Patents.

• Song, J., Kong, H. and Jang, J. (2011) Bacterial adhesion inhibition of the quaternary ammonium functionalized silica nanoparticles. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 82(2), 651-656.

• Stein, J.R. (1973) Handbook of phycological methods: physiological and biochemical methods, Cambridge University Press.

• Sun, X.-X., Choi, J.-K. and Kim, E.-K. (2004a) A preliminary study on the mechanism of harmful algal bloom mitigation by use of sophorolipid treatment. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 304(1), 35-49.

• Sun, X.-X., Han, K.-N., Choi, J.-K. and Kim, E.-K. (2004b) Screening of surfactants for

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

harmful algal blooms mitigation. Marine pollution bulletin 48(9), 937-945.

Surosz, W. and Palinska, K. (2004) Effects of heavy-metal stress on cyanobacterium Anabaena flos-aquae. Archives of environmental contamination and toxicology 48(1), 40-48.

Tang, Y.Z. and Gobler, C.J. (2011) The green macroalga, Ulva lactuca, inhibits the growth of seven common harmful algal bloom species via allelopathy. Harmful Algae 10(5), 480-488.

Tezel, U. and Pavlostathis, S.G. (2015) Quaternary ammonium disinfectants: microbial adaptation, degradation and ecology. Current opinion in biotechnology 33, 296-304.

Tian, C., Liu, X., Tan, J., Lin, S., Li, D. and Yang, H. (2012) Isolation, identification and characterization of an algicidal bacterium from Lake Taihu and preliminary studies on its algicidal compounds. Journal of Environmental Sciences 24(10), 1823-1831.

U.S. Geological Survey (2016) Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms and U.S. Geological Survey Science Capabilities. van Wijk, D., Gyimesi-van den Bos, M., Garttener-Arends, I., Geurts, M., Kamstra, J. and Thomas, P. (2009) Bioavailability and detoxification of cationics: I. Algal toxicity of alkyltrimethyl ammonium salts in the presence of suspended sediment and humic acid.

Chemosphere 75(3), 303-309.

Wagih, A.M., El-Karmoty, H.Z., Ebid, M. and Okba, S.H. (2013) Recycled construction and demolition concrete waste as aggregate for structural concrete. HBRC Journal 9(3), 193200.

Wessels, S. and Ingmer, H. (2013) Modes of action of three disinfectant active substances: a review. Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 67(3), 456-467.

Ying, G.-G. (2006) Fate, behavior and effects of surfactants and their degradation products in the environment. Environment international 32(3), 417-431.

Zeng, G., Wang, P. and Wang, Y. (2015) Algicidal efficiency and mechanism of Phanerochaete chrysosporium against harmful algal bloom species. Algal research 12, 182-190.

Zhang, C., Cui, F., Zeng, G.-m., Jiang, M., Yang, Z.-z., Yu, Z.-g., Zhu, M.-y. and Shen, L.q. (2015) Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs): a review on occurrence, fate and toxicity in the environment. Science of the Total Environment 518, 352-362.

Zheng, X., Zhang, B., Zhang, J., Huang, L., Lin, J., Li, X., Zhou, Y., Wang, H., Yang, X. and Su, J. (2013) A marine algicidal actinomycete and its active substance against the harmful algal bloom species Phaeocystis globosa. Applied microbiology and biotechnology 97(20), 9207-9215.

S

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge!

Members of the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA) may earn continuing education units through the CEU Challenge! Answer the questions published on this page, based on the technical articles in this month’s issue. Circle the letter of each correct answer. There is only one correct answer to each question! Answer 80 percent of the questions on any article correctly to earn 0.1 CEU for your license. Retests are available.

This month’s editorial theme is Emerging Issues and Water Resources Management.

Look above each set of questions to see if it is for water operators (DW), distribution system operators (DS), or wastewater operators (WW). Mail the completed page (or a photocopy) to: Florida Environmental Professionals Training, P.O. Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. 33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA).

You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues!

Contact FWPCOA at membership@fwpcoa.org or at 561-840-0340.

Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website, www.fwrj.com.

__________________________________________ 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:

Water Balanced: A Fairer Allocation Method for Florida’s Water Scott Knight (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DW/DS) 1. The “prior appropriation” doctrine governs consumptive use allocations in which region of the United States? a. b. c. d.

North South East West

2. The author suggests that “consumptive use” should be defined as “water that is consumed as part of its use and a. b. c. d.

is not available for future use.” can be reused.” that meets acceptable standards for use as public drinking water.” cannot be appropriated for private purposes.”

3. In the sample calculations provided, which of the following wastewater effluent disposal methods offers the best net consumptive use benefit? a. b. c. d.

Reuse irrigation Rapid infiltration basin River discharge Spray field

4. To manage water supply, Florida’s water management districts issue consumptive use permits for all water users that exceed _________ gal per day of use. a. b. c. d.

10,000 50,000 100,000 1,000,000

5. ____________ rights generally allow users to take water from a water body that is adjacent to their property with a permit for use. __________________________________________ (Credit Card Number)

__________________________________________ (Expiration Date)

a. b. c. d.

Statutory Antediluvian Riparian Junior Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

37

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

Florida Section AWWA Bets Big on ACE18 in Las Vegas Bill Young Chair, FSAWWA

facility tours to learn the latest ideas from colleagues in the water industry, and visited the exhibit hall to hear about the newest products and services available. More than 40 speakers from Florida made presentations, including some who had two and even three papers.

Opening General Session any of the staff, officers, and members of the Florida Section American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) traveled to the 2018 AWWA Annual Conference and Exhibition (ACE18) that was held June 1114 in Las Vegas. They took advantage of the many events that the conference had to offer.

M

Technical Program and Exhibition The section members attended the many workshops, technical and poster sessions, and

This Tuesday morning session encouraged attendees to group together by section, and those there from Florida could meet each other and be cheerleaders for FSAWWA. The session included addresses from Uzi Daniel, California-Nevada Section chair; Brenda Lennox, AWWA president; and David LaFrance, the association’s chief executive officer. There was also an awards presentation and a keynote presentation by Ira Flatow, science correspondent for National Public Radio, who talked about the right time and place that’s needed for ideas to become successful.

Larrabee with (left) David LaFrance, AWWA chief executive officer, and (right) Brenda Lennox, AWWA president.

Ira Flatow speaking at the opening general session.

38

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

George Warren Fuller Award: Carl Larrabee Jr. This award is presented annually by AWWA to the sections' respective selected members for their distinguished service to the water supply field in commemoration of the sound engineering skill, brilliant diplomatic talent, and constructive leadership that characterized the life of George Warren Fuller. This year, the Florida Section recipient was Carl Larrabee Jr. The qualifications for the award specify that the services of the candidate must have been over and above those expected of officers and committee members in fulfilling the obligations or duties assigned to them. It’s emphasized that the performance of a nominee must be exceptional and extraordinary.

Larrabee received his award plaque and pin at the Fuller Award Society Breakfast that was held at ACE18. Each awardee automatically becomes a member of the George Warren Fuller Award Society of AWWA. The announcement of Larrabee’s award was also made at the section’s meeting that was held at the FSAWWA Fall Conference last November.

Larrabee with FSAWWA staff and members.

Florida Section attendees at the session.

Section Lunch

Landmark Awards

The section hosted a buffet lunch for members on Tuesday, June 12, at the Border Grill in Mandalay Bay. Everyone enjoyed the Mexican food, ice-cold drinks, and frosty ice cream treats, while they mixed and mingled in the indoor and outdoor space in the lower floor of the restaurant, which overlooked the Lazy River just off Mandalay Beach.

This AWWA award recognizes American, Canadian, or Mexican water landmarks that are at least 50 years old and have had a direct and significant relationship with water supply, treatment, distribution, or technological development. The landmark must be a tangible, physical property; is of a permanent and nonexpendable nature, such as a building, dam, reservoir, tower, etc.; and is not machinery or a natural water resource.

This year the Manatee County Dam in Bradenton and the Bay County Water Treatment Plant in Panama City were affirmed as AWWA landmarks following favorable review of their nomination by the AWWA Water Landmarks Award Committee.

Each awardee received two certificates—one for the section and one for the plant—and a bronze plaque to be mounted at the landmark site.

S

Top Ops The national Top Ops competition was held at the conference. This “College Bowl” type event tests teams from AWWA sections, made up of water treatment and distribution operators or laboratory personnel, on their knowledge of system operations.

The section has two teams in the contest: Palm Coast Water Buoys, which came in first in the FSAWWA Top Ops held at the Florida Water Resources Conference in April, and FWPCOA Region #9. Here, the Water Buoys came in second and Region #9 took third place.

From left: Janice and Carl Larrabee, and Kathy and Bill Young.

Me accepting the award for Manatee County, presented by Brenda Lennox and David LaFrance.

Commissioner Tommy Hamm (center) accepts the award for Bay County Utilities from Brenda Lennox and David LaFrance.

Dr. Steve Duranceau (far right) with some of his University of Central Florida students.

From left: David Rager, AWWA president-elect; Palm Coast Water Buoys team members Fred Greiner, Peter Roussell, Jim Hogan (coach), and Tom Martens; and Brenda Lennox.

Other attendees enjoying the lunch.

From left: David Rager; FWPCOA Region #9 team members Steve Harrison, Frank Kelsey, Kameron Van Kleeck, and Glenn Whitcomb; and Brenda Lennox.

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

39

F W R J

Water Balanced: A Fairer Allocation Method for Florida’s Water Scott Knight o better understand water use and water needs in the 21st century, water professionals must shed historic patterns of thinking and embrace a more holistic view of water use—and specifically, consumptive use.

Throughout Florida, a majority of water users rely on groundwater. This source supplies water for public use, irrigation, industry, agriculture, power generation, and a myriad of other uses.

Large uses of water are regulated by Florida’s five water management districts (WMDs), which are tasked with the exceedingly complex job of managing the water resources for a specific region of the state. Unfortunately, water in an aquifer doesn’t obey boundaries, water quality is a pervasive challenge, and stormwater-derived flood flows make flood protection a major concern for all of the districts.

Beyond managing these challenges, the districts are tasked with fairly allocating the state’s most precious resource: water. To manage water supply, all of the districts write consumptive use permits (CUPs) for all water users that exceed 100,000 gal per day (gpd) of use; however, two users with equivalent CUPs may have vastly different impacts on the water source.

The focus of this article is the science of consumptive use and what these few words actually mean. In an age of increasing technology and measurement, there is no longer a need to simplify the science and assume that the volume of water that is pumped is the total impact of a user; rather, a complete water balance can measure, model, and estimate the actual water use

T

and the resultant net impact on the water source.

Application of a water balance can better allocate both water resources and the impacts associated with water withdrawal; furthermore, it encourages and promotes efficient use, and perhaps, even more importantly, aquifer recharge.

Several examples are presented that demonstrate the benefits of this approach and the adaptability to all water users.

Background Florida is viewed as a water-rich state, but water professionals know that it suffers from both abundance and dearth, depending on location and weather patterns. By adapting appropriate tools, the industry can better understand the varying needs and more effectively address them.

The United States is dominated by two forms of water resources management that are driven largely by the availability of water within the regions. Generally, in the western U.S., the prior appropriation doctrine rules, and in the eastern portion of the country, riparian rights are applied. Each of these systems has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Prior appropriation relies on a strict structure for allocating water based on ownership and consumptive use, whereby senior-rights holders have preference over junior water users. A primary downside of this system is that the ownership of water provides little incentive to improve water use practices and protection of environmental flows, and

Table 1. Utility Characteristics

Scott Knight, Ph.D., P.E., is vice president with Wetland Solutions Inc. in Gainesville.

can result in exceptionally convoluted water management. Riparian rights in the eastern U.S. generally allow users to take water from a waterbody that is adjacent to their properties with a permit for use. By combining the benefits of a permit that can provide incentives for conservation and efficiency with the strict consumptive use calculations of prior appropriation, a better determination of user impacts can be developed to more fairly allocate and accurately account for water use.

In the Southeast, a large limestone aquifer underlies Florida and portions of Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina. The Floridan aquifer provides high-quality potable water to large areas of Florida and portions of southern Georgia. In Florida, this aquifer is partially confined by overlying clays, with unconfined areas located primarily in the central and western portions of the state. This variable geology has implications for water resources development and effluent disposal.

Florida Water Resources Management Florida’s WMDs were formed in 1972 by the Florida Legislature to manage water resources throughout the state. One mission of the WMDs is assigning CUPs to water users that withdraw more than a certain quantity of water (≥100,000 gpd). These permits give the holder a right to withdraw the specified quantity of water for five to 20 years. To apply for these permits the water user must show a need for the water; in the public supply realm, this must also include projections of water use and population, water conservation measures, and per-capita water demand. Despite the name, however, CUPs do not actually permit consumptive water use.

Consumptive Water Use Consumptive water use, or consumptive use, requires a definition that accurately reflects the

40

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

meaning of the term. This can be challenging in a state like Florida that has a diversity of water resources, geology, and water use types. Consumptive use can be defined as “water that is consumed as part of its use,” but this does not capture the entire meaning. A more complete definition could be “water that is consumed as part of its use and that is not available for future use.”

In Florida, there are both surface water and groundwater basins; as such, water withdrawn in one location and discharged in another might not be available to meet other water users’ needs or environmental needs in the area from which it was taken (e.g., water withdrawn from the aquifer and discharged to a river). This consideration yields the definition for consumptive use that is applied here: “Consumptive use is water that is consumed as part of its use and is not available for future use from the original source.”

infiltration basins (RIBs); reused for another purpose; injected into a nonpotable aquifer; or discharged to a surface water body. In the case of agricultural water use, some portion of the water bypasses the root zone and recharges either the surficial aquifer or the Floridan aquifer, or may run off to a surface waterbody.

What is clear in both the agricultural and utility context is that all users are not the same.

To illustrate this concept, consider two hypothetical utilities (A and B) and their characteristics, as shown in Table 1.

For the sake of this example, both utilities Contninued on page 42

Consumptive Use Calculation Consumptive use is carefully evaluated in the western U.S. because it provides a representation of the value of a water right. When evaluating the value of agricultural water rights, the historic consumptive use of the right is evaluated through strict calculation based on the acreage that was irrigated, type of irrigation, and crop type. A utility that purchases a water right typically moves the water to a different point of use so that it can withdraw the water and provide it to its customers. In this process, the utility can only take the historic consumptive use; however, the city can also reuse this consumptive use as many times as it can be recaptured. This has the result of 1 acre-ft of water, possibly providing several acre-ft of use before it’s lost to evaporation and can no longer be recaptured.

In the context of water in Florida, utilities are issued CUPs that define a quantity of water that can be taken from a particular water source, but this number is virtually always in excess of what the utility needs to provide for future growth and does not actually represent what is withdrawn. Secondarily, a utility reports its consumption as what is withdrawn from the source; the problem with this number, however, is that it doesn’t account for several important facts.

These include that much of the water withdrawn by utilities is returned to wastewater treatment facilities, or septic tanks. In the case of septic tanks, the water infiltrates to either a surficial aquifer or the Floridan aquifer, depending on localized confinement. In the case of wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs), the water is either recharged through sprayfields, aquifer storage recovery wells, wetlands, or rapid Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

41

Contninued from page 41 do not have any other classes of users, but this is largely irrelevant. What is clear from the chart is that, despite the water use being the same, the final disposition of the water is very different.

In the case of utility A, located in Marion County, a large portion of the treated effluent discharged to the RIBs will return to the Floridan aquifer and be available to meet future needs.

In the case of utility B, virtually none of the treated effluent will be returned to the Floridan aquifer. Simple calculations show that 0.57 mil gal per day (mgd) are returned to the Floridan aquifer (95 percent of 0.6 mgd) by utility A and none by utility B. While this example is simple compared to most utility systems, the basic framework of calculation remains the same for increasing levels of complexity.

Consumptive Use Water Balance Methodology To evaluate the impact of a utility on a water resource, a water balance that accurately calculates the net impact of the use on the resource can be used. This net impact is the consumptive use of the water user and more accurately reflects the quantity of water that should be permitted.

These calculations can be evaluated monthly or annually. The equation for this water balance is: QCUP = QW - S(min[Qwi ,Qri])i Where, QCUP is the consumptive use permit flow (mgd) QW is the total flow withdrawn from all sources (mgd) Qwi is the total flow withdrawn from source i (mgd) Qri is the flow recharged to source i (mgd) i is the number of water sources and disposal locations Qri = S(Q - QET - Qroff)i Where, Q is the flow to disposal method i (mgd) QET is the loss to evaporation and transpiration for disposal method i (mgd) Qroff is the loss of water to runoff from disposal method i (mgd) CU% =

QCUP QW

Where, CU% is the consumptive use (percent) To illustrate application of this methodology a series of examples are provided with varying levels of complexity.

42

Example 1: One Source With Recharge Utility A withdraws an average of 1 mgd from the Floridan aquifer. After use and wastewater treatment, 0.6 mgd are disposed of at the utility’s RIBs. Based on loading rates and daily evapotranspiration (ET) estimates from the Institute of Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) – Florida Automated Weather Network (FAWN) it’s determined that there is a 5 percent loss to ET. QCUP = (1.00-[min {1.00,(0.60×(1.00-0.05))}]) = 0.43 mgd CU% = 0.43/1.00 = 43% Example 2: One Source Without Recharge Utility B withdraws an average of 1 mgd from the Floridan aquifer. After use and wastewater treatment, 0.6 mgd are disposed of to the St Johns River.

QCUP = (1.00-[min {0.00,0.60}]) = 1.00 mgd CU% = 1.00/1.00 = 100% Example 3: Two Sources Utility C withdraws 1 mgd of flow from the Floridan aquifer and 1 mgd from surface water.

After use and wastewater treatment, 1.4 mgd are disposed of in the surface water source.

QCUP = (1.00+1.00)[min {1.00,0.00}+min {1.00,1.40}] = 1.00 mgd CU% = 1.00/2.00 = 50% Example 4: Two Disposal Methods Utility D withdraws 2 mgd from the Floridan aquifer. After use and treatment, 1.4 mgd is returned to the Floridan aquifer through a combination of sprayfields (50 percent) and RIBs (50 percent). Based on IFAS – FAWN data, ET is calculated as 28 percent for the sprayfield and 5 percent for the RIBs. QCUP = 2.00 - [min {2.00,(0.70×(1.00-0.28))} + min {2.00,(0.70×(1.00-0.05))}] = 0.83 mgd

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

CU% =0.83/2.00 =42% Example 5: One Source With Reuse Utility E withdraws 1 mgd from the Floridan aquifer. After use and treatment, 0.7 mgd of flow is available. Water is sent to a combination of reuse (50 percent) and sprayfield disposal (50 percent). The sprayfield is calculated as having an ET loss of 28 percent and reuse irrigation is efficient with no overwatering and an ET of 100 percent.

QCUP = 1 - [min {1.00,0.00} + min {1.00,(0.35 x (1.00-0.28))}] = 0.75 mgd CU% = 0.75/1.00 = 75% At first glance it appears that the utility is receiving no credit for its reuse; however, on closer examination it can be seen that rather than 1 mgd, the utility is actually using 1.35 mgd (1 mgd withdrawn + 0.35 mgd reuse), with the reuse offsetting what would have likely been potable demands and additional withdrawals.

Summary This methodology provides an adaptable framework for more accurately determining the net impact of water users on their water sources; furthermore, this method directly encourages utilities to conserve, reuse, and efficiently return their water to its original source. By developing consumptive use calculations that are reflective of actual consumptive use, and not simply water withdrawn, it’s clear that two utilities with identical characteristics might have vastly different impacts on a water source, depending on the final disposition of their effluent. Rather than the historical view of effluent as a problem that has to be dealt with, today’s evolving water resources require consideration of high-quality effluent as a resource that has value.

This shift in attitude is already being seen, with attention being paid to indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse. In reality, indirect potable reuse has been taking place for as long as humans have been relying on the same source for both their water supply and their disposal. As water resources continue to become more strained, it’s only logical to have a sound accounting framework in place that accurately addresses the question of consumption.

S

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

43

F W R J

How Sustainable is It? Approaches for Quantifying Sustainability With Case Studies Spanning Water, Wastewater, and Biosolids Treatment Stephanie Ishii, Ruth Borgmann, Amy Hanna, Erika Bailey, T.J. Lynch, Evan Bowles, Christopher Kish, Jorge Acevedo, and Jose Saucedo hen considering water supply options, treatment technology selection, resource recovery, and other decisions, utilities are often asked to take and communicate actions that reflect economic, environmental, and social stewardship. These objectives must be well-understood, as well as the metrics that speak to the extent to which they are being achieved. Individual metrics, such as electricity or water use, may be used to quantify and compare the impacts attributed to one option versus another; however, the use of a siloed metric may insufficiently communicate the overall implications of a decision. To quantify and communicate the impacts of a product or process to the larger community and environment, multiple metrics and perspectives must be taken into consideration.

Hundreds of rating systems have been developed for the documentation and ranking of options across cost and noncost criteria. For water and wastewater utilities, triple-bottomline methodologies represent a widely accepted, transparent, and defensible means to

W

compare the total benefits and costs of an investment vis-à-vis other alternatives, including the option of taking no action. When selecting a rating system, it’s important that the user understand the breadth of options available, the types of information required for each, and the appropriateness of outputs produced.

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of various approaches and tools for quantifying the sustainability of a product or process. Four approaches, with a corresponding case study for each, will be specifically highlighted, including greenhouse gas accounting, life cycle assessment (LCA), Envision™, and the Water Supply Evaluation Tool (WaterSET) that was recently developed as part of the Water Research Foundation Project Reuse 14-03. Other frameworks for quantifying the sustainability of a project, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and sustainable return on investment (SROI), may also be suitable, although not discussed herein.

Figure 1. Overall steps required for greenhouse gas accounting.

44

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Stephanie Ishii, Ph.D., P.E., is principal scientist with Hazen and Sawyer in Tampa.

Ruth Borgmann, P.E., is principal engineer with Hazen and Sawyer in Greensboro, N.C. Amy Hanna, P.E., is an associate with Hazen and Sawyer in Raleigh, N.C. Erika Bailey, P.E., is a plant process engineer and T.J. Lynch is assistant director with City of Raleigh (N.C.) Public Utilities Department. Evan Bowles, P.E., ENV SP, is an associate with Hazen and Sawyer in Richmond, Va. Christopher Kish, P.E., is associate vice president with Hazen and Sawyer in Coral Gables. Jorge Acevedo, P.E., ENV SP, LEED GA, is utility director and Jose Saucedo, P.E., ENV SP, is a project engineer with City of Coral Gables.

Approaches for Evaluating and Quantifying Sustainability Four approaches for the quantification of sustainability are discussed: 1. Greenhouse gas accounting 2. Life cycle assessment 3. Envision 4. WaterSET These four approaches were selected because they span a range of complexity with respect to required user inputs and the interpretation of outputs. Additionally, the suitability of each approach for a given evaluation is a function of the information available, the objectives of the evaluation, and the specific audience under consideration.

For all four approaches, clear and consistent boundaries must be established for the comparison of options; furthermore, uncertainty and sensitivity analyses are recommended to assess the extent to which results are affected by a given input, as inputs are generally subject to variation. The assumed boundary conditions and references used in any approach should be

clearly documented for transparent communication of results, as well as for continually updating the evaluation as new information becomes available.

Greenhouse Gas Accounting Greenhouse gas accounting, also referred to as carbon footprinting, focuses solely on the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction, operation, and/or demolition phase of a product or process (ISO 14064).

Greenhouse gas accounting results may be used on their own for an environmentally focused comparison of options, or they may be fed into a triple-bottom-line analysis to serve as an environmental criterion.

Once a boundary has been established for the comparison of options or the evaluation of a single option, greenhouse gas accounting involves identifying and quantifying the various inputs and outputs within the established boundary. Each input and output flow is then associated with a greenhouse gas equivalent. For example, when assessing the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the operational phase of a conventional drinking water treatment plant, one potential input flow may be the use of aluminum sulfate for coagulation.

Greenhouse gas accounting would necessitate quantifying the amount of aluminum sulfate used per volume of water treated and multiplying this value by the greenhouse gas equivalent per unit of alum. The greenhouse gas equivalent generally accounts for the greenhouse gas emissions incurred due to the production, transport, and use of a single unit of aluminum sulfate. The greenhouse gas equivalent may be expressed in units of pounds of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per unit of an inventory item; the unit of CO2e expresses the cumulative impact of various greenhouse gases in terms of the amount of carbon dioxide that would create the same impact.

The total greenhouse gas footprint is determined by summing the contributions from each identified input and output flow (Figure 1).

Greenhouse Gas Accounting Case Study: Biosolids Management The City of Raleigh (N.C.) Public Utilities Department (city) manages biosolids at the 75mil-gal-per-day-capacity Neuse River Resource Recovery Facility via lime stabilization, aerobic digestion, and/or offsite composting. Lime stabilized biosolids are a Class A product marketed as Raleigh Plus, aerobically digested biosolids are land-applied as a Class B liquid product, and raw dewatered biosolids are processed at an offsite composting facility for ultimate land application as a Class A product.

As the existing biosolids equipment neared

Figure 2. Greenhouse gas accounting results (CO2e/lb-generated biosolids) for multipathway biosolids management (current strategy) as compared with thermal hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion (note the use of different y-axis scales).

the end of its useful life, the city was motivated to explore alternative biosolids management strategies, specifically those that maximize the potential for beneficial reuse and minimize greenhouse gas production. This aligns with the city’s commitment, as part of the climate energy action plan, to implement sustainable local government operations. By transitioning to anaerobic digestion with thermal hydrolysis pretreatment (THP), the city will produce all Class A biosolids and continue to move toward energy neutrality in its operations.

To further explore the implications of biosolids management decisions, the city opted to pursue a greenhouse gas evaluation of the current biosolids management strategy, as compared with the proposed strategy involving THP and anaerobic digestion. The evaluation included the operational phase, including the supply chain of necessary inputs (e.g., chemicals, sorptive media) and direct electricity consumption, transportation, and offsets (e.g., fertilizer offsets enabled by land application and diesel offsets enabled by reuse of digester gas).

The results of the evaluation showed that the current biosolids management strategy results in a net greenhouse gas production of 0.06 lb of carbon dioxide equivalents (lb CO2e) per pound of biosolids generated, whereas THP with anaerobic digestion results in a net greenhouse gas offset (i.e., a negative greenhouse gas footprint) of 0.51 lb CO2e per pound of biosolids generated (Figure 2). The significance of producing greenhouse gases via the current biosolids management strategy, as compared with generating an overall greenhouse gas offset via THP with anaerobic digestion, is that they're projected to increase over time as flows

to the facility (and thus, biosolids production) increase.

In addition to comparing aggregate greenhouse gas footprints, one can also look at the individual contributors to the total greenhouse gas footprint of each strategy to identify hot spots of greenhouse gas production and offset; these hot spots highlight the inputs and outputs that present the greatest opportunity for impact.

For example, the production and transport of lime is a major contributor to the greenhouse gas footprint of the current biosolids management strategy, thus indicating that reduced use or an alternative chemical may improve the total greenhouse gas footprint. Diesel offsets enabled by the refinement and reuse of digester gas in the thermal hydrolysis/anaerobic digester scenario greatly benefit the net greenhouse gas impact, thus highlighting the importance of beneficial reuse (Figure 2).

Life Cycle Assessment Similar to greenhouse gas accounting, LCAs are used to quantify the environmental impacts associated with different design and operational decisions, with evaluations spanning the construction, operational, and/or demolition phases. The LCA results can be interpreted in terms of the total impact across alternatives, as well as reviewed for the identification of individual inputs and outputs that serve as hot spots (Finkbeiner et al., 2006). Furthermore, an LCA may be conducted as a standalone, environmentally focused evaluation or as part of a larger triple-bottom-line analysis.

An LCA may be defined as: “A technique for assessing the potential Continued on page 46

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

45

Continued from page 45 environmental aspects associated with a product or service by compiling an inventory of relevant inputs and outputs, evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated with those inputs and outputs, and interpreting the results of the inventory and impact phases relative to the objectives of the study (ISO 14040, 2006).”

The establishment of boundary conditions and identification of input and output flows are common to both greenhouse gas accounting and LCAs; however, LCAs go beyond greenhouse gas accounting because these evaluations not only assess environmental burden with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, they also provide a wide range of additional impact categories, such as ozone depletion potential, smog formation potential, and eutrophication potential.

Life Cycle Assessment Study: Nutrient Recovery From Wastewater An LCA was conducted to compare the environmental impacts of three wastewater treatment scenarios with increasing levels of nutrient recovery (Ishii and Boyer, 2015). Scenario A involved conventional wastewater treatment; Scenario B involved urine source separation and phosphorus recovery from urine via struvite precipitation; and Scenario C was similar to Scenario B, except that both nitrogen and phosphorus recovery from urine were maximized via enhanced struvite precipitation (i.e., increased addition of magnesium).

The LCA results showed that under the conditions of this specific evaluation, Scenario C consistently had the highest environmental burden and Scenario B consistently had the lowest environmental burden across impact categories (Figure 3). Further interpretation of the results revealed that the high environmental burden associated with Scenario C was mostly attributed to the production of the magnesium-rich chem-

Figure 3. Total life cycle assessment impacts of three wastewater treatment scenarios across impact categories (Ishii and Boyer, 2015).

Figure 4. Breakdown of individual contributions to the life cycle assessment impacts of wastewater treatment Scenario C (Ishii and Boyer, 2015).

46

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ical required for maximum nitrogen recovery via struvite precipitation (Figure 4). These results highlight the fact that upstream environmental costs associated with treatment (e.g., electricity and chemical use) can outweigh the downstream benefits associated with nutrient recovery (e.g., fertilizer offsets and improved effluent quality).

The environmental burden of Scenario C may be significantly reduced by using an alternative chemical or a less chemically intensive strategy for nutrient recovery, thus reaping the benefits of resource recovery without shifting the environmental burden upstream in the process.

Envision The Envision Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System was authored by the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (ISI), which was founded by the American Public Works Association (APWA), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Envision is a sustainable planning and rating system that is applicable to all types and sizes of civil infrastructure (e.g., water, roads, and landfills). Since its release in 2012, Envision has become widely recognized by water utilities as a pragmatic framework for application of triple-bottom-line principles, and is occasionally required as a convenient vehicle for implementation of local/municipal sustainability initiatives. Envision also provides a method for evaluation and quantification of nonmonetary decision drivers, as well as an avenue for public recognition of a water utility’s commitment to sustainability, which in turn serves to demonstrate the importance and value of its infrastructure to the utility’s ratepayers.

Overall, Envision is a sustainability design/rating system that is similar to LEED in its structure and intent, though LEED focuses on interior, conditioned, and occupied spaces. The Envision framework includes 64 sustainability-focused credits that are organized into five categories (Figure 5); each criterion is designed to help individuals make decisions that achieve community, environmental, and economic benefits. Envision may be applied early in the decision-making process to compare infrastructure options (e.g., master planning alternatives analysis), as well as throughout the design and construction phases to help ensure that the selected project is done in such a way to consider stakeholder perspectives and realize maximum benefits.

Envision is publicly available at no cost for self-assessment purposes. Third-party verification and awards are also available to recognize the levels of sustainability achieved by a given project through the use of Envision (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018).

Continued on page 48

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

47

Figure 5. The Envision framework includes 64 sustainability-focused credits that are organized into the five categories shown (Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2015).

Continued from page 46 Envision Case Study: Pump Station and Force Main Infrastructure The City of Coral Gables (city) has committed to the use of Envision’s holistic framework for evaluating and rating the community, environmental, and economic benefits of infrastructure improvements, and the first example was the design of, and upgrades to, the Cocoplum Pump Station and Force Main. This project included mechanical, electrical, and structural upgrades of the pump station and force main to better accommodate peak flows and increase system reliability.

The project leveraged the Envision framework during planning and design to identify and incorporate elements that would provide community, environmental, and economic benefits.

Due to the consideration of Envision credits throughout planning and design, the following provisions have been incorporated into the pump station and force main design (Figure 6).

Envision credits spoke to the project’s impact on the surrounding community and its environment, technical considerations regarding materials and processes, and other critical choices spanning the project’s lifecycle: S Implementation of innovative materials S Reuse of in situ excavated materials S Resiliency accommodations to assure operation under adverse environmental and hydraulic conditions S Improvements to the existing community in the form of proposed park and pedestrian walkways

48

Figure 6. The City of Coral Gables leveraged the Envision framework during planning and design of the Cocoplum Pump Station and Force Main to identify and incorporate elements that would provide community, environmental, and economic benefits.

Proposed improvements to the station involve converting it from a duplex to a triplex station, which will result in more-efficient pumping by calling on one pump to service at a time, depending on the inflow. In order to complete this conversion, the existing concrete wet well will be replaced with a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) well. The selection of HDPE is an innovative choice because it’s inert and will not be impacted by the hydrogen sulfide emissions from wastewater.

From an instrumentation standpoint, the station’s status can be viewed and altered remotely as required via telemetry. The system will allow the city to view, in real time, the pump operation, wet well level, flow, and pressure.

These real-time viewing capabilities will allow the city to deploy maintenance staff more efficiently. Data collected via telemetry is stored in the city’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, thus providing historical references to seasonal and peak events. Electrical improvements involve the installation of a triplex control panel and ancillary equipment, as well as a generator to provide backup power.

The proposed electrical equipment and generator will be elevated above required flood elevations with sea level rise projections.

Overall, use of the Envision framework facilitated discussion with a broader group of stakeholders across city departments to identify project synergies. The overall design approach was strengthened by accounting for the full spectrum of environmental, social, and eco-

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

nomic impacts. The city will be pursuing thirdparty verification and an Envision award for the pump station and force main design to document and communicate the process and the resulting implications of including the Envision framework in the project’s planning and design.

WaterSET Drivers for the use of alternative water supplies and treatment approaches, including direct potable reuse (DPR), indirect potable reuse (IPR), and nonpotable reuse, vary from region to region and require a thorough vetting of the potential impacts of each option on a site-specific basis. It’s critical that such comparisons be completed in a transparent, publicly accessible manner to facilitate management-level decision making, as well as public engagement and education about the water supply options and treatment selection. This calls for a comprehensive and objective evaluation methodology for comparing alternative water supply options.

Through a Water Research Foundationfunded study, a specialized triple-bottom-line tool called the Water Supply Evaluation Tool (WaterSET) was developed to go beyond conventional practices to evaluate water supply options (Reuse-14-03, 2018). The hybrid LCA approach uses process LCA to identify the input and output flows, and associated costs, for userspecified treatment trains. The hybrid LCA approach also benefits from input-output lifecycle assessment to associate specific costs, such as those incurred from labor, equipment, chemicals,

Figure 8. Relative importance of criteria categories in the multicriteria decision analysis based on utility weightings.

Figure 7. WaterSET radar chart showing disaggregated, unweighted results for a comparison of the construction and operation of activated carbon- and membrane-based treatment trains.

and concrete, with economic and environmental impacts. Furthermore, WaterSET draws upon the social sciences to provide quantitative measures of social indicators, such as resilience to drought, ratepayer acceptance, and project risk factors. The framework allows for the incorporation of the user’s valuation structure via criteria-weighting capabilities, but also ensures standards of accountability to minimize user bias in which decision-making criteria are weighted in such a way to achieve a desired outcome.

WaterSET was designed to allow comprehensive comparisons between various userspecified water supply options at the unit process level, allowing customization of inputs regarding treatment processes, capacity, electricity generation and use, chemical dosing, and transmission (Reuse-14-03, 2018). The final tool is a product of hands-on participatory workshops and utility case studies, all of which helped to define, test, and validate the methodology for comprehensive evaluation of various supply options. WaterSET and associated references are available to the public through the Water Research Foundation.

WaterSET Case Study: Treatment Selection A utility used WaterSET to compare the environmental, economic, and social impacts of two different treatment paradigms for a given water supply: 1) carbon-based advanced water treatment, and 2) membrane-based advanced

water treatment. The carbon-based option includes coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation, ozonation, biofiltration (BAF), granular activated carbon (GAC), and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The membrane-based option includes ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and the UV advanced oxidation process (UVAOP).

The two treatment approaches were first compared with a radar chart generated from treatment and conveyance inputs, which shows the relative scores of the two treatment approaches across 10 unweighted quantitative criteria (Figure 7). In all WaterSET radar charts, the first water supply is used as the baseline option (i.e., a score of 1 for all criteria), and other options are normalized in comparison to that option. A higher score is more favorable than a lower score. In Figure 7, the results for the two treatment approaches are shown, with the higher (more favorable) scores being split between the two treatment approaches. The activated carbon-based treatment train was favorable in terms of some criteria (e.g., effect on human health, carbon footprint, and water footprint), but less favorable in terms of others.

In addition to information related to the carbon- and membrane-based treatment approaches, the utility provided potential criteria weightings to explore how triple-bottom-line results would be reflected in a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). The MCDA pulls together each water supply option’s scores across the criteria, as well as

weightings for each criterion, to generate one aggregated MCDA score for each water supply option. The utility weighted six economic criteria, six environmental criteria, and nine social criteria.

Figure 8 presents a summary of the provided weightings, with each group of criteria being shown with its relative influence on the MCDA. More specifically, the following criteria were indicated as the most important (i.e., the highest weighting) in the decision-making process: life cycle cost; variable cost percentage; cost of imports, carbon footprint, ecotoxicity potential, and land footprint; and impact on residuals.

The results of the MCDA are shown in Figure 9. The MCDA uses the evaluation of mixed data (EVAMIX) method for combining criteria weightings with individual scores, and the highest resulting score is indicative of the most favorable option. With regard to the two treatment approaches under consideration in this evaluation, the carbon-based treatment option had a higher MCDA score than the membrane-based treatment option, thus indicating its higher level of favorability in terms of the utility’s weighting scheme.

WaterSET results provided the utility with quantitative information about how the two treatment approaches compare across a wide range of decision-making criteria. These results, in combination with finished water quality data, help facilitate the utility’s decision between the Continued on page 50

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

49

Continued from page 49 two treatment approaches. WaterSET inputs and associated outputs can be continuously updated as more refined information becomes available as a result on ongoing evaluations.

Conclusions Utilities are asked to take and communicate actions that reflect economic, environmental, and social stewardship. To satisfy this need, various approaches and tools are available for quantifying the sustainability of a product or process. The se-

lection of one of these approaches depends on the ultimate objective(s) of the evaluation, available information, and intended use of the results.

The use of a sustainability framework can benefit the entire life cycle of a project, spanning the initial alternatives analysis to optimization during the operational phase.

•

•

References • Finkbeiner, M., Atsushi, I., Reginald, T., Christiansen, K. and Kluppel, H.-J. (2006). The New International Standards for Life Cycle

•

• • •

Figure 9. Multicriteria decision analysis results for utility inputs pertaining to two treatment approaches for a given water supply and potential criteria weightings.

Assessment: ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11 (2), 80-85.

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2018.

Website accessed on August 1, 2018: http://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/.

Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, 2015.

Envision Guidance Manual. Online version accessed on August 13, 2018: https://research.gsd.harvard.edu/zofnass/files/2015/06/ Envision-Manual_2015_red.pdf.

Ishii, S. K. L. and Boyer, T. H. (2015). Life Cycle Comparison of Centralized Wastewater Treatment and Urine Source Separation with Struvite Precipitation: Focus on Urine Nutrient Management. Water Research, 79, 88-103.

ISO 14064, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

ISO 14040, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

Reuse-14-03 (2018). Stanford, B., Hadjikakou, M., Johns, G., Khan, S., Wiedmann, T., and Ishii, S. K. L. Comprehensive Analysis of Alternative Water Supply Projects Compared to Direct Potable Reuse and Water Supply Evaluation Tool (WaterSET). Water Research Foundation Reuse-14-03.

S

Regulation Division Recognized for Excellence The regulation division of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) recently received two awards from the Florida Sterling Council, an organization promoting excellence in business management.

Michelle Maxey, regulatory support bureau chief, received the Examiner Excellence Award, which is given annually to one examiner who demonstrates extraordinary service to the Florida Sterling Council and the Examiner Corps.

Maxey became an examiner in 2016, which is a group of leaders who help drive organizational performance excellence.

Examiners attend training sessions and learn about the Sterling management model and its criteria for evaluation. Using the criteria, examiners evaluate and provide feedback to organizations in Florida and Georgia.

The council wrote about her award: “Michelle has consistently taken her learning back to the agency and her division.

She was instrumental in the regulation division’s decision to participate in the Sterling Explorer Assessment in the 2017–2018 cycle. Michelle demonstrated her

50

Michele Maxey (left) and Alba Mas (right) at the awards ceremony.

criteria and Sterling process knowledge, professionalism, and team-player characteristics consistently, from the beginning of the team assignment straight through to the final day of the site visit. She exhibited a solid approach to comment writing, a positive presence, and a keen focus on collaborative teamwork.”

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

“I am surprised and humbled to receive this award,” Maxey said. “Being an examiner is a rewarding experience and one of the best leadership endeavors I’ve had. I’m grateful to the council for its recognition of my contributions.”

The SWFWMD regulation division also received an award for completing the Sterling Explorer Assessment. Alba Mas, regulation division director, accepted the award on behalf of the division.

The assessment is a leadership-driven management measurement based on the nationally recognized Sterling/Baldrige management system criteria to drive high performance. This includes assessing an organization’s management methods in the categories of leadership, strategy, customers, measurement, analysis, knowledge management, workforce, operations, and how all of these tie to results.

Established in 1992, the Florida Sterling Council is a public/private not-for-profit corporation supported by the executive office of the governor. The council teaches participants how to elevate performance and increase productivity.

S

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDAR SCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY! September 10-13 ....Backflow Tester ......................................Osteen ............$375/405 28 ....Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..................Osteen ............$85/115

October 8-10 ....Backflow Repair ....................................Osteen ............$275/305 15-18 ....Backflow Tester* ....................................St Petersburg ..$375/405 15-19 ....Wastewater Collection C, B..................Orlando ..........$225/255 26 ....Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..................Osteen ............$85/115 26 ....Backflow Tester Recerts........................Pensacola........$85/115

November 5-8 ....Backflow Tester ......................................Osteen ............$375/405 12-14 ....Backflow Repair* ..................................St Petersburg ..$275/305 12-16 ....Reclaim Water Feld Site Inspector ......Osteen ............$350/380 16 ....Backflow Tester Recerts*** ..................Osteen ............$85/115 Course registration forms are available at http://www.fwpcoa.org/forms.asp. For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or training@fwpcoa.org. * Backflow recertification is also available the last day of Backflow Tester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona ** Evening classes

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

*** any retest given also Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

51

Water Workforce Development Newly released policy report on water workforce development focuses on obstacles, innovations, and plans

Katherine Saltzman esearchers at the Brookings Institute (Washington, D.C.), a bipartisan policy think tank, recently published a report focusing on establishing robust water workforce development programs to accommodate today’s water infrastructure needs.

The report, “Renewing the Water Workforce: Improving Water Infrastructure and Creating a Pipeline to Opportunity,” addresses the unique employment opportunities available to the American worker in water sector jobs and the simultaneous high and urgent demand for these employees across the United States.

In 2016, the water industry included 212 different occupations, ranging from operators and construction workers to administrative and managerial roles. Employees in water occupations, on average, earn higher wages compared to all workers nationally, with water employees earning up to 50 percent more compared to workers at lower ends of the income scale. In the 10th and 25th income per-

R

52

centiles, water workers earn hourly wages of $14.01 and $17.67, respectively, “compared to the hourly wages of $9.27 and $11.60 earned by all workers at these percentiles across the country,” according to the Brookings report.

As income inequality in the U.S. continues to rise — especially between populations with university degrees and those without, researchers note — the water profession can offer goodpaying jobs. Water sector jobs require rigorous hands-on training and application of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills, as well as project management experience, but often don’t require a four-year degree. This offers individuals with otherwise limited formal education an opportunity for sustainable incomes.

Finding the Right Fit Despite the long-term economic and educational opportunities available in the water sector, there are obstacles to finding and retaining talent. In 2016, research showed that employees in “water occupations are significantly older than the national median (42.2 years), including water treatment operators (46.4 years old).” Utilities and municipalities across the country are concerned about high retirement rates and limited pools of trained candidates to enter the water profession.

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Water utility leaders, municipalities, and associations are finding innovative ways to engage and attract young people to water careers.

Pipeline to the Water Industry Researchers found that the water profession lacks the public visibility needed to attract individuals to the water workforce. Despite lower education barriers and stable, good-paying jobs, there are not enough people pursuing the jobs or gaining the necessary skills or training to obtain careers in the water sector.

According to researchers, though internships and apprenticeships are being used to recruit younger and more diverse employees, these programs may be limited by budget shortages and/or the need to retrain students in basic math, science, and English skills, which are not necessarily taught in high school. It’s also important to note that inadequately trained newcomers to the water industry also may be part of, according to the Brookings report, a “general shift away from the skilled trades and vocational education among students, which is compounded by the many existing water workers nearing, or eligible for, retirement.”

Based on communication with utility managers and other stakeholders, researchers recommended a more collaborative effort among utilities, municipalities, government agen-

cies, and policymakers to invest in and prioritize water workforce development programs to enhance the visibility and attractiveness of the profession. Plans to increase water workforce outreach programs include hiring and training diverse mentors. These mentors can connect with younger individuals, revitalize the recruiting process, and serve as long-term guidance counselors for students in water-related internship or fellowships programs.

Other ideas include acquiring funding from federal and state policymakers to establish “bridge programs,” and educational initiatives to provide opportunities for younger workers or adult students to explore water careers and gain experience.

Retention and Long-Term Employees There are financial and programmatic obstacles to developing workforce programs when water utilities must also finance infrastructure repair and investment.

Utilities also face budget cutbacks and need to remain conscious of ratepayers’ bills. In these cases, utilities may prioritize infrastructure improvements rather than workforce development programs.

Though infrastructure investment is critical to maintaining water quality and system sustainability, limited funding for workforce development can lead to shortcomings in career advancement and earnings for water sector employees.

Some smaller utilities, for example, may have one or two employees, with no opportunity to advance to a supervisory role. In this situation, workers who have held the same position at a utility for several decades may eventually seek other opportunities at a larger utility or consulting group. Meanwhile, trends indicate that younger workers prefer opportunities to diversify and have mobility in their careers. This leaves a significant gap in the skilled workers available to run the critical daily operations at the utility.

“To have a team manage the water infrastructure, in water emergencies but also in day-to-day operations, is really vital,” said Keisha Powell, commissioner of the Department of Watershed Management for the City of Atlanta, at a panel discussion following the release of the Brooking’s report. “We had 130 water main breaks in the month of January this year and are facing a 55 percent eligibility retirement rate; furthermore, it’s difficult to recruit young talent.”

Researchers and stakeholders concluded that by increasing training for supervisory roles, developing income tiers for more experienced employees, and creating more established career paths, utilities could better retain skilled employees, create workforce advancement opportunities, and attract younger workers.

Programs Related to Workforce Development and Training Several utilities, national agencies, municipalities, and nonprofit organizations are taking on the task of providing tools and programs to enhance recruitment and training.

National Green Infrastructure Certification Program This spring, the Water Environment Federation (WEF), in collaboration with DC Water, launched the National Green In-

frastructure Certification Program (NGICP). This program is a national certification standard for green infrastructure construction, inspection, and maintenance employees. To earn the certification, students with a high school degree must complete 35 hours of course material and pass an exam.

The NGICP supports the development of proficient green workforces, and establishes a career path for skilled green infrastructure workers.

PowerCorpsPHL This 2013 initiative by the City of Philadelphia Americorp encourages at-risk young adults and formally incarcerated citizens to enroll full time in the program and work to support Philadelphia’s environmental stewardship, youth violence prevention, and workforce development priorities.

PowerCorpsPHL student crews work with the Philadelphia Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the Philadelphia Water Department, to improve stormwater management and revitalize public lands and parks. Students spend five months working and one month dedicated to career training. They also can apply for a fellowship program that matches them with an external partner to gain additional environmental career experiences.

ing schedules for those interested in the water industry.

These initiatives are some examples of the workforce development training necessary to bring public visibility to water sector and green infrastructure jobs, while also offering critical preparation and training for diverse and skilled individuals to enter and find long-term careers in the water workforce.

As highlighted in the Brookings report, continued collaborative workforce development programs can address the needs of water infrastructure and the water sector, while also supporting greater and more stable economic opportunities for U.S. communities.

The information provided in this article is designed to be educational.

It is not intended to provide any type of professional advice, includ-

ing, without limitation, legal, accounting, or engineering. Your use of the information provided here is voluntary and should be based on your own evaluation and analysis of its accuracy, appropriateness for your use, and any potential risks of using the information. The Water Environment Federation (WEF), author and publisher of this article, assumes no liability of any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents and specifically disclaims any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness of use for a particular purpose.

Any references included are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute endorsement of any sources.

Katherine Saltzman is a publications assistant at the Water Environment Federation (Alexandria, Va.) where she works on WEF’s operator initiative programs.

S

Bay Work In 2008, amid concerns in the San Francisco Bay area regarding lack of water workforce development programs at local utilities, several water and wastewater utilities collaborated to develop Bay Work. This program’s mission is to “develop and implement programs and strategies that support development of high-performance workforces.” Bay Work’s resources are open to all Bay-area water and wastewater utilities. The program also provides opportunities for utilities to share research, ideas, programs, and concerns related to workforce issues. Bay Work also provides extensive job and internship listings and trainFlorida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

53

FWEA CHAPTER CORNER Welcome to the FWEA Chapter 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 for your chapter, send details to Megan Nelson at megan.nelson@ocfl.net.

FWEA West Coast Chapter Hosts Successful Spring Luncheon Isaiah Shapiro The FWEA West Coast Chapter held its spring luncheon on May 17 at the Columbia Restaurant in Ybor City. The wellattended event hosted over eighty-five water industry professionals, including consultants, utility personnel, academics, and students. The topic for this luncheon was titled, “University of South Florida and Hillsborough County University/Utility Partnership: Improving the County’s Wastewater

Operations While Training the Next Generation of Environmental Engineers.”

Dr. Luke Mulford, with Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department, and Dr. Sarina Ergas, with the University of South Florida (USF), copresented the session on the enterprise between their two institutions, the work they do together, and the benefits this partnership has brought not only to the Tampa Bay community, but to the water industry throughout the area.

Dr. Mulford, who manages new technologies and research initiatives for Hillsborough County, centered his part of the presentation on how

Attendees at the luncheon.

54

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

working closely with the USF environmental engineering department has helped to improve the county’s wastewater operations. This has been possible through a structured program supported by the collaboration of both the county’s personnel and the research assistance by USF faculty and students.

Dr. Ergas, graduate program director in the department of civil and environmental engineering at USF, focused her talk on some specifics of one of the projects that emphasizes hybrid adsorption biological treatment system for onsite wastewater nitrogen removal.

The luncheon concluded with an enthusiastic and enriching discussion on topics where the speakers and the audience interacted with questions and comments.

The West Coast Chapter would like to thank the speakers, participants, and event sponsors who were instrumental in this successful event.

Isaiah Shapiro, P.E., is a staff water engineer with Arcadis in Tampa.

S

56

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And Management

Consultants, Inc.

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

863-354-9010

www.tankteam.com

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Motor & Utility Services, LLC

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

352-241-6006 ads@fwrj.com

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

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

P osi ti ons Ava i l a b l e Village of Tequesta - SUPERINTENDENT, WATER DISTRIBUTION & STORM WATER SUPERINTENDENT, WATER DISTRIBUTION & STORM WATER Water Production Department $68,000 - $102,000 The Village is currently accepting applications for a Superintendent, Water Distribution & Storm Water. Under general direction from the Utility Director, this position plans, organizes, manages and directs the operations and services of the Water Production and Storm Water units and supervises the activities of the employees engaged in their operations and maintenance.

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE: Preferred candidate must have: * Minimum Associates degree (Bachelor of Science degree preferred) * Five (5) years related experience; at least 2 years in a supervisory role and 2 years in the installation, repair and maintenance of a water distribution system and its related services. * Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association (FW&PCOA) level 2"Water Distribution, and Level "B" Stormwater license (or commitment to obtaining within 12 months of employment). * Backflow Prevention Tester Certification (or commitment to obtaining within 12 months of employment).

Duties and Responsibilities * Manages Village water and stormwater systems by planning, coordinating, supervising, operating and budgeting resources including service technicians, contractors, vendors, supplies, inventory and equipment. * Supervises and participates in the installation and repair of water mains, service lines, leaks, hydrants and valves; the repair and installation of meters and pipes, and operates heavy equipment related to these tasks. * Recommends hiring, terminations, promotions and demotions; conducts performance evaluations and makes recommendations for disciplinary actions; handles employees complaints and grievances. * Schedules the work-shifts of operating personnel and responds to emergency calls. * Assists with the development of the department's budget, monitors and approves expenditures, adjusts budget as needed and manages purchasing activities, including vendor bids. * Oversees assigned projects and contractual services provided to the Village and reviews work to ensure timely completion within established budget.

All applications must be submitted via the Employment Opportunities tab on the Village of Tequesta's website http://www.tequesta.org/1302/Employment-Opportunities. Open until filled. EOE, DFWP & M/F/V/D. Note: The Village of Tequesta participates in E-Verify.

60

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: EXPERIENCED & TRAINEES/LABORERS - Solid Waste Worker I, II & III - Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III - Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III - Public Service Worker II - Stormwater Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

Engineering Inspector II & Senior Engineering Inspector Involves highly technical work in the field of civil engineering construction inspection including responsibility for inspecting a variety of construction projects for conformance with engineering plans and specifications. Projects involve roadways, stormwater facilities, portable water distribution systems, sanitary pump stations, gravity sewer collection systems, reclaimed water distribution systems, portable water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities. Salary is DOQ. The City of Winter Garden is an EOE/DFWP that encourages and promotes a diverse workforce. Please apply at http://www.cwgdn.com.

Position Requirements: Possession of the following or the ability to obtain within 6 months of hire: (1) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Stormwater Certification and an (2) Orange County Underground Utility Competency Card. A valid Florida Driver’s License is required.

• Inspector II: High School Diploma or equivalent and 7 years of progressively responsible experience in construction inspection or testing of capital improvement and private development projects.

• Senior Inspector: Associate’s Degree in Civil Engineering Technology or Construction Management and 10 years of progressively responsible experience, of which 5 years are in at a supervisory level.

City of Groveland Class “C” Water Operator The City of Groveland is hiring a Class "C" Water Operator. Salary Range $29,203-43,805 DOQ. Please visit groveland-fl.gov for application and job description. Send completed application to 156 S Lake Ave. Groveland, Fl 34736 attn: Human Resources. Background check and drug screen required. Open until filled EOE, V/P, DFWP

Maintenance Chief

Utility Compliance/Efficiency Manager

This position develops, organizes, schedules, and supervises all routine, preventive, and corrective mechanical, electrical, instrumentation. Three years of supervisory experience of mechanical, electrical and/or instrumentation personnel and high school diploma. Learn more and apply at: www.woodardcurran.com.

$78,836 - $110,929/yr.

Utilities Maintenance Supervisor $58,829 - $82,778/yr.

Utilities (Safety) Program Coordinator

Utilities, Inc.

$48,399 - $68,102/yr.

Utilities Storm Water Foreman $47,911 - $67,414/yr.

Utilities Treatment Plant Operator II $47,911 - $67,414/yr.

Utilities Treatment Plant Operator I/Trainee $41,387 - $64,204/yr.

Utilities System Operator III $41,387 - $58,235/yr.

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

City of Orlando Wastewater Plant Operator Supervisor - Conservation I WRF City of Orlando, FL Starting Salary: $ $23.79 to 29.76 per hour, depending on qualifications Grade: S12 Job #18-157 - Open until filled Nature of Work Performs skilled work supervising water reclamation facility process operations. Responsible for the efficient operation of a water reclamation facility and routine adjustments to equipment and machinery operating controls. Work includes, but not limited to, field sampling, equipment checks, and data collection. Expected to exercise some independent judgment in making adjustments to machinery, equipment and related control apparatus in accordance with established procedures and standards.

May direct subordinate operators engaged in maintaining and operating various types of wastewater process equipment and collecting sewage and sludge samples. Work is normally performed under general supervision and is reviewed primarily by observation and through the analysis of charts and reports.

Minimum Requirements High school diploma with two years responsible wastewater treatment plant operations experience & minimum six months of supervisory or lead experience. Valid State of Florida Wastewater Operator "B" Certificate for wastewater treatment. Must obtain "A" Certification within two years of hire. Florida driver license required. Must pass annual respirator physical.

For complete job details and to apply visit https://www.governmentjobs.com/careers/orlando or call 407-246-2062.

The City of Orlando seeks a diverse workforce and encourages all to apply.

WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR Utilities, Inc. of Florida is seeking a Water/Wastewater Operator II for our Longwood plant. Applicant must have a minimum Class C FDEP Water & a Class C FDEP Wastewater license. Applicant must have a HS Diploma or GED & a valid Florida driver’s license with a clean record. To view the complete job description & apply for the position please visit our web site, www.uiwater.com, under the “Contact Us” dropdown choose “Employment Opportunities”. Use the search filters Operations & FL, Longwood to locate the position.

Utilities, Inc.

WATER & WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR Utilities, Inc. of Florida is seeking a Water/Wastewater Operator II for our Lake Groves plant. Applicant must have a minimum Class C FDEP Water & a Class C FDEP Wastewater license. Applicant must have a HS Diploma or GED & a valid Florida driver’s license with a clean record. To view the complete job description & apply for the position please visit our web site, www.uiwater.com, under the “Contact Us” dropdown choose “Employment Opportunities”. Use the search filters “Operations” & “FL, Clermont” to locate the position.

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 pluming abilities and a valid DL. Background check and drug screen required. -Apply at http://www.uswatercorp.com/careers or to obtain further information call (866) 753-8292. EOE/m/f/v/d

Florida Water Resources Journal • September 2018

61

Loxahatchee River District

Display Advertiser Index

WW Chief Op and Safety & Compliance Officer Blue Planet ....................................63 CEU Challenge................................37 FSAWWA Conference Calendar ....16 FSAWWA Conference Registration..17 FSAWWA Conference Overview ....18 FSAWWA Students/Young Professionals ..............................19 FSAWWA Poker/Golf ......................20 FSAWWA Competitions..................21 FSAWWA Water Distribution Awards ........................................22 FSAWWA Water Conservation ......23 FWRC Call for Papers ....................41

FWPCOA Training Calendar ..........51 Grundfos ........................................23 Gerber Pumps ................................28 Hudson Pump ................................33 Hydro International..........................5 InfoSense, Inc ................................53 Lakeside ..........................................7 Medora ..........................................47 Reiss Engineering..........................43 Stacon ..............................................2 Treeo ..............................................55 Xylem ............................................64

WW Chief Operator - FT/Exempt - $49,652-$76,957 Safety & Compliance Officer -FT/Nonexempt - $20.62-$31.96 Please visit our website for further details: https://loxahatcheeriver.org/governance/employment/

City of Titusville - NELAC Lab Supervisor & Senior Utility Engineer Competitive salaries. Great team. www.titusville.com

Test Yourself Answer Key From page 29 1. B) maximum residual disinfectant levels.

Per FAC 62-550.300, Application of Quality Standards to Public Water Systems, “The ultimate concern of the public water system supervision program is the quality of water for human consumption when the water reaches the consumers. The following rules establish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) for water within public water systems.”

2. D) treatment technique requirements.

Per FAC 62-550.200(115) Definitions, “Treatment technique” means the technology, when installed in a public water system, which leads to the reduction of contaminant levels.” Per FAC 62-550.300, Application of Quality Standards to Public Water Systems, “Additionally, these rules establish treatment technique requirements in lieu of, or in addition to, MCLs for certain contaminants.”

3. D) population served by the system.

Per 62-550.518(2), Microbiological Monitoring Requirements, “Total coliform samples shall be taken at regular intervals and in numbers proportionate to the population served by the system.”

4. B) 4-log treatment of viruses.

Per the Groundwater Rule, 40 CFR 141.402(a)(1)(i), Groundwater source microbial monitoring and analytical methods, “(a) Triggered source water monitoring (1) General requirements: A groundwater system must conduct triggered source water monitoring if . . . (i) The system does not provide at least 4-log treatment of viruses (using inactivation, removal, or a

62

state-approved combination of 4-log virus inactivation and removal) before or at the first customer for each groundwater source.”

5. B) Class III – Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife Per FAC 62-302.400(15), Classification of Surface Waters, “The surface waters of the state of Florida are classified as Class III – Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife, except for certain waters, which are described in subsection 62302.400(16), F.A.C.”

6. B) 5°F higher than the stream’s ambient temperature.

Per FAC 62-302.520(4)(a), Thermal Surface Water Criteria, “Fresh Waters – Heated water with a temperature at the POD more than 5º F higher than the ambient (natural) temperature of any stream shall not be discharged into such stream.”

7. C) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Per FAC 62-302.530(11), Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria: (11) BOD (biochemical oxygen demand): Shall not be increased to exceed values which would cause dissolved oxygen to be depressed below the limit established for each class and, in no case, shall it be great enough to produce nuisance conditions.

8. C) Outstanding Florida Waters Per FAC 62-302.100, (26) Definitions, “Outstanding Florida Waters” (OFWs) shall mean waters designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission as worthy of special protection because of their natural attributes.” Per FDEP’s fact sheet

September 2018 • Florida Water Resources Journal

about OFWs (from FDEP’s webpage), “In general, FDEP cannot issue permits for direct discharges to OFWs that would lower ambient (existing) water quality. In most cases, this deters new wastewater discharges directly into an OFW and requires increased treatment for stormwater discharging directly into an OFW. The FDEP also may not issue permits for indirect discharges that would significantly degrade a nearby waterbody designated as an OFW.”

9. C) Total maximum daily load Per FDEP’s webpage, “A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is a scientific determination of the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a surface water can absorb and still meet the water quality standards that protect human health and aquatic life. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are identified as "impaired" for the particular pollutants of concern—nutrients, bacteria, mercury, etc.—and TMDLs must be developed, adopted, and implemented to reduce those pollutants and clean up the waterbody. The threshold limits on pollutants in surface waters—Florida's surface water quality standards on which TMDLs are based—are set forth primarily in rule 62-302, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and the associated table of water quality criteria.”

10. B) Groundwater monitoring plan Per FAC 62-610.412(2)(a), Monitoring of reclaimed water and groundwater, “(2) Groundwater monitoring. (a) A groundwater monitoring program shall be established by the permittee and approved by the department, pursuant to Chapter 62601, and Rule 62-522.600, F.A.C. (unless otherwise exempted).”