Florida Water Resources Journal - March 2016

News and Features16 Cocoa’s Water Tank Wins 2015 Tank of the Year25 FSAWWA Drop Savers Contests36 Dept. of Interior Creates Natural Resource Investment Center to Increase Water Funding52 WEF HQ Newsletter—Steve Dye54 News Beat

Technical Articles4 Environmental Stewardship Through a Public/Private Partnership in Atlantic Beach—

Donna Kaluzniak and John E. Collins Jr.18 Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving Better Treatment with Less Energy and

Chemicals—Albert Bock26 Replacing Membranes To Save Energy at City Of Vero Beach Reverse Osmosis Water

Treatment Facility—C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Robert J. Bolton42 Water Transmission and Energy/Storage Optimization Study—Kimberly Machlus

Education and Training9 Florida Water Resources Conference17 CEU Challenge23 FWPCOA Training Calendar37 FSAWWA Training39 FSAWWA Roy Likins Scholarship49 TREEO Center Training

Columns24 C Factor—Thomas King34 FSAWWA Speaking Out—Kim Kunihiro38 Spotlight on Safety—Doug Prentiss Sr.40 Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier50 FWEA Focus—Raynetta Curry Marshall 51 FWRJ Committee Profile—FWPCOA

Safety Committee54 Reader Profile—Michael F. Bailey

Departments55 New Products56 Service Directories59 Classifieds 62 Display Advertiser Index

Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:Florida Water Resources Journal

1402 Emerald Lakes DriveClermont, FL 34711

Phone: 352-241-6006 • Fax: 352-241-6007Email: Editorial, [email protected]

Display and Classified Advertising, [email protected] Office:

P.O. Box 745, Windermere, FL 34786-0745Web: http://www.fwrj.com

General Manager: Michael DelaneyEditor: Rick HarmonGraphic Design Manager: Patrick DelaneyMailing Coordinator: Buena Vista Publishing

Published byBUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for

Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc.

President: Richard Anderson (FSAWWA)Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority

Vice President: Greg Chomic (FWEA)Heyward Incorporated

Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA)Seacoast Utility Authority

Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large)ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

Moving?The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not counton getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of addresschanges by the 15th of the month preceding the month ofissue. Please do not telephone address changes. Email changesto [email protected], fax to 352-241-6007, or mail to FloridaWater Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Cler-mont, FL 34711

Membership QuestionsFSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-957-8447 or

[email protected]: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training QuestionsFSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-957-8443 or

[email protected]: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other InformationDEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-957-8448Florida Water Resources Conference: 888-328-8448FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – [email protected]

FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

WebsitesFlorida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.comFWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.orgFSAWWA: www.fsawwa.orgFWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.orgFlorida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org

Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademarksymbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the namesonly in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no in-tention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publicationnecessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspon-dence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subjectto 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, representa-tives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, dam-ages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right ofany person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

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 theFlorida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership dues supportthe 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

Volume 67 March 2016 Number 3

ON THE COVER: A lone kayaker on a foggy morningon the Suwannee River at the Suwannee River StatePark located 13 miles west of Live Oak. (photo:James Peters)

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016 3

4 March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Atlantic Beach is a small coastal munic-ipality in northeast Florida near Jack-sonville. The privately-owned Selva

Marina Country Club (SMCC), which in-cludes a 146-acre golf course, is located closeto the Atlantic Beach Wastewater TreatmentFacility (WWTF), a 3.5-mil-gal-per-day(mgd) four-stage biological nutrient removal(BNR) plant. While the country club anddriving range were within the Atlantic Beachcity limits, the golf course property was lo-cated in Jacksonville.

The source of irrigation water for thegolf course was a tidal lagoon that traversedthe SMCC property. The high salinity of thiswater was problematic for SMCC, and overthe years it attempted to negotiate with theCity to provide reclaimed water for irrigation.The City was also interested in providing re-claimed water. Unfortunately, SMCC and theCity were unable to agree on an acceptablepricing structure after several attempts.

Like many golf courses, the economicdownturn of 2008 hit SMCC hard, and by2012, it was looking at ways to optimize theproperty. At that time, SMCC explored theconcept of adding a new single-family hous-ing development on the property and up-grading the course. However, the brackishquality of the lagoon water made it unsuitablefor growing high-quality turf. The SMCC’s consumptive use permit (CUP)allowed installation of up to 10 shallow wellsfor irrigation. There were concerns about thevolume of water available and the cost com-pared to reclaimed water.

The City asked J. Collins Engineering As-sociates LLC (JCEA) to conduct a compara-tive study to determine the cost-effectivenessof using wells versus the cost of constructinga reclaimed water facility.

Research showed that the ten shallowwells would not produce sufficient water andadditional wells would not be cost-efficient.

The result of that study, “Evaluation ofOptions for Long-Term Irrigation Water Sup-ply for Selva Marina Country Club,” showedthat a minimum of 25 wells would be required.A revision to the CUP would also be needed.

A number of options for construction ofa reclaimed water facility were examined inthe report. Some of these options included:S Locating the reuse facility offsite at the golfcourse versus at the WWTF

S Options for chlorine contact tankage, in-cluding:

Environmental Stewardship Through a Public/Private Partnership in Atlantic Beach

Donna Kaluzniak and John E. Collins Jr.

Donna Kaluzniak, CEP, is the former utility di-rector with City of Atlantic Beach and nowowns H2O Writing in Jacksonville Beach, andJohn E. Collins Jr., P.E., is with J. Collins Engi-neering Associates LLC in Jacksonville.

F W R J

Figure 1. Atlantic Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility and Selva Marina Country Club

Figure 2. Flows from Existing Shallow Wells in Area

Continued on page 6


o Relocation and use of an existing aban-doned tank

o Using half of the plant’s existing chlorinecontact tank

o Constructing a new chlorine contacttank

S Options for disinfection, including:o Chlorine gaso Sodium hypochlorite o Ultraviolet light

S Reclaimed transmission routes, includinguse of an existing abandoned force main

The preliminary recommendation for themost cost-effective option for providing long-term irrigation water to the golf course was areclaimed water facility located at the WWTF,using hypochlorite disinfection.

Cultural and Greenspace Preservation

Atlantic Beach is a cul-de-sac city. To theeast of the City is the Atlantic Ocean, to the westis the Intracoastal Waterway, and to the north isHanna Park and the Mayport Naval Station,bordered by the St. Johns River estuary. TheCity is shaded by a beautiful tree canopy ofcoastal oaks and other hardwoods. There is astrong sense of community and desire for cul-tural and environmental preservation.

The Atlantic Beach City Commission andmany citizens considered the 55-year-oldcountry club to be part of the local cultureand heritage. Many citizens were concernedthat the golf course property would be sold

and developed under Jacksonville’s buildingrequirements, which would mean that a high-density development of apartments or con-dominiums could be built on the property.The buildings would also be allowed to exceedAtlantic Beach’s 35-ft height limit.

Ideas on ways the City could help to keepfrom losing the golf course and country clubwere debated, including an option to pur-chase and operate the golf course and ameni-ties. That option was ruled out due to fiscalconcerns, and SMCC’s lack of desire to sellthe golf course.

At the same time, SMCC was examiningits options. The SMCC, which was renamedthe Atlantic Beach Country Club (ABCC)joined with developers Atlantic Beach Part-ners (ABP) to completely rebuild the golfcourse, clubhouse, and amenities. The coursewould be redesigned and upgraded to achampionship golf course and 178 high-endsingle family homes would be built within thecourse.

Having reliable, high-quality irrigationwater was imperative for the plan to moveforward and ABCC once more approachedAtlantic Beach about providing reclaimedwater.

Atlantic Beach citizens were fully sup-portive of ABCC’s plans; however, the Citycommission could not approve funding tobuild a reclaimed water facility that wouldbenefit a private business. The commissionwanted to find opportunities where the Citywould obtain a benefit in return for spendingapproximately $1.4 million to construct a re-claimed water facility.

After negotiating with ABCC/ABP, anagreement was reached: Atlantic Beach woulddesign, construct, operate, and maintain a re-claimed water facility and distribution mainto the golf course property. The reclaimedwater facility would be designed to providewater for the golf course, common areas, andresidents. In return, ABCC/ABP would:S Provide all of the reuse distribution and ir-rigation piping for the golf course and sub-division.

S Provide a 2.5-mil-gal (MG) reuse storagepond on the golf course.

S Provide a recreation and greenspace con-servation agreement. The agreement wouldessentially prevent any future additionalbuilding construction on the property inperpetuity.o Use of the undeveloped property is lim-ited to only low-intensity recreational orconservation uses.

o A native tree canopy must be maintainedafter development of the golf course.

o No further subdivision of the land is per-mitted.

S Work with Atlantic Beach to support an-nexation of the golf course property intothe Atlantic Beach city limits.

The ABCC/ABP provided for additionalenvironmental protections during their de-sign as well:S North Florida ecology integrated into thegolf course design

S Water-conserving design for the golfcourse

S Drip irrigation for most common arealandscaping

S Provision of constructed nesting sites forospreys

S Clubhouse and homes are constructedwith smart technology and water- and en-ergy-conserving features

Atlantic Beach Reclaimed Water Facility

The reclaimed water facility was designedto provide an annual average daily amount of0.5 mgd of reuse to the golf course and resi-dential customers. Included in the project werechemical storage and feed facilities; chlorinecontact piping, and wet wells; a reuse pumpingstation with hydropnuematic tank; an electri-cal building; and instrumentation/supervisorycontrol and data acquisition (SCADA) inte-gration.

In order to save costs, an existing aban-doned 6-in. force main was disinfected andused to provide reclaimed water to the golf

Figure 3. Atlantic Beach Country Club Layout

Continued from page 4


course storage pond. A 12-in. reuse main wasconstructed up to the golf course for the res-idential development. Figure 4 shows the ex-isting 6-in. force main.

Project Challenges

Schedule LimitationsBoth the City and ABCC/ABP had an in-

credibly tight schedule. One of the major fac-tors was that ABCC/ABP needed to completethe golf course construction in time for thegrowing season. In addition, while ABCC hadadvised that it would need up to 400,000 galper day (gpd) of reuse water under normalconditions, they needed up to 1 MG per dayfor the grow-in period.

The City approved the engineering con-tract in May 2013. The project had to be de-signed, permitted, and bid, and aconstruction contract awarded by November2013. The City was required to construct thefacilities and deliver reclaimed water byMarch 2014.

In order to accommodate the short time-line and provide the extra reuse needed forgrow-in, the project was designed and con-structed in two phases.

The JCEA and City staff met with theFlorida Department of Environmental Pro-tection (FDEP) to get the conceptual designsfor the two phases approved. The FDEP wasvery helpful and accommodating in allowingthe City to design and construct temporaryreuse facilities that could be used for thegrow-in period while contractors completedthe permanent reuse system.

Phase One: Temporary FacilitiesIn this phase, FDEP allowed the City to

dedicate half of the existing chlorine contacttank for the temporary reclaimed water sys-tem. A spare sulfur dioxide feed line waspurged and reused as a chlorine feed systemfor the high-level disinfection system.

A large pump was installed to pumpreuse water to the golf course storage pondthrough the existing abandoned and disinfec-ted force main. Instrumentation, includingthe chlorine analyzer and turbidimeter, wasinstalled in a temporary control panel insideof a wooden box mounted by the chlorinecontact tank.

The FDEP required a higher chlorineresidual of 1.8 mg/L vs. 1.0 mg/L in order toprovide the high-level disinfection in thesmaller chlorine contact tank.

Figure 4. Location of Existing Force Main

Figure 5. Area Availablefor Reclaimed Water FacilityContinued on page 8


Phase Two: Permanent FacilitiesThe permanent facilities included the

electrical building (with proper control pan-els for the instrumentation), chlorine contactfacilities, and a hypochlorite storage andpumping facility. The reuse pumping systemconsisted of three pumps with variable fre-quency drives and a hydropneumatic tank tomaintain pressure in the distribution system. An off-site control valve was installed on thegolf course to hold pressure in the residentialdistribution system at the same time thatreuse water flows to the storage pond. This isa modulating valve that varies the amount offlow to the golf course pond or distributionsystem based on demand.

The City completed the engineering, per-mitting, and bid process and awarded a con-tract to Sawcross Construction in November2013, as required; however, start of construc-tion was contingent on ABCC/ABP’s finalclosing on the property sale. While AtlanticBeach was ready to proceed with construction,the City had to wait to issue a notice to pro-ceed (NTP) until the property sale betweenthe country club and the developer was finaland all parties were legally ready to proceed.

The ABCC/ABP completed its legal re-quirements in January 2014 instead of No-vember 2013, and the Sawcross was issued anNTP in January.

The City completed construction ofphase one and start-up of the reuse system atthe same time the golf course completed con-struction of its reuse pond and began grass-ing the golf course. The City provided all ofthe reclaimed water needed to successfullystart and complete the grow-in period.

Space LimitationsBecause the reclaimed water facility was

being built at the effluent end of the WWTF,only a small amount of land was available.There was essentially no room to install astandard chlorine contact chamber sized toallow high-level disinfection per contact time(CT) calculations. Therefore, a chlorine con-tact pipe system was designed. A 36-in. diam-eter lined ductile iron pipe with a serpentinedesign was used for appropriate chlorine con-tact and mixing time. Effluent from theWWTF filters is diverted to a wet well wheresodium hypochlorite is added. The water thenflows through the chlorine contact pipe andenters a second wet well where the chlorinelevel is measured.

The reclaimed water facility, includingthe location of the chlorine contact pipe in-stallation, is located in a narrow strip of prop-erty adjacent to the effluent storage pond.

BudgetUtility budgets are always tight, and this

was especially true due to the nature of having

an agreement with ABCC/ABP to ensure theCity was not saddled with an undue fiscalburden.

City and JCEA staff prepared a cost-sharegrant application for the project. The projectwas awarded a grant of $442,000 from the St.Johns River Water Management District. Also,to meet the strict budget, a quick-value engi-neering review was completed after the bidand negotiated with the contractor. This re-sulted in $200,000 of savings and $180,000 ofdeductions recommended and awarded.

Results

The WWTF was completed in time tomeet all of the required deadlines and underbudget. The project costs were $151,528 forengineering and $1,251,032 for construction.Funding from the City was $960,560 and$442,000 from SJRWMD. The phase-one tem-porary facilities worked well and FDEP madeallowances for City staff to take hourly read-ings of chlorine and turbidity, instead of con-tinuous readings, as long as the pumps wereset to automatically shut off with any ex-ceedances.

The ABCC was very pleased with thequantity and quality of the reclaimed water,and the championship golf course was grown-in and ready for play by the opening date.

Phase-one facilities were used until sub-stantial completion of the phase-two im-provements. The phase-two facilities weresubstantially complete in November 2014 andconnected to the residential reuse distributionmains provided by the developer. In additionto reclaimed water for residences and com-mon areas, ABCC is using reuse to water thenew clay tennis courts.

Construction of the new ABCC club-house is complete; residents are playing golfand tennis, and beautiful, environmentally-efficient homes are being built. The entire166-acre site will be protected from futurehigh-intensity development forever, and At-lantic Beach, ABCC, and Jacksonville are allsupporting annexation of the property.

The project will save up to 183 MG ofgroundwater each year; in addition, effluentdischarged to the St. Johns River will be re-duced by the same amount. This will reducethe amount of nitrogen and phosphorus dis-charged to the river by up to 4,870 poundseach per year. SS

Figure 6. Final Siting for Reclaimed Water Facility/Chlorine Contact Pipe




The Tank of the Year is a national waterstorage tank competition presented byTnemec Company Inc., and the 2015 awardwas presented late last year to the City ofCocoa’s iconic 156-ft-tall structure. Thetank, which features three 25-ft-highAmerican flags, was recently repainted aspart of a resurfacing project started in 2014.The flags were originally painted on the tankin 1976 by a Greek immigrant to celebratethe nation’s Bicentennial. When the recentresurfacing project came up for approval tothe city council, it was determined that theflags would remain on the tank.

“The City of Cocoa values its history,and the flags are an important part of thathistory and proudly remain displayed onour tank,” said Henry Parrish, mayor ofCocoa. “We are honored to make historyonce again by becoming the 2015 Tank ofthe Year to display to the nation ourpatriotic pride.”

The tank was built in 1957 to supplydrinking water to the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration’s space program.The 1.5-mil-gal (MG) tank is used tomaintain constant pressure in thedistribution system, which supplies morethan 22.7 MG of drinking water every dayto approximately 80,000 customers incentral Brevard County, including theKennedy Space Center, Port Canaveral, andPatrick Air Force Base.

Cocoa’s tank was one of the twelvetop-voted tanks in the online voting polls,along with another local tank in Plant Citythat won in the contemporary categorywith its 500,000-gal pedestal water tank.More than 20,000 online votes were cast.Voting on the top twelve, a panel of watertank enthusiasts chose the City of Cocoa’stank based on its artistic value, significanceto the community, and the challengesencountered during the project.

The water tank was featured on thecover of the January 2016 Tnemac watertank calendar. Established in 1921, Tnemecis one of the largest privately heldcompanies in North America specializingin industrial coatings for steel, concrete,and other substrates for new constructionand maintenance. SS

Cocoa’s Water Tank Wins 2015 Tank of the Year


Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous

Journal issues!Contact FWPCOA at

[email protected] or at 561-840-0340.

Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website,

www.fwrj.com.

Members of the Florida Water &Pollution Control Association(FWPCOA) may earn continuingeducation units through the CEUChallenge! Answer the questionspublished on this page, based on thetechnical articles in this month’sissue. Circle the letter of each correctanswer. There is only one correctanswer to each question! Answer 80percent of the questions on anyarticle correctly to earn 0.1 CEU foryour license. Retests are available.

This month’s editorial theme is,Energy Efficiency and EnvironmentalStewardship. Look above each set ofquestions to see if it is for wateroperators (DW), distribution systemoperators (DS), or wastewateroperators (WW). Mail thecompleted page (or a photocopy) to:Florida Environmental ProfessionalsTraining, P.O. Box 33119, PalmBeach Gardens, FL 33420-3119.Enclose $15 for each set ofquestions you choose to answer(make checks payable to FWPCOA).You MUST be an FWPCOA memberbefore you can submit your answers!

___________________________________SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 _________________________________LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 _________________________________LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

If paying by credit card, fax to (561) 625-4858

providing the following information:

___________________________________(Credit Card Number)

____________________________________(Expiration Date)

Albert Bock(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 WW)

1. In converting to facultative biosolids stabilization,digester aeration was controlled bya. blower timers.b. nutrient ammonia and phosphorus-levelfeedback.

c. dissolved oxygen concentration feedback.d. pH.

2. Previously practiced conventional aerobicbiosolids stabilization resulted ina. improved biosolids hydrolysis rates.b. reduced digester biosolids liquid phasephosphorus concentration.

c. reduced alkalinity levels.d. higher biosolids pH.

3. Under the real-time pricing model forelectricity, plant operations staff reducesenergy cost bya. pressing biosolids only every other day.b. using supervisory control and dataacquisition (SCADA) to shut down liftstations during peak pricing periods.

c. switching all electric motors from fixedspeed to variable frequency operation.

d. shutting down selected equipmentthrough the peak pricing periods.

4. The facultative digester process reduces sludgeproduction becausea. chemicals are no longer needed forphosphorus precipitation.

b. it hydrolizes more solids.c. more biosolids are removed in thebiological nutrient removal (BNR) process.

d. a greater concentration of biosolids isretained in digester inventory.

5. Process changes described in this article havereduced carbon emissions bya. 3 mil kilowatt-hours (kWh)b. 2,000 tonsc. 20,000 cu ftd. 700 kWh/mil gal

Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving Better

Treatment with Less Energy and Chemicals

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge!

C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Rob Bolton

(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW)

1. Performance projections provided by the membrane

suppliers assumed no permeate back pressure on the

first stage becausea. the skids presently have energy recoveryequipment.

b. performance goals could not otherwise be met.c. proposed feed water pumps could not developsufficient pressure.

d. existing skids lack back pressure capabilities.

2. In the single-element testing phase, recoveries from15 to 85 percent were selected in order to simulatea. anticipated changes in full-scale skid recoveriesthat would be required.

b. anticipated changes in feed water quality overtime.

c. the effect of changes in air and watertemperature.

d. water quality at the front and back ends of afull-scale skid.

3. Which of the following type of hybridconfigurations was recommended for all foursystems?a. Tighter membrane first stage, loosermembrane second stage

b. Looser membrane first stage, tightermembrane second stage

c. Looser membranes, both stagesd. Tighter membrane, both stages

4. Comparing single-membrane test results tomembrane permeate water quality projections,a. test water quality was better for all elementstested, at all parameters.

b. test water quality was worse for all elementstested, at all parameters.

c. one element tested better for all parametersthan projected.

d. three elements tested better for all parametersthan projected.

5. Of the three manufacturers able to provide 8.5-in.diameter elements, most were nota. Underwriters Laboratories (UL)-certified.b. National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) 61-certified.

c. presently in production.d. made of material suitable for use in potablewater production.

Replacing Membranes to Save Energy: The

City of Vero Beach WaterTreatment Facility

18 March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal18 March 2016 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Since 2009, the 7-mil-gal-per-day (mgd)Military Point Regional Advanced Waste-water Treatment Facility (MPAWTF), op-

erated by Bay County Utility Services andco-owned by Bay County, City of Callaway,City of Parker, and City of Springfield, hasbeen working to improve its wastewater treat-ment plant performance and energy efficiencyto offset future energy price increases andcomply with the newest regulatory Fffluentpermit requirements.

The facility personnel implemented newand innovative process technologies, in combi-nation with energy conservation programs andprocess changes, so that the facility could ad-dress the upcoming challenges in the industry.This article provides an overview of the newlyinstalled technology and process control strate-gies that deliver a more consistent and cost-ef-fective wastewater treatment plant operation.

The turnkey accomplishments of the tech-nology and operating procedures include im-proved effluent results, enriched biosolidstreatment, chemical savings for phosphorous re-moval, and significantly reduced aeration ratesfor the operation of the treatment facility. Theirimplementation improved the treatment plantperformance and effluent quality results consid-erably, while also reducing energy and chemical

requirements in the treatment process. This con-cept is known as wastewater ephemeralization.

Energy and chemical reduction providesmultiple economic and environmental benefits,including reduced air pollution and greenhousegas emissions, and results in reduced operatingcosts, which saves money for the utility.

With pumps, motors, and other equip-ment operating 24 hours a day, seven days aweek, MPAWTF is one of the largest consumersof energy in Bay County. The high level of en-ergy and operating costs is what led the utilityto make the energy and process improvementsin the wastewater treatment plant infrastruc-ture and operations, which guarantees the util-ity customer quality service at a reasonable costthat also meets the environmental require-ments.

Starting in 2009 Bay County Utility Serv-ices developed a portfolio of wastewaterephemeralization projects that identified en-ergy efficiency improvements and new operat-ing technologies, and evaluated alternatives tominimize rising energy and chemical costs forthe wastewater treatment plant operation.

The MPAWTF wastewater ephemeraliza-tion projects included:S Operating one biological nutrient removal(BNR) train instead of two BNR trains

S Eliminating aerobic digestion and intro-ducing facultative biosolids stabilizationtechnology

S Electrical cost reduction by changing fromfixed power usage rate to real-time pricing(RTP)

S Alternation of BNR aeration control, chang-ing aeration from dissolved oxygen to am-monia control

Wastewater Ephemeralization Projects Overview

Operating One Biological Nutrient RemovalTrain Instead Of Two

The MPAWTF was put on-line in 2000.The annual flows from 2003 to 2008 averaged3.8 mgd and were significantly below therated capacity limit. Until 2009 the treatmentfacility was run utilizing the full treatmentplant capacity, with two BNR treatment trainson-line.

The aeration blowers for the treatmentplant process with two BNR trains on-line wereoperated in a lead-and-lag configuration andcontrolled by the residual dissolved oxygen(DO) concentration. Typically, in the afternoon,during the daily high flows under this configu-ration, the lag blower came on-line as a backupfor the lead blower and contributed to a signif-icant increase in energy usage and demand.

A study conducted in 2009 showed thatthe operation of MPAWTF would be more cost-efficient, while also improving the treatmentperformance, by only operating one BNR basinuntil the average daily flows exceed 4.2 mgd.

Eliminating Conventional Aerobic Digestion Process:

Introducing Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Technology

In 2011 Bay County Utility Services im-plemented a new digester process technology

Wastewater Ephemeralization: Achieving BetterTreatment with Less Energy and Chemicals

Albert Bock

Albert Bock is wastewater operationssupervisor with Bay County Utility Services inPanama City.

F W R J

Military Point Regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility

Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016 19Florida Water Resources Journal • March 2016 19

and discontinued the conventional aerobic di-gester process. The new digester technologychanged the digester operation from continu-ously run aeration cycles to efficient nutrient-controlled digester aeration, which promotesfacultative biosolids stabilization environ-ments and reduces the digester aeration runtimes by greater than 80 percent. The digesteraeration cycles are strictly controlled by the di-gester nutrient ammonia and phosphorouslevels, which are measured by a nutrient ana-lyzer system.

The previous conventional aerobic di-gester stabilization process involved lengthyaeration times, resulting in high energy costsand slow biosolids hydrolysis rates. The con-ventional aerobic digestion process also re-duced the digester pH and alkalinity levels andtriggered the release of large amounts of phos-phorous from the aerated digester biosolids.Consequently, digester sidestream phospho-rous concentrations, often exceeding 250 mg/LPO4-P, were returned to the mainstreamwastewater treatment plant during decantingand biosolids dewatering.

The high phosphorous return loads fromthe aerobic digester units overloaded the bio-logical BNR phosphorus removal process andrequired the daily application of aluminumsulfate to maintain the effluent phosphorousconcentrations below the acceptable regulatorylevels. The addition of alum for phosphorousremoval also caused a pH lowering and alka-linity scavenging of the BNR mixed liquor dueto the properties of the chemical. This requiredthe addition of another chemical (lime) torestabilize the BNR pH levels.

The new facultative digester process tech-nology reduces the soluble phosphorous con-tent of the digester biosolids liquid phase byover 90 percent, completely without the use ofchemicals. The process provides over 80 per-cent in aeration power cost reduction, as wellas savings in chemical cost for effluent phos-phorous removal and sludge dewatering. Theimproved biosolids hydrolysis rates provide afaster reduction of the organic biosolids con-tent and result in reduced sludge haulingcosts.

Electrical Cost Reduction by Changing EnergyRate to Real-Time Pricing Rate Structure

In 2013 Bay County Utility Services andGulf Power Company conducted a survey toinvestigate further energy cost reduction op-tions. Gulf Power introduced Bay County staffto its RTP program, which gives Bay Countythe option of paying the actual energy cost ofelectricity at any given time, instead of beingcharged a consistent energy rate charge under

contract. The energy RTP model charges thecustomer hour by hour for the electricity usageaccordingly.

Bay County evaluated the wastewatertreatment power consumption profilesthroughout the years and identified criticalequipment and process sections that are nec-essary to run at all times for the treatmentprocess. The study showed that the RTP model

would be economically beneficial in the longterm and provides the utility additional costsavings.

In October 2013 Bay County started tooperate all utility facilities under the RTP en-ergy model and its responsibilities include aminimum one-year commitment to operateunder the model. With the change of the util-

Figure 1. Hour-by-Hour Real-Time Pricing Power Usage Charge

Figure 2. MPAWTF Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process SCADA Trend Chart: Ammonium and Phosphorous Reduction During Digester Aeration Cycle

Continued on page 20


ity power pricing model to RTP in October2013, Bay County wastewater staff reduced theneed of high power usage throughout the dailycritical-peak high-energy pricing tariffs (Fig-ure 1). The MPAWTF supervisor checks thepeak high-energy pricing tariffs two days in ad-vance and plans the treatment plant operationaccordingly. The utility has identified pointsources of treatment processes that can beturned off and put on standby until the criti-cal-peak high-energy pricing tariffs havepassed.

The point sources include:S Biosolids dewatering processS Digester aeration S Taking basins off-line S Rejecting pond returns

Alternation of Biological Nutrient RemovalAeration Control: Changing Aeration FromDissolved Oxygen to Ammonia Control

In 2014 Bay County Utility staff contin-ued with its energy conservation efforts andevaluated the BNR aeration process controlstrategy. The previous BNR aeration processcontrol method was based on maintaining aresidual DO of 1.8 mg/l to 2.0 mg/l at all timesafter the first BNR aeration zone.

The study that was conducted showedsignificant power cost savings and that long-term economic benefits were achieved by con-verting the wastewater treatment plantaeration control from residual DO to the moreefficient ammonia control. Ammonia-con-trolled BNR operation precisely evaluates therequired air demand and treats the incomingnitrogen and biochemical oxygen demand(BOD) loads more cost-effectively than con-ventional DO control. In addition to electri-cal cost savings, ammonia-controlled BNRoperation includes other wastewater treatmentplant process advantages, such as better han-dling of the BNR BOD and alkalinity invento-ries, which are directly related to theperformance of nitrogen and phosphorous re-moval.

Wastewater Ephemeralization Project Results

Operating One Biological Nutrient RemovalTrain Instead Of Two Trains

By operating only one BNR train insteadof two trains at flows below 4.2 mgd,MPAWTF was able to operate the facility withonly one aeration blower and a reduced quan-tity of BNR mixers and internal recycle pumps.This operating practice reduced the monthlyenergy usage charges by an average of 22,000

Figure 3. MPAWTF Annual Average Effluent Total Phosphorous Concentrations Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process

Figure 4. MPAWTF Digester Operation: Annual Chemical Cost for Effluent Phosphorous Control Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process

Figure 5. MPAWTF Digester Operation: Annual Power Cost Savings Before and After Implementation of Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Process



kilowatt-hours (kWh). The total annual powerusage cost savings averaged approximately$23,000.

Eliminating Aerobic Digestion Process: Introducing Facultative Biosolids Stabilization Technology

The newly introduced facultative biosolidsstabilization process changed the control of thedigester aeration from continuous aeration tonutrient-controlled aeration patterns. Theprocess precisely monitors the ammonia andphosphorous levels of the digester biosolidsand adjusts the aeration rates accordingly (Fig-ure 2). The process technology provides theutility numerous benefits in operation andmaintenance cost savings and achieves im-proved performance results in biosolids treat-ment and digester sidestream quality, whichdirectly impacts the wastewater treatmentplant BNR total phosphorous inventory and,respectively, the effluent phosphorous concen-trations.

The new facultative biosolids process re-duced the soluble phosphorous content of thedigester sidestream return flows by over 90percent to less than 10mg/L without the use ofphosphorus removing chemicals. The highphosphorous removal rate of the digesterprocess consequently maintains the BNRphosphorous inventory concentrations at lowlevels.

Since 2011 MPAWTF was able to discon-tinue the daily chemical feed for effluent phos-phorus removal and maintained effluentpermit compliance below 0.3 mg/l (annual av-erage P) as shown in Figure 3. The annualchemical cost savings for effluent phosphorousremoval averaged over $45,000 (Figure 4).

The facultative digester process technol-ogy also reduced the overall digester aerationtime by more than 80 percent, resulting in asubstantial reduction in the digester processenergy costs, with savings of more than 80 per-cent. The process reduced the annual digesterpower usage by over 800,219 kWh, which isequivalent to $85,000 in power cost savings(Figure 5).

The facultative anoxic digester treatmentenvironment provides much faster biosolidshydrolysis rates than the previous operatedaerobic digester process and results in a 30 per-cent faster reduction of the organic biosolidscontent. The increased digester biosolids hy-drolysis rates provide cost savings in polymerusage and sludge disposal.

The combined savings for power costs andchemicals for phosphorous removal alone ex-ceed $130,000 per year, with improved effluentphosphorous water quality results. The long-

term savings that are realized will be signifi-cant.

Electrical Cost Reduction by Changing EnergyRate to Real-Time Pricing Rate Structure

The MPAWTF experienced an average of9.26 percent power cost reduction since oper-ating under the RTP pricing model and has

been practicing a demand response plan forload sharing that calls for only operating the es-sential equipment necessary for the wastewatertreatment process during the high power usagerates. Since implementation of the RTP energymodel, Bay County Utility Services has savedapproximately $26,000 a year in electrical costs.

Figure 6. FY 2013 Under Fixed-Price Contract and FY 2014 Under Real-Time Pricing Contract,Month-to-Month Power Cost Reduction

Figure 7. MPAWTF Power Usage (kWh) per MG Flow Treated



Additional benefits of the energy plan are:S Gulf Power Energy Company has excessgenerating capacity that allows the electriccompany to utilize its most efficient powergenerating plants.

S The new rate plan allows Bay County UtilityServices to see the most expensive power pe-riods two days in advance, which providesenough planning to shift some equipmentusage during lower-cost periods.

The monthly power cost reduction per-formance under the RTP model is shown in Fig-ure 6.

The MPAWTF also implemented electri-cal load and demand management in October2013. The facility successfully continued tomaintain effluent permit requirements at re-duced electrical demand charges. The availablebackup capacity of the wastewater treatmentplant allows Bay County staff to comfortablyshift the operation of high horsepower equip-ment within lower power usage periods.

Point sources for electrical demand man-agement include:S Biosolids dewatering processS Digester aeration S Taking basins off-lineS Rejecting pond return flows

Alternation of Biological Nutrient RemovalAeration Control: Changing Aeration FromDissolved Oxygen to Ammonia Control

Since the installation of the new ammoniasensors for BNR aeration control, MPAWTF ex-perienced a significant reduction of powerusage costs. The power usage for BNR aerationwas reduced from 865 kWh/mil gal (MG)treated to 690 kWh/MG treated and is equiva-

lent to approximately $22,000 in annual powercost savings.

The BNR is operated with a residual am-monia concentration of 1.0 mg/L after the firstaeration zone, which also provides enhancednitrogen removal results, conservation of BNRalkalinity, and prevents BNR overaeration.

Summary of Results

The MPAWTF has been recognized overthe years for its outstanding achievements inefficient treatment plant operation and haswon the following plant operation awards: S 2012 Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection Operations Excellence Award

S 2012 Runner-Up for Florida Water and En-vironment Association Earle B. PhelpsAward

S 2013 Winner of Florida Water and Environ-ment Association Earle B. Phelps Award

S 2013 Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection Operations Excellence Award

S 2015 Runner-Up for Florida Water and En-vironment Association Earle B. PhelpsAward

The utility staff demonstrates economicaland effective methods to achieve improvedwastewater effluent and biosolids performanceresults with substantial energy and chemicalcost conservations. Energy and chemical costsavings today are a very important part of thedaily plant operating routine. Energy con-sumption and the hour-to-hour energy pricesare continuously monitored by MPAWTF plantpersonnel.

Monthly operating reports document theenergy consumption and the performance ofthe new process projects. With the implemen-

tation of the energy improvement projects, BayCounty Utility Services was able to reverse theincreasing power costs for its wastewater treat-ment plant operation.

The historical trend chart in Figure 7demonstrates the power cost savings thatMPAWTF experienced since the implementa-tion of the new process implementations after2011. The blue trend line illustrates the actualenergy usage per MG treaded. The new processimplementations reduced the power usage from2,700 kWh/MG to less than 2,000 kWh/MG.

The wastewater treatment plant staff istrained and skilled to identify the energy con-sumption rates of the wastewater treatmentprocess sections and treat the wastewater to themost effective and reasonable cost to the cus-tomer, while at the same time meeting stringentClass III surface water permit requirements.

Bay County Utility Services identified fur-ther energy conservation measures that includethe replacement of the existing plant halogenlighting with light-emitting diode (LED) fixturesand installation of variable frequency drives(VFDs). All future equipment replacements willbe evaluated based on their energy efficiency andcost-effectiveness to provide the facility with themost energy-efficient infrastructure.

Since the implementation of the newprocess changes, MPAWTF reduced its powerusage by an estimated 1,700,000 kWh per year,which is equivalent to 1,100 tons of reducedcarbon emissions. The efforts of Bay CountyUtility Services to reduce chemicals and powercosts for its treatment plant operation notonly saved the customers money, it also pro-vides a more consistent high-quality effluentinto St. Andrews Bay and plays an importantrole when it comes to protecting the environ-ment. SS

Albert Bock performs a system check on the di-gester nutrient analyzer system.

Lloyd Kadlec, shift lead operator, at the SCADA computerchecking the biological nutrient removal ammonia reduc-tion performance.

The facility’s digester during the aeration cycle per-forming ammonium and phosphorus reduction.


FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDARSCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY!

* Backflow recertification is also available the last day of BackflowTester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona

** Evening classes

*** any retest given also

March14-18..........Spring State Short SchoolSpring State Short School ........................Ft. Pierce28-31..........Backflow Tester*............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405

April4-6..........Backflow Repair* ..........................................St. Petersburg ....$275/305

11-15..........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........Osteen..............$350/38018-21..........*Backflow Tester............................................Bonita Springs ..$375/40518-21 ........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ........St. Petersburg ....$350/380

29..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen..............$85/115

May2-5..........Backflow Tester ............................................Osteen..............$375/405

16-19..........*Backflow Tester............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/40516-20..........Utility Maintenance Level III ........................Osteen..............$225/255

27..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen..............$85/115

June6-10..........Wastewater Collection C, B ........................Osteen..............$225/255

20-22..........Backflow Repair ............................................Osteen..............$275/30527-30..........*Backflow Tester............................................St. Petersburg ....$375/405

24..........***Backflow Tester recert ............................Osteen ............$85/11527- July 1 ......Water Distribution level 1............................Osteen..............$225/25527- July 1 ......Wastewater Collection A ............................Osteen..............$225/25527- July 1 ......Stormwater A ................................................Osteen..............$225/255

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools

and most other courses.

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 [email protected].



We are the caretakers of the most im-portant natural resource on theplanet. No matter what your politics

or religion, the need for water makes us equal.No matter what role you play in the family ofutility caretakers, you are held to a higher stan-dard.

Those of you who are in charge of a watertreatment system have the responsibility to ful-fill that role with the upmost integrity. If youmanage or are on a crew that takes care of asewer collection system, you must perform yourduties in a manner that protects the water tableand aquifer. You should protect against spills,and if they do occur, take measures to containthe wastewater and prevent it from entering thestormwater system or surface waters. If youwork in the water reuse discipline, stand guardand maintain quality standards that you can beproud of. Good maintenance is the key to goodoperation—be vigilant in the work you per-form.

I am heartbroken when the news is filledwith politicians who take the low road for theirown political gain. I wonder, as I am sure someof you do: where were the experts? Where werethe water system champions who should haveadvised these politicians? The Flint River watercrisis is an example of not looking at the detailsof the water supply, treatment, and distributionsystems. Whether the decision to not use corro-sion inhibitors was a budget issue—or just ablunder—is less important to me than why theutility team did not stop it.

According to CNN reports, it’s still notclear who made the decision not to use controlsto protect the city’s pipes from the corrosivewater, or why a granulated activated carbon fil-ter, which would have reduced the need to addchemicals to the water that also ate away at thepipes, wasn’t used as recommended. But citizensare convinced that these decisions were madenot out of mere incompetence, but deliberately,with an eye to reducing costs.

Chemical tests could have predicted thecorrosion in the pipes that is now being blamed

for endangering the health of thousands of vul-nerable Flint residents by elevating lead levels intheir water supply. Certainly there was an aware-ness of the lead pipes that were part of the dis-tribution system in the city. The families ofmany utility personnel had to be among thoseaffected, so there is certainly more to the storythan we are being told. I would hope that manyof those in the know spoke up. We all knowthere is a line you do not cross in the criticism ofa path your utility is about to follow, but at thevery least you should speak the truth.

I am still an idealist when it comes to ourprofession and the commitment I believe weshould have to fulfill our roles with integrity. Iam not naive enough to say that all the watersystem operations people I know are willing torisk losing their jobs over demanding that thecity officials take the high road; I do, however,believe in you, as people who chose a professionto make a difference while also making a living.At some point during our careers, we (hope-fully) begin to understand the importance ofour roles in the protection of the environment.We are all part of an industry where how we dowhat we do is so important.

This brief tirade on idealism does not stopwith management or politicians. You cannothold others to a higher standard than the oneyou live yourself. Saying things like “How couldthey?” is more credible when you are doing yourbest. Do not be caught up in the wave of apathythat overtakes workers who are consumed bythe thoughts that the utility they work for doesnot deserve their best effort. It is not the city orutility you work for, but the future of water sup-ply itself.

There is no new water; the water we drinktoday was around when dinosaurs ruled theworld. (Yeah, get over it; all of our drinking

water has been through both ends of animalsmany times.) Where the water supply may be fi-nite, the population continues to grow and thatincreases the importance of our work and theneed for vigilance in our duties.

Hope on the Horizon

There is a great hope on the horizon. I havemet many utility workers—young and not soyoung—who want to make a positive difference.I’m impressed by some of our new instructorswho teach from a fresh perspective and have apassion to make a positive difference in the util-ity field. There are scores of new operatortrainees taking courses and sitting for the stateexams each year. Our profession is attractingyoung and talented workers who are themselvesidealistic enough to challenge the way things arefor the way they could be.

The courses these professionals take aretaught by some of the best people I have known.I am proud to be even a small part of the FWPCOA family. At the very first meeting I at-tended as a region director, I was hooked. Theroom was full of experts in all the disciplines ofutility operations. Bill Allman, Lee Craft, ArtSaey, Ray Bourdner, Al Montelone, and RimBishop were some of the key instructors andleaders of the organization at the time. I was in-spired by the way they earned the respect oftheir students and fellow members. I wanted tobe part of that club of instructors; they were likea utility “Rat Pack.”

Remember that FWPCOA is dedicated tothe training and betterment of all personnelworking in the utility field. The leadership andcore training team spend hours of their freetime writing and fine-tuning courses as volun-teers.

As I moved through the organization indifferent roles, I was even more impressed by allof its members. I have enjoyed the time I havespent in each of these endeavors and wouldhighly recommend to anyone out there to getinvolved, because the rewards of being part ofsomething where the product is so much biggerthan the sum of its parts has been a wonderfulexperience.

I am by no means done and will continueto support this organization to the best of myability. From the bottom of my heart, thanks toall the past, current, and future members ofFWPCOA. SS

Thomas KingPresident, FWPCOA

C FACTOR

To Be Held to a Higher Standard



The City of Vero Beach (City) currentlyowns and operates a 3.3-mil-gal-per-day(mgd) reverse osmosis water treatment fa-

cility (ROWTF) that was constructed in the early1990s using 8.5-in. diameter pressure vessels. Thefacility currently operates a single 2-mgd reverseosmosis (RO) skid containing 8.5-in. membraneelements that were installed in August 2003. TheCity contracted with Reiss Engineering Inc. to as-sist with the replacement of the 10-year-old mem-branes as recent improvements in membranetechnology have resulted in more efficient mem-branes requiring less pressure for the same rejec-tion performance. However, with the industrynow standardized on the 8-in. diameter element,locating manufacturers willing to fabricate lowerpressure, 8.5-in. diameter membrane elementswas uncertain. This article presents the steps takento evaluate and select a replacement membranefor the ROWTF and the associated benefits to theCity of Vero Beach.

Membrane Availability

Seven membrane element manufacturers/suppliers in the United States were contacted todetermine whether 8.5-in. diameter membraneswere available. Out of the seven manufacturers/suppliers, only three indicated that they could

supply the membrane elements: Hydranautics,Trisep, and CSM.

In addition to being able to provide 8.5-in.membrane elements, it was necessary to have NSF61 certification from the National SanitationFoundation (per 62.555-320(3)(b)1.a. Florida Ad-ministrative Code (F.A.C.), any equipment,chemicals, and materials, such as RO membraneelements that are in contact with drinking water,must be NSF 61-certified). Of the three manufac-turers that confirmed the ability to provide theneeded elements, most of their membrane ele-ments that would be appropriate for this brack-ish water application were not yet NSF61-certified; only a few membranes from Hydra-nautics are NSF 61-certified, while the majority ofthe membranes from Hydranautics and the othermanufacturers are not (See Table 1 for summary).

The representative from Hydranautics statedthat the NSF certification could be attained, butwould take four to six weeks; the representative ofCSM stated that the NSF certification may takethree months. In addition, the CSM membraneswould not be wet tested prior to shipping, whichwould lead to testing the membranes after they wereinstalled in the full-scale skid. In the event that thereplaced membrane elements do not meet mem-brane performance requirements, CSM would haveto replace the noncompliant membranes.

Membrane Projections

From the three membrane manufacturers/sup-pliers in the U.S. that have capabilities to pro-vide the membrane elements, severalmembranes were evaluated through a desktopanalysis. Membrane projections utilizing man-ufacturer’s software were completed to predictthe water quality and pressure requirements foreach selected membrane model and identifiedconfiguration. The projections were based on a2-mgd skid (36x15 array configuration) usingthe worst raw water quality, which is total dis-solved solids (TDS) of approximately 1,500mg/L. For the membrane projections, the rawwater pH was adjusted to 6.0 standardized units(SU) by the addition of sulfuric acid, as cur-rently practiced at the plant. In addition, theprojections were made without applying per-meate back pressure on the first stage, as thereare no capabilities to do so on the existing skid.Only low-pressure RO membranes that rejectenough chloride were selected, since the chlo-ride concentration goal in the permeate was es-tablished at 60 mg/L or less (year 0). The resultsare presented in Table 2.

Trisep Membrane ProjectionsOut of the five Trisep membrane configu-

rations that were evaluated, the ACM4 configu-ration and the hybrid ACM2/ACM4 membraneconfiguration were viable options to meet thewater quality goals with relatively low pressurerequirements. The advantage of the hybrid sys-tem is that the flux is better balanced betweenboth stages compared to the use of ACM4 mem-brane in both stages; however, the hybrid sys-

Replacing Membranes To Save Energy at City Of Vero Beach Reverse Osmosis

Water Treatment Facility C. Robert Reiss, Christophe Robert, and Robert J. Bolton

C. Robert Reiss, Ph.D., P.E., is president andclient services manager, and ChristopheRobert, Ph.D., P.E., is project manager withReiss Engineering Inc. in Winter Springs.Robert J. Bolton, P.E., is water and sewer ad-ministration division director with City ofVero Beach.

F W R J

Table 1. Membrane Availability and NSF 61 Certification


tem requires approximately 20 more pounds persq in. (psi) of feed pressure. The ACM2 andSB20 membranes were not further evaluated asthese membranes would reject too much hard-ness and alkalinity and exceed the feed pressuresof the ACM2/ACM4 membrane configuration.The ACM5 membrane would meet the waterquality goals; however, the flux is significantlyunbalanced between stages one and two.

In order to balance the production be-tween stage one and two, a piping/valve modi-fication would be required to apply a permeateback pressure of approximately 50 psi in the

first stage of the membrane configuration. An-other option to balance the fluxes included in-stalling an energy recovery device (ERD) tolower the feed pressure (eliminate the first-stage back pressure) and recover the energy ofthe concentrate to boost the feed pressure to thesecond stage. The City is not intending to mod-ify the skid and, therefore, the ACM5 mem-brane was not recommended. As such, only theACM4 and hybrid ACM2/ACM4 membraneconfigurations from Trisep were considered forfurther evaluation.

CSM Membrane ProjectionsThree membrane configurations from CSM

were evaluated, and the hybrid BLR/BLF config-uration was the most viable option that met thewater quality goals and pressure requirements.The projections evaluating the BLR membranesalone had higher pressure requirements com-pared to the hybrid system and rejected too muchcalcium hardness and alkalinity; therefore, theywere not evaluated further within this study. TheBLF membrane met the water quality goals, butwithout back pressure in the first stage, the flows


Table 2. Membrane Projections


are significantly unbalanced between the twomembrane stages. Therefore, the BLF membranewas also not considered for further evaluation.

Hydranautics Membrane ProjectionsThree membrane configurations from Hy-

dranautics were evaluated, and similar to the CSMmembranes, this hybrid configuration was themost viable option compared to the ESPA1 orESPA2 configurations. Out of the three options,the hybrid ESPA2/ESPA1 system resulted in a bet-ter flux balance.

Desktop SummaryBased on the computer projections of per-

formance, the following membrane configura-tions were deemed feasible for further evaluationat bench scale (single-element testing):S Trisep ACM4S Trisep ACM2/ACM4S CSM BLR/BLFS Hydranautics ESPA2/ESPA1

For each configuration, the projected feedpressure requirement is within the existing high-pressure pump capacity (445 ft TDH–192 psi), asthe maximum projected feed pressure for the se-

lected membrane configurations would be 165 psiafter seven years. In addition, the estimated pres-sure requirements are for the worst expected rawwater quality; therefore, it is anticipated that thefeed pressure would be lower under normal oper-ation of the ROWTF when using average waterquality. The high-pressure pumps are equippedwith variable frequency drives (VFDs), and conse-quently, the City has the capability to adjust the feedpressure, ultimately reducing electrical consump-tion upon installation of the new membranes.

Blended Water Quality Projections

For the four membrane configurations se-lected, a desktop blending analysis was performedto evaluate the water quality of the finished waterafter blending the ROWTF permeate with thelime-softened water treatment facility (LSWTF)filtrate. The following criteria were used:S A blend ratio of 2:1 for RO permeate toLSWTF filtrate. This ratio would be used whenthe ROWTF is expanded (as part of a separateproject). Currently, the ratio of RO permeateto LS filtrate is 1:2.

S An estimated 80 percent removal of carbonicacid from the permeate stream through the de-gasification process (degasification is used to

remove the sulfide in the permeate but will alsoremove carbonic acid). This removal of car-bonic acid resulted in an increase of pH of 0.7-0.9 SU in the permeate.

Table 3 presents the projected blended fin-ished water quality, as well as the existing fin-ished water quality and the finished water qualitygoals. As expected, the TDS and chloride con-centrations in the finished water would be lowerthan the concentrations currently observed,while the blended alkalinity would be similar.The main difference in the projected versus thecurrent water quality would be the calcium con-centration, as it is projected to be significantlylower than the current concentration. As previ-ously evaluated, a recommended option to in-crease the calcium concentration in the finishedwater includes decreasing the lime dose at theLSWTF in order to increase the calcium concen-tration in the LSWTF finished water.

It is important to note that these calculationswere made at a 2:1 ratio for RO/LS, which wouldcorrespond to the ratio that will be used once theROWTF is expanded. Until expansion of theROWTF, the finished water quality would be sim-ilar to the existing finished water quality.

Table 3. Projected Finished Water Quality (After Caustic Addition)




Single-Element Testing

Based on the desktop evaluation, the four selected membrane configurations for single-element testing were:S Hydranautics hybrid system ESPA2/ESPA1S Trisep ACM4S Trisep hybrid system ACM2/ACM4S CSM hybrid system BLR/BLF

The six membranes were tested in a single-element unit to confirm the relative pressure re-quirements and the rejection capabilities. For each

test, the pressure was recorded and permeate sam-ples were collected to analyze specific parametersin order to evaluate the membrane performance.

Each membrane was tested at multiple dif-ferent recoveries, and recoveries from 15 to 85percent were selected in order to simulate thewater quality of the front end and the back end ofthe full-scale plant, respectively. In each set of con-ditions, recycling of the concentrate was requiredto maintain minimum flow across the membrane(Figure 1). The operating conditions for the testsdescribed are presented in Table 4. Samples of thepermeate stream were collected for laboratoryanalysis of membrane water quality.

For each test, feed pressure, as well as per-

meate, feed, and concentrate conductivities, wereregularly monitored to determine whether thesystem reached steady state, which is when thepermeate conductivity reading is within 5 percentof the previous conductivity reading. Pressure wasalso monitored and stayed consistent during thewhole specific test.

Single-Element Testing ResultsThis section presents the results obtained

during the single-element testing and assesses theperformance of the membranes in terms of pres-sure requirement and water quality. As describedearlier, the feed pressure and conductivities weremonitored for each test until steady state wasachieved. The final feed pressure and TDS, calcu-lated based on field conductivity measurements,are presented in Table 5. Note that the feed pres-sure values are not representative of the expectedfull-scale pressure since the test was performed ona single element. However, because each mem-brane was tested under the same operating con-ditions, the relative differences in pressure andwater quality are the basis of membrane selectionfor bidding.

Pressure RequirementsFor each of the three manufacturers consid-

ered for this installation (supplying 8.5-in. mem-brane elements), a hybrid system was therecommended alternative, with a tighter mem-brane in the first stage and a looser membrane inthe second stage. In addition, Trisep provided afourth alternative, consisting of ACM4 membranein both stages. For the four first-stage membranes(ACM4, ESPA2, ACM2, and BLR) two recoveries(15 percent and 65 percent) were tested. The pres-sure requirements for each membrane at each re-covery are presented in Figure 2; the Trisep ACM4requires 14 to 20 less psi than the other threemembranes at 65 percent recovery.

For the three stage-two membranes (ACM4,ESPA1, and BLF) two recoveries (65 percent and85 percent) were tested. The pressure require-ments for each membrane at each recovery arepresented in Figure 3, which shows that the CSMBLF requires approximately 20 percent less psithan the other two membranes at both recoveriestested. The Hydranautics ESPA1 and the TrisepACM4 had similar pressure requirements.

The stage-one membrane pressure require-ment will drive the overall pressure requirementof the system for the selected configurations inthis analysis. Therefore, based on the stage-onepressure results, a system using only the ACM4membranes would require the lowest feed pres-sure, and the Hydranautics membrane configu-ration would result in the lowest feed pressureamong the three hybrid systems.

Table 5. Bench-Scale Study Results

Table 4. Bench-Scale Study Operation Settings

Figure 1. Single-Element Unit Flow Diagram




Figure 2. Stage-One Membrane Pressure Requirements Figure 3. Stage-Two Membrane Pressure Requirements

Figure 4. Stage-One Membrane TDS Figure 5. Stage-Two Membrane TDS

Figure 6. Stage-One Membrane Chloride Figure 7. Stage-Two Membrane Chloride


Based solely on pressure requirements fromthe single-element unit testing, the membraneconfigurations are ranked as follows:1. Trisep ACM4 in both stages one and two2. Hydranautics ESPA2 in stage one and Hydra-nautics ESPA1 in stage two

3. Trisep ACM2 in stage one and Trisep ACM4 instage two

4. CSM BLR in stage one and CSM BLF in stagetwo

Water QualityThe water quality of the permeate produced

from the tested membranes was evaluated andthen compared to the projected water qualityfrom the membrane projections.

The permeate TDS for each membrane ateach recovery is shown in Figures 4 and 5. As seenin both figures, the stage-one ESPA2 and ACM2membranes and the stage-two ESPA1 and ACM4membranes show similar performance in termsof TDS. The CSM BLR/BLF membranes have thelowest TDS rejection. The permeate chloride isshown in Figures 6 and 7. The same observationsmade for performance in terms of TDS rejectionare also valid for chloride rejection.

The water quality from each single-elementtest was compiled to predict the water quality ofthe full-scale system. The water quality was calcu-lated using a weighted average of the water qual-

ity from both stages. The predicted water qualityfrom the testing was then compared to the pro-jected water quality from the membrane projec-tions. The results are presented in Table 6.

From Table 6, the predicted water qualityfrom the projections and the observed water qual-ity from the testing are relatively close, with theexception of chloride for both Trisep membraneconfigurations. Both Trisep configurations re-vealed that calculated chloride rejections (calcu-lations based on water quality results from tests atdifferent recoveries) were better than predictedfrom the software. For the Hydranautics system,the observed water quality from the testing wasbetter than expected from the projections. How-ever, for the CSM system, the opposite was ob-served: the predicted water quality from themembrane projection was better than the calcu-lated water quality observed during testing.

The discrepancy between water quality pre-dicted from the membrane projection and fromthe actual testing could be explained by the factthat the one membrane tested may not be a rep-resentative average of the associated membranemodel. Past experience with the CSM membranesshowed that calculated water quality had been rel-atively close to the projections. A recent pilotstudy using CSM membranes (BLR/BLF hybridconfiguration) performed in south Florida is anexample where the actual water quality observedwas very close to the projections.

From the water quality results, the CSM BLRmembrane has the lowest salt rejection, and asshown in the previous subsection, has the highestpressure requirement. Therefore, the CSM mem-brane configuration was not recommended forbidding. Single-element testing results are sum-marized as follows:S All four membrane configurations tested metthe water quality goals.

S The Trisep ACM4 membrane configuration re-quires less pressure than the other membraneconfigurations.

S The CSM BLR/BLF membrane configurationproduced the worst water quality at the highestpressure among the four membrane configu-rations tested.

S The hybrid membrane configurations fromTrisep (ACM2/ACM4) and Hydranautics(ESPA2/ESPA1) resulted in similar results interms of water quality and pressure require-ments.

Based on the pilot study analysis, it was rec-ommended that the City pre-approve the follow-ing membrane configurations for bidding on themembrane replacement project:S Trisep • ACM4 in both stages• ACM2 in stage one and ACM4 in stage two

S Hydranautics• ESPA 2 in stage one and ESPA1 in stage two

Energy and Cost SavingsA return on investment for the existing train,

when using new membrane elements, was alsoperformed prior to actual bidding. The energysavings were estimated to be approximately$76,600 per year (Table 7) in operating the exist-ing train after replacing the existing membranes.Assuming a cost of $540 per membrane, andtherefore, a total of $193,000 to replace the mem-branes in the existing skid, the payback period forthe membrane replacement investment would beapproximately 2.5 years. The payback period issignificantly sooner than the life expectancy of themembrane elements of seven to 10 years.

Summary

The City has bid the membrane replacementproject, with bids received from both Hydranau-tics and Trisep. Based on an analysis of the capitalcosts and operating costs, Trisep ACM4 mem-branes were selected. The membrane replacementproject was completed in August 2015. The de-tailed assessment of options for replacing theCity’s 8.5-in. elements has assured continued lifefor the existing RO skid, while providing signifi-cant cost savings to the City. SS

Table 6. Predicted Water Quality From Membrane Projections and From Testing

Table 7. Energy and Financial Evaluation for the Existing Train




The expectation of most drinking watercustomers is pretty simple: safe, clean,colorless, and great-tasting water every

time they turn on their faucet. For water pro-fessionals, water quality is quite a bit more com-plicated. We start with finding an abundant,good-quality source water, whether it’s fromgroundwater or surface water. Then, we designa treatment facility to remove any detectablecontaminants, disinfect it, pump it throughclean pipelines, and deliver it to customers’homes—where they often take it for granteduntil something goes wrong.

Recent events in Flint, Mich., concerningits water quality remind us that things don’t al-ways go as planned. Also, regulations and mon-itoring don’t solve all treatment problems if thedata obtained from this monitoring is not prop-erly analyzed, or other factors, such as financ-ing, come in to play. I am not going to pretendto understand the details behind the lead crisisin Flint, Mich., but a little bit of research intothe history of water supply in that city pointsout the decision making that lead to the crisis.

Flint was experiencing significant watershortages in the 1950s in a post-war economyas the city tried to supply sufficient water forboth its citizens and the industrial activities forthe automobile manufacturing that drove its jobcreation. The city administration members an-alyzed alternatives to save water in the factoriesand extended the conservation lessons learnedto their homes. They also made the connectionthat, by conserving at the factories and at home,they could save on treating wastewater, reduce

waste streams to the rivers, including the FlintRiver, and reduce pollution.

Even after these water-saving efforts weremade, public works officials hired consultantsto study the issue of water supply and waste-water treatment. They found that, in droughtyears, they were going to be significantly shorton their needed water supply, so they investi-gated the possibility of a pipeline to Lake Huronand also purchasing water from Detroit.

Flint’s expenditures to self-supply would besomething between $40 and $100 million overthe 40-year projections evaluated, but the esti-mated cost to purchase treated water from De-troit was less than $10 million over a similartimeframe. Self-supply is often the first choicefor a water utility, allowing autonomy for theutility and more control over future costs, andperhaps more assurance for the best water qual-ity by having more control over the operatorand maintenance staff. After much politicalback-and-forth, the decision was made to pur-chase water from Detroit as the primary watersource in the mid-1960s.

Fast forward to 2014 when, after factoryclosings and changes in the economy, Flintmade a decision to stop purchasing water fromDetroit and to start self-supplying treated waterfrom the Flint River. This decision was appar-ently made by a state emergency manager. It wasto be an interim solution until it could negoti-ate a new purchased water agreement.

Shortly after the new supply went intoservice, customers noticed. They complained oftaste and odor issues and there were many totalcoliform occurrences that lead to boil-water no-tices. Confidence in the water supply—and thewater supplier—were already low, and thenphysicians determined that lead was being de-tected in the bloodstreams of children at muchhigher levels than normal. The treated watersupply from the Flint River appeared to be morecorrosive than the Detroit source, and as manyany of the service lines in Flint are old and con-

tain lead, they began to corrode and release leadinto the water.

After much national publicity, Flint subse-quently changed its water source back to Detroitin October 2015, but it’s not known how long itwill take to stabilize the corrosion and get leadlevels back to a safe level at the tap.

Water professionals know that water chem-istry and maintaining water quality is muchmore complex than just H2O. If Flint, like allcommunity systems in the United States, is sub-ject to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s Lead and Copper Rule, which was es-tablished in 1991 and revised in 2007, how doessomething like this happen?

The rule requires sampling at a frequencyof every three years. Perhaps sampling at theminimum frequency is not appropriate for anew source if problems cannot be found beforethey show up in the customers’ taps. No regula-tion seems to be perfect and to address everyissue. Often, as in the case of this rule, changesare made after the data is analyzed to make theregulation more effective.

Major improvements to the rule in 2007 at-tempted to do a better job in helping utilities de-termine the best approach to corrosion controltreatment, and also to expedite the removal oflead service lines and their replacement withlead-free materials. The EPA has issued guid-ance documents to assist utilities and encouragethem to work with primacy agencies prior tosource water changes. Because of the issue inFlint, regulatory changes are sure to come to en-hance the rule.

In a cash-strapped utility, lead service linereplacement is not viable without funding as-sistance. This is a reality for many waterproviders that need to prioritize funding and beable to take appropriate actions to always pro-vide safe water to consumers.

Further consequences of the events in Flinthave been the national-level fallout. PresidentObama declared a state of emergency and EPA

Kim KunihiroChair, FSAWWA

Unintended Consequences to WaterQuality When Changing Water Sources

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

FloridaSection


published a memo to all of its regions on moreeffective corrosion control to respond to a crisislike the one in Flint.

The Flint dilemma was the subject of con-tentious hearings in Congress before the HouseOversight and Government Reform Committee.In February, the issue affected passage of a com-prehensive energy bill when a senator in Michi-gan vowed to hold up the bill unless Flint getsthe financial aid it has requested to solve itswater problems. The funding mechanism isunder debate, including the possibility of usingstate revolving loan funds, or perhaps fundsfrom the Water Infrastructure Finance and In-novation Act. This act, however, was designed toprovide funding for long-term infrastructure re-placement projects, not for disaster relief andgrants.

The Flint situation underscores somethingthat all water professionals should pay attentionto. Our first job is to protect the communitieswe serve; when we consider funding, our cus-tomers and our water quality should be the toppriority. As water providers, we should not takeanything for granted. The financial decisionmakers should be well informed about waterquality, water sources, and the costs for propertreatment and infrastructure replacement be-fore they make changes and prioritize funding.We can educate each other, our boards, policydecision makers, and our customers that waterquality takes more than pumping H2O.

You can find out so much more about leadin drinking water from AWWA atwww.awwa.org. The association has establisheda lead resource community link on the websiteto provide insight and guidance on corrosioncontrol and lead management. Guidance is alsoavailable to help utilities discuss water qualityissues and lead with consumers atDrinkTap.org.

You can also keep up with what the best ofthe best in drinking water treatment are doingin Florida. Participate in the upcoming regionaldrinking water tastes tests that are happeningthroughout FSAWWA regions in March:S Region II: Tuesday, March 8, 11:30 a.m.-2 p.m., JEA Conservation Center, Jacksonville

S Region IV: March 11, 11 a.m.-1:30 p.m.,Weeki Wachee Springs State Park

S Region XI: March 17, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m., Cityof Newberry Municipal Building

S Region X: March 18, 10 a.m.-12 p.m., PeaceRiver Water Treatment Facility, Arcadia

These regional events will culminate in thestatewide Best Drinking Water Competition tobe held at the Florida Water Resources Confer-ence on Tuesday, April 26, at the Gaylord PalmsResort and Convention Center in Kissimmee.SS


U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell hasannounced that the department will establish aNatural Resource Investment Center to spurpartnerships with the private sector to developcreative financing opportunities that supporteconomic development goals, while advancingthe department’s resource stewardship mission.

At a White House Roundtable on Water In-novation, Jewell stated that the Center will usemarket-based tools and innovative public–pri-vate collaborations to increase investment inwater conservation and critical water infra-structure, as well as promote investments thatconserve important habitats in a manner thatadvances efficient permitting and meaningfullandscape-level conservation.

“Given increased development pressures,climate impacts, and constrained budgets, theInterior is pursuing innovative approaches withprivate-sector organizations to help accomplishour balanced land management and conserva-tion mission,” Secretary Jewell said. “As a formerchief executive officer, I am confident the privatesector can play a meaningful role in workingwith us to advance the goals of smart develop-ment alongside thoughtful conservation.”

The Center will work closely with the pri-vate sector and others to identify innovative ideasand financing options for projects that conservescarce water resources and protect species habitat.

The Center will focus on three objectives:1. Increase investment in water conservationand build up water supply resilience by facil-

itating water exchanges or transfers in theUnited States.

2. Increase investment in critical water infra-structure–both major rehabilitation and re-placement of existing infrastructure and newinfrastructure needs–by developing new fi-nancing approaches and helping to executeproject ideas.

3. Foster private investment and support well-structured markets that advance efficientpermitting and effective landscape-level con-servation for species, habitat, and other nat-ural resources.

The Center is part of President Obama’sBuild America Investment Initiative, which callson federal agencies to find new ways to increaseinvestment in ports, roads, water and sewer sys-tems, bridges, broadband networks, and other21st-century infrastructure projects, and Pay forSuccess, an initiative that seeks to employ inno-vative new strategies to help ensure that the es-sential services of government produce theirintended outcomes. The infrastructure improve-ments are facilitated by building partnershipsamong federal, state, local, and tribal govern-ments and private-sector investors. The U.S. De-partments of Transportation and Agriculture andthe Environmental Protection Agency have alsocreated centers in response to these initiatives.

The Center will harness the expertise of thedepartment’s bureaus, including the Bureau ofReclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bu-

reau of Land Management, National Park Serv-ice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and United StatesGeological Survey, and will tap external private-sector experience to deliver on its objectives.

The Center will model its water efficiencyand transfer efforts in part on the successful ini-tiatives of the Central Valley Project (CVP) in Cal-ifornia. The CVP improves operational flexibilityand water supply reliability through expanded useof voluntary water transfers. Individuals or waterdistricts receiving CVP water can transfer all or aportion of their water to other California waterusers or a water agency, state or federal agency,tribes, or private nonprofit organizations.Through this program, between 300,000 and400,000 acre-ft of water is transferred in a typicalyear, allowing high-value agriculture and cities tomaintain deliveries through scarcity.

To promote increased investment in criticalwater infrastructure, the Center will also work todevelop new financing approaches and engagewith nonfederal partners to make investments thatbuild water supply resilience. These could includestorage, pipelines, canals, and investments in effi-ciency that help to stretch and better managescarce water supplies and sustain river ecosystems.

One recent example of this approach is theWarren H. Brock Reservoir in California. To re-spond more effectively to the changing condi-tions on the river, Reclamation and stakeholdersin Nevada, Arizona, and California collabora-tively constructed this storage facility to conservewater and maximize the use of available watersupplies. The Bureau of Reclamation conductedenvironmental compliance, oversaw construc-tion, and integrated the project into its opera-tions in the Lower Colorado River system, andthe project was completed in roughly two years.

The Center will also identify opportunitiesfor private-sector investments in important habi-tat conservation needs on public and private lands.One creative example is demonstrated in a part-nership among Interior, Barrick Gold of NorthAmerica, and The Nature Conservancy to enhancehabitat in Nevada for the greater sage grouse. Theagreement allowed Barrick to accumulate creditsfor successful habitat improvement projects on itsprivate ranchlands. In return, the company re-ceives assurance from the Interior that the creditscan be used to offset impact to habitat fromplanned future mine expansion on public lands.

The Department of the Interior manages ap-proximately 20 percent of the land in the UnitedStates, and is the largest wholesale water providerin the country. The Department is establishing theCenter under its existing authorities.

Dept. of Interior Creates Natural Resource Investment Center to Increase Water Funding


Most of you using elemental chlorine inyour disinfection process have proba-bly already been notified by your sup-

plier of some of the new safety improvements forton containers and cylinders. The new emergencyresponse kits are a significant improvement overprevious ones, and if your staff is doing emer-gency response, the cost of the kits are not asmuch as a couple of air packs.

What prompted this written update was notthe new kits; it was actually a preview of a brandnew training DVD from the Chlorine Institute.As a member of the national Water EnvironmentFederation Safety Committee, I was invited topreview a beta version of the video and makecomments.

After getting a chance to look at the infor-mation, I was very pleased by what was pre-sented. All workers who handle, store, or processelemental chlorine should know the informationcontained in this training package. Working withchlorine safely is based on a solid understandingof the chemical, and this training shows that.Clear visuals and excellent graphics provide op-erators and maintenance personnel with the keysto working safely in and around chlorine con-tainers, cylinders, and process equipment.

I don’t have a release date of the video andchanges may still be made during this beta-testprocess, but the foundation of the information is

on target and will enable workers to understandpotential hazards and prevent unwanted occur-rences. Check the Institute’s website atwww.chlorineinstitute.org for the latest traininginformation.

Also available from the Institute is an up-dated version of the video, “Handling SodiumHypochlorite Safely,” which has revised informa-tion for workers using sodium hypochlorite. Forthose of you who are technical trainers, there isan Institute-sponsored CHLOREP® team train-ing, scheduled for April 25-29 at the MississippiState Fire Academy in Pearl, Miss. Again, checkthe website for details.

So many new training materials are becom-ing available; the new emergency response kitsreally are better, and vendors are doing morequality control than ever. All of these are goodthings for those of you using elemental chlorine.

Another positive step is the move to dryscrubbers for process systems using elementalchlorine. For many years, sodium hydroxidescrubbers were the normal go-to devices to cap-ture chlorine releases. The problem was the hy-droxide itself posed a hazard to workers andreally only provided a positive factor in protec-tion of the public. For workers, it’s a hazard andhas to be changed, tested, and maintained.

Personally, as a safety person, I have seenmany more injuries from exposure to hydroxidethan to elemental chlorine, so the move to get ridof hydroxide and move to a pellet-based mate-rial instead of sodium hydroxide is a win forworkers and the public. Ultimately, a system thatis not dangerous to maintain is going to functionbetter over of a long period of time. Generally,the public is better protected by systems that canbe maintained at a high level of preparedness,and dry scrubbers allow for that without posingserious hazards to the maintenance workers.

I used to only see the dry scrubbers at powerplants, but the prices have come down, and moreimportantly, the technology has been accepted byenvironmental regulators. Dry scrubbers benefiteveryone, with fewer hazards to anyone handlingthe materials.

While not new, the last item on my hit pa-rade of important chlorine safety equipment isthe cylinder recovery vessel designed for chlorinecylinders.

This recovery vessel has been around for

Chlorine Update 2016Doug Prentiss Sr.

SPOTLIGHT ON SAFETY

New hood device installed on 150-lb cylinder. The bolts attached to the hood allow for aneven tightening of the hood and gasket, effectively stopping any leaks around the valve.

Cylinder recovery vessel

New hood device installed on a ton simulator. The new28C bar assembly also secures the fuse plug hoodwith no pressure on fuse plug threads.


years and can stop any leak anywhere on a cylin-der. That’s a pretty bold statement, but it’s a fact.When a leaking 150-lb cylinder is slid into the re-covery vessel and the door is properly closed andsecured using the proper gasket, the vessel willcontain any leak within the recovery vessel. It alsohas an exterior feed device on the dome of thevessel so the gas can be bled off into an appro-priate system and safely handled.

The problem with the vessel is the weight tomove it around and the location or placement ofthe unit or units until needed. For fire personnel,just making room on a truck for anything new isa real discussion, so the addition of a coffin to aresponse truck may not be the slam dunk wemight expect. I know of one progressive utilitythat bought two; it gave one to the fire depart-ment and kept one for its water wells that wasused on a route truck, along with self-containedbreathing apparatus (SCBA) and suits.

If you’re using 150-lb cylinders and allowingthe oldest style welded foot ring cylinders to bedelivered to your sites, having a cylinder emer-gency recovery vessel only makes sense. There isnothing in the new or old Emergency Kit “A” thatwill stop a leak at the weld of a foot ring. The

emergency recovery vessel is the only thing thatwill stop a leak at the foot ring or anywhere on thebottom of the cylinder. The bump bottom cylin-ders are the best, and even the machine weldedring is much better than the welded foot ring.

It is only the efforts of the suppliers to in-spect and hydrostatically test the cylinders thatprevent the leaks from happening more often atthe bottom. The hydrostatic testing done onceevery five years actually tests the cylinders athigher pressures than the ton containers, but a lotcan happen during five years, so suppliers inspectcylinders before each shipment—and so shouldyou.

The recovery vessel also works on liquidleaks and is a wonderful tool. Like everything else,its gaskets must be renewed, its bolts and hingeskept clean, and it needs to be decontaminatedafter each use.

The Chlorine Institute has many publica-tions and pamphlets, some of which are designedspecifically for water and wastewater operators,and I encourage those of you using elementalchlorine to take advantage of the Institute’s manyyears of good stewardship and experience by pro-viding workers who handle this product with the

latest industry standards and equipment. This May, Destin Water Users Inc. is hosting

the only three-day chlorine class I have plannedat this point in our state. If you have someonewho could benefit from such a class, get in touchwith me at [email protected] orJudd Moose, chair of the FWEA Safety Commit-tee, at [email protected]; we are always happyto have other trainers or responders participatein this technical training.

So yes, I have really hit the brakes and sloweddown the pace of my training, but I still maintainmy contacts and interest in chlorine training. Iam fortunate that I still have the physical skillsand abilities to do the things I enjoy. While fam-ily is first now, those of you who I have worked soclosely over the years and developed friendshipswith know I will still be there for you.

My life now is like the joke of the old bulland the young bull standing on the top of a hilllooking down into a meadow below them. I amlike the old bull; I take my time now and enjoyeach step of my journey, anticipating my arrival.

Doug Prentiss Sr. is an FWEA Safety Committeemember. (photos: Doug Prentiss Sr.)

1. What typically happens to the chlorinedemand of reclaimed water when thenitrite (NO2) concentration is elevated?

a. The chlorine demand doubles for eachpound of nitrite oxidized.

b. The chlorine demand is cut in half foreach pound of nitrite oxidized.

c. The chlorine demand is unaffected bynitrite concentrations.

d. The chlorine demand is multiplied bymore than five for each pound ofnitrite oxidized.

2. Which chemical is typically not used toadjust effluent pH (between 6.0 to 8.5)before being discharged to a surface wateroutfall?

a. Lime b. Alumc. Sodium hydroxide d. Caustic soda

3. What is the detention time of a reclaimedwater storage tank if the tank volume is 2.5mil gal (MG) and the flow entering thetank is 9.75 mil gal per day (mgd)?

a. 6.15 hours b. 164 hoursc. 1.23 hours d. 3.90 hours

4. What typically happens to the oxidationreduction potential (ORP) value ofreclaimed water when the ammoniaconcentration drops from 4 mg/L to 0.5mg/L?

a. The ORP value increases.b. The ORP value decreases.c. The ORP value is fairly unaffected bythe ammonia level.

d. Ammonia at any level will cause atypical ORP probe to fail.

5. Which chemical is more commonly usedto dechlorinate effluent followingdisinfection with chlorine?

a. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4)b. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI)c. Sulfur dioxide (SO2)d. Ferric chloride (FeCL3)

6. Given the following data, what is theequivalent percent total solids?• 10 ml of sample• Tare weight of filter paper is 1.8873grams

• Final weight of filter paper after dryingis 2.2255 grams

a. 2.2 percent b. 1.3 percentc. 3.4 percent d. 4.3 percent

7. What is the final effluent total suspendedsolids (TSS) value if the plant influentTSS is 225 mg/L, and the TSS percentremoval is 98.9 percent?

a. 7.6 mg/L b. 2.5 mg/Lc. 6.7 mg/L d. 1.1 mg/L

8. Which formula is used to calculate thecircumference of a circular tank?

a. πr2 b. πd2

c. 0.785 d2 d. πd

9. Given the following data, what is thepressure equivalent expressed in bardelivered by this effluent pump?• Pump discharges 1,500 gal per minute(gpm)

• Total dynamic head (TDH) of 155 ft

a. 4.56 bar b. 67.11 barc. 14.7 bar d. 2.88 bar

10. What is the volume of reclaimed water in38 in. of a storage tank with a diameter of100 ft?

a. 58,718 gal b. 185,960 gal c. 20,588 gal d. 238,545 gal

Answers on page 62

Readers are welcome to submitquestions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plantoperations for publication inCertification Boulevard. Sendyour question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to:[email protected], or by mail to:

Roy PelletierWastewater Project Consultant

City of Orlando Public Works DepartmentEnvironmental Services

Wastewater Division5100 L.B. McLeod Road

Orlando, FL 32811407-716-2971

Certification Boulevard

SEND US YOURQUESTIONS

Test Your Knowledge ofWastewater Disposal

Check the ArchivesAre you new to the water andwastewater field? Want to boostyour knowledge about topicsyou’ll face each day as awater/wastewater professional?

All past editions of CertificationBoulevard through 2000 areavailable on the Florida WaterEnvironment Association’swebsite at www.fwea.org. Clickthe “Site Map” button on thehome page, then scroll down tothe Certification BoulevardArchives, located below theOperations ResearchCommittee.

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS?

Roy Pelletier



The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority(FKAA) authorized Atkins Global to up-date and calibrate the Innovyze InfoWater

hydraulic model of its water transmission system(WTS), which was previously done by Atkins(formerly PBS&J) in 2009. As part of this effort,an extensive amount of WTS background datawere collected and compiled, including watermeter records and connections to a transmissionsystem consisting of pressure-reducing valve sta-tions (TAP), spatial disaggregation of service areawater demands, booster and distribution systempump station historical log charts, booster anddistribution system pump station supervisorycontrol and data acquisition (SCADA), and apump station energy cost summary.

An updated hydraulic model was developedexclusively for the FKAA WTS, including parallelsections of transmission mains from Florida Cityto Key West, five major booster pump stations(BPS), and all TAPs located along the transmis-sion system. The model was originally created insteady state; the updated model was enhanced bymaking TAP water demand assumptions to de-velop an extended period simulation of 24 hoursalong the WTS. A discussion of how varying di-urnal demands were applied to different kinds ofTAPs is presented.

The local water distribution systems, in-cluding storage tanks and small booster pumps,were not modeled as part of the WTS and aresimulated by the TAP demands. The updatedFKAA WTS model was initially calibrated utiliz-

ing two sets of data: a period from February 2-4,2011, was considered an average-day supply-and-demand scenario; and during Memorial Week-end in May 2011, a condition reflecting some ofthe highest water demands recorded over the pastseveral years was considered a maximum-dayscenario. Additional calibrations of the scenarioswere performed to refine and update a few facil-ities based on November 2012 SCADA informa-tion provided by FKAA. The calibrated hydraulicmodel was then used to evaluate optimal energyoperating procedures and location of additionalWTS emergency storage.

Summary of Water Transmission System Model Update and Calibration

The hydraulic model has been recalibratedand updated to represent the current water sys-tem operation and demand conditions based onrecent water meter TAP data, SCADA, and logsheets supplied by FKAA.

Water DemandsTwo consecutive years (2010-2011) of TAP

data, supplied per water meter, were used to up-date the WTS to current demands. The TAPwater demands for the model have been updatedto reflect the current lower average-day demands,as well as a lower peaking factor on the system.As a comparison, the 2005 annual average TAPdemands included in the previous hydraulic

model totaled 16.69 mil gal per day (mgd). Therecent two-year TAP data resulted in an annualaverage demand of 15.05 mgd, which resulted inan annual average demand decrease of approxi-mately 11 percent. This decrease is likely due tocurrent economic conditions directly affectingpopulation decreases and reduced water con-sumption per capita. In addition, FKAA’s waterloss along the WTS was evaluated and applied ap-propriately to the model to account for the totalproduction at the Florida City Water TreatmentPlant (WTP) and WTS pressure losses. The WTSis segmented into five areas that extend from KeyWest to Florida City (Areas I-V). The TAP dataalso include demands for the United States Navyand the recent system privatization and modifi-cations made by FKAA. Table 1 summarizes thehistorical rolling annual average demand quanti-ties for the years 2010 and 2011.

During this timeframe, it is estimated thatthe WTS experienced a total loss of approxi-mately 10 percent, based on the difference be-tween the average supply recorded at WTP andthe average TAP demands. The water loss is overapproximately 125 mi, resulting in an averagewater loss of an estimated 12,000 gal per day(gpd) per mi. The WTP distributed an averagedaily flow (ADF) of 17.1 mgd and a maximumdaily flow (MDF) of 20.2 mgd, under recent de-mand conditions. There is also a reported addi-tional water loss of approximately 10 percent inthe local water distribution system downstreamof the TAPs, which FKAA continues to work onreducing through review of meter accounting,meter testing, water audit programs, and othermaintenance activities. In 2011 and 2012, FKAAidentified and repaired a WTS leak reportedlycontributing to a major portion of the WTS losson North Roosevelt.

Diurnal Demand PatternsThe WTS model consists of two different

types of connections that must be modeled ap-propriately (at input nodes) to simulate the

Water Transmission and Energy/Storage Optimization Study

Kimberly Machlus

Kimberly Machlus is a project manager withAtkins Global in Orlando.

F W R J

Table 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission SystemAnnual Average Water Demand


varying water demands at the TAPs: 1) tank de-mands that are TAP connections that only di-rectly fill a distribution system tank, and 2) TAPdemands that are direct feeds into the distribu-tion system served by either a tank or no tank.Approximately 45 percent of the demand on theWTS consists of tank demand nodes, which di-rectly supply a local distribution system gener-ally consisting of a tank and a small boosterpump station. These TAPs have a more constantdemand due to a more controlled filling rate ofa distribution tank and do not follow a typicaldaily demand pattern as the nontank-supplieddemands along the WTS. Therefore, the tankTAPs were assigned a unique diurnal pattern,including a nighttime period where the tanksare full. To develop this diurnal pattern for thetank demand during an extended period simu-lation, SCADA was provided for two distribu-tion areas served by tanks where tank-level datawere recorded over 24 hours during assumedaverage-day demands. It was apparent from theSCADA that, from midnight to 6:00 a.m., thedistribution tanks were full and the small pumpstations were off. The low nighttime demandwas being supplied by the smaller TAPs in theservice area.

Figure 1 illustrates the tank diurnal demandcurve assumed for the WTS model. The nontank-supplied TAPs were reviewed by the service areato understand their contributions in the waterdistribution system. For the most part, theseTAPS are smaller meter connections that eitherfeed isolated areas or supplement the area whenthe pump stations are off at night or meet a localpeak demand. Since some are controlled by pres-sure, it makes it difficult to accurately simulateunless the local distribution system is fully addedto the model. A diurnal pattern for direct de-mand nodes was estimated based on slightly ad-justing the average demand above during the day(to model higher demands) and below averagefor nighttime, also shown in Figure 1.

The FKAA currently does not have remoteflow metering of the TAPs and therefore cannotcurrently provide hourly demand patterns foreach of the TAPs. Future installation of auto-mated meter readers (AMRs) at the TAPs wouldprovide valuable hourly flow data off the WTSand help in further managing and optimizingpumping operations.

Water SystemSince the hydraulic model was created in

2009, the Key Largo pump station has been themajor addition to the WTS, although the pumpstation is not currently in use due to a decreasein projected maximum-day system water de-mands. This pump station includes two 700horsepower (Hp) pumps, with a pumping ca-

pacity of 16,660 gpm (24 mgd) and 291 total dy-namic ft of head. Additionally, the Marathonpump station has been upgraded to feature twonew double suction pumps rated at 5,500 gpm(7.9 mgd) and 280 total dynamic ft of head.

The new pump curves have been importedinto the current model to reflect current-day op-eration. The FKAA has replaced approximatelyfive mi of the 36-in. pipeline between MM 93 andMM 98 with a similar size pipeline. Previously,this pipeline constrained operations of the WTSby limiting the discharge pressure at the WTP.Several short sections of the parallel 18-in.pipeline have been permanently abandoned.

As mentioned previously, two sets of logsheets were supplied by FKAA: one set was loggeddata from three days in February 2011, which wasused as an example of average day booster pumpstation operation and controls; and the secondset of log sheets supplied was from three days inMay 2011, which was an example of maximum-day booster pump station operations and con-trols. The log sheets were used to understand thevarying suction and discharge pressure for a 24-hour period for each booster pump station dur-ing each demand scenario. Table 2 summarizes adaily average of the booster pump station opera-

tion, based on system controls as provided on thelog sheets.

Supervisory Control and Data AcquisitionThe FKAA has implemented a detailed

SCADA system for managing pump operationsfor the entire WTS and continues to expand andmake refinements to further reduce energy costs.The SCADA system records numerous pieces ofdata and information at the booster pump sta-tions, including electrical use, flow rates, effi-ciencies, pressures, motor speeds, etc. The FKAAhas developed the programming to estimatehourly and daily energy costs to assist the WTSoperators in decision making. In the future, it willbe valuable data for FKAA to implement SCADAat the major TAPs supplying tanks to even betterunderstand WTS operations. A few distributiontanks have been connected to the SCADA system.

The SCADA was supplied by FKAA for aseven-day period for each WTS booster pumpstation to incorporate into the hydraulic modelfor the purposes of hydraulic and energy cali-bration. The following discusses the SCADAthat was used to assist in calibrating the pumpstations in the model.

Figure 1. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Tank and Demand Node Diurnal Flow Patterns

Table 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Booster Pump Station Operations



CalibrationAs previously mentioned, the log sheets not-

ing hourly system pressures, metering facilities,and pump operations were used to assist in cali-brating the model for a three-day period in Feb-ruary 2011 and May 2011. The hydraulic modelcalibration consisted of an evaluation of thepump station operations, storage tank filling ratesat tank TAPs, and diurnal demands at other TAPs(junctions). Continuity checks were performedat junctions to ensure that continuity of flow wasmaintained.

Pump station operations were compared toSCADA for seven days in November 2012 sup-plied by FKAA to verify and calibrate the hy-draulic model. As part of this planning effort, anenergy analysis was conducted for the majorwater booster pump stations to estimate annualenergy costs and compare them to actual costs.The energy module feature of the hydraulicmodel was utilized to calibrate the FKAA WTShydraulic model to power consumption, basedon the available power schedules and historicalusage data. Table 3 shows a daily average of flowsthrough each of the booster pump stations andaverage pressures following SCADA calibration.

Utilities

There are three utilities that currently pro-vide the WTS electricity to power the boosterpump stations: the WTP is served by FloridaPower and Light (FP&L) and the areas along theKeys served by Florida Keys Coop and Key En-

ergy Services. The new calibrated energy modelwas therefore used to predict power consump-tion on the WTS under various pumping and de-mand scenarios.

The FKAA provided electric utility bills forthe WTS booster pump stations; the estimatedutility and rates are provided in Table 4. The ac-tual utility rate schedules are fairly complex andinclude variable and fixed charges; for the pur-poses of this study, average kilowatt-hour (kWh)costs were estimated for each utility based on thehistorical data. The FKAA operations staff con-tinues to review and work with each utility to bet-ter understand pricing structure to ensure thatthe system is performing at the most optimumsystem cost.

The largest kWh cost is billed by Key EnergyServices, which supplies the Ramrod pump sta-tion, but it is not usually operated under averagedemand conditions, similar to the Key Largopump station. Based on limited billing data forthe Key Largo pump station, the average kWhcost is high due to the infrequency of operation.In the months that the pump station is run con-sistently, an average $0.13/kWh was estimated;the months that the pump station is run in peakevents, a cost of $0.33/kWh was estimated. Thishigh kWh charge is assumed to be due to run-ning the booster pump station during electricutility peak-hour demand charges.

Annual CostsBased on the energy cost data provided and

reviewed, the annual booster pump station costsare approximately $1.74 million for the WTS.The average-day scenario in the hydraulic model

was simulated utilizing the energy module duringan extended period of 24 hours for the pump op-erations calibrated in previous steps. The modelpredicted an annual average booster pump sta-tion energy cost of $1.73 million. The FloridaCity and Marathon pump stations did not in-clude a full year of data; for these pump stations,the total average data for the missing months wasaveraged from previous months. The model pre-dicted slightly lower cost, which may be due tothe missing monthly energy data for the FloridaCity and Marathon pump stations. A summaryof estimated annual energy costs for the threemajor booster pump stations under average an-nual demands is as follows: S Florida City pump station : $1.18 millionS Long Key pump station: $280,000S Marathon pump station: $300,000

The Key Largo and Ramrod pump stationswere assumed off during average demands forcost-estimating purposes. A more detailedmonthly analysis could be performed that con-siders the few times these facilities operate; how-ever, for this planning effort, the primary focuswas evaluating the Key Largo pump station andits future operations.

Model Simulations and Optimization Analysis

Current ConditionsThe FKAA WTS is generally designed to op-

erate and convey maximum daily demand(MDD) flows. Local storage and distributionpumping can be used to meet peak-hour de-mands for a majority of the connections off theWTS; however, there are direct service connec-tions and TAPs served by the WTS, with nobooster pumping or storage that must be suppliedwith adequate pressure during MDD and peak-hour demands. These customers may dictate theminimum operating pressure of the WTS.

Based on the log sheets and discussions withFKAA staff, the current operating conditions areas follows: S WTS: Maximum 240 pounds per sq in. (psi)and minimum 70 psi (minimum 45-50 psi inKey West only)

S BPS: Maximum discharge 240 psi and mini-mum suction 50-70 psi

S WTS pipeline during MDD: Desired headloss=1 ft to 2.5 ft per 1000 ft; desired velocities =between 2-5 ft per second (fps)

During the timeframe reviewed, the WTPdistributed an average daily flow (ADF) of 17.1mgd and a maximum daily flow (MDF) of 20.2mgd, including unaccounted-for water. Table 5summarizes the typical booster pump station op-

Table 3. Average Booster Pump Station Flow and Pressure

Table 4. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Electric Utilities



eration during ADF and MDF conditions. Cur-rently, FKAA does not operate the Key Largo orRamrod pump stations during ADF or MDFconditions.

The new Key Largo pump station was con-structed in anticipation of an increased MDF ofapproximately 24 to 25 mgd, which made it nec-essary to construct an intermediate pump stationbetween WTP and the Long Key pump stationdue to predicted lower suction pressures. At thetime, the FKAA service area was experiencingsteady increases in water demands associatedwith increased permanent and transient popula-tions. This trend has reversed in the past fiveyears, due in part to a downturn in the economyand successful water conservation programs, andthus, FKAA continues to see reduced water useon the WTS system, including its recent fixes toreduce water loss.

As a result, with the reduced water usage onthe WTS and resulting increase in WTS pressures,FKAA is now challenged to maintain and operatethe Key Largo pump station that is not currentlyneeded to meet average or maximum day de-mands. This station, with an estimated $7 mil-lion capital investment, potentially could becomea stranded capital asset, until maximum-day de-mands rebound or significantly increase. As acomparison, existing maximum-day demandsare only about 20-21 mgd, where about 23 mgdwould warrant the use of the station. However,population forecasts still indicate that, at sometime in the future, it is anticipated that maxi-mum-day demands would increase to require theuse of the station in the WTS.

One of the challenges for FKAA is to main-tain the Key Largo pump station in a standbymode so the facility could be called upon at anytime and also ensure future reliable operationswhen critical maximum-day demands arereached and require the pumping capacity. Oneoption for FKAA is that the WTS system couldbe re-operated by modifying the high-servicepump station with a lower head (at the WTP)and bring the Key Largo pump station on-linetoday. This opportunity is presented in the nextsection.

Florida City Water Treatment Plant and KeyLargo Pump Station Re-Operation Scenario

The re-operation scenario consists of lower-ing the supply pressure at the WTP’s high-servicepump station, which will lower the WTS operat-ing pressure and then use the Key Largo pumpstation to increase the WTS pressures back topressures currently experienced on the WTS be-tween the Key Largo and Long Key pump stations.The benefit of re-operation includes maintainingthe Key Largo pump station in a normal opera-

Table 5. Average and Maximum Day Pump Station Operation

Figure 2. Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Water Transmission System Hydraulic Profile

Table 6. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Station Lower Head Operation


tional basis and reducing a high-pressure opera-tion between WTP and the Key Largo pump sta-tion, thereby potentially reducing risks forpipeline failures and water loss. Furthermore, theopportunity exists to reduce energy costs as well.

Two energy scenarios were simulated utiliz-ing the hydraulic model and energy module dur-ing an extended period of 24 hours. The firstscenario includes the “base case,” reflecting cur-rent WTS average-day pumping operations; thesecond scenario evaluates re-operations and low-ering pressures at WTP high-service pump sta-tions and operating the Key Largo pump station.

The re-operation of the Key Largo pump stationwould involve lowering the discharge pressureapproximately 60 psi. This could potentially beaccomplished by removing pump stages to thedesired head; however, this would result in a low-ering of the design flow rate. Under re-opera-tions, the Key Largo pump station would then beused to provide the required suction pressure atthe Long Key pump station; the WTS operationswould remain the same downstream of the LongKey pump station. Figure 2 illustrates the hy-draulic grade line for each of these scenarios.

Table 6 presents the operating pressures foreach pump station during both scenarios, with

the Key Largo pump station on and the base casewhen Key Largo pump station is not in operation.

The model predicts an average daily powerconsumption based on the current time-of-useschedules from the utility companies. Table 7 pres-ents a comparison of operating the Key Largopump station (Scenario 2) to current base-case op-erations (Scenario 1). The annual additional costassociated with operating the Key Largo pump sta-tion was estimated to be $71,175. Based on an av-erage annual demand scenario and energy costassumptions, there appears to be some savings ofnot operating the Key Largo pump station. In ad-dition, this cost comparison assumes that the high-service pump station could be modified andre-operated. The analysis does not consider the an-nualized cost to fund pump modifications and up-grades at the high-service pump station.

The FKAA has budgeted and is proceedingwith high-service pump-station upgrades (withsimilar pumping units) due to the age and re-duced efficiencies of several pumping units. Oncethis project is completed, FKAA may see somesavings associated with these improvements. Amore detailed financial analysis and life cycle costanalysis would need to be performed between thetwo options prior to making a final decision. Theextent and acceptance of lowering pressures atthe high-service pump station would need to befurther detailed, including capital cost estimates.

Based on a preliminary assessment, it is ap-parent that the FKAA’s ability to obtain lowerelectrical rates from FP&L (30 to 40 percentlower) favors continued use of the high-servicepump station under the higher head conditions.However, should FKAA have an opportunity toobtain lower rates from Florida Keys Corp., Sce-nario 2 may become more feasible. A sensitivityanalysis was conducted comparing the energycosts of the Florida City and Key Largo pump sta-tions under Scenarios 1 and 2, as shown in Figure3. The primary goal was to determine the “breakeven” electrical rate at the Key Largo pump sta-tion to make Scenario 2 comparable from an en-ergy cost standpoint.

Referring to Figure 3, Scenario 1 is shownin orange and represents the base-case costs,with varying electrical rates from $0.065 to $0.11(x-axis). The y-axis shows the total energy costsat Florida City (high-service pump station), withthe Key Largo pump station off. As long as unitrates remain low from FP&L ($0.60 to $0.70),total pumping costs are around $1 million orless. The purple, blue, and green lines representunit electrical cost variations from FP&L on Sce-nario 2 (lower pressure at the high-service pumpstation), with variable unit costs from FloridaKeys Corp. For example, the blue line assumesFP&L provides $0.08 unit cost for a low-headhigh-service pump service operation.


Figure 3. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Stations Energy Cost Evaluation


Table 7. Florida City and Key Largo Pump Station Energy Analysis


Following the blue line along the x-axis, theimpact of varying unit costs for the Key Largopump station operations is shown. At $0.11 costs,the total costs would be about $1.15 million (y-axis), much greater than the base case. If the KeyLargo pump station could be reduced to about$0.10 in this option, the energy costs would besimilar for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.

One conclusion from this analysis is thesensitivity of varying electrical rates on bothhigh-service and Key Largo pump stations. Re-ferring to the orange line in Figure 3, once unitcosts exceed about $0.09 at a high-service pumpstation, even at $0.11, the Key Largo pump sta-tion becomes favorable to operate under Sce-nario 2 assumptions. However, given the recentconsistent lower electrical rates for high-servicepump stations, it is apparent that the annualcost benefit for FKAA is to continue with cur-rent operations. A significantly lower rate wouldbe needed at the Key Largo pump station ofabout $0.08 to make Scenario 2 a viable option.

Emergency Storage AnalysisThe emergency back pump operation con-

sists of the Stock Island back pump station, withits 20-mil-gal (MG) storage facilities (Stock Is-land and Desal tanks), although a 5-MG tank iscurrently out of service, and the MarathonBooster pump station, with its 3-MG storagetank. These facilities provide FKAA with theability to back-pump into the transmission mainin the event of an emergency along the transmis-sion route from pipeline rupture or other failure.The FKAA uses the Stock Island back pump sta-tion, the Marathon Booster pump station, thestorage tank, and the emergency reverse osmosis(RO) treatment plants at Stock Island andMarathon, if necessary, to back-pump water upthe Keys toward the WTP, while maintainingpressures until an emergency scenario is resolved.

The Stock Island back pump station in-cludes one diesel horizontal split-case pump,rated at 2,450 gpm (3.50 mgd) with 170 ft of totaldynamic head. The back pump station has in thepast been able to pump all the way to WTP andprovides nearly 25 percent on an average-day de-mand. As part of the emergency storage analysis,the WTS water demands were assumed to be 30percent of average-day demands, which repre-sents a likely condition under extreme water con-servation requirements. Based on a back pumpmodel simulation, the storage tanks can supplyapproximately 5.58 days of 30 percent average-day demands in current conditions.

In order to evaluate WTS storage needs foremergency operations, a preliminary storageevaluation was performed, considering bothWTP storage needs and the location of storageby service area. Currently, most of the FKAA-

treated water storage is at the Florida City WTPor at the end of the WTS. Depending on the lo-cation and the extent of the emergency, theremay be benefits to locating more storage in themiddle of the WTS. An assumed storage goal ofone average day of storage was assumed for WTPoperations and the WTS system, respectively.Table 8 summarizes a possible storage scenarioby service area that highlights the benefits of ad-ditional storage in the middle portion of theWTS, such as at the Marathon pump station.For this analysis, the distribution tanks were in-cluded in the evaluation, since this storage wouldlikely be used in an emergency.

Several scenarios were evaluated for back-pump operation to assess the benefits of addi-tional storage along the WTS by service area: S The first scenario included an additional 3MG of storage at the Marathon pump sta-tion, with storage totaling 6 MG at this lo-cation. The model simulation concluded anapproximate water supply during 30 percentADD of 5.63 days.

S The second scenario included an additional 5MG of storage at Stock Island, with storage to-taling 25 MG at this location. The model sim-ulation concluded an approximate watersupply of 7.04 days.

S A third scenario included 5 MG of new stor-age assumed at the Key Largo pump station.

The model simulation concluded an approx-imate water supply of 9.8 days.

Referring to Table 8, Areas IV and V have thelargest storage deficiency, which would suggesthaving new storage at either the Marathon or KeyLargo pump station sites; however, the existingstatus of the Key Largo pump station would playinto the decision to locate storage at that site. Ithas also been reported that the existing 3-MGMarathon tank is to be in need of rehabilitation;one option for FKAA would be to replace the ex-isting 3-MG tank with a larger tank on the site.

Water QualityA water-age scenario was simulated with the

WTS model during average-day demands for anextended-period simulation of 10 days. Initially,all water in the WTS is zero days old, and the sim-ulation must be carried out until water has trav-eled to the farthest point in the WTS system andthe storage tanks have reached equilibrium. Onceequilibrium, with respect to water age, has beenreached, a daily pattern is established, and carry-ing the simulation out for additional days will notincrease the age of water. Although no regulatoryrequirements exist for water age, general industryguidelines indicate that it should not exceed fivedays in the system to maintain good water qual-

Table 8. Water Transmission System Emergency Storage Analysis



ity. The maximum water age in the WTS was 110hours, or approximately 4.58 days at the end ofthe system in Key West. This analysis does not in-clude the age of water in the distribution system.

Given the length of the FKAA WTS andtravel time, the age of the water is well within thegeneral industry criteria for the WTS. The KeyWest distribution model may want to be re-viewed for age of water or integrated with theWTS to better understand the water age at theend of the Key West water distribution system.

Recommendations

Based on the study findings and technicalanalysis, the following recommendations weremade:S The ability of FKAA to obtain lower electri-cal rates from FP&L favors continued use ofthe high-service pump station under high-head operations.

S The Key Largo pump station should be kept ina standby mode and exercised periodically, asthe facility will be needed when maximum-daydemand increases toward 23-24 mgd on theWTS system or during an emergency scenario.

S The FKAA should continue discussions withFlorida Electric Corp. regarding potentiallyobtaining lower energy rates and the standbymode of the Key Largo pump station.

S Should FKAA have an opportunity to obtainlower rates from Florida Keys Corp., Scenario 2may become more feasible. A preliminary en-gineering report would need to be conductedto evaluate improvements at the high-servicepump station to convert to a lower-head oper-ation and the need to operate the Key Largo toOcean Reef distribution pumping.

S In order to improve emergency storage alongthe WTS, it is recommended that storage belocated at the Marathon site to support AreasIV and V along the WTS. A preliminary feasi-bility study for 4-6 MG of storage at Marathonis recommended, with consideration to re-place the existing 3-MG tank.

S The FKAA should continue to expand SCADAand remote metering to the TAPs to better un-derstand demand patterns off the WTS to fur-ther optimize water operations.

In summary, it has been concluded that there-operations of the high-service pump stationis highly dependent on the utility electrical rates.It is important for FKAA is to maintain the KeyLargo pump station in a standby mode over thenext several years, as this station will need to beutilized as maximum days approach to provideminimum pressure and minimum suction pres-sure of 70 psi. SS




Raynetta CurryMarshall

President, FWEA

The FWEA constantly strives to increase thevalue proposition for our members andvolunteers. This includes looking for ways

to provide quality professional development op-portunities through seminars and workshops,while allowing more of our volunteers to partici-pate in delivering these events. As part of thisprocess, we began discussions last year to combine

two of our technical committees that had a natu-ral nexus: the Water Reuse Committee and the In-tegrated Water Resources Committee. Thesediscussions concluded with the new, merged com-mittee of Water Resources, Reuse and Resiliency,or as we like to refer to it: WR3.

The WR3 is dedicated to providing techni-cal education and professional developmentprograms in the areas of water reuse, integratedwater resources, water supply, water conserva-tion, and resiliency. The committee hit theground running with its inaugural seminar,“One Drop of Water, Many Uses,” which washeld in January in Ponte Vedra Beach. The sem-inar was a huge success and very well attended.The agenda covered a wide range of topics andviews relative to the use of reclaimed water andstormwater as sources of water supply. Thekeynote speaker was Sen. Wilton Simpson fromFlorida, who sponsored Senate Bill 536, whichrequired the Florida Department of Environ-mental Protection (FDEP) to produce a reporton the expansion of the use of reclaimed water,stormwater, and excess surface water in the state.There were also speakers from FDEP, Depart-ment of Agriculture, Department of Trans-portation, and three utilities: City of AltamonteSprings; Clearwater; and Wichita Falls, Texas.

In his keynote address, Senator Simpsonhighlighted some of the recommendations fromthe SB 536 report, “Expansion of Beneficial Usesof Reclaimed Water, Stormwater, and ExcessSurface Water,” released in December 2015. Therecommendations regarding reuse included:S Continued alternative water supply fundingpartnerships are critical.

S Conduct statewide education/outreach ef-forts for reclaimed water, particularly indi-rect and direct potable reuse.

S Consider mandatory reuse zones, tiered ratesfor reclaimed water, and long-term agree-ments with end users.

S Include developing fertilizer offset best man-agement practices for irrigation with re-claimed water and nutrient content ofreclaimed water in an annual reuse inventory,and coordination among wastewater, con-sumptive use, environmental resource per-mitting, and water supply planning staff.

Next steps include comprehensive reclaimedwater legislation for the 2017 legislative session.

WR3 Begins the Year Big With“One Drop of Water, Many Uses”

FWEA FOCUS

A panel discussion on innovative water resources projects included (left to right) Ryan Matthews, FDEP;Russell Schreiber, Wichita Falls; JoAnn Jackson, City of Altamonte Springs; and David Porter, Clearwater.

The WR3 cochairs, Lynn Spivey and Ricky Ly, address questions from the seminar audience.


The FWEA Utility Council has had discussionswith members of the legislature who have aninterest in reclaimed water issues and will con-tinue to be engaged with the upcoming legis-lation.

Throughout the United States, utilitieshave responded with water supply plans thatbest fit the needs of their individual situa-tions. There is no one answer that fits all sit-uations and needs, and this was evidenced inthe three utility case studies provided by theseminar presenters.

The City of Wichita Falls, faced withemergency drought conditions and an un-sustainable surface supply or groundwatersupply, turned to direct potable reuse fromJuly 2014 until July 2015. The treated effluentfrom the City’s wastewater treatment plantwas further treated thru its reverse osmosisplant and blended at a 50/50 ratio with rawlake water. The blended water was thentreated at the City’s water treatment plant.

The City of Clearwater is currently in-vestigating the use of indirect potable reuseby purifying the water from its NortheastWater Reclamation Facility and utilizing thishighly treated water to recharge the lowerzone of the Floridan aquifer.

The City of Altamonte Springs is aug-menting its reclaimed water piped to the Cityof Apopka with stormwater treated to re-claimed water standards. My own utility, JEA,whose reclaimed water usage has increasedfrom 1 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1999to over 13 mgd in 2015, is committed to fur-ther developing our reclaimed water system,including increased reliability and investigat-ing treating reclaimed water to higher stan-dards.

One common thread throughout all ofthe presentations was the importance of pub-lic education and outreach. As we continue tomove toward integrated water supply solu-tions, whether they include stormwater, indi-rect potable reuse, direct potable reuse, or acombination thereof, an educated and confi-dent consumer is the key to achieving success-ful implementation.

At FWEA, our committees and chaptersengage leaders in the industry to educate usall on the trends that we are observing in thewater industry as a whole. As members, vol-unteers, or leaders in FWEA, we are commit-ted to educating our membership, assisting inthe development of sound public policy andthe education of the general public at large. Tothat end, I urge all of you who are reading thisarticle to volunteer or otherwise engage withFWEA; your involvement makes the entirewater industry better. SS

Safety CommitteeAffiliation: Florida Water and Pollution ControlOperators Association

Current chair:Pete Tyson, recentlyretired, safety andtraining manager withFlorida Keys AqueductAuthority.

Year group was formed:The committee was formed prior to 1979.

Scope of work:Although the Safety Committee is mostlyknown for the annual safety awards itpresents, it also performs other dutiesbehind the scenes. The committee respondsto safety questions and concerns, critiquesnew safety training classes or safetysegments thereof, and makesrecommendations for additional safetyclasses as needed.

Recent accomplishments: The 2015 safety awards. The committeestarted receiving the award applications inearly May and continued receiving them upto the June 1 deadline. All applications werereviewed and the final decisions were madethe first week in July. Letters were then sentout to all applicants on July 7 and the awardplaques presented at the August 12 awardsluncheon in Fort Pierce. The safetycommendation certificates were sent out toall applicants on August 25 who did notreceive an award plaque. The committee hadto make several hard decisions since manyof the applications were very impressive—and several were outstanding! In the end, itwas a pleasure to see so many utilities putforth the time and effort for a solid safetyprogram that keeps their employees safe.

Current projects: The committee is now in the process ofreviewing the safety award application form,process, and requirements to see if anyadjustments are needed. Any updates and/orrevisions will then be presented to the boardfor approval.

Future work:The committee will soon start gearing up forthe 2016 awards. Memos will be sent out toall regional directors requesting them tomention the safety awards at their monthlymeetings: remind the members that thedeadline is June 1, the facilities do not haveto be 100 percent free of accidents, and thatthe application forms can be downloadedfrom the FWPCOA website. In May, we willstart receiving the applications and theprocess starts all over again.

Group members:• JoLynn Cates Reynolds, compliance andplanning manager, Florida Keys AqueductAuthority

• Thomas L. Morgan, assistant manager ofoperations, Florida Keys AqueductAuthority

• Brent L. Cranney, operations areamanager/MK, Florida Keys AqueductAuthority

• Joseph D. Ivey, contract manager, FloridaKeys Aqueduct Authority SS

FWRJ COMMITTEE PROFILEThis column highlights a committee, division, council,

or other volunteer group of FSAWWA, FWEA, and FWPCOA.

Pete hard at work at his desk.


Steve Dye

The final monthsof 2015 werebusy for the

Water EnvironmentFederation (WEF;Alexandria, Va.) gov-ernment affairs effortsin Congress. Several major funding priorities forWEF and water were accomplished, and severalsignificant policy goals were enacted into law.

Final FY16 Omnibus AppropriationsBill Restores Funding

In mid-December, the U.S. Congressreached a final agreement for the fiscal year (FY)2016 budget for the federal government, theConsolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. Thebill provides $1.067 trillion in base funding,which includes $73.7 billion for overseas con-tingency operations, $7.1 billion in disaster aid,$1.5 billion for program integrity, and $700 mil-lion in emergency funding. (Read the Consoli-dated Appropriations Act of 2016 athttps://rules.house.gov/bill/114/hr-2029-sa.)

Funding for all federal agencies is includedin the bill, and it retains or increases the fundingamounts for the agencies from FY 2015. The billholds the U.S. Environmental Protection (EPA)at the FY 2015-enacted level of $8.139 billion.The Clean Water State Revolving Fund is fundedat $1.394 billion and the Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund is funded at $863 million,restoring severe cuts proposed in 2015 in thedraft House and Senate committee bills. The billdid not include funding for Water InfrastructureFinance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans andloan guarantees, but it did include language di-recting EPA to continue to use administrativemonies to establish the program.

The bill was free of many of the policy rid-ers that had been hotly debated in Congress, in-cluding any restrictions on EPA in proceedingwith the implementation of the Clean WaterRule and the Clean Power Rule.

In 2016, WEF will be advocating beforeCongress and the Administration for full fund-ing for the SRF programs, as well as funding forthe WIFIA program to provide low-interestloans for infrastructure projects.

Rider That Banned Combined Sewer Overflows and Wet Weather

Bypassing Excluded

Also, in the FY16 Omnibus bill, a major ef-fort to strip an unfunded mandate was successful.The Senate version of the appropriations bill thatfunds EPA included a rider that would have for-bidden wet weather bypassing and combinedsewer overflows (CSO) in the Great Lakes water-shed. The compromise language in the final billwill require some additional reporting for CSOevents only, but it makes no changes to the CleanWater Act requirements or additional fines.

The Senate's FY16 appropriations bill con-tained a policy rider (Sec. 428 of S. 1645) re-quiring all CSO in the Great Lakes watershed tobe eliminated, including overflows dischargedin compliance with a CSO long-term controlplan (LTCP) or consent decrees. The riderwould have also required water resource recov-ery facilities (WRRFs) to eliminate dischargesof blended effluent that otherwise meet stan-dards established in a WRRF's National Pollu-tion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit during peak wet weather events.

A recently completed survey of Great LakesWRRFs estimated the cost of compliance to thepolicy rider exceeded $72 billion in the region. Acoalition of cities, counties, and associations is ag-gressively lobbying Congress in opposition to thispolicy rider because it has the potential to be ex-tremely costly, requiring massive infrastructure ex-pansion, ratepayer increases, and reopening ofconsent decrees and/or LTCPs. More than 45 let-ters were sent to Congress from public agenciesand organizations opposed to the policy rider, in-cluding WEF; the Water Environment Associa-tions of Indiana, Michigan, New England, NewYork, and Ohio; and WEF members at agenciesthroughout the Great Lakes region.

WIFIA Fix and Better HighwayStormwater Management

The highway reauthorization bill, known asthe Fixing American Surface Transportation Act(FAST Act) that was enacted into law in Decem-ber, included a fix to the WIFIA program thatWEF helped create and a stormwater manage-ment provision that WEF helped draft.

The fix removed a restriction on the use oftax-exempt financing on WIFIA-financed proj-ects. The WEF and other water associations havebeen advocating for the provision since the pro-gram was enacted in 2014.The program requiredthat WIFIA can finance only up to 49 percent ofa total project cost, and the remaining 51 percentcould not come from a tax-exempt source, suchas tax-exempt municipal bonds or private activ-ity bonds. This was limited by Congress in 2014to keep the cost of creating WIFIA budgets neu-tral, with the intent of fixing it later. The restric-tion on tax-exempt financing was removed bythe provision in the FAST Act that WEF andother water associations strongly advocated.

Also included in the FAST Act was astormwater management provision that WEFhelped draft that directs metropolitan, non-metropolitan, and statewide transportation plan-ning agencies to “improve the resiliency andreliability of the transportation system and reduceor mitigate stormwater impacts of surface trans-portation,” and is among the list of items to be in-cluded when agencies are planning surfacetransportation projects that use federal funding.

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), who was amember of the conference committee negotiat-ing the final bill, included the provision. Lan-guage similar to the provision was originallydeveloped by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) withWEF staff assistance and was introduced as theHighway Stormwater Management Act as stand-alone legislation in 2014 and 2015 (S. 518). Onbehalf of WEF, Dr. Dan Medina of Atkins Global(Epsom, U.K.) and Jim Gibson of SanitationDistrict #1 in Fort Wright, Ky., participated in ahearing in May 2014 before the Senate Waterand Wildlife Subcommittee chaired by Sen.

The 2015 Legislative Year in ReviewLast year brought victories for WEF and water agencies


Cardin. During the hearing, the WEF memberstestified on the importance of better stormwaterrunoff management during the surface trans-portation planning process. Sen. Cardin intro-duced his legislation shortly after the hearing.

The provision that Rep. Edwards includedin the bill is a significant step toward betterstormwater management included early in theplanning process of surface transportation bills.Currently, planning agencies that use federal dol-lars for projects are given eight criteria to con-sider during the planning process, such asincreased safety, economic growth, and inter-modal connectivity. The Edwards provisionamends U.S. Code 23, Section 134(h)(1) and135(D)(1), and will urge planning agencies to“reduce and mitigate stormwater impacts of sur-face transportation.” Planning agencies are notrequired to include these criteria in projects, butprojects that meet more criteria will score higher.

In 2016, WEF will be working closely withEPA to help complete the formation of theWIFIA program and establish another federallybacked source of low-interest financing. WEFwill also be working with the Federal HighwayAdministration to incorporate the stormwatermanagement provisions into the project plan-ning process so that stormwater management

costs are built into the federally funded highwayprojects and are not left to local agencies to ad-dress after a project is completed.

Save the Date: WaterWeek 2016

The WEF invites everyone to attend the Na-tional Water Policy Forum, Fly-In, and Expo onApril 11‒13, in Washington, D.C. Save the dateand plan on joining your colleagues from aroundthe nation to participate in the two-and-one-half-day meeting, which will feature congressionalspeakers, policy briefings, visits to Capitol Hill, androundtable dialogues with key policymakers andexperts on important regulatory and policy mat-ters. The Forum, Fly-In, and Expo are hosted byWEF, the National Association of Clean WaterAgencies, the Water Environment Research Foun-dation (WERF), and the WateReuse Association.It will take place during WaterWeek 2016, heldApril 10‒15. Registration and more details aboutthe event will be coming shortly. The WEF Gov-ernment Affairs Committee will also hold a fullcommittee meeting on the morning of April 11 forcommittee members. We hope to see you there!

Note: The information provided in this articleis designed to be educational. It is not intended

to provide any type of professional advice, in-cluding, without limitation, legal, accounting,or engineering. Your use of the information pro-vided here is voluntary and should be based onyour own evaluation and analysis of its accuracy,appropriateness for your use, and any potentialrisks of using the information. The Water Envi-ronment Federation (WEF), author and thepublisher of this article assumes no liability ofany kind with respect to the accuracy or com-pleteness of the contents and specifically dis-claims any implied warranties ofmerchantability or fitness of use for a particularpurpose. Any references included are providedfor informational purposes only and do notconstitute endorsement of any sources.

Steve Dye is the legislative director for the Water En-vironment Federation (WEF). In his government re-lations role, Steve represents the Federation beforeCongress, monitors key legislation and federal poli-cies, develops and executes legislative strategies andproposals, and maintains WEF’s excellent reputationbefore public and private interests in the water sector.He also leads the WEF Water Advocates Program, agrassroots program designed to mobilize and trainWEF members to advocate before federal, state, andlocal officials. SS

FWRJ READER PROFILE

Michael F. Bailey, P.E. Cooper City

Utilities Department

Work title and years of service.I have been the utilities director/city engineer for11 years. Prior to that I worked for the City of FortLauderdale Utilities Department for 17 years. Iwas the assistant utilities director when I left there.

What does your job entail?I'm responsible for the operation, maintenance,and improvement of the City's water, sewer, andstorm drain systems. These systems consist of one7-mgd nanofiltration water treatment plant, one4.7-mgd activated sludge wastewater treatmentplant, 180 miles of water distribution system with11,760 active service connections, 153 miles of

sewer and collection/transmission piping, and 81sewer pumping stations. I'm also responsible forreviewing, permitting, and inspecting all engi-neering construction in the City.

Education/training you’ve taken.I have a bachelor of science degree in mechanicalengineering from the University of South Floridaand am a licensed professional engineer in thestate of Florida. Over 29 years in the field, I'vetaken numerous training and continuing educa-tion courses, including completion of the two-week Water and Wastewater Leadership Center atthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

What do you like best about your job?Cooper City is a small city (by south Floridastandards) of about 32,000 people and I enjoyinteracting with them while providing high-quality utility service (Cooper City's water wonthe Best Tasting Drinking Water Competition inFlorida in 2011). I work with some of the best inour business, and they each play a key role inmaintaining the satisfaction of our customers.

What organizations do you belong to?The utility is a member of FSAWWA, SoutheastDesalting Association (SEDA), FloridaStormwater Association (FSA), and SoutheastFlorida Utility Council (SEFLUC).

How have the organizations helped your career?I've been involved with FSAWWA for 28 years,and the connections I've made via that organi-zation have definitely helped me in my careerprogression. I honestly don't think I would haveachieved my career goals without it.

What do you like best about the industry?As a mechanical engineer, I like the technical as-pects of the water and sewer business and theconstant improvements to the technology. WhatI like best, however, about our industry is thehigh caliber and dedication of the people in ourbusiness, from utility operations to technicalconsultants to manufacturers, contractors, andvendors.

What do you do when you’re not working? Trying to put three kids through college! I alsotry to squeeze in some saltwater fishing, travel,and tennis.

Cooper City was the winner of the 2013 FSAWWARegion VI Best Tasting Water Award.


At a ceremony recently held at its fa-cility in Jupiter, the Max Planck FloridaInstitute for Neuroscience (MPFI) waspresented with an award by the SouthFlorida Water Management District(SFWMD) to recognize the organization’sachievement of Florida Water Star℠ certi-fication. Florida Water Star℠ is a points-based recognition program thatencourages water efficiency in appliances,plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, andlandscapes.

“The Max Planck Institute is com-mended for advancing water conservation inSouth Florida,” said Terrie Bates, SFWMDdirector of water resources. “Facilities thatretrofit infrastructure to save water provide

lasting benefits to the state’s water re-sources.”

To earn the certification under the pro-gram’s new criteria for existing buildings,MPFI implemented water-saving features infour categories: landscape and irrigation; heat-ing, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC);indoor, such as water-saving faucets, toilets,and shower heads; and process water use, suchas the amount used to make a product.

“While the Institute is known for its cut-ting-edge brain research, its commitment toleaving a lasting legacy is reinforced throughits state-of-the-art facility,” said Dr. MatthiasHaury, MPFI’s chief operating officer. “Ourscientists are focused on creating a better andbrighter tomorrow, and they are leaving their

mark—not only in our laboratorys, but alsothrough the Institute’s conservation and sus-tainability efforts. We are proud to have re-ceived the Florida Water Star℠ certification,and we thank the South Florida Water Man-agement District for its recognition of our ef-forts to improve Florida’s future.”

Florida Water Star℠was brought to thestate by SFWMD in 2010. To earn the recog-nition, facilities must meet several water-ef-ficiency criteria. Statewide, approximately 20commercial facilities, 10 communities, and1,600 homes are now Water Star-certified.The MPFI is home to a 100,000-sq-ft facilityon six acres of Florida Atlantic University’sJohn D. MacArthur Campus, which receivedLEED-NC Gold certification in 2012. SS

News Beat


For those applications where mixing require-ments are the controlling factor, the AquaDDM®Mixer from Aqua Aerobics can reduce power costs,while delivering three to four times the mixing ofany aerator of the same size. The mixer is designedto provide maximum mixing efficiency. The ductedimpeller of the mixer improves pumping efficiencyand the integrated flow vanes and lower inputtorque eliminate the need for tank baffles. Themixer establishes a powerful downflow mixing pat-tern that transports surface liquid downward andincreases mass transfe. Flow entrainment and re-generative flow create high reactor turnover ratesfor efficient mixing. Other benefits include:S Low initial cost, and less expensive to installand maintain

S Motor options: explosion proof, high-effi-ciency, and Endura® Series

S No couplings, gear boxes, or submergedbearings

S Suitable for most basin configurations S Downflow discharge eliminates short-circuiting S Standard mooring arrangements S Directional flow option S 3 to 75 Horsepower

For those aeration applications where the

mixing energy requirement is greater than the aer-ation requirement, the product will provide mix-ing more efficiently than a combinedaeration/mixing device. This may result in consid-erable energy savings, while providing greater flex-ibility of operation. The mixer can play a key rolewith activated sludge systems, anoxic systems,backmixing, biomass conditioning, biomass sus-pension, denitrification basins, directional mixing,equalization, neutralization, SBR systems, andstorm flow basins. (www.aquaaerobics.com)

kAquatic Informatics Inc. has announced

that its entire AQUARIUS solution suite is nowavailable as a service hosted in a private cloud.The service allows the company to deliver, oper-ate, maintain, and rapidly deploy new innova-tions, while providing customers with a reliable,secure, and scalable way to use its technology so-lutions. There are no capital costs for hardware,software, or information technology labor, re-ducing upfront expenses. Deployment, updates,and data backups are managed by Aquatic In-formatics, while users can gain fast access from alaptop or tablet. The advantages of the cloud are:S Secure and Private Data. Environmental data

are highly valuable. Hosting data on a privatecloud keeps these valuable assets secure to thehighest enterprise standards. With off-site databackups, customer data can be restoredquickly in the event of a natural disaster.

S No-Hassle Upgrades. The cloud is a fully man-aged service. Since it is hosted in a privatecloud, Aquatic Informatics can schedule up-dates at the convenience of each customer.Users simply enjoy the latest features.

S Anywhere Productivity. Remote access over avirtual private network ensures anytime, any-where productivity, whether users are in the of-fice or on the road.

S Scalable Enterprise-Grade Platform. Thecloud scales easily to meet the needs of grow-ing organizations, as their team and moni-toring networks expand.

S Reliable Software as a Service. With 99.9 per-cent planned system uptime, the cloud will beavailable when users need it to access, man-age, and analyze their environmental data.

S Pay as You Go. With monthly, annual, orthree-year subscription terms, organizationsdecide how long they need to use the cloud,so upfront costs are reduced.(www.aquaticinformatics.com) SS

New Products

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And ManagementConsultants, Inc.

Engineering • Inspection

Aboveground Storage Tank SpecialistsMulberry, Florida • Since 1983

863-354-9010www.tankteam.com

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY



CEC Motor & Utility Services, LLC1751 12th Street EastPalmetto, FL. 34221

Phone - 941-845-1030Fax – 941-845-1049

[email protected]

• 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

Motor & Utility Services, LLC


Posi t ions Avai lable

Utilities Treatment Plant Operations Supervisor$55,452 - $78,026/yr.

Utilities System Operator II$37,152 - 52,279/yr.

Water-Reuse Distribution Supervisor$55,452 – 78,026/yr.

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

Orange County, Florida is an employer of choiceand is perennially recognized on the Orlando Sen-tinel’s list of the Top 100 Companies for WorkingFamilies. Orange County shines as a place to bothlive and work, with an abundance of world class golfcourses, lakes, miles of trails and year-round sun-shine - all with the sparkling backdrop of nightlyfireworks from world-famous tourist attractions. Make Orange CountyYour Home for Life.

Orange County Utilities is one of the largest utility providers in Floridaand has been recognized nationally and locally for outstanding opera-tions, efficiencies, innovations, education programs and customer focus.As one of the largest departments in Orange County Government, weprovide water and wastewater services to a population of over 500,000citizens and 62 million annual guests; operate the largest publicly ownedlandfill in the state; and manage in excess of a billion dollars of infra-structure assets. Our focus is on excellent quality, customer service, sus-tainability, and a commitment to employee development. Join us to findmore than a job – find a career.

We are currently looking for knowledgeable and motivated individuals tojoin our team, who take great pride in public service, aspire to create alasting value within their community, and appreciate being immersed inmeaningful work. We are currently recruiting actively for the followingpositions:

Senior Engineer $69,118.40 - $108,555.20 / yearEngineer I, II, III $43,284.80 – $81,556.80 / year Industrial Electrician I $36,732.80 – $48,464.00 / year

Apply online at: http://orangecountyfl.net. Positions are open until filled.

Utilities PositionsCity of Haines City is accepting applications for Wastewater Operators,Plant Maintenance, Pipeline & Pump/Motor Repair and Lead positions.Visit www.hainescity.com

City of Temple TerraceTechnical work in the operation of a water treatment plant and auxiliaryfacilities on an assigned shift. Performs quality control lab tests and otheranalyses, monthly regulatory reports, and minor adjustments and repairsto plant equipment. Applicant must have State of Florida D.E.P. Class “A”,“B”, or “C” Drinking Water License at time of application. SALARYRANGES: $16.59 - $24.89 per hour • w/”C” Certificate $18.25 - $27.38per hour • w/”B” Certificate (+10% above “C”) $20.08 - $30.12 per hour• w/”A” Certificate (+10% above “B”). Excellent benefits package. To applyand/or obtain more details contact City of Temple Terrace, Chief PlantOperator at (813) 506-6593 or Human Resources at (813) 506-6430 orvisit www.templeterrace.com. EOE/DFWP.

City of WildwoodWater Treatment Plant Lead Operator:

Looking for a licensed operator to join our professional team at one ofthe fastest growing cities in Florida. Must hold at least a Class “C” license.Valid Driver’s license a must. High school diploma or GED equivalent,plus Two (2) years technical training in biology, environmental science,chemistry, or a closely related field (two year college degree preferred)and Three (3) years of experience in a water utility as a supervisor/leadoperator capacity, or any equivalent combo. Pay Range: Class 113($16.83 – 26.09/hour) DOE Open Until Filled. Visit our website for moreinformation (www.wildwood-fl.gov)

Water Plant Operator

The Coral Springs Improvement District is currently accepting applica-tions for the position of water treatment plant operators. Applicantsmust have a valid Class C or higher water treatment license and experiencein Reverse Osmosis/Nano Filtration treatment processes preferred how-ever not required. Position requirements include knowledge of methods,tools, and materials used in the controlling, servicing, and minor repairsof all related R.O. water treatment facilities machinery and equipment.Must have a valid Florida drivers license, satisfactory background checkand pass a pre-employment drug screening test.

The minimum starting salary for this position is $42,000. Salaries to com-mensurate relative to level of license and years of experience in the field.

The District has excellent company paid benefits including a 6% non-contributory investment money purchase pension plan, and voluntary457 plan with match up to 5%. EOE.

Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at www.csidfl.org/re-sources/employment.html and fax resume to 954-753-6328, attention JanZilmer, Director of Human Resources.

Class A, B and C operatorsVeolia currently has openings for certified water operators in Tampa, FL(entry level to lead positions). We are looking for Class A, B and C oper-ators. Veolia offers competitive pay and benefit packages. Apply onlinevia our website at http://tinyurl.com/veolia62679.

C L A S S I F I E D S


Lead Maintenance TechVeolia is currently seeking a Lead Maintenance Tech to support opera-tions at the Tampa Bay Surface Water Treatment Plant. This person willbe expected to communicate with water treatment operators and otherstaff in order to ensure smooth operations of the plant and all associatedequipment. This person will be responsible for preventive and correctivemaintenance. The selected candidate will be fully qualified to perform themost complex maintenance functions and may lead the work of othersrelating to mechanical, electromechanical, pneumatic and hydraulicequipment.

Other responsibilities will include:- Typically spends 75 to 95% of time exposed to outdoor and sometimesinclement weather.- Being on call after hours (nights, holidays, weekends)- Being a team player who works well with others and has a good attitudeabout working

Job Requirements- Minimum 5 years of experience in a municipal water treatment envi-ronment or other industrial/plant setting.- Minimum of a high school diploma or GED with preference given tocandidates who have a degree in electronics or electrical repair- Must have and maintain a valid driver license and safe driving record- Must live within a 30 minute response time to plant- Ability to read, write, and comprehend instructions in English; performbasic mathematical calculations; read, interpret and record data from me-ters, gauges, scales, panels, computer consoles and other equipment.- Ability to diagnose problems (regardless of complexity), troubleshootmechanical, electro-mechanical, hydraulic or pneumatic equipment andtake corrective action.- Skills in electrical, mechanical, welding, and lathe/machining- Ability to troubleshoot and repair a broad variety of instrumentationthroughout the water treatment plant. Specific experience sought in De-polox, pH monitors, Ozone residual, Rosemount, PLC's and SCADA.- Ability to efficiently maintain, install, repair and calibrate all instrumentsand equipment which may include progressive cavity pumps, centrifuges,engines, generators, valves, bearings, seals, gates, mixers, gearboxes, con-veyors, blowers, dryers, chemical feed, odor control, disinfection equip-ment, vacuum filters and belt presses, controls, gauges, and meteringdevices which may include electronic circuitry, PLC's (ProgrammableLogic Control units) and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acqui-sition) systems and other sophisticated equipment.

Apply Here: http://www.Click2apply.net/gbgw6ty48n

Water Distribution, Sewer Collection, and New Construction Supervisor

The Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach is seeking quali-fied applicants for a Water Distribution, Sewer Collection, and New Con-struction Supervisor in the Water Resources Department. This isresponsible technical supervisory work in the construction and mainte-nance of water distribution, reclaimed water distribution and sewer col-lection systems. Visit www.ucnsb.org for a full job description.Education/Experience: Valid Florida Class C, in both Water & Sewer Dis-tribution. Starting Salary: $30.80/hr/$64,064.00 annually.Qualified applicants may apply online at www.ucnsb.org or email resumeto [email protected] or mail resume to Human Resources, PO Box 689 NewSmyrna Beach, FL 32170. EOE/DFWP

City of Deltona - Water OperatorOperates water and/or wastewater treatment process and facilities, con-trolling the variations of flow rates and processing methods. May directwork of other operators and trainees in accordance with FDEP regula-tions. Position is subject to being on call and working after normal Citywork hours as well as on weekends and holidays. Operator I: $18.16/hr-$23.11hr, Operator II: $19.65/hr -$25.03/hr, Oper-ator III: $21.24/hr-$27.15/hrHigh School Diploma or GED required. At least one (1) year of related ex-perience.Valid Florida Driver's License. For Operator I: a minimum State of FloridaClass "C" water or "C" wastewater license, Operator II: "B" or "C" License,Operator III: "B" or "A" License.BENEFITS: Full City Benefits to include Florida Retirement System, PaidEmployee Health/Dental, accrued vacation, sick leave and more.Submit completed City of Deltona employment application to: City ofDeltona, Attn: HRD, 2345 Providence Blvd., Deltona FL 32725. Applica-tion available at www.deltonafl.gov

City of WildwoodWastewater Treatment Plant Operator: Looking for a licensed operator tojoin our professional team at one of the fastest growing cities in Florida.Must hold at least a Class “C” license. Valid Driver’s license a must. PayRange: Class 111a ($15.12 - $23.44/hour) DOE Open Until Filled . Ap-plications online www.wildwood-fl.gov or City Hall, 100 N. Main St,Wildwood, FL 34785 Attn: D Gibson Smith. EEO/AA/V/H/MF/DFWP.

City of Sunrise - Director of Field Operations $78,758.99 - $108,570.59 Annually

The position involves management, administrative and supervisory workin the construction, repair, maintenance and plan review of a municipalwater distribution and sewer collection system. Incumbent is responsiblefor efficient and effective supervision of water distribution, sewage col-lection/transmission and streets operations. Emphasis of the work is onassisting in the development of plans for new construction and reloca-tion of underground installations. Plans, assigns and reviews the work ofrepairers, mechanics, equipment operators and laborers engaged in therepair and maintenance of water distribution, sewage collection lines andservices, and roadways and developing solutions to complex operatingproblems. EDUCATIONGraduation from an accredited college or university with a Bachelor's de-gree in civil engineering, environmental engineering, business adminis-tration or a closely related field

EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING • Five (5) years progressively responsible experience in water andwastewater field operations and related facilities is required • Three (3) years supervisory experience required • Registration as Professional Engineer (P.E.) is preferred• Bachelor's degree may be substituted by seven (7) years of fulltimepaid experience in water and wastewater field operations and related fields• Valid state of Florida driver’s license with an acceptable drivingrecord Please apply online at www.sunrisefl.gov DFWP, M/F/D/V, EOEFor additional information: Director of Field Operations


Career Opportunity

Development Project Manager Toho Water Authority

This is your opportunity to work for the largest provider of water, waste-water, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. A fast-growing or-ganization, Toho Water Authority is expanding to approximately 95,000customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of OsceolaCounty. You can be assured there will be no shortage of interesting andchallenging project work on the horizon! As a Development Project Manager, you will have the opportunity tomanage private development water, wastewater, and reuse infrastructuredesign and construction projects. To be considered for this position it isessential that you have a demonstrated ability to:• coordinate with development owners, engineers, contractors, andstaff to ensure TWA requirements are met, • provide outstanding customer service, and • successfully manage and organize development project documenta-tion and records. Toho Water Authority offers a highly competitive compensation package,including tuition reimbursement, on site employee clinic, generous paidleave time, and retirement 401a match. If you are a driven professional,highly organized, and looking for a career opportunity at a growing WaterAuthority, then visit the TWA webpage today and learn how you can joinour team! Visit www.tohowater.com to review the full job description andsubmit an employment application for consideration.

Career Opportunity

PROCESS ENGINEERToho Water Authority

This is your opportunity to work for the largest provider of water, waste-water, and reclaimed water services in Osceola County. A fast-growing or-ganization, Toho Water Authority is expanding to approximately 95,000customers in Kissimmee, Poinciana and unincorporated areas of OsceolaCounty. You can be assured there will be no shortage of interesting andchallenging project work on the horizon! As a Process Engineer, you will have the opportunity to oversee the design,operation, control, and optimization of the water plant process. To beconsidered for this position it is essential that you have a demonstratedability to:• lead an energy management program at the water treatment facilities; • manage project related cost, scheduling and integration; and • identify potential cost savings and take appropriate actions todemonstrate and realize results.Toho Water Authority offers a highly competitive compensation package,including tuition reimbursement, on site employee clinic, generous paidleave time, and retirement 401a match. If you are a driven professional,innovative, and looking for a career opportunity at a growing Water Au-thority, then visit the TWA webpage today and learn how you can joinour team! Visit www.tohowater.com to review the full job description andsubmit an employment application for consideration.

AWT Plant Tech I – City of TampaMinimum qualifications are graduation high school or GED with two (2)years of utility or industrial experience.Apply Here: www.jobaps.com/Tampa

Water System Specialist Salary Range: $60,000. - $90,000.

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority is looking for an outstanding, de-tail oriented applicant with the following qualifications: BS in Civil orEnvironmental Engineering; supplemented by 2 yrs. experience in utilityengineering design and construction, w/experience in reporting packages,databases (SQL etc.), using statistical packages for analyzing large datasets(EXCEL, SPSS, SAS), or any equivalent combination of education, train-ing, and experience which provides the requisite knowledge, skills, andabilities to succeed in this position. Strong analytical skills with the abil-ity to collect, organize, analyze, and disseminate significant amounts of in-formation w/attention to detail and accuracy; adept at queries, reportwriting and presenting findings. Knowledge of water supply, transmis-sion, and distribution systems a plus. Benefit package is extremely com-petitive! Must complete on-line application at www.fkaa.com EEO, VPE,ADA

BESH Engineering seeks experienced environmental engineer for all as-pects of water and wastewater design, including treatment plants, pumpstations, and collection/transmission/distribution systems. Water andwastewater treatment plant design and permitting experience a plus, andexperience with hydraulic modeling, specification writing, Autocad draft-ing, project bidding, construction oversight and project funding preferred.Applicant must possess State of Florida E.I. with minimum 4 years expe-rience. Florida P.E. a plus. Salary commensurate with experience. Comejoin a great team! Drug Free Workplace and an Equal Opportunity Em-ployer. Please email resume to: [email protected]

Utility Infrastructure SuperintendentThe City of Casselberry is seeking a Utility Infrastructure Superintendentresponsible for the administrative, operational and maintenance dutiesassociated with the Water Distribution and Reclamation Systems and LiftStations.

Requirements: A minimum of five (5) years’ experience in water/waste-water industry, lift station maintenance, utilities or related field, includ-ing a minimum of two (2) years’ supervisory experience is required. Mustpossess and maintain a valid Florida driver's license.

For additional information regarding responsibilities or qualificationsand to apply, please visit our website at www.casselberry.org

From page 40

1. D) The chlorine demand is multiplied by more than five for eachpound of nitrite oxidized.Nitrites (NO2) will consume about five times their weight in chlorine before aresidual is detected. However, nitrate (NO3) values have little to no affect ondemand for chlorine in the disinfection process.

2. B) AlumWater that is disinfected with chlorine, and then dechlorinated with sulfurdioxide, may require a chemical to stabilize the pH within the required 6.0 to8.5 range. A commonly used chemical for this application is sodium hydroxide,or caustic soda. Alum is acidic and would never be used for this application.

3. A) 6.15 hoursDetention time, hours= tank volume, MG x 24 hr/day ÷ flow into tank, mgd= 2.5 MG x 24 hr per day ÷ 9.75 mgd = 6.15 hours

4. A) The ORP value increases.The ORP and ammonia are inversely proportional to each other: when theammonia level drops, the ORP value increases; conversely, when the ammonialevel increases, the ORP value decreases.

5. C) Sulfur dioxide (SO2)Sulfur dioxide is the only chemical on this list that will effectively dechlorinatechlorinated effluent. Others chemicals used for dechlorination are sodiumthiosulfate and sodium bisulfite.

6. C) 3.4 percentTSS, parts per mil (ppm) = weight of suspended solids in grams x (1,000,000 ÷ ml of sample)

Weight of TSS = Final wt - paper tare wt= 2.2255 gm – 1.8873 gm = 0.3382 gm

TSS, ppm = 0.3382 gm x 1,000,000 ÷ 10 ml sample = 33,820 mg/L (ppm)

Total solids (TS), percent= TSS, mg/L ÷ 10,000 mg/L per 1 percent= 33,820 mg/L ÷ 10,000 mg/L per 1 percent = 3.38 percent

7. B) 2.5 mg/L225 mg/L x 0.989 = 222.525 mg/L225 mg/L - 222.525 mg/L = effluent TSS of 2.475 mg/L

OR100 percent - 98.9 percent = 1.1 percent225 mg/L x 0.011 = effluent TSS of 2.475 mg/L

8. D) πdCircumference is calculated as pi times the diameter, or πd. Basically, you cantake the diameter of any circle and wrap it around the circumference (theouter wall of the circle) 3.14 times. If you have a calculator with a pi button, ittypically displays 3.14159265359.

9. A) 4.56 bar1.0 bar = 14.7 pounds per sq in. (psi)

155 ft TDH x 0.433 psi per ft of head = 67.115 psi ÷ 14.7 psi/bar = 4.56 bar

OR155 feet TDH ÷ 2.31 ft of head per psi = 67.099 psi ÷ 14.7 psi/bar = 4.56 bar

10. B) 185,960 galVolume per ft = πr2 x 1 foot x 7.48 gals/ft3

3.14 x 50 ft x 50 ft x 1 ft x 7.48 gals/ft3 = 58,718 gal per ft

38 in. ÷ 12 in. per ft = 3.167 ft58,718 gals per ft x 3.167 ft = 185,959.9 gal in 38 in. in a 100-ft-diameter tank

Blue Planet..................................63

CEU Challenge ............................17

Crom ..........................................35

Data Flow....................................33

Drop Savers ................................25

Florida Aquastore ........................48

FSAWWA Awards ........................55

FSAWWA Likins ..........................39

FSAWWA Training........................37

FWPCOA Training ........................23

FWRC

Announcement ..........................9

Attendee Registration ..............10

FWRC (continued)

Technical Program....................11

Networking ..............................12

Sponsorship ............................13

Exhibitor Info............................14

Garney ..........................................5

Hudson Pumps............................29

Medora ......................................15

Polston........................................41

Stacon ..........................................2

Treeo ..........................................49

Vaughan......................................53

Xylem..........................................64

Display Advertiser Index

Certification Boulevard Answer Key


Shift Supervisor, Water Plant, City of Port OrangeThe City of Port Orange invites applications for the Shift Supervisor po-sition at the water treatment plant. A Class B operators certificate is re-quired. Interested parties may apply at https: www.port-orange.org

Water Plant Operator The Utilities Commission, City of New Smyrna Beach is seeking qualifiedapplicants for a WTP Operator within the Water Resources Department.This is highly specialized work in the operations of a Class A Water Treat-ment Plant. Visit www.ucnsb.org for a full job description.

Education/Experience: Valid Florida Class C, B, or A License in WaterTreatment. Starting Salary: C - $18.82/hr; B - $20.39/hr; A - $21.99/hr

Qualified applicants may apply online at www.ucnsb.org or email resumeto [email protected] or mail resume to Human Resources, PO Box 689 NewSmyrna Beach, FL 32170. EOE/DFWP

“C” Water Plant OperatorThe City of Lake Mary is hiring a Class "C" Water Plant Operator. $31,158- $48,651 with exc. benefits. Please visit www.lakemaryfl.com for the re-quirements, job description and to apply. EOE, V/P, DFWP

LOOKING FOR A JOB? The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help!

Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465or fax 407-293-9943 for more information.

Classified Advertising Rates - Classified ads are $20 per line fora 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 aresubject to editing. [email protected]

Documents

Florida Water Resources Journal - March 2016