Water Treatment Plant No. 2 Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge

August 30, 2011August 30, 2011

McKim & Creed, Inc.• Tommy Brown, P.E. – Vice President, Project QA/QC

• Craig Wells, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge

• Phil Locke, P.E.– Senior Project Manager

• Ryan Popko, P.E.– Assistant Project Manager, Lead Project Engineer

Water Treatment Plant No. 2 Overview

• Membrane Softening Water Treatment Plant– Fresh groundwater wells provide the source water– Produces drinking water– Produces concentrate or “reject” stream– Concentrate discharged into Royal Palms

Waterway

Current Plant Design Capacity• Permitted production is

~6.3 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)

• Source water required is ~7.5 MGD

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Capacity

Reject

DrinkingWater

Drinking water ~6.3 MGD

Reject water~1.2 MGD

Concentra

te

Permeate

Groundwater

Administrative Order

• Administrative Order for Concentrate Disposal– EPA determined current concentrate discharge

permit is not allowed by the Clean Water Act– FDEP notified City that concentrate disposal

permit would not be renewed– Administrative Order requires City to devise an

alternate method of disposing of the concentrate

Background• City performed an evaluation of concentrate

disposal alternatives based on:– Costs– Regulatory compliance

• Evaluation selected Zero Liquid Discharge for Pilot Study

• Zero Liquid Discharge Pilot Study confirmed treatability, feasibility, and economics as favorable

― Technical feasibility― Environmental benefits

Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) Overview• Treats concentrate stream to remove excess

mineral content• Treated stream blended with finished water

from water plant• Process is integrated into existing water plant;

will operate as one facility• Eliminates concentrate discharge from water

plant

No Liquid Discharge

ZLD Recovered Water

Concentra

te

Permeate

Groundwater

Drinkin

g wate

r – ~7.5 M

GD

Future Situation

Project Delivery Method• City selected an Original Equipment

Manufacturer (OEM)– Advertised Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

• Six OEMs responded• Evaluation included technical process and experience

information• City selected three OEMs for further consideration

– Advertised Request for Proposal (RFP)• Evaluation included pricing information

– Selected Doosan Hydro Technology

Project Delivery Method

• City selected a Design Engineer– Requested technical qualifications (RFQ) from the

three firms under contract to provide utility engineering services• Evaluation utilized qualifications based selection per

state law

– Selected McKim & Creed

Project Delivery Method

• Future Actions– Design to be performed by McKim & Creed• Design will incorporate the OEM equipment that has

been selected by the City• Technical plans and specifications will be prepared to

include equipment provided by the OEM

– Advertisement for a General Contractor (GC)• Price competition, based on using OEM equipment and

pricing provided to City

Project CostsTotal Estimated Project Costs $7.3M vs. $7.5M budget• Construction Costs

• $2.15M OEM (quote)• $4.00M General Contractor (still subject to bid environment)• $0.24M Bidding and Engineering Services during Construction (quote)

• Design Costs• $0.58M Engineering (quote)• $0.11M OEM Services (quote)

• Integration Costs• $0.22M Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (quote)

Benefits of Project• Achieves regulatory compliance• Increases water plant design capacity at build-out by

~1.2 MGD• Eliminates discharge permit and associated sampling

costs• Meets the Consumptive Use Permit requirement for

Alternative Water Supply• Design incorporates City’s green initiatives– Water Conservation– Waste Recovery

• Delays costs associated with future expansions

Project Schedule

• Work Order issued for design: September 2011

• Award construction contract: May 2012• Substantial completion and Administrative

Order compliance: April 2013

Questions