Transcript WTP No. 2 Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge

Water Treatment Plant No. 2
Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge
August 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
Reject water
~1.2 MGD
8
7
6
Reject
5
4
Drinking
Water
3
2
1
0
Groundwater
Capacity
Drinking water
~6.3 MGD
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
― Technical feasibility
― Environmental benefits
• Evaluation selected Zero Liquid Discharge for
Pilot Study
• Zero Liquid Discharge Pilot Study confirmed
treatability, feasibility, and economics as
favorable
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
Future Situation
No Liquid Discharge
Groundwater
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 Costs
Total 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