WTP No. 2 Concentrate Zero Liquid Discharge by WAnDq8iy


									  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
    Current Plant Design Capacity
• Permitted production is
  ~6.3 Million Gallons per          8
  Day (MGD)
• Source water required             5              Reject
  is ~7.5 MGD                       4
                    Reject water                   Drinking
                                    3              Water
                    ~1.2 MGD
 Groundwater                        0

                   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
• City performed an evaluation of concentrate
  disposal alternatives based on:
  – Costs                   ― Technical feasibility
  – Regulatory compliance   ― Environmental benefits
• Evaluation selected Zero Liquid Discharge for
  Pilot Study
• Zero Liquid Discharge Pilot Study confirmed
  treatability, feasibility, and economics as
 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
         Future Situation

                   No Liquid Discharge

       Project Delivery Method
• City selected an Original Equipment
  Manufacturer (OEM)
  – Advertised Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
     • Six OEMs responded
     • Evaluation included technical process and experience
     • 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
      • $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
• 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
• Award construction contract: May 2012
• Substantial completion and Administrative
  Order compliance: April 2013

To top