Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Documentation_Regular_Tab 16_1/13/2022
Agenda Item #16. Regular Council STAFF MEMO Meeting: Regular Council - Jan 13 2022 Staff Contact: Matthew Hammond, Utilities Department: Utilities Director Accept Water Treatment Plant Process Efficiency and Automation & Water Distribution System Studies SUMMARY: February 2021 the Village Council approved Work Authorizations CM U21.01 and CM U21.02 with Chen -Moore & Associates, in the amounts of $74,820 and $124,400 respectively, to complete a Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Process Efficiency & Automation Evaluation and Potable Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model & Evaluation. Chen -Moore, in conjunction with Wright -Pierce, completed the projects simultaneously during 2021. The WTP Process Efficiency & Automation Evaluation identified improvements to increase efficiency by lowering power and chemical use, evaluated the existing control system hardware for a cohesive and planned upgrade and recommend methods to further automate the treatment processes. Village WTP operators and Instrumentation & Controls vendor were involved throughout the project. The results of the WTP Process Efficiency & Automation Evaluation were incorporated into the Water System Capital Improvement Plan and the Water Treatment Process Efficiency & Control Improvements project currently in final design and permitting. The Hydraulic Model & Evaluation project developed a hydraulic model of the Village potable water distribution system, including piping and high -service pumping system, to identify water system improvements and to properly size the water mains being replaced in the Village water main replacement program to meet the hydraulic needs of the system. System fire flow recommendations, model results and the recommended improvements were developed with and reviewed with the Village Fire Department. The water main sizing and identified water system improvements are currently being incorporated into the water main replacement projects and Water Treatment Process Efficiency & Control Improvements project. The signed and sealed technical memorandums summarizing the results of each evaluation are attached for review. This document and any attachments may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by completing our Accessibility Feedback Form, sending an e-mail to the Village Clerk or calling 561-768-0443. Accept Water Treatment Plant Process Efficiency and Automation & Water Distribution System Studies Hydraulic Modeling Technical Memorandum.ada Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum.ada Page 362 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Page 363 of 488 Agenda Item #16. The following document is presented in a non- ADA compliant format. Please contact the Village Clerk's office if you would like to receive an ADA compliant version of this document. Page 364 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WRIGHT-PIERCE Engineering a Better Environment TO: Matthew Hammond, PE Chris Baggett, PE; FROM: Saheb Mansour-Rezaei, PhD, PE; Lawrence Neal. EI MEMORANDUM DATE: 12/30/2021 PROJECT NO.: 20597 SUBJECT: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan This technical memorandum is intended for review by the Village of Tequesta and other parties as considered necessary by the Village and Wright -Pierce, Inc. This report has been prepared under the supervision of Christopher C. Baggett, P.E. Lie. # 56047. Christopher C. Baggett, P.E. Date Page 365 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WRIGHT-PIERCE Engineering a Better Environment TO: Matthew Hammond, PE Chris Baggett, PE; FROM: Saheb Mansour-Rezaei, PhD, PE; Lawrence Neal. EI MEMORANDUM DATE: 12/30/2021 PROJECT NO.: 20597 SUBJECT: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan 1. INTRODUCTION Wright -Pierce (WP) and Chen Moore and Associates, Inc. (CMA) are developing an improvements plan for the Village of Tequesta (Village) water distribution system (WDS). Work associated with the project includes the following: • Developing and calibrating a hydraulic model of the Village's WDS • Evaluating the hydraulic performance for the existing WDS • Developing improvements, including sizes of replacement water mains for the Village's asbestos -cement (AC) piping, needed to satisfy the hydraulic needs of the WDS • Developing an implementation plan and cost opinions for the improvements This technical memorandum (TM) summarizes aspects of the work and includes improvement prioritization and cost opinions for the proposed improvements. 2. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Village owns and operates Public Water System (PWS) No. 4501438, which is permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The PWS provides potable water to customers within the Village's water service area through approximately 5,045 connections. The PWS includes 14 groundwater wells, a water treatment plant (WTP), and a WDS consisting of over 72 miles of water distribution mains. The WDS has three emergency interconnects (two with the Town of Jupiter and one with South Martin Regional Utility). Figure I provides an overview of the Village's WDS. Page 366 of 488 Agenda Item #16. C F N A 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 Feet Tequesta Potable Water System Overview Te uesta, FL PROJ NO: DATE: 20597 12/23/2021 WRIGHT-PIERCE FIGURE: Engineering a Better Environment 1 Page 367 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 3 of 34 The FDEP permitted maximum daily operating capacity for the PWS is 6.33 million gallons per day (MGD) (approximately 4,395 gallons per minute (gpm)).The Village's South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Water Use Permit (WUP No. 50-00046-W), which expires on October 31, 2031, allows the Village to withdraw up to 1,594 million gallons (MG) annually (approximately 3,024 gpm based on a 366-day year), with a maximum monthly withdrawal limit of 230.11 MG (approximately 5,154 gpm based on a 31-day month). The WTP consists of a 2.7-MGD sand filter treatment process, a 3.66-MGD reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process, one 0.75-MG ground storage tank (GST), one 2.0-MG GST, and one high -service pump station (HSPS) consisting of seven high -service pumps (HSPs) which pump finished water from the GSTs into the WDS. Table 1 provides details related to the HSPs. Table 1: HSPS Pumps Summary HSP Type Rated Capacity (gpm) Rated Total Dynamic Head (TDH) Drive Type Motor Size (hp) 1 Vertical Turbine 700 147 Constant Speed 40 2 Vertical Turbine 700 147 Constant Speed 40 3 Vertical Turbine 700 147 Constant Speed 40 4 Vertical Turbine 700 147 Adjustable Speed 40 5 Horizontal Split Case 2,275 147 Adjustable Speed 125 6 Horizontal Split Case 2,275 147 Constant Speed 125 7 Horizontal S lit Case 1,275 147 Adjustable Sp eed 75 Table 2 provides a summary of the linear footage of the Village's WDS piping by material and nominal diameter. Pipe nominal diameters range from 2 inches to 16 inches. Pipe materials include AC, ductile iron (DI), high -density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). The primary material associated with the oldest portions of the WDS, installed between 1950 and 1970, is AC. It should be noted that the table below includes updates to the nominal diameter and pipe materials, as discussed throughout this TM. Page 368 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 4 of 34 Table 2: Summary of WDS Piping Nominal Diameter (in) Linear Footage (LF) Total (LF) AC DI HDPE PVC 2 - - - 1,064 1,064 4 17,220 - - 7,062 24,282 6 73,509 498 - 78,127 152,134 8 38,144 6,526 - 120,956 165,626 10 5,475 887 - 13,453 19,814 12 932 2,353 722 14,594 18,601 16 - - - 1,623 1,623 Total 1 135,279 10,264 722 236,879 1 383,144 3. APPLICABLE RESOURCES The methodology used to develop the hydraulic model and demand allocations depends on the types of data available. The following resources were made available for these efforts: • Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles of the WDS piping, fire hydrants, emergency interconnects, and isolation valves • Excel files containing WTP finished water Flow Reports for 2018 through 2020 • WTP Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) for 2017 through 2021 • Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) data for all WTP GSTs and HSPs for the period discussed later in this TM • A summary of the locations, operating schedules, and volumes flushed for each automatic flushing device • Access to Sensus Analytics' online portal containing automatic meter reading (AMR) customer meter data for the period discussed later in this TM • A copy of the 2020 Facilities Assessment Update Report prepared by Kimley-Horn (2020 Facilities Assessment Report). • Record drawings for the Village's WTP GSTs and HSPS • Pump curves for all HSPs Page 369 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 5 of 34 4. MODEL DEVELOPMENT WaterGEMS' ModelBuilder tool was used to create the model piping from a GIS shapefile of the WDS piping. The model piping contained the lengths, nominal diameters, materials, and installation dates defined in the GIS shapefile. Subsequently, AC pipe materials in the model were updated to be consistent with information contained in the 2020 Facilities Assessment Report because the City believes this report most accurately represents the presence of AC piping within the WDS. Model pipe junctions were generated to connect pipes with ends within a 1.0-ft proximity. Piping connectivity was subsequently reviewed and updated with input from the Village. Model development also included the activities list below, which are discussed in the proceeding subsections: • Establishing boundary conditions • Assigning pipe inside diameters and Hazen -Williams C-Factors • Assigning elevations 4.1. ESTABLISHING BOUNDARY CONDITIONS Representations of the WTP GSTs and HSPS were established based on the provided WTP record drawings, pump curves, and discussions with the Village's operations and maintenance personnel. The HSPS discharge pressures used in the model were set to observed discharge pressures. 4.2. ASSIGNING PIPE INSIDE DIAMETERS AND HAZEN-WILLIAMS C-FACTORS The use of pipe inside diameters, as opposed to pipe nominal diameters, has the potential to reduce to overall effort associated with Hazen -William C-Factor adjustments during the calibration process. The model pipe diameters were converted from nominal diameters to inside diameters to the extent practical. The inside diameters were established based on the pipe nominal diameters and materials, the water system specifications included in the Village's Water Department Manual of Standards, and American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards Page 370 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 6 of 34 related to the specified water system piping. As discussed in various reference materials, Hazen -Williams C-Factors vary based on the pipe diameter, material, and interior condition resulting from years of service. The Hazen -Williams C-Factor for a specific pipe also varies based on flow velocity, or more accurately stated, the Reynold's Number. The Hazen -Williams C-Factors selected for use in the model were back -calculated from headloss values calculated using the Darcy-Weisbach and Colebrook -White friction factor equations for the various pipe diameters and materials. The following assumptions were made in the calculations: • Absolute roughness values for the various pipe materials correspond to piping that has been in service and exposed to nonaggressive water for 20 years or more. • Typical water system velocities occur. The updated pipe inside diameters and the initial Hazen -Williams C-Factors used in the model are summarized in Table 3. Page 371 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 7 of 34 Table 3: Summary of Updated Inside Diameters and Initial C-Factors Material Nominal Diameter (in) Internal Diameter (in) Initial Hazen - Williams C Factor AC 4 4.00 126 AC 6 6.00 129 AC 8 8.00 130 AC 10 10.00 131 AC 12 12.00 132 DI 6 6.275 130 DI 8 8.425 131 DI 10 10.455 132 DI 12 12.515 133 HDPE 12 10.293 137 PVC 2 1.913 126 PVC 4 4.23 131 PVC 6 6.09 133 PVC 8 7.98 135 PVC 10 9.79 136 PVC 12 11.65 137 PVC 1 16 1 15.92 1138 4.3. ELEVATION ASSIGNMENT The elevations for all model pipe junctions were assigned using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s 2018 National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Topobathy Lidar digital elevation model (DEM), which appears to reasonably represent the ground surface elevations throughout the WDS service area. The horizontal projection and vertical datum associated with the DEM are as follows: • Horizontal Projection: North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), State Plane Florida East • Vertical Datum: North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD 88) Generally, decreasing the elevation of a model junction by 2.31 feet increases the calculated Page 372 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 8 of 34 pressure at the junction by 1.0 psi. Based on the direct relationship between the calculated pressure and elevation, the assignment of elevations is relative but must be consistent. Typically, it is not practical to assign actual pipe centerline elevations to all model junctions. Instead, junction elevations are usually set either at grade or some assumed depth below grade. The Recommended Standards for Water Works states the following: The system shall be designed to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi (140 kPa) at ground level at all points in the distribution system under all conditions of flow. For this reason, the junction elevations were set to grade. This allows the model -simulated pressures (e.g., during fire flow conditions) to be directly compared to the minimum pressure criteria without need for elevation adjustments. 5. DEMAND ALLOCATION Demand allocation consisted of accounting for all water supplied to the WDS and geospatially allocating all water supplied to the system (i.e., the "demands" of the system) in a realistic manner throughout the model. Demand types included the following: • Customer Demands: Metered water uses associated with the geospatial reference points representing the locations of water customers • Automatic Flushing Demands: Metered water uses associated with geospatial reference points representing the locations of the automatic flushing devices • Nonspecific Spatiotemporal (NS) Demands: Water loss and all other water uses that typically cannot be spatially and temporally defined in an efficient and realistic manner. These demands generally include non -metered demands (e.g., leakage) and some metered demands (e.g., hydrant flushing in response to a specific customer complaint). Demand allocations are described in further detail in the following subsections. Page 373 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 9 of 34 5.1. CUSTOMER DEMANDS Individual customer water usage (customer demand) is recorded throughout the Village's WDS using Sensus Analytics' AMR meters. Customer demand data are typically transmitted from the AMR meters to a central database on an hourly basis. Daily customer demand data associated with all meters AMR meters were exported from Sensus Analytics' online portal for May 5 and May 6, 2021 (the Calibration Period). The average customer demand for each AMR meter for the Calibration Period was exported for use in the model. Coordinates and addresses associated with each AMR meter were used to create a GIS shapefile containing geospatially oriented points representing each customer meter. WaterGEMS' ModelBuilder tool was then used to import the customer meter GIS shapefile into the model. 5.2. AUTOMATIC FLUSHING DEMANDS The Village's automatic flushing data included the locations, operating schedules, and flushing volumes for each of the five automatic flushing devices installed in the WDS. Within the model, each automatic flushing device was represented by a new junction at its appropriate spatial location, with the demand set to the corresponding average flushing rate. 5.3. NONSPECIFIC SPATIOTEMPORAL (NS) DEMANDS The total WDS NS demand was estimated using the difference between the total volume of finished water produced and the sum of the following demand volumes over the Calibration Period. This amount was then then converted to an average demand: • Total customer demand volume • Total automatic flushing demand volume • Total fire flow volume The NS demand was allocated to each model junction (excluding junctions representing Page 374 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 10 of 34 automatic flushing device and those between the GSTs and the HSPs) proportionally to the surface areas of the connecting pipes. The allocation method essentially treats the overall NS demand as leakage and assumes a constant leakage rate per pipe surface area throughout the model. 6. MODEL CALIBRATION Model calibration is intended to enhance the ability of the model to accurately predict conditions observed in the system. The calibrated model may then be used to predict future system conditions based on existing data and can be used as a planning tool. The calibration process consists of iteratively comparing model -simulated results with observed, field -measured results (from data collection) and making modifications to the model to minimize the discrepancies between the two. Modifications primarily include adjusting Hazen -Williams C-Factors associated with water system piping and adjusting boundary conditions. The model was calibrated using the results of the 20 fire flow tests performed on May 5 and May 6, 2021. Figure 2 provides a map of the system with the approximate locations of the fire flow tests. Appendix A provides a summary of the locations of all fire flow tests. Additional details regarding the fire flow tests and the collection of data, which were completed by the Village and CMA, were provided in the Field Data Collection Plan, previously submitted to the Village. Page 375 of 488 Agenda Item #16. No 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 Feet Field Data Collection Locations Tequesta, FL PROJ NO: DATE: 20597 12/3/2021 KRHT-PIERCE FiGuRe: neering a Better Environment 2 Page 376 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 12 of 34 Following completion of the fire flow tests, Wright -Pierce compiled the test results and 1-minute interval SCADA data presenting the GST levels, WTP HSPS discharge pressures and flows, and speed and statuses (ON/OFF) for all HSPs. This infonnation, along with the automatic flushing device summary, were used to accomplish the following: • Establish the appropriate boundary conditions settings (e.g., WTP HSPS discharge pressure) and overall system demand to use in the model when the static and residual pressure readings were taken for each of the 20 fire flow tests • Establish the appropriate flow rate to apply to the applicable hydrant locations when residual pressure was measured during each of the 20 fire flow tests • Establish the patterns to apply to customer demands, automatic flushing demands, and the NS demands included in the model so that the sum of these demands equaled overall system demand when the static and residual pressure readings were taken for each of the 20 fire flow tests During the model calibration, significant discrepancies were found between model -simulated and field -measured pressures. After reviewing the system, the results of the preliminary calibration effort were discussed with the Village. Based on coordinated efforts between the Village and WP, the following conditions were found: • The Village's southern emergency interconnect with the Town of Jupiter water system was open during the fire flow tests. • Piping within the Jupiter Inlet Colony was recently replaced, with many of the pipes being upsized. • A closed valve was found in the northwest portion of the system prior to the subaqueous crossing of the Loxahatchee River. Subsequently, demands were adjusted, the piping within the Jupiter Inlet Colony was updated, the closed valve was incorporated, and the calibration effort was completed. The calibration goal Page 377 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 13 of 34 was ± 3 psi, meaning model -simulated pressures should be within -3 to +3 psi of the field - measured pressures. It should be noted that the recorded residual pressure readings associated with nine fire flow tests were the same as the record static pressure readings. After review of the data and the system, Wright -Pierce eliminated these residual pressure readings from consideration in the calibration effort. Table 4 summarizes the results of the calibration and includes the field -measured results, model -simulated results, and the difference between the model -simulated and field -measured results. Table 4: Summary of Fire Flow Test Results Test Residual Flow ( m Measured Data Simulated Data Simulated - Measured Static Pressure ( si) Residual Pressure si) Static Pressure si Residual Pressure (psi) A Static Pressure (psi) A Residual Pressure si FF1 840 66 31 65 29 -1 -2 FF2 795 64 48 66 49 2 1 FF3 1030 70 56 67 57 -3 1 FF4 920 65 N/A 66 62 1 N/A FF5 840 70 45 67 46 -3 1 FF6 1030 65 60 66 55 1 -5 FF7 1095 66 52 69 53 3 1 FF8 1130 67 N/A 67 61 0 N/A FF9 920 69 53 68 59 -1 6 FF10 1130 65 N/A 65 60 0 N/A FF11 1000 68 52 66 54 -2 2 FF12 1030 64 64 63 63 -1 -1 FF13 1190 65 N/A 67 64 2 N/A FF14 1130 67 N/A 65 61 -2 N/A FF15 840 63 56 59 59 -4 3 FF16 880 64 45 64 48 0 3 FF17 750 56 N/A 60 46 4 N/A FF18 795 67 N/A 70 60 3 N/A FF19 1030 60 N/A 61 59 1 N/A LF:F20 880 66 N/A 67 56 1 N/A Figure 3 shows model -simulated static pressures compared with the calibration goal of ± 3 psi Page 378 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 14 of 34 of the field -measured static pressures for each test. Overall, 90% (18 of the 20 static pressure measurements) of the model -simulated static pressures were within ± 3 psi of the field -measured static pressures and 100% (20 of the 20 static pressure measurements) of the model -simulated static pressures were within ± 4 psi of the field -measured static pressures. Figure 3: Static Pressure Comparison so 0CL �os;b;v§�{F F 20 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Fire Flow Test o Field -Measured Static Pressure ±3 psi O Model -Simulated Static Pressure Figure 4 shows how model -simulated residual pressures compared with the calibration goal of ± 3 psi of the field -measured residual pressures for each test. Overall, 90% (9 of the 11 usable residual pressure measurements) of the model -simulated residual pressures were within ± 3 psi of the field -measured residual pressures and 100% (11 of the 11 usable residual pressure measurements) of the model -simulated residual pressures were within ± 6 psi of the field - measured residual pressures. Page 379 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 15 of 34 Figure 4: Residual Pressure Comparison 80 70 • WP suspects there may be other hydraulic obstructions in the WDS and the actual WDS piping configuration in some areas of the WDS may be different than as shown in GIS (and consequently, in the hydraulic model). Since the Village intends to perform water quality modeling of the WDS, WP recommends performing additional data collection during the water quality modeling effort to better improve the representation of the actual WDS in the model and hydraulic model calibration results in localized portions of the WDS. 7. WDS HYDRAULIC EVALUATION The calibrated hydraulic model was used to evaluate the hydraulic performance of the existing WDS and recommend improvements to replace AC mains and to satisfy the Village's WDS level of service (LOS) goals. WP coordinated with the Village to summarize the Village's LOS goals, which are provided in Appendix B for reference. Page 380 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 16 of 34 Model scenarios were developed and executed for the existing WDS and the improved WDS for each of the following system demand conditions: • Maximum daily demand plus fire flow (MDD + FF) • Annual average daily demand (AADD) • Peak hourly demand (PHD) The Village's WDS is essentially built out. Table 5 presents the demands associated with the indicated demand conditions. Table 5: Summary of Demand Conditions Demand Condition Basis Demand (gpm) AADD MORs 1,865 MDD MDD/AADD Peaking Factor: 1.5 2,798 PHD PHD/AADD Peaking Factor: 2.75 5,129 7.1. EXISTING SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSES MDD + FF Analysis The Village, in collaboration with the City of Tequesta's Fire Department, established the fire flow goals for the Village's WDS. The fire flow goals are provided in the figure included in Appendix B, referred to herein as the Fire Flow Goals Figure. An MDD + FF analysis was performed to assess if the available fire flows throughout the WDS satisfy the fire flow goals. For this analysis, 509 junctions representing the approximate locations of fire hydrants within the WDS were assigned fire flow goals of either 1,000 gpm, 1,500 gpm, or 2,250 gpm, in accordance with the Fire Flow Goals Figure. For the analysis, minimum local residual and minimum system pressure constraints were each set to the regulatory minimum pressure requirement of 20 psi. Page 381 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 17 of 34 The results of the fire flow analysis indicated that the fire goals could not be satisfied at 44 of the 509 locations. Figure 5 shows the locations where the fire flow goals were satisfied (shown in green) and locations where the fire flow goals were not satisfied (shown in red). AADD and PHD Scenarios AADD and PHD scenarios were performed to assess if the existing system is adequately sized to satisfy the Village's LOS goals during AADD and PHD demand conditions. Table 6 compares the model -simulated WDS pressure ranges and the maximum water main velocities for the AADD and PHD scenarios to the LOS goals established for this project. The model results indicate that the existing system is adequately sized to satisfy the Villages LOS goals during AADD and PHD conditions. Table 6: AADD and PHD Pressures and Velocities Summary WDS Pressure Range Maximum Water Main Velocity Scenario Model Results (psi) LOS Goals (psi) Model Results (fps) LOS Goal (fps) AADD 56 — 71 45 — 80 3.58 PHD 47 - 71 6.70 Page 382 of 488 Agenda Item #16. p Interconnect v TP Water Treatment Plant WDS Piping FF Availability o Meets FF Availability Goal Does Not Meet Fire Flow ° Availability Goal a 0 0 00 0o0 0 ° 00 ° �0 O 0 O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 ° 0 0 p o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 9 o CD o g O 00 m 0 O O 00 O 0 O ° ° 00 O o O O o ° 0 0 6 0 00 O o m 00 ° O 0 0° o 0 o 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 e 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0 � o O 0 0 0 O O 0 ° 0 ° O o °° 0 0°°°08[} O ° 0 ° O ° 0 CCOO-v ° 00 CPO Bo e O O 00 0 0° 0 0 O 0 00 0 o Q) 0 ° ° 0 °0 0 O °° O O ° Co O 0 p ) ° ° 0 O o0 0 0 °p 0 O O O CY O ° 0 O O ° ° O ° ° ° �O °° 0 ° 8 ° ° ee 00 o°o B°0 00000 00 6 0 ° �° 0 o e0 00 0 °Go Cp 0 0 0 00 9 O O O g o O 0 0 °° p 0 ° 00 0 ° O O OO °O 00 Q 0 0 e ° 0 0 00 O 0 0 O e 0 00 O ° ° 00m( ° 0 0 0 0 ° o ° 00 0 e0 0 O 00 No 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 Feet O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O O 00 Existing System MDD + FF Results Tequesta, FL PROJ NO: DATE: 20597 1 12/3/2021 WRIGHT-PIERCE FIGURE: Engineering a Better Environment 1 5 Page 383 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 19 of 34 7.2. IMPROVED SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSES The results of the Existing System Hydraulic Analyses indicate that the system is adequately sized to satisfy the Village's LOS goal under AADD and PHD conditions. However, some fire goals are not satisfied during MDD demand conditions. Wright -Pierce met with the Village to discuss near -term improvements that are currently in design/construction and proposed WDS improvements needed to better satisfy the Village's WDS fire flow goals. These near -term and proposed improvements were incorporated into the model for use in the Improved System Hydraulic Analyses. MDD + FF Scenarios The MDD + FF analysis was repeated for the improved system. The results of the fire flow analysis indicated that the near -term and proposed improvements resolved 34 of the 44 shortfalls previously identified. Figure 6 shows the locations where the fire flow goals were satisfied (shown in green) and locations where the fire flow goals were not satisfied (shown in red). Table 7 summarizes the 10 shortfalls and includes the associated model junction IDs, Hydrant IDs, fire flow goals and availability, pipe size comments, and recommendations for additional study to potentially eliminate the remaining shortfalls. Page 384 of 488 Agenda Item #16. o � y i c= o F °. -5 E �� ,. y you • i7 3 w cc bA p N U . O cd O U O � cC O v, E O cG ti U Ga •O � a'L+ "'' U �i U r y N yUj Y U O bq c3 ��y � O u W ^3 C— � 4�-r � U C . � i ❑ 4= O Q c3 E cC N u Q v Y O E .� cpC O. R•, •�' 'O N N N � % N N N ,�----• '_` N U N U ,F---• % U '�--• N N N '�--• .— N N N ,'�--• sue. U E O y O N N o•� U c0 'ITE N cd N Ni ^_ �� U c3 N N ^ �E N cd o•� N cd U p UlD N U 0 0 to O 'EJ O to U O G O Oto rl-,¢ rl- O ¢' ISO O ¢ �00 O.¢' O.a+ O- ¢ A ¢ a, . -0,."a..E W b0 bL M� F7 Q '¢¢ w cCi1• w 03¢ O- o N o N N c N N N w CN N M M �. ca W •� wv i .O ���yy F4 �]y W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. u O l� 4`. O S m Vl O 01 Ca � 01 00 00 N N M l� � N h 00 h Page 385 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WRIGHT-PIERCE Engineering a Better Environment MEMORANDUM AADD and PDH Scenarios Although the existing system can satisfy the Village's LOS goals under AADD and PHD conditions, the AADD and PHD scenarios were repeated to document the findings associated with the improved system. Table 8 compares the model -calculated WDS pressures ranges and the maximum water main velocities for the AADD and PHD scenarios to the Village's LOS goals. The model results indicate the improved system is adequately sized to satisfy the Village's LOS goals during AADD and PHD conditions. Table 8: AADD and PHD Pressures and Velocities Summary WDS Pressure Range Maximum Water Main Velocity Scenario Model Results (psi) LOS Goals (psi) Model Results (fps) LOS Goal (fps) AADD 56 — 71 45 — 80 1.61 c 7 PHD 1 47 - 71 1 4.14 Page 386 of 488 Agenda Item #16. r) 0 p Interconnect wTP Water Treatment Plant WDS Piping FF Availability O Meets FF Availability Goal 0 Did Not Meet Fire Flow Availability Goal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 N A Do 0 0 0 8 0 m $ 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 00 °0 0 db ° 0 ° �0 0 0 0 o° 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 000 0 0 O 0° o °00 o O ° 0 00 0 00 0 9 o m o g 0 00 m 0 O° 00 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 Co 1 00 0 0 ° 0 0 m° 0 0 0 ` 0 °0 0 8 0000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0° 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 ° p 0 0 008 ° Oy 0 0 0 0 0 000c9 WTP 0 00 015 e00 °0 0 0 00 000°O ® W °0 °00 ° ° 000 O0 00 0 ° CA ° O 0 OO °0 C� 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 ° o CSC O ° 0 O O ° 0 ° ° ° ° CPO 000 ° 8 ° ° 66 00 000 000 0 00® O ° ° ° 0 9 0 0 00 0006 0 0 o d�o0000 go 0 00 0° pO� 0 o0 ° 0° o o %°Oom 0 0 0 9 0 ° 0 0 °0 o (b 6° 0 ° 0 ° 00 0 0 ° 0 ° 0c ° 0 ° 0 00CD 8 00 0 ego 0 00 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 Feet M N 0 0 000 0 0 0 cU Improved System MDD + FF Results Tequesta, FL PROJ NO: DATE: 20597 1 12/14/2021 WRIGHT-PIERCE FIGURE: Engineering a Better Environment 1 6 Page 387 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WRIGHT-PIERCE Engineering a Better Environment MEMORANDUM 7.3. WDS IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The 2020 Facility Assessment Report established the Village's initial AC pipe replacement program, which was envisioned to be accomplished in 15 phases. The initial AC pipe replacement program assumed that replacement piping would not need to be upsized and did not prioritize phases for implementation. This section presents a WDS Improvements Plan, which accomplishes the following: • Updates the AC pipe replacement program with replacement pipe sizes needed to reasonably satisfy the Village's LOS goals • Incorporates other WDS improvements needed to reasonably satisfy the Village's LOS goals • Prioritizes the improvements • Provides cost opinions associated with the improvements The WDS improvements are proposed to be accomplish in 19 phases. To provide consistency and avoid confusion, the first 16 phases of the WDS Improvements Plan presented herein are identical those in Village's initial AC pipe replacement program, with the exception of Phases 1 and 4, which the Village indicated have been combined into Phase 1. Figure 7 provides an aerial overview of the 19 phases associated with the WDS Improvements Plan. A map which presents additional details associated with each phase is presented in Appendix C. Table 9 provides a summary of the linear footage of pipes proposed for abandonment and for construction for each of the Improvement Areas. Page 388 of 488 Agenda Item #16. w O V '~ L ♦ 0, c y N L O d 'a O, O? N oo x O O ZZ N C = Vl N 00 Q L C CG M � M d � M N O� �.^. •� N •- l0 O L G CC G CL a 7 7 N M w w o � a a LQ v a C � ai N M vl .c C7, � H O^ Page 389 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WTP Water Treatment Plant 9 Improvement 10 Phase Number 11 Not Included 12 1 13 2 14 3 15 5 16 6 17 7 18 8 19 7 0 1,375 2,750 5,500 Feet Improvement Phases Tequesta, FL PROJ NO: DATE: 20597 1 12/3/2021 WRIGHT-PIERCE FIGURE: Engineering a Better Environment 7 Page 390 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 26 of 34 7.3.1. PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS —RISK ANALYSIS A risk analysis was performed to prioritize the improvement phases for implementation. The risk analysis is intended to account for an asset's physical condition and is quantified as the asset's Likelihood of Failure (LoF) and the impact that the asset's failure could have on system performance, known as the asset's Consequence of Failure (CoF). The asset's (or pipe's, in this case) overall risk is calculated as: Risk = LoF x CoF The pipe's LoF Score is calculated based on the weighted average scores of the following characteristics: • Material • Life transpired • Nominal diameter • Hydraulic performance Note: Hydraulic performance was based on the pipe's ability to satisfy fire flow goals. The pipe's CoF score is calculated based on the weighted average scores of the following characteristics: • Nominal diameter • Overall system demand shortfall • Service interruption • Transportation Note: Overall system demand shortfall was estimated by performing a Criticality Analysis using WaterGEMS' Criticality Tool. The Village's isolation valves GIS point shapefile was imported Page 391 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 27 of 34 into the hydraulic model and isolation valves were assigned to WDS piping based on proximity. The Criticality Tool was used to segment the WDS into the smallest possible isolatable parts and, using a pressure -based hydraulic engine, determine the overall system demand shortfall in the case that each segment is taken out of service (as would be the case with pipe breaks or valve closures). Appendix D includes a summary of the LoF and CoF scoring criteria and associated weighting factors for reference. LoF and CoF scores can range from 1.0 to 5.0, resulting in a pipe's overall risk ranging from 1.0 to 25. Improvement phases received weighted average risk scores calculated as the sum of the linear footage (LF) of pipe multiplied by its associated risk, divided by the total linear footage of pipe for the improvement phase: Improvement Phase Risk = �n 1 LFi X Riski Improvement Area LFZ where i represents an individual pipe within the Improvement Phase and n represents all pipes included in the improvement phase. Table 10 summarizes the Improvement Phase Risk Scores and the proposed implementation order. (Improvement Phases with the higher risk score are recommended for implementation earlier.) Note: Improvement Phases I and 2 are prioritized for implementation first and second, respectively, as these projects are already in progress (based on discussions with the Village). Page 392 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 28 of 34 Table 10: Improvement Areas Prioritization Implementation order Phase Risk Score 1 1&4 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 7 7.46 6 8 6.44 7 14 6.02 8 15 6.01 9 6 5.87 10 9 5.37 11 11 5.29 12 10 5.20 13 13 4.88 14 12 4.64 15 16 4.15 16 19 1 4.08 17 17 4.02 18 18 3.74 Note: * indicates project in progress 7.4. WDS IMPROVEMENT COSTS The preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) and Opinions of Probable Project Costs (OPPC) were determined for each Improvement Phase, which account for the costs of installing new pipe and abandonment (grouting) of existing pipe. The preliminary OPPC is estimated at 30% of the preliminary OPCC, which accounts for survey, geotechnical, preliminary and final design, permitting, and construction phase services. Table 11 provides a summary of the OPCC and OPPC for each Improvement Phase. A summary of costs per linear footage for new pipe construction and pipe abandonment are included in Appendix E for reference. Page 393 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, PE Subject: Water Distribution System (WDS) Improvements Plan Page 29 of 34 Table 11: Summary of Improvement Area Costs Implementation order Phase Preliminary OPCC Preliminary OPPC 1 1 $ 1,705,000 $ 2,216,500 2 2 $ 1,138,000 $ 1,479,400 3 7 $ 752,000 $ 977,600 4 8 $ 923,000 $ 1,199,900 5 14 $ 1,842,000 $ 2,394,600 6 15 $ 546,000 $ 709,800 7 6 $ 888,000 $ 1,154,400 8 5 $ 1,847,000 $ 2,401,100 9 9 $ 1,716,000 $ 2,230,800 10 11 $ 1,149,000 $ 1,493,700 11 10 $ 1,922,000 $ 2,498,600 12 3 $ 1,788,000 $ 2,324,400 13 13 $ 942,000 $ 1,224,600 14 12 $ 1,169,000 $ 1,519,700 15 16 $ 1,296,000 $ 1,684,800 16 19 $ 176,000 $ 228,800 17 17 $ 217,000 $ 282,100 18 18 $ 62,000 $ 80,600 Total $ 19,623,000 $ 25,509,900 Page 394 of 488 Agenda Item #16. APPENDIX A Page 395 of 488 Agenda Item #16. TABLE 1: PRESSURE AND FLOW HYDRANT TEST LOCATIONS Test Pressure Hy drant Flow Hydrant No. Hydrant ID Address Hydrant ID Address I FH403 9435 SE Cove Point St FH404 9283 SE Cove Point St 2 FH043 18120 SE Heritage Dr FH044 10149 SE Royal Tern Way 3 FH376 207 River Dr FH373 187 River Dr 4 FH025 10411 SE Terrapin PI FH026 10385 SE Terrapin PI 5 FH073 18371 SE Lakeside Dr FH072 18401 SE Lakeside Dr 6 FH350 32 Yacht Club PI FH351 3 Yacht Club PI 7 FH326 24 Starboard Way FH328 136 Gulfstream Dr 8 NO ID 19875 Gardenia Dr FH303 19787 Gardenia Dr 9 FH255 Intersection of Garden St and FH258 11 Garden St Westwood Ave 10 FH096 19121 SE Barus Dr FH097 18954 SE Barus Dr 11 FH270 Across from 44 PineHill Trail FH269 46 Poplar Rd E 12 Tequesta Branch Library, 461 PetanquePlus, 401 Old Dixie FH243 Old Dixie Hwy, Tequesta, FL NO ID Hwy, Jupiter, FL 33469 33469 13 Cypress Animal Hospital, 364 One World Zero Waste, 354 S NO ID S Cypress Dr, Tequesta, FL FH244 Cypress Dr #1, Tequesta, FL 33469 33469 14 Just north of 19157 SE Federal Just south of 18947 SE Federal FH137 Hwy, Jupiter, FL 33469 FH136 Hwy, Tequesta, FL 33469 (InterMarine Boats Jupiter Sales + Service Center 15 218 US-1, Tequesta, FL 33469 212 US-1 Suite 25, Tequesta, FL NO ID (Behind The Keyes Company FH424 33469 (East side of Child building on south side of Brothers, Inc.) property, along access road) 16 FH123 FH122 18565 SE Village Cir 18505 SE Village Cir 17 FH156 17488 SE Conch Bar Ave FH157 17344 SE Conch Bar Ave 18 19670 S Beach Rd, Jupiter, FL 19700 S Beach Rd, Jupiter, FL NO ID 33469 (North corner of NO ID 33469 (South corner of Carlyle Seawatch At Jupiter Island) Jupiter Island Condo 19 FH417 215 US-1, Tequesta, FL 33469 FH386 Northeast coiner of intersection of Hwy AIA and S Beach Rd 20 FH403 151 Beacon Ln FH136 160 Beacon Ln Page 396 of 488 Agenda Item #16. APPENDIX B Page 397 of 488 Agenda Item #16. � cr w 2 bo ■ F. §\ a) I Ln = 5 y e o 4 \ q CO o ® E / q \ % / M = \ ƒ & of i e\ , w (g 2 0> 7 •» E / d � # _ / § < e \ \ ° § ) / \ 0 §ƒ 2 k E m ± ® 0 2 % e % / m 3 ƒ 2 = o \ / / / / / 0 / 3 e= 2§ a I \ _ & ° 3 y = e \ \ / \ \ � ƒ E § 2 § \ = 2 \/ 2% §$ � / = @ \ e a / % _ w q > < e ¥ \ m q > < e w 0 _ g u e a / rj % 4 k { e w ± cd ° _ 2 g 2 \ e Ln \ a £ / / 2 = \ § \ \ % / / \ \ % ? / I I e M r� / / m m 4 _ u u 4 LL LL E / 2 3 k 0 0 \ 0 0 m k 0 @ « 4- a % 3 � ~ { 2 2 E E E f u b b b E E 3 G 0 0 0 = e e w@ o o E\ v Al_ m o $ G k k E § § - Ln / Ln M M--- §/ % i E E CL 2 2 » o o 0= o g a $ o > e Q e z 2 2 » �t N % � E E E e $ _ On 2 / ) _ § \ \ a 2 2 2 k 2 > > E 2 u 2 M $ _ _ $ f 4 u Ll 2 2 Ln 0 $± t 2 .be Ul ) \ 4.1 \ M 0. 2 2 / § � R 4 4\ R 3 k / a \ f j m z E M < « u M 0 7 7 m = o k / M / a �f Ln E E 2 0 E o\ 2\ e§ $ 7 > ƒ% E z z 2 E ƒ $ ƒ 2 Ln 2 � 2 2 Page 398 0 488 Agenda Item #16. N o o � � L u v O +J Vn fo 2 v L O L � O Ln > Q: > L O L E � 4 v c v� coQj ,_ v N U L 'E p ai . C p >, O- W Q cu E 1 Q 3 L E= Q O -0 O Q X i• N -O 41 ,v L L.L co C OC > O a v I LL a v I d O > I U- p > U I I p I > N cp c � U- Le i Q" 0- Q Page 399 of 488 N N } J J J Q J Z Z O Q Q W Q m W N K N W w Z X ~ N z O o W J W U r m a rn rn rn rn rn N m Q Q O� U a a m m rn N ¢ v`3 0 0 0 0 0 0 J N tD I� N m O W J M J O O H O ��JJ O> > 5 N m C7 w I # 0 El El a H U) N N N E E E Q Q Q .. ate Q w cQ G LLJ U) U) 0 n QQ CO Q � o w a F � D 0 F-m�F- L w o w0 LU LU cD p Q J J_ W > > Q m� ao �o < Page 400 of 4H Agenda Item #16. APPENDIX C Page 401 of 488 Agenda Item #16. v / k hr ------------ IN 1 Proposed WDS Improvements Tequesta, FL PROJ NO 20597 "': 12/14/20211 WRIGHT-PIERCE = 11GIRI N/A Agenda Item #16. APPENDIX D Page 403 of 488 Agenda Item #16. PEI w a m In v M ry '-I O �n v m ry '-I q, �n rl O In a M ry ti U U U VI N 117 m w LL m Q C o E v c = u o E v 4 m �- v M i .Q w w � .. G m o O a O Ln V - C 0 i< 0 m o 0 ro E 0 ,., E Q '- a z V N H O Al Al Al Al v vi U U _£ Q 2 ai & 2 N O Vl N .--I .—I O I-D Vl W .--I O u zr M N .--I O • In x m o i O i f4 } - i - c 0 o 0 0 o � V . i c � c i � v i L } m o ;aj 7 ' o mw- o Y o 0 oN s w E a --- - AI 'A VI a VI iD oo 5 T U Page 404 of 488 Agenda Item #16. L O U LL s oA 0 v U u C C � a E � \ Q V 41 L 0 0 (B O 'a V O }, L 0 Q _0 M LL LL 7 (9 to O N J c V 1 _0Q o 4-1 U C cr >M > sOA O O O ' +' p L _ U N E u O �--+ Q- E O E LL O N �' E N •j C O •X V � 'u X (�6 y U Oo .L Ov p O L cn v cn H a O a p a w cn LU H L O U f6 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-I L OG L LL. 4- 0 0 0 L U M Y O _ tL0 U O sbA co L u 4 v i U LL ai ++ •0 M a E L L J U N fC Gl = O Page 405 of 488 Agenda Item #16. APPENDIX E Page 406 of 488 Agenda Item #16. a a 3 0 O E 0 N O M u1 O O O c-I N N N M i0 LL C vv v v v v v d m E m C N V tO o0 O c-I N c-I l0 c-I c O C z Page 407 of 488 Agenda Item #16. The following document is presented in a non- ADA compliant format. Please contact the Village Clerk's office if you would like to receive an ADA compliant version of this document. Page 408 of 488 Agenda Item #16. WRIGHT-PIERCE Engineering a Better Environment TO: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities DATE: Director, Village of Tequesta FROM: Greg Taylor, PE MEMORANDUM 9/1/2021 PROJECT NO.: CMA — 492.002 WP — 20555 SUBJECT: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum TABLE OF CONTENTS Background................................................................................................................................. 3 Process Efficiency Evaluations....................................................................................................3 ReverseOsmosis System.........................................................................................................4 Reverse Osmosis System Evaluation...................................................................................4 RO System Energy Optimization.........................................................................................8 Cost and Energy Savings Estimates...................................................................................10 RO System Energy Evaluation - Conclusions and Recommendations................................12 Decoupling the RO System and the Filter Treatment — RTW Modeling Evaluation ...........13 RO Post -Treatment (Degasification and Air Scrubbing)........................................................14 Duall Degasifier Performance............................................................................................15 Duall Scrubber Performance..............................................................................................21 Post -Treatment Improvement Costs...................................................................................23 Sand Filter Treatment System................................................................................................25 Hydraulic Analysis of Decommissioning the Filter Transfer Pumps...................................25 Desktop Analysis of Converting the Ammonia Gas System to Ammonium Sulfate ............ 27 Process Automation Evaluations...............................................................................................28 Process Flow and Control Diagrams......................................................................................28 Decoupling the RO and Filter Systems to Allow for Independent Operation ..........................29 Chemical Monitoring and Automation Upgrades...................................................................30 Automation of Filter Backwashes Based on Filter Pressure Differential................................34 OtherFindings..........................................................................................................................34 Isolation of 2.0 MG Ground Storage Tank.............................................................................34 Fluoride Exceedance in RO Concentrate at Outfall Discharge...............................................35 Chemical Containment and Pumping Redundancy................................................................38 SulfuricAcid.....................................................................................................................38 SodiumHydroxide............................................................................................................40 Summary of Recommendations and Costs.................................................................................42 J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStndy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 409 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 2 of 43 This technical memorandum is intended for review by the Village of Tequesta and other parties as considered necessary by the Village and Wright -Pierce, Inc. This report has been prepared under the supervision of Gregory D. Taylor, P.E. Lic. # 67480 Gregory D. Taylor, P.E. Date 9/2/2021 J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 410 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 3 of 43 BACKGROUND Wright -Pierce, Inc., on behalf of Chen Moore and Associates, Inc., has prepared this Technical Memorandum presenting process efficiency and automation evaluations of select processes at the Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The scope of these evaluations was detailed in Consulting Services Work Authorization Project Water Treatment Plant Process & Resource Improvements Evaluation Task 2 (Process Efficiency Evaluation) and Task 3 (Process Automation Review). The SCADA System Review and Component Planning, is evaluated in a separate Technical Memorandum. PROCESS EFFICIENCY EVALUATIONS The Village of Tequesta (Village) owns and operates Public Water System (PWS) No. 4501438, which provides potable water to the customers within Village's water service area through approximately 5,045 connections. The PWS generally consists of fourteen groundwater wells, a water treatment plant (WTP) with two separate parallel treatment systems, and over seventy-two miles of water distribution mains ranging in size from 4-inch to 16-inch in diameter. The WTP generally consists of a 2.7 MGD maximum -day permitted sand filter treatment process, a 3.6 MGD maximum -day permitted reverse osmosis (RO) treatment process, one 0.75-MG water ground storage tank (GST) and one 2.0-MG GST for finished water storage, and two high service pump stations (HSPS). In 2000, the Village constructed the first phase of the RO treatment system to treat brackish water from the upper Floridan aquifer (UFA), producing 1.2 MGD of finished water. The RO treatment system was expanded in 2007 to produce 2.4 MGD and expanded again in 2011 to produce 3.6 MGD of finished water. The treated water from the sand filter treatment process and RO treatment process is combined in a clearwell, prior to being pumped into the GSTs near the Transfer Pump Station and delivered to the distribution system via the High Service Pump Stations. The various WTP expansions have resulted in treatment components and communications systems that are currently not working at their optimum efficiency. The control systems hardware has been modified and compounded as each upgrade or expansion has occurred and do not necessarily mesh well together. Additionally, there are process control systems that can be upgraded, providing an increase in automation and allow more control over the treatment processes. As a result, the Village has requested the Chen Moore and Associates, Inc. and Wright -Pierce, Inc. team to evaluate the existing water treatment processes to identify potential means to increase efficiency by lowering power and chemical use, evaluate the existing control system hardware for a cohesive and planned upgrade, and recommend methods to further automate the treatment processes. Process efficiency evaluations, which are presented in this section, were split into three groups based on the primary treatment processes at the WTP: RO membrane treatment, RO post- treatment, and sand filtration treatment. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 411 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 4 of 43 Reverse Osmosis System Reverse Osmosis System Evaluation The RO system consists of three (3) parallel, two -stage RO trains currently in operation at the plant, each with a corresponding multi -stage vertical turbine high pressure membrane feed pump and cartridge filter per train, and chemical injection systems. The high-pressure pumps drive brackish water through the RO membranes producing clean water or permeate and rejected water or concentrate. The RO permeate passes through two (2) parallel degasifiers, is then mixed in a finished water clearwell and is then pumped using three (3) vertical turbine transfer pumps to the two (2) on -site GSTs. The RO concentrate is discharged into an intercoastal outfall. Each RO block or train has a treatment capacity of 1.2 MGD. The trains are arranged in a 27x13 array with 27 vessels in the first stage and 13 vessels in the second stage, for a total of 40 pressure vessels per train, as shown in Figure 1. Each pressure vessel in Train 1 and 3 contain six (6) 40-inch Hydranautics CPA5-LD elements installed in 2011. Train 2 contains four (4) 60-inch KOCH TFC 8" elements installed in 2007. The train framing is constructed of aluminum with 316 stainless steel piping connected with Victaulic couplings. FIGURE 1 TWO -STAGE RO SYSTEM Brackish Stage 1 Feed Water Permeate High -Pressure Pump Concentrate/Reject Water The performance of the RO plant was analyzed for the period from January 2015 to December 2020. The summary of the RO plant operational data is shown in Table 1. The normalized specific flux for each membrane block was compared and shown in Figure 2. The membranes in the RO block 3 showed the highest normalized specific flux of all three blocks during the analyzed period. Its normalized specific flux values were approximately 0.2 gallons per sq. ft. per day per psi (gfd/psi) in 2016 and decreased to 0.15 gfd/psi in 2020. The membranes in RO blocks 1 and 2 showed similar normalized specific fluxes during the analyzed period. Their normalized specific flux values were approximately 0.14 gfd/psi in 2016 and decreased to 0.12 gfd/psi in 2020. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 412 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 5 of 43 The salt passage for each membrane block is compared in Figure 3. The membranes in the RO block 3 showed the lowest total dissolved solid (TDS) salt passage of all three blocks during the analyzed period. The salt passage values for RO block 3 were approximately 0.7% in 2016 and gradually increased to 1.5% in 2020. The membranes in RO blocks 1 and 2 showed a similar salt passage of 1.2% in 2016. The salt passage for the membranes in RO block 2 gradually increased at a higher rate than in RO block 1, resulting in a salt passage of approximately 1.9% in 2020. The membranes in RO block 2 showed the lowest normalized specific flux and highest salt passage. These membranes were installed in 2007 and are close to the end of their lifespan. TABLE 1 RO PLANT OPERATIONAL DATA SUMMARY JAN 2015 — DEC. 2020 Parameters Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Membrane type Hydranautics CPA5-LD KOCH TFC 8 Hydranautics CPA5-LD Membrane area 1st stage, ft2 64,800 64,800 64,800 Membrane area 2nd stage, ft2 31,200 31,200 31,200 Feed flow, gpm 1,050 1,060 1,020 Feed pressure, psi 250 252 237 Feed conductivity, uS/cm2 8,110 8,490 8,400 Permeate flow, gpm 772 786 751 Permeate pressure, psi 6.5 6.5 30 Perm conductivity, uS/cm2 340 322 253 Concentrate flow, gpm 277 273 268 Concentrate pressure, psi 220 222 223 Cone conductivity, uS/cm2 29,850 31,950 31,197 Pt Stage average flux 13.6 13.1 13.6 2nd Stage average flux 7.5 9.1 6.3 Membrane recovery, % 74 74 74 Average feed pump power, hp 218 222 201 J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 413 of 488 Agenda Item #16. N H w O O O O isd/pjO `xnlA ogtoadS y S". ct ti Q cz ti ct O ti F Page 414 of 488 Agenda Item #16. ■ ■ mjmff-ter■_■Ili _■ L!■, 0j ■ ■■I■�� ■a� ir1 0 ■� ■■`■1 - J ■� ■ ��■■ILr��■ • • • Y 1■■1 �■LJ - i-a.!■ - ■ i. _ ■ l- IN 'JI- �I`iJ ■ ILI ■�. R_■1 ■ t IL■JI- ■ ■ III ■�-_ _ ■_ ■IVIN ■■I : .■ I■ -■ L�, L-1■Ld, • ■ 0■ ■: , r ■L _r ■ ■■ L■ ■ ■iI-■w - — r A - �ILNil ILL+■I� ■ ■ • • ,■I'■� l■ �J■ ■ Ya■I■J _■ r�■ I �`I iTJY ■ .-�.al■ l ■JI a r _ �I I ate■ r Lam; r'J ME— IN ■ ■ ;.a WLI _ INt _.I 6, ■�`J JL� ■ ' aam.IN IN J, �J ■ " J■ IN IN ■ ■ �i- �Jia■ .-■ ■ L� —�IN ■■ �i■Y� L-I J-■. i�rrL'�d1' �I ..I■�■_rl-�� I�J.J' ■:iI■■■`WJ\I■Iv I■■I■+ - ■J��■ ■-■IT r ■� ■ ■ rc ■Ills■■ ■■ a■` - � ■ � 't1 _I'`J�J_w _ MI _ ■ L■' - ■ii■ ■■I--JLL■ ■- i■`IL■ Li �� ■.. j■LJII 7VrIT ■a � aJll■t a ■TL�L�� v II■j�"■-■-�S"_� r■- J,L'JJ "■ . M M N % 2ESSEd TITLS SCII C�3 ti 5F. Page 415 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 8 of 43 RO System Energy Optimization A well operated brackish water RO system minimizes the feed pressure and number of membranes used, while maximizes permeate quality and recovery. The energy consumption of the high- pressure feed pumps to drive water through the membrane elements is the major operating cost of a RO brackish water treatment plant. The approach to reduce the energy consumption in the RO plant includes: (i) the use of new highly permeable membrane to reduce the water resistance during production; (ii) the use of more efficient high-pressure pumps with variable frequency drives (VFDs) to have tighter feed pressure control; (iii) the use of interstage booster pumps to balance the fluxes and reduce the feed pressure; and (iv) the use of energy recovery devices with a booster pump using the high pressure concentrate to reduce the feed pressure. The use of new membrane elements will reduce the water resistance and pressure needed to drive brackish water through the membranes. The installation of new membranes is estimated to result in approximately 5-10% less power consumption. The membranes in the RO block 2 showed the lowest normalized specific flux and highest salt passage. These membranes were installed in 2007 and have the highest priority for replacement of the three RO blocks. The membranes in the RO block 2 could be replaced by Hydranautics CPA5-LD elements or similar. The performance of membranes in RO block 1 and 3 suggest these membranes do not need to be replaced at this time. The RO plant is fed by three multi -stage vertical turbine, high-pressure membrane feed pumps. Each is equipped with 8.22-inch diameter impellers and a 300 HP motor. Pumps 1 and 2, which are approximately 20 years old, have been de -staged to a total of 8 stages. Pump 3, which is approximately 10 years old, has a total of 8 stages. The use of more efficient high-pressure pumps with VFDs can provide improved feed pressure control reducing the power consumption of the RO plant. The installation of more efficient high-pressure pumps with VFDs is a high capital cost that could be considered in the future when the high-pressure feed pumps reach the end of their lifespan. However, the installation of VFDs for the high-pressure feed pumps could be considered as an intermediate step to reduce the energy consumption. The proposed VFDs can improve the control of the feed flow and pressure, reducing energy consumption of the high-pressure pumps by approximately 10%. Additional reduction of energy consumption can be achieved by adding interstage booster pumps. Interstage booster pumps are used to balance the stage fluxes, reducing the feed pressure needed, and balances the wear on the first and second stage membranes. VFDs in the high-pressure feed pumps will be needed to control the feed flow and pressure while operating the booster pumps. With a booster pump, the first stage can be operated at a pressure 20 to 25% less than at normal condition, the second stage can be operated at a higher pressure and flux, thus leading to a smaller membrane area needed, therefore reducing the electricity consumption and capital cost. The configuration of the two stage RO system with interstage booster pump is shown in Figure 4. Additional equipment proposed in Figure 4 is highlighted for clarity. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 416 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 9 of 43 FIGURE 4 TWO -STAGE RO SYSTEM WITH INTERSTAGE BOOSTER PUMP Brackish Stage 1 Feed Water FD Permeate High -Pressure Pump Booster Pump Concentrate/Reject Water Installing energy recovery devices such as a pressure exchanger device (PXD) can further reduce energy consumption. These devices are a component that are typically included in a RO plant of this size. The use of interstage booster pumps with PXDs can be used to balance the flux for each stage, using the high pressure concentrate to reduce the feed pressure. VFDs in the high-pressure feed pumps will be needed to control the feed flow and pressure while operating the booster pumps and PXD. With a booster pump and PXD, the first stage can be operated at a pressure 20 to 25% less than at normal conditions; using concentrate pressure, the second stage can be operated at a higher pressure and flux, thus leading to a smaller membrane area needed. This combination can further reduce the electricity consumption in comparison to only interstage booster pumps. It is anticipated that the overall recovery of the system will remain the same. In addition, the integration of the booster pump and pressure exchange device is not anticipated to affect the ability to transport the concentrate stream to the existing intercoastal outfall discharge location. The configuration of the two -stage RO system with interstage booster pump and pressure exchange device is shown in Figure 5. Additional equipment proposed in Figure 5 is highlighted for clarity. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 417 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 10 of 43 FIGURE 5 TWO -STAGE RO SYSTEM WITH INTERSTAGE BOOST AND PRESSURE Brackish Feed Water High -Pressure Pump Brackish Feed Water EXCHANGER DEVICE Stage 1 Booster Pump Pressure Exchanger Device Cost and Energy Savings Estimates Permeate/Product Water Concentrate/Reject Water This section describes a planning -level cost estimate to construct the interstage booster pump with and without a PXD, along with an estimated operating cost savings. The energy consumption estimates for these options assume that the RO system uses the same high-pressure pumps with new VFDs for better feed flow and pressure control. The installation cost of the RO membranes per block including engineering service is $299,000. The RO membrane cost is for 240 Hydranautics CPA5-LD elements or similar. This cost is not included in the comparison analysis presented below as only the membranes in block 2 are close to the end of their lifespan. Table 2 shows a summary of installation costs for each recommended option. The costs provided are estimated based on current market value and recent experience. The costs provided include labor, materials, equipment, contingency and engineering. Table 3 shows a summary of the energy saving estimation per RO block for each recommended option. Energy savings estimates presented in Tables 3 assume the RO system uses the membranes currently installed and in operation at the WTP. Table 4 presents the payback period for each alternative. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 418 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 11 of 43 TABLE 2 RO PLANT - COST ESTIMATE OF ENERGY OPTIMIZATION ALTERNATIVES Feed Pump Feed Pump Component Feed Pump VFDs plus VFDs plus VFDs Only Interstage Boost pumps Booster Pump and PXDs Installation of (3) Feed Pump VFDs $1,183,000 $1,183,000 $1,183,000 Installation of (3) Interstage Booster $360,000 $360,000 Pumps with VFDs Installation of (3) PXDs - $296,000 Project Cost Estimate $1,183,000 $1,543,000 $1,839,000 TABLE 3 RO PLANT — SUMMARY OF ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES PER RO BLOCK Current RO Block Feed Pump VFDs Only Feed Pump VFDs plus Booster Pump Feed Pump VFDs plus Boost and PXDs High-pressure pumps, kW 1651 150 113.6 75.2 Interstage booster pumps, kW - - 11.1 11.1 Pressure exchanger device, kW - - - - Total power, kW 165 150 124.7 86.3 Electricity cost, USD/kWh 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Power savings, kW - 15 40.3 78.7 Power savings, kW/year - 131,400 353,028 689,412 Estimated CO2 savings, tons/year - - - 199 Power Cost Savings, USD/year - $9,200 $24,700 $48,300 Note: 1. Average feed pump power for RO block 2 = 222 hp J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 419 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 12 of 43 TABLE 4 PAYBACK PERIOD FOR EACH ENERGY OPTIMIZATION ALTERNATIVE Feed Pump Feed Pump Component Feed Pump VFDs plus VFDs plus VFDs Only Interstage Boost pumps Booster Pump and PXDs Capital Cost of Alternative, USD $1,183,000 $1,543,000 $1,839,000 Power Cost Savings per Block, USD/year $9,200 $24,700 $48,300 System Power Cost Savings, USD/year $27,600 $74,100 $144,900 Simple Payback Period, years 43 21 13 RO System Energy Evaluation - Conclusions and Recommendations The performance evaluation of the RO plant showed that the membranes in the RO block 2 had the lowest normalized specific flux and highest salt passage. These membranes were installed in 2007 and have the highest priority for replacement of the three RO blocks. The performance of membranes in RO block 1 and 3 suggest these membranes do not need to be replaced at this time. New membranes in the RO block 2 will reduce the water resistance and pressure needed to drive brackish water through it. The installation of new membranes will result in approximately 5-10% less power consumption. It is recommended to replace the membranes in the RO block 2 with Hydranautics CPA5-LD elements, or similar. The use of VFDs for the high-pressure pumps can provide a tighter, more precise, feed pressure control reducing the power consumption of the RO process. The installation of VFDs for the high- pressure feed pumps should be considered as an initial step to reduce the energy consumption. The new VFDs can improve the control of the feed flow and pressure, reducing energy consumption of the high-pressure pumps by approximately 10%. In addition, the VFDs will be needed to further reduce the energy consumption if the booster pumps and PXDs are implemented. Based upon the options evaluated, the option that combines interstage booster pumps and PXDs has the highest project cost and energy savings and the shortest estimated payback period (13 years using the simple payback method). In this option, the interstage booster pumps with pressure exchanger devices can be implemented after the installation of the VFDs in the high-pressure feed pumps. The VFDs will be needed to control the feed flow and pressure while operating the booster pumps and pressure exchanger device. An energy savings of $48,300 per year per RO block was estimated when comparing this option to the current operational conditions (see Table 3). In addition, PXDs in this option produces 199 tons/year of CO2 per RO block less than the current operational conditions. These devices do not consume electricity and act as a recirculating pump using the high pressure concentrate to reduce the feed pressure. As a result, it is recommended that the Village of Tequesta consider this option. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 420 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 13 of 43 The option with only feed pump VFDs and interstage booster pumps has a lower project cost and lower energy savings. An energy savings of $24,700 per year per RO block was estimated when comparing this option to the current operational conditions. This results in a longer estimated payback period of 21 years. Decoupling the RO System and the Filter Treatment — RTW Modeling Evaluation The Rothberg, Tamburini & Winsor Model for Water Process and Corrosion Chemistry (RTW Model) is used to assist in the task of evaluating water chemistry associated with precipitation/coagulation and corrosion potential of water. The model uses calcium carbonate chemistry to evaluate water stability and to predict changes in water stability and other water quality factors resulting from chemical treatment approaches. For this evaluation, the RTW Model was used to evaluate the feasibility of decoupling the RO treatment system and filter system with the goal of allowing the Village of Tequesta the ability to operate the RO system independently. Under this operational scenario RO permeate that is normally blended with water from the filter system would require chemical addition to stabilize the RO permeate before it could enter the Village's distribution system. This evaluation investigated the scope of chemical addition necessary to stabilize the RO permeate and meet the Village of Tequesta's current water quality standards. This section does not describe the addition of chlorine or ammonia for disinfection — this is discussed in a subsequent section of this memorandum. The RTW Model has a user input expected water quality parameters and then calculates interim water quality characteristics to see if the input water quality parameters will result in desirable (i.e., stable) water quality characteristics. Table 5 lists these inputs and resultant characteristics and desired value or range of resultant characteristics. TABLE 5 RTW MODEL INPUTS AND DESIRED WATER CHARACTERISTIC VALUES Inputs (units) Theoretical Interim Water Characteristic Desired Value or Ran ge Total Dissolved Solids (m /L) Interim Alkalinity> 40 m /L Temperature (°C Interim Calcium > 40 m /L H s.u. Alkalinity/ Chloride + Sulfate > 5 Alkalinity (mg/L) Interim pH 6.8 — 9.3 s.u. Calcium m /L Preci itation Potential 4 — 10 m /L Chloride (mg/L) Langelier Index > 0 Sulfate (m � Historical average RO permeate water quality parameters under normal operating conditions were input into the model resulting in all but one of the calculated interim water characteristics outside the desirable range, representing an unstable and potentially corrosive water. This indicates J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 421 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 14 of 43 additional post -treatment chemical addition is needed to stabilize the water. The RTW Model allows the user to simulate adding chemicals to the water and see how this affects the resulting water quality characteristics. Tequesta's RO permeate requires the addition of a base to increase pH and the addition of a calcium source to meet several water quality characteristics. Adding caustic, which is already available at the WTP, will increase pH. However, calcium addition would require the addition of a chemical not currently available at the WTP. Calcium could be added in the form of lime (e.g., slaked lime) or by-passing water through a calcite contact media bed. It may be possible to by-pass raw brackish water around the RO membranes to remineralize water and save on chemical costs. If Tequesta desires to decouple their RO system, it is recommended that a RO by-pass blending analysis be performed to assess the viability of this possibility. The additional caustic required is expected to approximately double the caustic consumption at the WTP and the addition of lime would require the addition of a new unit process operation at the WTP (e.g., a facility to slake and dose lime). Chemical usage could be reduced by modifying RO membrane process to allow for a raw water bypass; however, this option may not be palatable to WTP operations staff who historically do not like to intermittently change membrane operating conditions. Further investigation is recommended if WTP management staff feel the addition of added system complexity is worth the ability to decouple the RO system from the filter system. RO Post -Treatment (Degasification and Air Scrubbing) RO post -treatment at the Tequesta WTP includes degasification to strip hydrogen sulfide from RO permeate followed by air scrubbing for odor control. Degasification is performed in either of two degasifiers (Duall Model ST10-108) which are each rated to treat 1,250-1,650 gpm of water with up to 10 mg/L of hydrogen sulfide. The degasifiers are rated to remove 93% of available hydrogen sulfide when water entering the degasifier has a pH of less than 5.5. Air scrubbing is performed in a two -stage scrubber system (Duall Model PT510-54). Each degasifier has a dedicated scrubber system. The scrubbers are rated to remove up to 99% of hydrogen sulfide when operated in series, at a high pH (9.5-10.5). To achieve a high pH in the scrubbers, caustic is dosed into process water that is continually recirculated through the scrubbers. Operators have noted two performance issues with the degasifier and scrubber systems: 1. Intermittently, water in the clearwell that receives degasified permeate will be slightly turbid and require a higher -than -normal chlorine dose. This suggests that the degasifier is having performance issues and hydrogen sulfide is not being adequately removed from the permeate water stream before entering the clearwell. This sulfide content results in an increased chlorine demand in the clearwell and when the sulfide is oxidized, a portion of the sulfide becomes elemental sulfur, increasing turbidity. 2. Intermittently, there will be a sulfur odor around the WTP. This suggests that the scrubbers are having performance issues and hydrogen sulfide is being emitted into the surrounding atmosphere. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 422 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 15 of 43 Wright -Pierce contacted CECO Environmental, the manufacturer of the Duall degasifiers and scrubbers at the Tequesta WTP, to discuss these performance issues and received recommendations to troubleshoot both systems. Verne Buehler, P.E. at CECO Environmental, an applications engineer in the Industrial Air and Fluid Solutions group was consulted on these issues. Discussions focused on noted operator performance issues and a review of graphics generated from historical operator logs and the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system data. A summary of the discussion and findings are presented in the next two subsections. Duall Degasifier Performance Operator logs showing the daily pressure differential in both degasifiers over the past year were reviewed. The pressure differential in each degasifier is measured daily using the Magnehelic gauge on the side of each degasifier. Readings are recorded on a daily checklist by an operator physically walking out to the degasifier and reading the gauge. Degasifier pressure differential data are presented in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that the pressure drop recommended by the manufacturer for the degasifiers is between 0.5 and 1.5 inches of water. Degasifier 1 is within this range throughout the evaluated time period (1/l/2020 to 6/16/2021). However, Degasifier 2 is consistently below the recommended operating range throughout the evaluated time period. The Duall applications engineer noted the lower pressure differential could indicate one or more of the following: - The Magnehelic gauge could have condensate or a blockage in the tubing causing a reading error. Duall recommends operations staff inspect the Magnehelic tubing on Degasifier 2 to verify the tubing is clear of any blockage and is providing an accurate reading. - The air flowrate through the degasifier is lower than the rated capacity. Duall recommends verifying the air flow rate through the degasifier. This can be performed by connecting an air flow measuring device (e.g., pitot tube) to a straight run of air piping between the degasifier and 1 st stage scrubber. - Loss of packing material. Duall recommends a visual inspection inside the degasifier to verify the degasifier has all of the packing material present and that the material appears to be in good condition. As of this reports writing, the Village has already contracted a vendor to replace the media in both degasifiers. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 423 of 488 Agenda Item #16. �N vv a, a, w• cL 0 R x I N -- (OZH sagacn) a.ntssa.id Iegna.tNJIQ N O V O 0 0 a J� N O .. F Page 424 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 17 of 43 Operator logs showing the daily permeate pH measured at each degasifer over the past year were reviewed. This pH value was measured as a grab sample by operators on a daily basis and the readings were recorded on a checklist. Degasifier pH data is presented in Figure 7. The pH data from historical SCADA records were also reviewed. There is a pH meter (AIT 2010) installed that continually measures the pH of RO permeate that is being transferred to the degasifiers. Figure 8 plots hourly pH values from meter AIT 2010 over one year (5/27/2020 — 5/27/2020). Both Figure 7 and 8 show the same trend — the pH in both degasifiers remains at a relatively constant pH value of approximately 5.0 through the beginning of February 2021 and then rises to pH level of approximately 5.5. Duall recommended a maximum pH threshold, as shown on both figures, of 5.5. Approaching or exceeding this threshold can lead to an increase chlorine demand and turbidity in the clearwell. This result can be explained by referring to Figure 9 which shows the speciation of sulfide species based on the pH of water. At a pH of 7.0, approximately half of the sulfide in water is hydrogen sulfide, a strippable gas, and half is bisulfide, an aqueous species that cannot be stripped by air. As pH decreases, the portion of the total sulfide in water shifts to be more hydrogen sulfide dominant. This shows the importance of keeping the pH of water low when in contact with air in the degasifier. For example, at the Duall threshold of pH 5.5 approximately 97% of sulfide in water is in the form of hydrogen sulfide. However, if the pH of water increases to 6.0, only 91 % of sulfide is in the form of hydrogen sulfide. This number decreases further to 76% if the pH further increases to a pH of 6.5. Hence, ensuring the pH of water is below the Duall recommended threshold of 5.5 is paramount to achieving efficient degasifier performance. It is recommended that Tequesta operations staff maintain a pH setpoint of 5.0 for water entering the degasifiers. This setpoint will provide operations staff a buffer in case pH intermittently shifts due to a process interruption (e.g., start-up or shut down of an RO skid) and allow time for Tequesta's sulfuric acid feed system to react. However, if operators are confident that they can maintain a pH closer to the 5.5 threshold without appreciably exceeding the threshold, this may be preferable as operations would save on caustic usage downstream. It is recommended that the next time operators note an increase in turbidity and chlorine demand in the clearwell, SCADA data from this time period is promptly reviewed. Continuous data from the last 24 hours can be easily reviewed in Tequesta's current SCADA system with an automatically generated graph of pH over time for meter AIT 2010. This will allow operators to see if the pH during this the time period increased or remained under 5.5, consistently. If the pH rises above 5.5, operations may have to reassess how they can modify chemical dosing to ensure the pH remains under this threshold to ensure consistently effective degasifier performance. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 425 of 488 Agenda Item #16. r Hd • 0 CD O Page 426 of 488 Agenda Item #16. E 00; W x L7 F Hd Page 427 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 20 of 43 FIGURE 9 SULFIDE SPECIATION BASED ON PH OF WATER 1 0-9 0-8 0-7 CL 'A 0,6 moo_+ 0-5 ., V 0.4 03 0_2 ., e 1 2 3 4 5 6 —hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 7 8 9 10 p.H ■i 4■ ■ ■ 11 12 13 14 15 --— bisuIfide(HS-)—sulfide(52.-) J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 428 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 21 of 43 Duall Scrubber Performance Operator logs showing the daily pressure differential in scrubbers over the past year were reviewed. The pressure differential in each scrubber is measured daily using the Magnehelic gauge on the side of each scrubber. Readings are recorded on a daily checklist by an operator physically walking out to the scrubber and reading the gauge Scrubber pressure differential data is presented in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows the recommended pressure drop for the scrubbers by the manufacturer is between 2.0 and 3.0 inches of water. Logged data from Scrubber 1 was not included in Figure 10 as the majority of logged values were either omitted or listed as "0", suggesting that the Magnehelic meter for this scrubber was not working properly for the evaluated time period. Results for Scrubber 2 show that the differential pressure in the scrubber is consistently within the manufacturer's recommend operating range. However, results from Scrubbers 3 and 4 are consistently above the manufacturer's recommend operating range. The Duall applications engineer noted this higher pressure differential could indicate one of the following: - The Magnehelic gage could have condensate or a blockage in tubing causing a reading error. Duall recommends operations inspect the Magnehelic tubing on Scrubbers 3 and 4 to verify the tubing is clear of any blockage and is providing an accurate reading. - The packing in the scrubbers may be fouled. Fouling could be due to precipitation of minerals and/or biological growth. Duall recommends operators open each scrubber (or at a minimum Scrubber 3 and 4) and inspect the packing. Ideally packing would be inspected at several locations within each scrubber to verify packing is clear of fouling throughout the scrubber. If fouled packing is present, the packing will require cleaning and possibly replacement. As of this report's writing, the Village has already contracted a vendor to chemical clean the media in all four scrubbers. Fouling of packing causes water to short circuit in the scrubber. This results in ineffective air scrubbing and can lead to the scrubbers discharging air that contains sulfide that is odorous. The Duall applications engineer noted that the combination of high differential pressures with frequent odor complaints suggests that fouling of packing is the likely operational issue with the scrubbers. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 429 of 488 Agenda Item #16. • • 2 ' 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 • s 1 • 1 I • � • 1 1 1 1 • 1 • i ' • I 1 vt N�+ (pZH sa[1310 N aznssard letliiazaJIQ 0 N 0 0 N 7 F Page 430 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 23 of 43 Operator logs showing the daily pH measured at each scrubber over the past year were reviewed. These pH values were measured daily as grab samples by operators and the readings were recorded on a checklist. Scrubber pH data is presented in Figure 11. Figure 11 shows the manufacturer's recommended minimum pH threshold for first stage scrubbers at 10.5 and the minimum pH threshold of second stage scrubbers at 9.5. Results show that the pH in all four scrubbers is consistently above these recommend thresholds. This suggests pH within the scrubbers is not the cause of current operational issues. Post -Treatment Improvement Costs Additional inspection of Magnehelic tubing, verification of air flowrate, and inspection of packing material is needed to determine total costs to improve RO post -treatment performance. Duall noted that Village operations staff could perform all of these tasks if they are capable and have the appropriate equipment. However, Duall does offer a System Audit where they have a Duall technician visit the facility, calibrate equipment, inspect packing material, and evaluate system performance. In addition, the technician can train operators on best maintenance practices and recommend monitoring techniques. Duall provided a budgetary quote for this service equaling $11,335 for one (1) three-day on -site visit. This quote from Duall is provided in the appendix to this memorandum. Depending on the results of packing inspections cleaning of packing material may be needed. The degasifier and scrubber O&M manual present a "Packing Cleaning Procedure" that could be accomplished by Village operators if deemed appropriate (the cleaning procedure includes handling solutions of sulfamic, hydrochloric, and sulfuric acids). In a worst case scenario, packing may have to be replaced. Duall estimates the packing material (Jaeger Tri-Packs) costs approximately $40/cubic foot. Each degasifier contains approximately 727 cubic feet of packing and each scrubber contains approximately 181 cubic feet of packing. As a result, replacement of packing for each degasifier is estimated to cost $29,100 plus labor, and the replacement of packing for each scrubber is estimated to cost $7,250 plus labor. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 431 of 488 Agenda Item #16. YG E E u cn rn rn rn •' 41 j� i 1 •. do1� � 4• 1 R I , • �V • • • 1 1 ` •• . y �► • r • L • ••1 AS00. •S � H I h 0*0 1 • • •% ••: . 1 i..� .4. i iy N..�„ I' 1 • •04 M . a •* • • 1 « • ` �• ••- 1, f, . I • •- +•♦ 1 • • %• 0i .y4 , I • • ',IJ,. �N•• J 41 ,. 1 • ' r ' ; I ti I .4•W 1 I • 1 6 • �4% 1 1 • • •f •.li• 0 •4 4 i I • .i' i .. 1 • 4bO • •• . Wit.;' y i 1 • • • a- Hd DC O 'J 0 a 0 N O N O Page 432 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 25 of 43 Sand Filter Treatment System Hydraulic Analysis of Decommissioning the Filter Transfer Pumps The Tequesta WTP utilizes sand filtration for the removal of iron from the groundwater supplied by the surficial aquifer. The sand filtration treatment system includes the following: six (6) sand filters, a surge tank, three (3) transfer pumps, and chemical feed systems for chlorine and ammonia. Currently, well pumps convey raw water to the WTP, providing the energy to push water through the pressure sand filters, and finally convey the water to a surge tank, located downstream of the filters and upstream of the filter transfer pumps. Subsequently, the filtered water is transferred from the surge tank to the on -site clearwell using the filter transfer pumps. The filtered water is blended with RO permeate in the clearwell. A hydraulic analysis was performed to determine if water pumped into the surge tank could flow without the operation of the existing transfer pumps, to the clearwell under anticipated operating conditions. The flowrate between the surge tank and the clearwell is based on three primary factors: 1. The water elevation difference between water in the surge tank and water in the clearwell (static head); 2. The condition of pipe between the surge tank and clearwell (pipe friction factor); and 3. The headloss from pipe fittings and other components (e.g., pumps) in the pipeline between the surge tank and the clearwell. Record drawings were reviewed, and a hydraulic model was developed that estimated the flowrate of water from the surge tank to the clearwell based on the height of water in the surge tank. The results of this model are presented in Figure 12. The "System Curve (Existing)" represents the anticipated flowrate through the currently existing pipeline. As shown in Figure 12, if water in the surge tank reaches a height of 12-feet the flowrate is estimated to be 1,800 gpm. The maximum rated flow of the filter system is 1,875 gpm. As a result, given the current pipeline configuration if the maximum rated flow was passed through the filter system into the surge tank the surge tank would not drain by gravity to the clearwell fast enough and the surge tank would overflow. One option is to construct a by-pass line around the current transfer pump station. This would remove the headlosses associated with water flowing through the piping, valves, and pumps associated with the transfer pump station. The "System Curve (Alternative)" represents the anticipated flowrate through this proposed by- pass line. As shown in Figure 12 the reduced headloss translates to an increased flowrate per foot of water in the surge tank. With this new piping configuration when water reaches a height of 12- feet in the surge tank the flowrate to the clearwell is estimated to be 3,750 gpm. As this value comfortably exceeds the maximum rated flowrate of the filter system, it is anticipated that this modification will allow for flow from the surge tank to the clearwell without overflowing the surge tank, under the anticipated operating conditions of Tequesta's filter system. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 433 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 26 of 43 FIGURE 12 FILTER TRANSFER PUMP STATION HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS 12 10 9 C 2 0 0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 Flow (gpm) 2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 —System Curve (Existing) —System Curve (Alternative) -----Max Filter System Flowrate It is recommended that on -site testing be performed to verify the developed hydraulic model for the existing piping configuration (i.e., the "System Curve (Existing)" curve). This can be accomplished by turning off the transfer pumps and varying flow through the filter system to the surge tank and monitoring the resulting level of water in the surge tank. Field values should then be compared to the "System Curve (Existing)" in Figure 12. Results can be used to adjust the "System Curve (Alternative)" curve to determine if the direct transfer line between the surge tank and the clearwell that bypasses the filter transfer pumping station (approximately 45 linear feet) would allow for sufficient flow under the anticipated operating conditions of Tequesta's filter system post -calibration. Due to data limitations, the developed "System Curve (Existing)" curve does not exactly match observed operating conditions. This could be due to one or more of the following reasons: (1) reviewed record drawings are inaccurate; (2) valving on the pipeline is partially closed; (3) there is significant corrosion or buildup clogging one or more of the lines between the surge tank and the clearwell; (4) the existing pumps exert a higher friction pressure loss than estimated. This discrepancy further highlights the importance of performing on -site testing. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 434 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 27 of 43 Filter total flow records were used to estimate the number of hours the transfer pumps were operated per year, assuming a transfer pump ran at 700 gpm (based on pump performance curves). It was estimated that in 2018, 2019, and 2020, the transfer pumps were in operation for approximately 11,721 hours/year, 10,169 hours/year and 8,364 hours/year, respectively. This results in a 3-year average operating duration of 10,085 hours/year. Using a power cost of $0.07NW-hr, the removal of the transfer pumps is estimated to save an average of $6,318/year. The cost to install approximately 45 linear feet of 12-inch ductile iron pipe to bypass the existing filter transfer pump station is estimated to be $10,000. This results in a payback period of less than one year to implement this change. Desktop Analysis of Converting the Ammonia Gas System to Ammonium Sulfate The Tequesta WTP currently uses anhydrous ammonia as their ammonia source to form combined chlorine. A cost analysis of the ammonia treatment system was performed to determine the cost to transition to a liquid ammonium sulfate (LAS) solution -based system and compare the operating cost of this system to the current anhydrous ammonia system. Chemical usage records were used to determine the average quantity of ammonia used per year at the Tequesta WTP. In 2018, 2019, and 2020, the WTP used approximately 5,972 lbs, 6,447 lbs, and 6,071 lbs of anhydrous ammonia, respectively. This results in a 3-year average usage of 6,163 lbs. Tequesta currently purchases anhydrous ammonia for $0.79/lb, resulting in an average annual ammonia chemical cost of $4,869. An alternative to using anhydrous ammonia is to use a LAS solution. Commercial 40% LAS solution contains approximately 1.06 lbs of ammonia per gallon of solution. To achieve the average 6,163 lbs of ammonia required for dosage by the WTP, 5,835 gallons of 40% LAS solution would be required. At $2.00/gallon, this would cost approximately $11,600 per year. The cost to construct the ammonium sulfate storage and feed system, including a 1,000-gallon storage tank and one duplex peristaltic -pump skid (to serve only the existing injection location) housed inside a concrete containment area with a prefabricated metal canopy, is estimated to be approximately $181,000. While anhydrous ammonia is expected to have a lower annual cost than a LAS system, a LAS system has fewer safety concerns compared to anhydrous ammonia. Anhydrous ammonia poses serious health and safety hazards if not stored and/or handled properly. Anhydrous ammonia is a flammable gas which may form explosive mixtures with air, and as a gas under pressure it may explode if heated. Anhydrous ammonia is harmful if inhaled and can cause severe burns and eye damage. LAS solution poses fewer safety concerns than anhydrous ammonia. However, LAS solution is harmful if swallowed and may cause skin irritation, serious eye irritation, and/or respiratory irritation. As a result, it is recommended that the Village of Tequesta consider transitioning to a LAS system due to the aforementioned safety considerations. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 435 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 28 of 43 PROCESS AUTOMATION EVALUATIONS A historical review of how Tequesta WTP was expanded over time provides a background for the need for a process automation evaluation. The original WTP was constructed in 1977, as a conventional iron removal treatment plant and was converted to a greensand treatment facility in 1982. This plant was expanded to 2.7 MGD in 1988, and subsequently converted to a sand filter plant for iron removal. At this time the facility had six sand filters, a transfer pump station, one 0.75-MG ground storage tank, and an outdoor high service pump station. In 1991, a second GST was added to the WTP with a storage volume of 2.0-MG. In 2000, a RO treatment system was added to the WTP along with a second high service pump station was added. The RO system was subsequently expanded to 3.6-MGD over the next several years. Currently, the Tequesta WTP is comprised of two treatment process running in parallel, the filter system and the RO system. The water produced from both processes is blended together in a 70,000-gallon clearwell before being pumped to GSTs, and then delivered to customers using either of two high service pump stations. While process upgrades have been added over time, automation of some of these upgrades, including chemical dosing and chemical parameter monitoring, have not been upgraded. This section reviews the automation of the filter process, RO process, and blending of the two systems, followed by recommended upgrades. As part of this effort, historical process and instrumentation diagrams were reviewed and Tequesta operations staff were consulted to ascertain how processes are currently controlled. This resulted in the development of simplified process and instrumentation diagrams (herein referred to as "process flow and control diagrams") that are used in this section to describe current automation practices and recommended upgrades. These drawings can be found in the appendix to this memorandum. Process Flow and Control Diagrams Four process flow and control diagrams were developed to elucidate current automation deficiencies and recommended upgrades. These four diagrams are presented in the following Drawings and can be found in the appendix to this memorandum: - PR-1 — Process flow and control diagram for the RO system; - PR-2 — Process flow and control diagram for the degasifiers and scrubbers; - PR-3 — Process flow and control diagram for the filter system; and - PR-4 — Process flow and control diagram for the clearwell and ground storage tanks. The Tequesta WTP two high service pumping stations are shown as blocks in PR-4. Additional details regarding the high service pumping stations and an evaluation of the stations' pumping efficiency are provided in a separate technical memo being developed in conjunction with modeling of the Tequesta distribution system. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 436 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 29 of 43 Decoupling the RO and Filter Systems to Allow for Independent Operation Tequesta currently operates both the filter process and the RO process simultaneously to achieve the desired water quality. The product water of both systems combines in the clearwell before pumping the blended water to distribution. Tequesta maintains a combined chlorine residual in their distribution system for secondary disinfection. This combined chlorine residual is formed at the WTP by injecting both chlorine and ammonia into treated water. As shown in the four developed process flow and control diagrams, chlorine, in the form of sodium hypochlorite, is currently dosed at the WTP at three locations and ammonia is currently dosed at the WTP at one location. Drawing PR-3 shows the pre -filter and post -transfer pump sodium hypochlorite injection locations and Drawing PR-4 shows sodium hypochlorite being dosed into the clearwell. Drawing PR-3 shows the ammonia dosing location located in the surge tank, after the sand filters. As a result of this current dosing configuration, a combined chlorine residual can only be formed when the filter process is operated as the only ammonia dosing location is located in the filter system. This is one portion of the treatment process that prevents Tequesta from operating the RO portion of their treatment system independently. To allow for decoupling of these treatment processes, an ammonia dosing location must be added downstream of the RO system. Drawing PR-4 shows the proposed dosing location, located after the clearwell transfer pumps (see clouded item (3)). If the RO process is operated independently, sodium hypochlorite could be added in the clearwell with the existing chemical feed pump (M2802) and the existing injection location. Ammonia could then be added after the clearwell transfer pumps, creating a combined chlorine residual prior to storage and distribution. The addition of a second ammonia injection location is not expected to change the average annual ammonia usage at the WTP. As a result, additional ammonia storage would not be required. However, an additional ammoniator would be required to dose ammonia at the proposed location post-clearwell. A budgetary cost for this addition is provided in Table 6, and is estimated to be $91,000. Equipment costs include: the ammoniator, pressure reducing valve from the existing storage tank, injector, and ancillary equipment. A notable additional benefit of this addition is this would allow Tequesta to have a redundant ammoniator on standby in case either ammoniator becomes inoperable. Also, of note, it is possible that this second ammoniator could be controlled by an ammonia analyzer downstream, this possibility and associated costs are presented in the next section. It should be noted that, if in the future, Tequesta injects ammonia only at the proposed secondary injection location, downstream of the clearwell transfer pumps, water chlorinated prior to this location (either from the filter system or RO system) is likely to form regulated disinfection by- products associated with the use of free chlorine (i.e., total trihalomethanes and five species of haloacetic acids). As a result, if Tequesta intends to use only this second ammonia injection location in the future, a free chlorine disinfection by-product study should be performed to confirm that these regulated disinfection by-products maximum contaminant limits will not be exceeded. This study may also impact filter water and RO permeate blending decisions. It is estimated that as study of this magnitude would cost approximately $25,000. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 437 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 30 of 43 TABLE 6 BUDGETARY COST ESTIMATE FOR A POST-CLEARWELL AMMONIATOR Cost Item Description Cost Equipment $46,400 SCADA Integration (Programming) $1,560 Miscellaneous Installation Costs (Unistrut etc.) $2,000 Subtotal $49,960 Mobilization/Demobilization, Cleanup & Bonding 7% $3,497 Subtotal $53,457 OH&P 15%) $8,019 Conduit and Wire* $4,500 Subtotal $65,976 Sales Tax 7%) $4,618 Contingency 30%) $19,793 Budgetary Cost Estimate TOTAL $91,000 *Includes OH&P and GC's Chemical Monitoring and Automation Upgrades Tequesta currently monitors chlorine residual, ammonia, and pH at several WTP locations by drawing grab samples and performing analyses. The results of these analyses dictate if certain processes at the WTP need to be adjusted (e.g., modification of a chemical dose). This manual sampling has several notable drawbacks: - It can be time consuming for operators; - If a single analysis is performed incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly it could lead to an operation/treatment error; - A change in a water quality parameter may not be identified for several hours if it occurs between the times of the day when operators sample a given location; and - Operators cannot easily review data trends which could reveal problems with treatment processes. One solution is to add on-line continuous analyzers at several locations throughout the WTP and have the continuous readings sent back to Tequesta's SCADA system for automatic logging and operator review. The following chemical parameter analyzer additions to the WTP are recommended: J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 438 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 31 of 43 1. Addition of a pre -filter system chlorine analyzer (see PR-3 (1)). This analyzer would measure the chlorine residual prior to water entering the filter system. The resulting data could show if the pre -filter chlorine dose should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be modified to have the SCADA system automatically control this chlorine dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 2. Addition of a pre -surge tank chlorine analyzer (see PR-3 (2)). This analyzer would measure the remaining chlorine residual after water has passed through the sand filters. The resulting data could show if the chlorine dose pre -filter should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be modified to have the SCADA system automatically control this chlorine dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 3. Addition of a pre-clearwell combined chlorine analyzer (see PR-4 (la)). This analyzer would measure the combined chlorine residual in water being transferred from the filter system. 4. Addition of a pre-clearwell ammonia analyzer (see PR-4 (lb)). This analyzer would measure the concentration of ammonia in water coming from the filter system. The resulting data could show if the ammonia dose in the surge tank should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be modified to have the SCADA system automatically control this ammonia dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 5. Addition of a post-clearwell free chlorine analyzer (PR-4 (3)). This analyzer would measure the free chlorine residual after chlorine was added in the clearwell. A free chlorine measurement is required at this location in the event that the RO system is being operated and the filter system is not being operated. In this case, the analyzer would measure the free chlorine residual from the clearwell, and the resulting data could show if the chlorine dose in the clearwell should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be updated to have the SCADA system automatically control this chlorine dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 6. Addition of a post-clearwell combined chlorine analyzer (PR-4 (5a)). This analyzer would measure the combined chlorine residual in water leaving the clearwell. The resulting data could show if the chlorine dose in the clearwell should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be modified to have the SCADA system automatically control this chlorine dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 7. Addition of a post-clearwell ammonia analyzer (PR-4 (5b)). This analyzer would measure the free available ammonia concentration in water leaving the clearwell. The resulting data could show if the ammonia dose post-clearwell should be adjusted. If desired, the SCADA system could be modified to have the SCADA system automatically control this ammonia dosing location based on this proposed analyzer's readings. 8. Addition of a distribution system combined chlorine analyzer (PR-4 (7a)). This analyzer would measure the combined chlorine residual in water within the distribution system. The resulting data could show if the WTP should adjust chlorine and/or ammonia dosing. 9. Addition of a distribution system ammonia analyzer (PR-4 (7b)). This analyzer would measure the free available ammonia concentration in water within the distribution system. The resulting data could show if the WTP should adjust chlorine and/or ammonia dosing. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 439 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 32 of 43 Table 7 presents costs for the proposed chemical monitoring and automation upgrades. Note that the HACH 5500sc Ammonia Monochloramine Analyzer recommended for monitoring combined chlorine and ammonia also measures temperature and pH. In addition, to allow for flow pacing of chemical dosing it is recommended that a flow meter be installed on the combined discharge header of the clearwell transfer pumps (PR-4 (2)). A cost for this addition is also included in Table 7. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 440 of 488 Agenda Item #16. E w V p v tH 69 yj V3 V3 Y] Vi O V x A " v3 vs v3 ds <s v3 b o 0 0 O � U V3 Yi P s9 V3 .s3 eS 4i o No o c o 0 0 U 0 s7 = G A d V C O y y^ m O O O O C C O O O O O O O 0 H3 69 P 69 e4 69 H b-0 G C OY3 69 EA 69 64 iy M G � FiA � N� fA fA EH O Vi Vi y u �9L F G F F O j i pc u IG H F 44 'Uq o wC c,O U � Uq Ua Page 441 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 34 of 43 Automation of Filter Backwashes Based on Filter Pressure Differential Currently, operational filters are backwashed daily, under the set maintenance schedule. Discussions with operators noted that the current potentially excessive backwash regimen (i.e., daily backwashes) is believed to be needed due to the poor media quality in the filters. Operators also believe the media needs to be replaced. This claim is substantiated by a January 2018 memorandum by Kimley-Horn, who recommends media replacement based on a Filter Media Analysis. Reducing the required number of backwashes would both reduce the labor burden on operators and reduce the amount of product water wasted during these maintenance events. There is a possibility of automating filter backwashes based on when the pressure differential across a filter exceeds a setpoint. Operators currently try and keep differential pressures below 10 psi. Operators also noted that backwashing is currently initiated based on iron breakthrough, not differential pressure. Operators sample effluent from the filters and if iron is greater than 0.01 mg/L, operators perform a backwash — this is due to iron breakthrough occurring before high differential pressure. This suggests that automating filter backwashes based on a filter pressure differential setpoint would be inappropriate at this time. This may change if new filter media causes a change in the operation paradigm where pressure differential exceeds the current operator setpoint (10 psi) before the current iron breakthrough setpoint (0.01 mg/L) is exceeded. As a result, automation of filter backwashes should be reevaluated after the filter media has been replaced. OTHER FINDINGS Isolation of 2.0 MG Ground Storage Tank During normal operation Tequesta operates both the filter process and the RO process simultaneously and then blends the product water of both systems in their clearwell. Clearwell transfer pumps then convey the blended water to the 2.0-MG GST which then feeds both on -site high service pump stations and the 0.75-MG GST. Drawing PR-5 displays a site plan of the WTP from a 2009 drawing set and shows yard piping. Relevant control valves on this drawing starting from the RO and filter systems to the high service pump stations are numbered. Table 8 identifies the position of each of the numbered valves during three scenarios. TABLE 8 PROCESS CONTROL VALVE POSITION CHART Scenario Number Scenario Description Valve Number (see PR-5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 RO & Filter System in Operation X O O X O O O O O X* O* 2 Only RO System in Operation O O X O O X X O O X* O* 3 Only Filter System in Operation O 1 X - - - - X O 1 O X* O* X— closed valve; 0 —open valve; X* —valve normally closed but can be open; O* —valve normally open but can be closed; and "" — valve position does not matter. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 442 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 35 of 43 Scenario 1 represents normal operating conditions when both the RO process and filter process are in operation. Under this scenario, all of the blended product water must travel through the 2.0 MG- GST before it can pass to the two high service pump stations. This may be problematic if the existing 2.0-MG GST becomes inoperable. If this event occurs, WTP operators appear to have only two additional options, these options are presented in Scenarios 2 and 3. Scenario 2 represents a scenario when the 2.0-MG GST is inoperable and as a result, WTP operations operates only the RO process and bypasses the 2.0-MG GST. Table 8 shows the required position of the process control valves needed to accommodate this operational scheme. Scenario 3 represents a scenario when the 2.0-MG GST is inoperable and as a result, WTP operations operates only the filter process and bypasses the 2.0-MG GST. The clearwell is also bypassed in this scenario. Table 8 shows the required position of the process control valves needed to accommodate this operational scheme. As previously noted in this memorandum, the WTP cannot independently operate the filter process or RO process and meet water quality goals. As a result, the WTP cannot produce water that meets current water quality goals if the 2.0-MG GST is inoperable. A potential solution is to add a by- pass line around the existing 2.0-MG GST. Drawing PR-5 shows a proposed 16-inch ductile iron line that would allow for bypass around the existing 2.0-MG GST. In addition to this line, two (2) 16-inch and one (1) 30-inch butterfly isolation valves would be required to fully isolate the existing 2.0-MG GST. The only drawback of operating the WTP with this by-pass line, would be the reduction of on -site potable water storage. However, as utilization of the by-pass line would only be expected to be in service for short periods of time, this drawback is acceptable and would not violate any current FDEP regulations. A budgetary estimate for constructing the by-pass line as shown on Drawing PR-5 consisting of approximately 150 feet of 16-inch ductile iron (DI) pipe, two (2) 16-inch DI butterfly isolation valves, and one (1) 30-inch butterfly isolation valve is $180,000. Fluoride Exceedance in RO Concentrate at Outfall Discharge RO concentrate from the WTP is treated, transferred, and then discharged at the U.S. 1 Bridge, just west of the Jupiter Inlet. Discharge of concentrate is permitted under FDEP permit FL0168572-004. One of the effluent limitations specified in this industrial wastewater facility permit is the daily maximum total fluoride concentration of the concentrate. The specified maximum value is 5.0 mg/L. Figure 13 presents the measured monthly fluoride concentration of concentrate leaving the WTP and the average value over time from January 2019 to May 2021. As shown in Figure 13, the maximum concentration over the evaluated time period was 8.0 mg/L, the minimum concentration was 2.3 mg/L, and the average concentration was 5.0 mg/L. Ten out of the twenty-nine months evaluated exceeded the maximum effluent limitation level specified in the permit. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 443 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 36 of 43 One solution offered to FDEP to ensure discharged concentrate was below the regulated limit, was to dilute the concentrate stream with another water source that has a low fluoride concentration. One available source is finished water from the WTP. To assess the feasibility of this option, two scenarios were developed and evaluated to calculate the quantity of water that would be needed to dilute the concentrate stream. The two scenarios and associated assumptions are listed below: Scenario 1: Finished water was used to dilute the RO concentrate that had a fluoride concentration of 8.0 mg/L, representing the highest concentration over the evaluated record. Scenario 2: Finished water was used to dilute RO concentrate that had a fluoride concentration of 5.0 mg/L, representing the average fluoride concentration over the evaluated record. Assumptions: 1. Finished water from the WTP has a fluoride concentration of approximately 0.0 mg/L. 2. To ensure Tequesta meets fluoride discharge limits, a target discharge concentration of 4 mg/L will be used (20% less than the limit). 3. Tequesta produces 0.382 MGD of concentrate per day. This value is equal to the average RO concentrate flow from Tequesta WTP (Source: Overall Flow Report2020.x1s). Calculation for Scenario 1: (8.0 mg/L)*(0.382 MGD) + (0 mg/L)*(X MGD) _ (4 mg/L)*(0.382 + X MGD) X = 0.382 MGD of finished water would be needed for dilution. Calculation for Scenario 2: (5.0 mg/L)*(0.382 MGD) + (0 mg/L)*(X MGD) _ (4 mg/L)*(0.382 + X MGD) X = 0.096 MGD of finished water would be needed for dilution. Calculations show that under Scenario 1 and 2, Tequesta would need 0.382 and 0.096 MGD of finished water to dilute the concentrate stream, respectively. In 2020, Tequesta produced on average 2.29 MGD of finished water. Therefore, to support the proposed dilution process Tequesta would have to increase potable water production by 16.7 and 4.2 percent for Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. As a result, diluting the RO concentrate stream may not be a desired, long-term solution due to the cost to treat the water, and possibly consumptive use permit considerations. The potential strain on the surficial aquifer, resulting from the need to produce more water from the filter system, is particularly unpalatable. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 444 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 37 of 43 FIGURE 13 FLUORIDE CONENCTRATIONS IN RO CONCENTRATE 9 w �g a 7 0 6 5 �1 Y 0 1/1/2019 6/30/2019 12/27/2019 6/24/2020 12/21/2020 ---Monthly Fluoride Concentration ----Average Fluoride Concentration Alternative dilution scenarios could utilize reclaimed water, surficial groundwater, or brackish (Floridan) groundwater. Reclaimed water may be an option but impacts to other discharge water quality parameters would have to be considered and FDEP would likely require consultation. Surficial groundwater may also be an option, but the water management district may take issue with utilizing surficial water for this process and would likely also need to be consulted. Raw brackish water could be used to dilute concentrate but as this water already contains fluoride the quantity of water used would be greater than that of finished water. Recent historical records suggest raw brackish water contains approximately 1.2 mg/L of fluoride. Two additional scenarios are evaluated below to conceptually assess this option: Scenario 3: Raw brackish groundwater water was used to dilute RO concentrate that had a fluoride concentration of 8.0 mg/L, representing the highest concentration over the evaluated record. Scenario 4: Raw brackish groundwater was used to dilute RO concentrate that had a fluoride concentration of 5.0 mg/L, representing the average fluoride concentration over the evaluated record. Assumptions: 1. Raw brackish groundwater has a fluoride concentration of approximately 1.2 mg/L. 2. To ensure Tequesta meets fluoride discharge limits a target discharge concentration of 4 mg/L will be used (20% less than the limit). J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficieneyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 445 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 38 of 43 3. Tequesta produces 0.382 MGD of concentrate per day. This value is equal to the average RO concentrate flow from Tequesta WTP (Source: Overall Flow Report2020.x1s). Calculation for Scenario 3: (8.0 mg/L)*(0.382 MGD) + (1.2 mg/L)*(X MGD) _ (4 mg/L)*(0.382 + X MGD) X = 0.546 MGD of brackish groundwater would be needed for dilution. Calculation for Scenario 4: (5.0 mg/L)*(0.382 MGD) + (1.2 mg/L)*(X MGD) _ (4 mg/L)*(0.382 + X MGD) X = 0.136 MGD of brackish groundwater would be needed for dilution. Calculations show that under Scenarios 3 and 4, Tequesta would need 0.546 and 0.136 MGD of brackish groundwater to dilute the concentrate stream, respectively. These scenarios would not incur the treatment expense of the RO water as in Scenarios 1 and 2, but would require additional daily pumping from the brackish groundwater wells. This may be a more desirable option if consumptive use limits allow. Other non -dilution options are available. These may include additional treatment for the concentrate stream (e.g., ion exchange) or other concentrate disposal options (e.g., deep well injection). Chemical Containment and Pumping Redundancy Sulfuric Acid The sulfuric acid system consists of a single, linear high -density polyethylene bulk storage tank inside concrete containment (Figure 14), a transfer pump located immediately outside the bulk storage tank containment (Figure 15), a day tank, and two (2) positive displacement chemical feed pumps. The day tank and chemical feed pumps are located across the access drive from the bulk storage tank and chemical transfer pump, inside a chemical feed room. As shown in Figure 14, the bulk storage tank is within a secondary containment structure. In addition, the chemical transfer pump piping, residing outside the secondary containment structure, is contained in secondary containment piping. However, as shown in Figure 15, the chemical transfer pump does not have secondary containment. If the discharge of the pump was to rupture, almost all of the volume of chemical in the bulk storage tank could discharge onto the ground surrounding the transfer pump (as the transfer pump is nearly at the same elevation as the bottom of the bulk tank). To provide secondary containment for the transfer pumping system, it is recommended that the sulfuric acid containment structure is expanded to surround the transfer pump and discharge piping. A budgetary cost for this modification is $10,000. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\ReportsAProcess Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 446 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 39 of 43 FIGURE 14 SULFURIC ACID STORAGE (LEFT) AND TRANSFER PUMP (RIGHT) FIGURE 15 SULFURIC ACID TRANSFER PUMP J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 447 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 40 of 43 Currently sulfuric acid is dosed at two locations: prior to RO membrane treatment (pump M2503) and prior to degasification (pump M2504). When the RO system is in operation, sulfuric acid is continually dosed at both locations. The dosing rate for the pre-RO membrane location is based on a pH analyzer downstream of the pre-RO dosing location, while the dosing rate for the pre- degasifier location is based on pH analyzers downstream of the pre-degasifier dosing location. Currently, as there are only two pumps, there is no redundant standby pump available to be brought online if either sulfuric acid chemical feed pump fails. As a result, if either pump fails the other pump must dose acid at both injection locations which can lead to reduced process control, as chemical flow distribution to either location would be dependent on flow control valving rather than metering pumps. It is recommended that a third chemical feed pump and associated feed piping be installed that could act as a standby pump to be used if either of the current chemical feed pumps fail. This would require interconnecting the proposed pump with the existing pumps and integrating the new feed pump into the SCADA system. A budgetary cost for this modification is $20,000. Sodium Hydroxide The caustic system consists of a single insulated, linear high -density polyethylene bulk storage tank located inside concrete containment, a transfer pump located immediately outside the bulk storage tank containment, a day tank, and three (3) positive displacement chemical feed pumps. The day tank and chemical feed pumps are located across the access drive from the bulk storage tank and chemical transfer pump in a chemical feed room. The bulk storage tank and transfer pump are shown in Figure 16. As shown in Figure 16, the bulk storage tank is within a secondary containment structure. In addition, the chemical transfer pump piping, residing outside the secondary containment structure, is contained in secondary containment piping. However, as shown in Figure 16, the chemical transfer pump does not have secondary containment. If the discharge of the pump was to rupture, almost all of the volume of chemical in the bulk storage tank could discharge onto the ground surrounding the transfer pump (as the transfer pump is nearly at the same elevation as the bottom of the bulk tank). To provide secondary containment for the transfer pumping system, it is recommended that the sodium hydroxide containment structure is expanded to surround the transfer pump and discharge piping. A budgetary cost for this modification is $10,000. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 448 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 41 of 43 FIGURE 16 CAUSTIC STORAGE (LEFT) AND TRANSFER PUMP (RIGHT) Currently, caustic is dosed at five locations: in the clearwell, and in each of the four scrubbers. One chemical feed pump (M2509) feeds the clearwell, one pump (M2507) feeds scrubbers 1 and 2 and one pump (M2508) feeds scrubbers 3 and 4. Currently, as there are only three pumps, there is no redundant standby pump available to be brought online if any of the three caustic pumps fail. It is recommended that a fourth chemical feed pump and associated feed piping be installed that could act as a standby pump to be used if any of the current chemical feed pumps fail. This would require interconnecting the proposed pump with the existing pumps and integrating the new feed pump into the SCADA system. A budgetary cost for this modification is $20,000. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 449 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Memo To: Matthew Hammond, P.E - Utilities Director, Village of Tequesta Subject: Village of Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - Process Efficiency and Automation Technical Memorandum 9/ 1 /2021 Page 42 of 43 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS Table 9 summarizes recommendations presented throughout the memorandum. Recommendations are assigned a suggested implementation timeframe and a budgetary estimate. Tentative subtotal costs are provided for each of the three main subsections presented in the memorandum. The total value of the recommended improvements is $2,932,000. J:AENG\FL\Tequesta\20555-WTP-EfficiencyStudy\Reports\Process Efficiency and Automation TM\Process Efficiency and Automation TM - 20210901.docx Page 450 of 488 Agenda Item #16. E C tl S C W FFFFFF �'�'�FFF FF'yF-� �'yb y yFF.� '�1 a 0 y y y Page 451 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Appendix A Drawing Set Page 452 of 488 Ag-d. It.. #16. 932131d-1"9111M ..S�s .,, NVUDVIO IOUNOO aNV MOIJ 553308d Acinis AJN31Jl333 INVId INHUIREll U31VM vamoij 'vmnou Ao 39VIIIA agu O Ep - 00000 Ag-d. It.. #16. -uoizziwe msasns wxoxmiaoxanv ao 3amuuaaa SN fl—MUNVS-31M30 11 �sanu°nnai,w onz aaniz °,oa �nivao.rzzz�w WtlN 9VIO IOUN00 ONV MOli SS3308d Q 3a wog a �altlyy8um'mmm 1 9((I"906'L06 N O3NJ° A4f11S AJN3Dlii3 a 332131d-1H9111M 1Ntlld 1N3W1tl3Nl U31VM " voluoii atl15 non i0 39VIIIA p Ag-d. It.. #16. NVUDVIO IOUNOO aNVMOlJ 553308d Acinis AJN31JlJJ3 931191d-1"9111M INVId INHUIREll U31VM vamoij 'vmnou io 39VIIIA �22 F 000 FF� 00 zoo jK I., — o, — Ag-d. It.. #16. o 1 1— — 101 � 3:)m31d-1"9111M —1 3MOI5ON n-D ON--M NVUDVIO IOUN03 aNVMOlA 553308d Acinis AJN3DlJJ3 INVId IN3W1V31HI U31VM v01uoli'vis3n,631 io 39VIIIA vz Z z tE tYc ore e m MR, � - Mo: Ag-d. It.. #16. -0-10!— - - - 932131d-1"9111M Acinis AJN31Jl333 INVId INMIVRII H31VM voluoij 'vmnou AO 39VIIIA I P,, 457 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Appendix B Duall System Audit Service Quotation Page 458 of 488 Agenda Item #16. Proposal Number: P2190707 Project Name: WRIGHT-PIERCE CECO eNVIRONMENTAL Address: 601 S Lake Destiny Dr #290 MIDLAND, FL 32751 Reference: Attention: Benjamin Yoakum, PhD, PE Scrubber System Audit for E-Mail: benjamin.yoakum@wright-pierce.com Village of Tequesta Reference s/n 9307 of 2010. (2) PT510-54 Date: 07/15/2021 Validity 30 days Expiration date: 08/15/2021 Fred Cutlerywala Technical Product Specialist Direct: 630-875-3307 Mobil: 469-623-6000 E-mail: futlerywala@onececo.com Validi This quotation and pricing herein is valid for thirty (30) duvs from the date given on the cover page ("Effective Date) and shipment of the order must occur within six (6) nwraths of the Effective Date. Pricing and Payment Terms are subject to credit approval. Escalation Due to market volatility in kev raw materials including, but not limited to, steel, nickel, chrome, copper, precious, and other metals, thermoplastic and PRP resins, pricing provided may be subject to escalation at time of HEE-Duall" issuance of purchase orders to its suppliers. All prices in US$ Dollars. Page 1 1--- -- 59 of 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL Leverage HEE-Duall's original equipment manufacturer (OEM) expertise to ensure that your assets are working properly and performing as expected with a 'Technical On -Site Assessment'. • Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assessments help you to optimize and control your ongoing costs as they identify potential improvements or corrections • Consistency and reliability are the benefits when your equipment is inspected by an OEM technician from HEE-Duall, or factory -trained -and -certified third party. SERVICE PRICING* Pricing shall be per the accompanying standard rate sheet. At this time, we anticipate (1) field service technician, for (3) days ON- SITE for 8-10 hours per day. Description Extended Price FIELD SERVICE- SEE SCOPE OF SUPPLY BELOW-,- $11,335.00 Scope of Supply' 1. The Scrubber System Audit would include calibrating pH probes, measuring air flow rates, verifying liquid recirculation rates, measuring fan RPM, and taking static pressure measurements. 2. The Packing may be fouled so inspection of the Packing, Spray Headers would be included too. 3. Service visits include four hours of Training. 4. Customer to provide JLG Articulating Lift needed to perform this service. 5. Service to be scheduled ON -SITE, Tuesday to Thursday. Invoicing shall be per the actual time and expenses and according to the attached Field Technician rate sheet below. The assessment may involve the inspection of fan components, nozzles, packing, pressure readings and air flows. The assessment will include a pre -inspection meeting with plant personnel to discuss the current operation of the system, review any existing faults or conditions and discuss any future changes. The assessment will also include a post review meeting to review services performed during the visit and any outstanding or upcoming service requirements. The assessment does not include any corrective actions. If the customer decides to have corrective actions performed at the time of the assessment and the technician is in a position to perform these corrective actions, additional charges will apply. The assessment will consist of two days of travel and one day onsite, up to 8 hours per day, including daily travel, onsite. If additional time is deemed necessary for additional operational and maintenance training, additional charges will apply Page 1 2--- --Page 460 of 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO eNVIRONMENTAL Invoicing of Goods/Services Should Customer delay approvals of Drawings (Over 2 weeks from Submittals) or acceptance of Equipment or Start-up (2 weeks from Notification), any respective amounts become immediately due and Customer will be Invoiced accordingly. Offer Acceptance ACCEPTANCE OF THIS OFFER IS LIMITED TO ITS TERMS INCLUDING ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ATTACHED, WHICH ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE OFFER. Accepted by: Name/Title: Date: Invoicing shall be per the actual time and expenses and according to the attached Field Technician rate sheet below. Page 13 --Page 461 of 488 Agenda Item #16. C', E0 FIV+JIRClMMF6VTAI Service Rates Effective October 1st, 2019 Weekday US Rates: Field Service - $1380.00/day (up to 8hrs) Field Service hours over 8 up to 12 hrs - $ 260.00/ hr Field Service hours over 12hrs - $320.00/hr Weekend US Rates: Field Service Weekend Rate - $2080.00/day (up to 8 hrs) Field Service hours over 8 up to 12 hrs - $260.00/hr Field Service hours over 12hrs - $320.00/hr Additional US Charges: Per Diem - $75.00/day Mileage - .85/mile Flight/Hotel/Rental Car invoiced at Cost + 15% • Locally 1-4hrs = 4hr minimum charge • Locally 4-8hrs = 8 hr minimum charge • US Holidays are billed at $480.00/hr International Rates: Field Service - $2000.00 (up to 8 hrs) Field Service hours over 8 up to 12 hrs - $ 375.00/hr Field Service hours over 12hrs - $500.00/hr • International Holidays are billed at $625.00/hr Additional International Charges: Per Diem - $120.00/day Mileage - .85/mile Flight/Hotel/Rental Car invoiced at Cost + 15% CECO eNVIRONMENTAL Page 14 --Page 462-of 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL OE Factory Certified Installation Service In addition to our other services, we also provide installations of our equipment. A site walkthrough will be needed to clarify installation pricing. • We do not include moving or clearing any material or equipment blocking the work area. • HEE-Duall is not responsible for the relocation of obstructions, utilities, or equipment that may be required for installation. • We exclude all foundation work and/or containment curbs. • All utilities (electrical, water, and other piping) work is excluded. • We do not include any allowance for site specific safety training, certification, or special test. • We assume the proposed unit location will be easily accessible (ground level, outdoors, near overhead door, etc...) • Installation to take place during standard working hours (Monday — Friday). • Unloading of equipment by others. • OSHA ladders, platforms, and structures are not included (scaffolding excluded). • We do not include material disposal and/or disposal fees. • We do not include any city, agency, local, environmental, and/or air quality permits or fee's. Daily Service Rate = $1,380.00 plus travel (Parts not included) • Number of days required depends on system size and accessibility • Travel and expenses are added to the daily rate • Overtime, weekend and holiday hours are additional REPRESENTATIONS Warranty, System Design and performance is contingent upon proper installation, operation, and system air balancing. Any and all third party equipment shall be subject to warranty provided by third party. If installation is provided by others, it shall be in strict accordance with the system Manufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Care should be taken to make certain that the installer also provides system balancing. HEE-Duall* will not be responsible for inadequate system performance, or Warranty, due to improper installation, operation or balancing when these services are provided by others. Customer expressly agrees and understands that Supplier needs to be notified immediately should there be a warranty or quality claim, and reasonable time to cure. Should customer decide to remediate directly, NO BACKCHARGES WHATSOEVER will be due by Supplier. CANCELLATION In cases of cancellation of any order after said order has been acknowledged, the following fees schedule applies: AFTER PURCHASE ORDER 25% Proposed labor + expenses incurred Customer expressly agrees these amounts will become due and will be paid forthwith. REQUIRED CLAUSE IN CONTRACT ON CANCELLATION: "In the event of termination by Buyer, if Seller, at the time of such termination, shall have in stock or on firm order any completed or uncompleted items or any raw, semi -processed or completed materials for use in fulfilling this Agreement, Buyer may require Seller to deliver all or part of the completed or uncompleted items or any raw, semi -processed or completed materials to Buyer. If such requirement is executed and value of materials exceeds IV. Cancellation Fees as above, Buyer will adjust reimbursement to Seller accordingly." Page I 5 --Page 463 of 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO NVIRONMENTAL STANDARD MANUFACTURER'S CLARIFICATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS: • These systems use hazardous chemicals and potentially dangerous rotating equipment which must be operated and maintained by experienced, qualified, and trained personnel. During the course of installation, start-up and testing, the responsibility of safety is by Customer. • Unless otherwise stated the proposed equipment uses industry standard designs for gas and/or vapor absorption and high efficiency mist removal for typical mist loadings. Some process conditions may create non -typical aerosol emissions that may exceed standard mist eliminator capacity. The effects of corrosive aerosol mist exiting the scrubber outside of the efficiencies stated in this proposal are the responsibility of others. Contact HEE-Duall' for information on aerosol formation and recommendations for utilizing premium efficiency mist elimination techniques. • HEE-Duall" reserves the right to have field services such as (installation, start-up, training, and maintenance) provided by third party contractor of their choice. • The above referenced HEE-Duall' all Field Service scope of supply was proposed and priced without any consideration to any, form of Confined Space Entry activities. If it is later deemed necessary to perform Confined Space Entry activities, HEE- Duall' reserves the right under a separate or amended proposal to propose the respective Field Service scope of supply utilizing a Non -Permit Required Confined Space Entry technique. If the customer or owner of the respective vessel has labeled the said vessel as Permit Required, HEE-Duall® will submit a plan to eliminate all the hazards (f possible) relating to said vessel and require the customer or owner to temporarily grant entry to the said vessel under a Non -Permit Required Confined Space Entry status. All costs associated with the review and approval of the submitted plan, any additional site training the customer or owner requires for vessel entry and manpower required to comply with Confined Space Entry requirements is the responsibility of the customer or owner. Notice All material contained in this Quote is proprietary and shall be treated confidentially by all recipients. Your acceptance of this material constitutes acknowledgment of the confidential relationship under which disclosure and delivery are made. This Quote represents our interpretation of your requirements based on the specific information provided at time of inquiry and should discrepancies arise, modifications be made or understandings differ, we reserve the right to modify the Quote. This Quote is for this inquiry only and does not eliminate or supersedes any other agreements or obligations (financial or otherwise), between the parties. This entire Quote is © 2017 HEE-Dually Division of CECO Environmental , its business units, divisions and subsidiaries. The logos and proposed products and services are trademarks or registered trademarks of CECO Environmental in the U.S. and other countries. All other trade names are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective holders. Page 16 -- f 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES Applicabilitv. (a) These terms and conditions of sale (these "Terms") are the only terms which govern the sale of the goods, including equipment, machinery, materials, consumables (collectively, "Goods") and services ("Services") by CECO Environmental Corp. and all of its affiliated companies (collectively, "Seller") to the buyer named on the signature line of these Terms ("Buyer"). Any provisions or conditions of Buyer's order which are in any way inconsistent with, or in addition to these Terms shall not be binding on Seller, and shall not be applicable, except with Seller's written acceptance. (b) The accompanying quotation (the "Sales Confirmation") and these Terms (collectively, this "Agreement") comprise the entire agreement between the parties, and supersede all prior or contemporaneous understandings, agreements, negotiations, representations and warranties, and communications, both written and oral. These Terms prevail over any of Buyer's general terms and conditions of purchase regardless whether or when Buyer has submitted its purchase order or such terms. Fulfillment of Buyer's order does not constitute acceptance of any of Buyer's terms and conditions and does not serve to modify or amend these Terms. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, Seller may, from time to time change the Services without the consent of Buyer provided that such changes do not materially affect the nature or scope of the Services, or the fees or any performance dates set forth in the Sales Confirmation. 2. Delivery of Goods and Performance of Services. (a) The Goods will be shipped within a reasonable time after the receipt of Buyer's purchase order. Seller shall not be liable for any delays, loss or damage in transit. (b) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties, for shipments within the continental USA, Seller shall ship the Goods FCA (per Incoterms 2010) from Seller's factory to the designated delivery location (the "Delivery Point"). For international shipments, Seller shall ship the Goods Ex Works (per Incoternrs 2010). The Goods shall be shipped using Seller's standard methods for packaging and shipping such Goods. Buyer shall take delivery of the Goods within ten (10) days of Seller's written notice that the Goods have been shipped to the Delivery Point. Buyer shall be responsible for all loading costs and provide equipment and labor reasonably suited for receipt of the Goods at the Delivery Point. (c) Seller may, in its sole discretion, without liability or penalty, make partial shipments of Goods to Buyer. Each shipment will constitute a separate sale, and Buyer shall pay for the units shipped whether such shipment is in whole or partial fulfillment of Buyer's purchase order. (d) If for any reason Buyer fails to accept delivery of any of the Goods on the date fixed pursuant to Seller's notice that the Goods have been delivered at the Delivery Point, or if Seller is unable to deliver the Goods at the Delivery Point on such date because Buyer has not provided appropriate instructions, documents, licenses or authorizations: (i) risk of loss to the Goods shall pass to Buyer; (ii) the Goods shall be deemed to have been delivered; and (iii) Seller, at its option, may store the Goods until Buyer picks them up, whereupon Buyer shall be liable for all related costs and expenses (including, without limitation, storage and insurance). (e) Seller shall use commercially reasonable efforts to meet any performance dates to render the Services specified in the Sales Confirmation, and any such dates shall be estimates only. (1) With respect to the Services, Buyer shall (i) cooperate with Seller in all matters relating to the Services and provide such access to Buyer's premises, and such office accommodation and other facilities as may reasonably be requested by Seller, for the purposes of performing the Services; (ii) respond promptly to any Seller request to provide direction, information, approvals, authorizations or decisions that are reasonably necessary for Seller to perform Services in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement; (iii) provide such customer materials or information as Seller may reasonably request to carry out the Services in a timely manner and ensure that such customer materials or information are complete and accurate in all material respects; and (iv) obtain and maintain all necessary licenses and consents and comply with all applicable laws in relation to the Services before the date on which the Services are to start. (g) Any and all data books, instructions, operating manuals and specifications documents will be provided by Seller in an electronic format free of charge. Bound versions may be provided at Buyer's request, subject to additional charges. 3. Non-Deliverv. (a) The quantity of any installment of Goods as recorded by Seller on dispatch from Seller's place of business is conclusive evidence of the quantity received by Buyer on delivery unless Buyer can provide conclusive evidence proving the contrary. (b) Seller shall not be liable for any non -delivery of Goods (even if caused by Seller's negligence) unless Buyer gives written notice to Seller of the non- delivery within ten (10) days of the date when the Goods would in the ordinary course of events have been received. (c) Any liability of Seller for non -delivery of the Goods shall be limited to replacing the Goods within a reasonable time or adjusting the invoice respecting such Goods to reflect the actual quantity delivered. 4. Title and Risk of Loss. Title and risk of loss passes to Buyer upon Seller's delivery to the Delivery Point unless otherwise specified. As collateral security for the payment of the purchase price of the Goods, Buyer hereby grants to Seller a lien on and security interest in and to all of the right, title and interest of Buyer in, to and under the Goods, wherever located, and whether now existing or hereafter arising or acquired from time to time, and in all accessions thereto and replacements or modifications thereof, as well as all proceeds (including insurance proceeds) of the foregoing. The security interest granted under this provision constitutes a purchase money security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code. 5. Buyer's Acts or Omissions. If Seller's performance of its obligations under this Agreement is prevented or delayed by any act or omission of Buyer or its agents, subcontractors, consultants or employees, Seller shall not be deemed in breach of its obligations under this Agreement or otherwise liable for any costs, charges or losses sustained or incurred by Buyer, in each case, to the extent arising directly or indirectly from such prevention or delay. 6. Inspection and Reiection of Nonconformins Goods and Services. (a) Buyer shall inspect the Goods within ten (10) days of receipt ("Inspection Period"). Buyer will be deemed to have accepted the Goods unless it promptly notifies Seller in writing of any Nonconforming Goods during the Inspection Period and furnishes such written evidence or other documentation as reasonably required by Seller. "Nonconforming Goods" means only the following: (i) product shipped is different than identified in Buyer's purchase order; or (ii) product's label or packaging incorrectly identifies its contents. Page 17 ---- 46 f 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL (b) If Buyer timely notifies Seller of any Nonconforming Goods, Seller shall, in its sole discretion, (i) replace such Nonconforming Goods with conforming Goods, or (ii) credit or refund the Price for such Nonconforming Goods, together with any reasonable shipping and handling expenses incurred by Buyer in connection therewith. Buyer shall ship, at its expense and risk of loss, any allegedly Nonconforming Goods to Seller's facility. If Seller determines that the Goods are Nonconforming Goods, and exercises its option to replace Nonconforming Goods, Seller shall, after receiving Buyer's shipment of Nonconforming Goods, ship to Buyer, at Seller's expense and risk of loss, the replaced Goods to the Delivery Point, and shall reimburse Buyer for its return shipping costs. (c) If Buyer timely notifies Seller of material deficiencies in the performance of the Services, Seller shall undertake to reperform the Services within a reasonable time. (d) Buyer acknowledges and agrees that the remedies set forth in Section 6(b) and 6(c) are Buyer's exclusive remedies for the delivery of Nonconforming Goods and deficient Services. (e) In no event shall Goods be considered Nonconforming for purposes hereof due to the Goods bearing a different, superseding or new part number or version number for the specified part number, provided that the Goods in question are substantially the same part as specified in Buyer's order 7. Changes. Changes to Buyer's order shall be handled as follows: (a) Each party may at any time propose changes in the specifications of the Goods or Services, delivery schedules or scope of supply ander these Terms (a "Change"). Seller is not obligated to proceed with any Change until both parties agree upon such Change in a written Change Order describing the Change and the resulting changes in Price and other provisions, as the parties may mutually agree. A Change may also be caused by changes in Buyer's site -specific requirements or procedures, industry specifications, codes, standards or applicable laws or regulations. (b) Upon such Changes, the Price, delivery schedule and the other provisions of these Terms will be adjusted to reflect additional costs or obligations incurred by Seller resulting from such Changes; provided, however, no adjustments will be made on account of a general change to Seller's manufacturing or repair facilities resulting solely from a change in applicable laws or regulations applicable to such facilities. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in a Change Order, pricing for Seller's additional work resulting from a Change shall be at Seller's then -current time and material rates. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 7, it shall not be considered a Change for purposes hereof solely due to Seller's delivery of Goods bearing a different, superseding or new part number or version number for the specified part number, provided that the Goods in question are substantially the same part as specified in Buyer's order. 8. Price. (a) Buyer shall purchase the Goods and Services from Seller at the prices (the "Prices") set forth in Seller's quotation or bid. Prices may be increased by Seller before delivery of the Goods, due to Buyer's order modifications, changes to specifications, or delays caused by Buyer. In such event, these Terms shall be construed as if the increased prices were originally inserted herein, and Buyer shall be billed by Seller on the basis of such increased prices.. (b) Buyer agrees to reimburse Seller for all reasonable travel and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Seller in connection with the performance of the Services. (c) All Prices are exclusive of all sales, use and excise taxes, and any other similar taxes, duties and charges of any kind imposed by any Governmental Authority on any amounts payable by Buyer. Buyer shall be responsible for all such charges, costs and taxes; provided, that, Buyer shall not be responsible for any taxes imposed on, or with respect to, Seller's income, revenues, gross receipts, personnel or real or personal property or other assets. 9. Pavment Terms. (a) Buyer shall pay all invoiced amounts due to Seller within thirty (30) days from the date of Seller's invoice. Unless otherwise provided in Seller's quotation, Buyer shall make all payments hereunder in US dollars. (b) Buyer shall pay interest on all late payments at the lesser of the rate of 1.5% per month or the highest rate permissible under applicable law, calculated daily and compounded monthly. Buyer shall reimburse Seller for all costs incurred in collecting any late payments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees. hr addition to all other remedies available wider these Terms or at law (which Seller does not waive by the exercise of any rights hereunder), Seller shall be entitled to suspend the delivery of any Goods or performance of any Services if Buyer fails to pay any amounts when due hereunder and such failure continues for ten (10) days following written notice thereof. (c) Progress payments specified in the Sales Confirmation will apply if the total Prices for the Goods and Services purchased hereunder is equal to or greater than $250,000.00 USD. (d) Buyer shall not withhold payment of any amounts due and payable by reason of any set-off of any claim or dispute with Seller, whether relating to Seller's breach, bankruptcy or otherwise. 10. Suspensions and Cancellations. (a) No cancellations of an order or any portion of an order by Buyer will be effective unless accepted by Seller in writing. Accepted cancellations will be subject to a charge to cover all costs and expenses incurred by Seller through the date of cancellation, plus reasonable cancellation costs and a reasonable profit margin on the completed work. Cancellation of orders for Goods made to order and not part of Seller's regular stock will not be accepted after fabrication has commenced. (b) In the event Buyer suspends Seller's performance of work, Buyer shall reimburse Seller for all costs incurred by Seller as a result of the suspension, including, without limitation, all borrowing and opportunity costs. In the event a suspension exceeds 180 days in duration, in addition to being entitled to full reimbursement of costs, Seller shall have the unqualified right to cancel the unfinished portion of the order without liability. 11. Limited Warranty. (a) Subject to the other provisions of this Section 11, Seller warrants to Buyer that for a period of the lesser of eighteen (18) months from the date of shipment of the Goods, or twelve (12) months after the Goods are initially placed in operation (`Goods Warranty Period"), that such Goods will materially conform to the specifications set forth in Buyer's order and will be free from material defects in material and workmanship. The warranty for Services shall expire one (1) year after performance of the service, except that the warranty for software -related Services shall expire ninety (90) days after the performance thereof (`Services Warranty Period"). Seller shall have no liability for defects that arise after the warranty period has expired. These Warranty Periods may not be extended without Seller's express written agreement. Page 18 --Page 46 f 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL (b) Seller warrants to Buyer that it shall perform the Services using personnel of required skill, experience and qualifications and in a professional and workmanlike manner in accordance with generally recognized industry standards for similar services and shall devote adequate resources to meet its obligations tinder this Agreement. (c) Any performance guarantee of Seller relating to the Goods with regard to compliance with any governmental specifications, including, without limitation, particulate levels or pollution controls, are specifically limited to the time of commissioning or start-up of the Goods in question. It is the Buyer's responsibility to properly maintain the Goods, monitor system performance and take corrective actions. (d) EXCEPT FOR THE WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 11(a) AND 11(b), SELLER MAKES NO WARRANTY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE GOODS OR SERVICES, INCLUDING ANY (a) WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY; (b) WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; OR (c) WARRANTY AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF A THIRD PARTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY LAW, COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, USAGE OF TRADE OR OTHERWISE. (e) Products manufactured by a third party other than Seller's agents and subcontractors ("Third Party Product") may constitute, contain, be contained in, incorporated into, attached to or packaged together with, the Goods. Third Party Products are not covered by the warranty in Section 11(a). For the avoidance of doubt, SELLER MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO ANY THIRD PARTY PRODUCT, INCLUDING ANY (a) WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY; (b) WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE; (c) WARRANTY OF TiTLE; OR (d) WARRANTY AGAINST INFRINGEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF A THIRD PARTY; WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BY LAW, COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, IJSAGE OF TRADE OR OTHERWISE. To the extent that Seller is entitled to assign any warranty of a third -party manufacturer, Seller will assign such warranties to Buyer. (fl Seller shall not be liable for a breach of the warranties set forth in Section 11(a) and Section 11(b) unless: (i) Buyer gives written notice of the defective Goods or Services, as the case may be, reasonably described, to Seller within ten (10) days of the time when Buyer discovers or ought to have discovered the defect; (ii) if applicable, Seller is given a reasonable opportunity after receiving the notice of breach of the warranty set forth in Section I l (a) to examine such Goods and Buyer (if requested to do so by Seller) returns such Goods to Seller's place of business at Buyer's cost for the examination to take place there; and (iii) Seller reasonably verifies Buyer's claim that the Goods or Services are defective. If Seller determines the Goods are defective, Seller shall reimburse Buyer's costs of shipping the Goods to Seller for examination. (g) Seller shall not be liable for a breach of the warranty set forth in Section 11(a) and Section 11(b) if: (i) Buyer makes any further use of such Goods after giving such notice; (ii) the defect arises because Buyer failed to follow Seller's oral or written instructions as to the storage, installation, commissioning, use or maintenance of the Goods; or (iii) Buyer alters or repairs such Goods without the prior written consent of Seller. (h) Seller's warranties set forth in Section 11(a) and Section I I (b) are further conditioned on: (a) the proper storage, installation, operation and maintenance of the Goods and conformance with the proper operation instruction manuals provided by Seller or its suppliers or subcontractors; (b) Buyer keeping proper records of operation and maintenance during the applicable Warranty Period and providing Seller access to those records; and (c) modification or repair of the Goods only as authorized by Seller in writing. Seller does not warrant products or any repaired or replacement parts against normal wear and tear or damage caused by misuse, accident or use against the advice of Seller. Any modification or repair of Goods not authorized by Seller shall render the warranty null and void. (i) Electrical components, excluding motors, are warranted only to the extent warranted by the original manufacturer. To the extent that Seller is entitled to pass through a warranty of the original equipment manufacturer of the electrical goods sold, Seller will pass through such warranties to Buyer. Seller uses commercially reasonable efforts to utilize materials that resist rust, but the warranty on metal and stainless steel components DOES NOT COVER RUST, OXIDATION, FADING or other BLEMISHES unless it also results in a loss of structural integrity or a failure of these components. 0) Subject to Section 11(t) and Section 11(g) above, with respect to any such Goods during the Warranty Period, Seller shall, in its sole discretion, either: (i) repair or replace such Goods (or the defective part) or (ii) credit or refund the price of such Goods at the pro rata contract rate provided that, if Seller so requests, Buyer shall, at Seller's expense, return such Goods to Seller. ALL COSTS OF ACCESSING, DISMANTLING, DECONTAMINATION, AND REINSTALLATION OF GOODS, COST OF FREIGHT AND DREYAGE, AND THE TIME AND EXPENSES OF SELLER'S PERSONNEL FOR SiTE TRAVEL AND DIAGNOSIS ONSiTE UNDER THiS WARRANTY SHALL BE BORNE BY BUYER. (k) Subject to Section 11(t) and Section 11(g) above, with respect to any Services subject to a claim under the warranty set forth in Section 11(b), Seller shall, in its sole discretion, (i) repair or re -perform the applicable Services or (it) credit or refund the price of such Services at the pro rain contract rate. (1) THE REMEDIES SET FORTH IN SECTION 110) AND SECTION 11(k) SHALL BE THE BUYER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND SELLER'S ENTIRE LIABILITY FOR ANY BREACH OF THE LIMITED WARRANTIES SET FORTH IN SECTION I I(a) AND SECTION 11(b). 12. intellectual PronertyRights. (a) Buyer acknowledges and agrees that: 6) any and all Seller's intellectual property rights are the sole and exclusive property of Seller or its licensors; ii Buyer shall not acquire any ownership interest in any of Seller's intellectual propejU rights under this Agreement (iii) any goodwill derived from the use by Buyer of Seller's intellectual property rights inures to the benefit of Seller or its licensors, as the case may bey(iv) if Buyerquires any intellectual property rights, rights in or relatingto any Goods (including any rights in any trademarks, derivative works or patent improvements relating thereto) by operation oflaw, or otherwise, such rights are deemed and are hereby irrevocably assigned to Seller or its licensors, as the case may be, without further action by either of the parties; and (v) Buyer shall use Seller's intellectual property rights solely for purposes of using the Goods under this Agreement and only in accordance with this Agreement and the instructions of Seller. (b) Buyer shall not: (i) take any action that interferes with any of Seller's rights in or to Seller's intellectual property rights, including Seller's ownership or exercise thereof; (ii) challenge any right, title or interest of Seller in or to Seller's intellectual property rights; (iii) make any claim or take any action adverse to Seller's ownership of Seller's intellectual property hg ts; (iv) register or apply for registrations, anywhere in the world, for Seller's trademarks or any other trademark that is similar to Seller's trademarks or that incorTorates Seller's trademarks; (v) use any mark, anywhere that is confusingly similar to Seller's trademarks; (vi) engage in any action that tends to disparage, dilute the value of, or reflect negatively on the Goods or any Seller's trademarks; (vii) misappropriate any of Seller's trademarks for use as a domain name without prior written consent from Seller; or (viii) alter, obscure or remove any Seller's trademarks, or trademark or copyright notices or an.. o�proprietarrights notices placed on the Goods, marketing materials or other materials that Seller may provide. 13. Seller's intellectual Property indemnification. Page 19 --Page 467-of 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL (a) Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Section 13(b) and Section 13(c). Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Buyer from and against all losses awarded against Buyer in a final non -appealable judgment arising out of any claim of a third party alleging that any of the Goods or Buyer receipt or use thereof infringes any intellectual property right of a third party. (b) If the Goods, or any part of the Goods, becomes, or in Seller's opinion is likely to become, subject to a claim of a third party that qualifies for intellectual property indemnification coverage under this Section 13. Seller shall, at its sole option and expense, notify Buyer in writing to cease using all or a part of the Goods, in which case Buyer shall immediately cease all such use of such Goods on receipt of Seller's notice. (c) Notwithstanding an. ty hing to the contrary in this Agreement, Seller is not obligated to indemnify or defend Buyer against any claim (direct or indirect) under Section 13(a) if such claim or corresponding losses arise out of or result from, in whole or in part, (i) Buyer's marketing, advertising, promotion or sale or any product containing the Goods; (ii) use of the Goods in combination with any products, materials or equipment supplied to Buyer by a person other than Seller or its authorized representatives, if the infringement would have been avoided by the use of the Goods not so combined: (iii) any modifications or chances made to the Goods by or on behalf of any person other than Seller or its representatives, if the infringement would have been avoided without such modification or change; or (iv) Buyer's failure to use any updated or corrected version of the Goods; or (v) Seller's adherence to Buyer's specifications. (d) THIS SECTION 13 SETS FORTH THE ENTIRE LIABILITY AND OBLIGATION OF SELLER AND THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BUYER FOR ANY LOSSES COVERED BY SECTION 13. 14. Limitation of Liability. (a) IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER BE LIABLE TO BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOSS OF USE, REVENUE OR PROFIT OR LOSS OF DATA OR DIMINUTION 1N VALUE, OR FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WHETHER ARISING OUT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES WERE FORESEEABLE AND WHETHER OR NOT SELLER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ANY AGREED OR OTHER REMEDY OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. (b) IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER'S AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR OTHERWISE, EXCEED THE TOTAL OF THE AMOUNTS PAID TO SELLER FOR THE GOODS AND SERVICES SOLD HEREUNDER. THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 14 SHALL APPLY EVEN IF BUYER'S REMEDIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FAIL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. (c) The limitation of liability set forth in Section 14(b) shall not apply to (i) liability resulting from Seller's gross negligence or willful misconduct or (ii) death or bodily injury to the extent resulting from Seller's negligent acts or omissions. 15. ComDliance with Law. (a) Generally. Buyer shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations and ordinances. Buyer shall maintain in effect all the licenses, permissions, authorizations, consents and permits that it needs to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Buyer shall comply with all export and import laws of all countries involved in the sale of the Goods trader this Agreement or any resale of the Goods by Buyer. Buyer assumes all responsibility for shipments of Goods requiring any government import clearance. Seller may terminate this Agreement if any governmental authority imposes antidumping or countervailing duties or any other penalties on Goods. (b) OFAC Representation and Warranty. Buyer is in compliance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701) and all other Laws administered by OFAC or any other Governmental Authority imposing economic sanctions and trade embargoes ("Economic Sanctions Laws") against countries ("Embargoed Countries") and persons designated in such Laws (collectively, "Embargoed Targets"). Buyer is not an Embargoed Target or otherwise subject to any Economic Sanctions Law. (c) OFAC Covenant. Without limiting the generality of Section 15(a), Buyer shall comply with all Economic Sanctions Laws. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Buyer shall not: (i) directly or indirectly export, re-export, transship or otherwise deliver the Goods or any portion of the Goods to an Embargoed County or an Embargoed Target; or (ii) broker, finance or otherwise facilitate any transaction in violation of any Economic Sanctions Law. (d) Export Regulation (EAR and ITAR) Covenant. Buyer acknowledges that the Goods, including any software, documentation and any related technical data included with, or contained in, such Goods, and any products utilizing any such Goods, software, documentation or technical data (collectively, "Regulated Goods") may be subject to US export control Laws and regulations, including the Export Administration Regulations promulgated under the Export Administration Act of 1979, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations administered by the US Department of State. Without limiting the generality of Section 15(a), Buyer shall not, and shall not permit any third parties to, directly or indirectly, export, re-export or release any Regulated Goods to any jurisdiction or country to which, or any party to whom, the export, re-export or release of any Regulated Goods is prohibited by applicable federal or foreign law. Buyer shall be responsible for any breach of this Section by its, and its successors' and permitted assigns', parent, affiliates, employees, officers, directors, partners, members, shareholders, customers, agents, distributors, resellers or vendors that are not Buyer. (e) Foreign Corrupt practices Act Representation and Warranty. Buyer is in compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended ("FCPA") and the UK Bribery Act of 2010 (`Bribery Act"). Neither Buyer nor any of its representatives has: (i) used any corporate funds for any unlawful contribution, gift, entertainment or other unlawful expense relating to political activity or to influence official action; (ii) made any direct or indirect unlawful payment to any foreign or domestic government official or employee from corporate funds; (iii) made any bribe, rebate, payoff, influence payment, kickback or other unlawful payment; or (iv) failed to disclose fully any contribution or payment made by Buyer (or made by any Person acting on its behalf of which Buyer is aware) that violates the FCPA or the Bribery Act. (1) Anti -Bribery Covenant. Without limiting the generality of Section 15(a), Buyer shall, and shall cause its representatives to, comply with the FCPA and the Bribery Act, including maintaining and complying with all policies and procedures to ensure compliance with these Acts. 16. Termination. In addition to any remedies that may be provided under these Terms, Seller may terminate this Agreement with immediate effect upon written notice to Buyer, if Buyer: (a) fails to pay any amount when due under this Agreement and such failure continues for ten (10) days after Buyer's receipt of written notice ofnonpayment; (b) has not otherwise performed or complied with any of these Terms, in whole or in part; or (c) becomes insolvent, files a petition for bankruptcy or commences or has commenced against it proceedings relating to bankruptcy, receivership, reorganization or assignment for the benefit of creditors. Page 1 10 --- f 488 Agenda Item #16. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL 17. Waiver. No waiver by Seller of any of the provisions of this Agreement is effective unless explicitly set forth in writing and signed by Seller. No failure to exercise, or delay in exercising, any right, remedy, power or privilege arising from this Agreement operates, or may be construed, as a waiver thereof. No single or partial exercise of any right, remedy, power or privilege hereunder precludes any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right, remedy, power or privilege. 18. Confidential Information. All non-public, confidential or proprietary information of Seller, including but not limited to, specifications, samples, patters, designs, plans, drawings, documents, data, business operations, customer lists, pricing, discounts or rebates, disclosed by Seller to Buyer, whether disclosed orally or disclosed or accessed in written, electronic or other form or media, and whether or not marked, designated or otherwise identified as "confidential" in connection with this Agreement is confidential, solely for the use of performing this Agreement and may not be disclosed or copied unless authorized in advance by Seller in writing. Upon Seller's request, Buyer shall promptly return all documents and other materials received from Seller. Seller shall be entitled to injunctive relief for any violation of this Section. This Section does not apply to information that is: (a) in the public domain; (b) known to Buyer at the time of disclosure; or (c) rightfully obtained by Buyer on a non -confidential basis from a third party. 19. Force Maieure. Seller shall not be liable or responsible to Buyer, nor be deemed to have defaulted or breached this Agreement, for any failure or delay in fulfilling or performing any term of this Agreement when and to the extent such failure or delay is caused by or results from acts or circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Seller including, without limitation, acts of God, flood, fire, earthquake, explosion, governmental actions, war, invasion or hostilities (whether war is declared or not), terrorist threats or acts, riot, or other civil unrest, national emergency, revolution, insurrection, epidemic, lockouts, strikes or other labor disputes (whether or not relating to either party's workforce), or restraints or delays affecting carriers or inability or delay in obtaining supplies of adequate or suitable materials, materials or telecommunication breakdown or power outage. 20. Assignment. Buyer shall not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Seller. Any purported assignment or delegation in violation of this Section is null and void. No assignment or delegation relieves Buyer of any of its obligations under this Agreement. 21. Relationship of the Parties. The relationship between the parties is that of independent contractors. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating any agency, partnership, joint venture or other form of joint enterprise, employment or fiduciary relationship between the parties, and neither party shall have authority to contract for or bind the other party in any manner whatsoever. 22. No Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns and nothing herein, express or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any other person or entity any legal or equitable right, benefit or remedy of any nature whatsoever under or by reason of these Terms. 23. Governing Law. All matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement are governed by and construed in accordance with the internal laws of the State or nation where Seller has its principal place of business, without giving effect to any choice or conflict of law provision or rule that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than those of such State. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods shall not apply to the transactions contemplated by these Terms and Conditions. 24. Submission to Jurisdiction. Any legal suit, action or proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be instituted in the courts of the State or nation where Seller has its principal place of business, and each party irrevocably submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts in any such suit, action or proceeding. 25. Notices. All notices, requests, consents, claims, demands, waivers and other communications hereunder (each, a "Notice") shall be in writing and addressed to the parties at the addresses set forth on the face of the Sales Continuation or to such other address that may be designated by the receiving party in writing. All Notices shall be delivered by personal delivery, nationally recognized overnight courier (with all fees pre -paid), facsimile (with confirmation of transmission) or certified or registered mail (in each case, return receipt requested, postage prepaid). Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, a Notice is effective only (a) upon receipt of the receiving party, and (b) if the party giving the Notice has complied with the requirements of this Section. 26. Severability. Tf any term or provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any jurisdiction, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other term or provision of this Agreement or invalidate or render unenforceable such term or provision in any other jurisdiction. 27. Survival. Provisions of these Terms which by their nature should apply beyond their terms will remain in force after any termination or expiration of this Order including, but not limited to, the following provisions: Insurance, Compliance with Laws, Confidential Information, Governing Law, Submission to Jurisdiction and Survival. 28. Amendment and Modification. These Terms may only be amended or modified in a written document stating specifically that it amends these Terms and is signed by an authorized representative of each party. Only the VP&GM of the Business or the General Counsel of CECO are authorized to approve. Page 1 11 --Page 46 f 488