HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-028 i
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY zj ;) 7- ? ,
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
AGENDA ITEM
Date : Tuesday , January 2 , 2007
To : Joseph A. ird , CVctorof
ministrator
From : W . Erik OI A. &
ittility Services
Through : Himanshu H . Mehta , P . E . , Environmental Engineer
Prepared & Terry Southard Operations Manager<ZJ
Staffed By: Department of Utility Services
Subject: South County Reverse Osmosis Plant -
FDEP Permit Renewal for Demineralized Concentrate Disposal
Work Order No . 6 — Professional Services to Kimley-Horn & Associates , Inc.
Amendment No . 2 to Work Order No . 6
BACKGROUND :
Indian River County's ( IRC ) South Reverse Osmosis , (RO) , water treatment facility, (Oslo Road ) ,
currently has a permit to produce 8 . 57 million gallons per day (mgd ) of product water via four RO
skids. The RO process produces a reject by-product, or demineralized concentrate , flow of 1 . 2
mgd (average ) . The concentrate is disposed to a surface water body under Florida Department of
Environmental Protection , (FDEP ), Permit 31 - FL0037940-Minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Source , ( NPDES ), and Non-Public Operated Treatment Works , (NPOTW) Discharge .
The permit allows for 1 . 5 mgd maximum daily flow of concentrate disposal to the South relief
canal , and expires December 14 , 2005 . A permit renewal application , including supporting data ,
was submitted on June 17, 2005 , in accordance with specific condition VII . C. 1 .
On Tuesday, February 8 , 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work Order No. 6
to Kimley - Horn , Inc. in the total amount of $68,000 for professional services related to the
preparation and submittal of the required FDEP permit package for Concentrate Disposal Permit.
On August 2 , 2005 the Board of County Commissioners approved an Amendment No. 1 to Work
Order No . 6 in the amount of $21 , 180. 00 for additional testing to determine if it can be
demonstrated that the current treatment process applied to the demineralized concentrate is the
cause of a random but repeated failures in bioassay testing .
The attached Amendment with Kimley-Horn is for the testing protocol proposed to be conducted
on the water treatment demineralized concentrate . FDEP has requested additional analytical
investigations into the reject by-product to the cause of random bioassay test failures . Through
RAI 's (Request For Additional Information ) FDEP opinion is that the intermittent toxicity is a result
of MSIIT (Major Seawater Ion Imbalance ) FDEP has requested water chemistry testing of those
ions associated with MSIIT on demineralized concentrate treated by the current chlorine/aeration
as well as the aerated only process . The data collected is to be compared in a fashion similar to
that used in comparing water quality data from the raw water supply wells serving the facility.
FJ.Otdltles\UTILITY - LNONEF,RING'WTP - South ROTDEP Permit Renewal March 2005 - Kimley-Ham Work Order WAgit - Kimely Ham SCRO Amendment 2 to WO 6 January 200).doc
ANALYSIS :
The proposed scope of work for Amendment No. 2 include additional coordination , sampling ,
evaluation , and lab cost at a total cost of $42 , 100 . This total represents $26 , 000 . 00 in consulting
cost and $ 16 , 100 . 00 for lab cost.
However, since there is still $ 11 , 000 . 00 budget remaining from Amendment No . 1 , Kimley-Horn
has proposed to provide the total services for Amendment No . 2 at an upper limit of $31 , 100.
RECOMMFNDATTON :
It is Staff's recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following :
a) Approve Amendment No. 2 to Work Order No. 6 to Kimley - Horn Inc. in the amount of
$31 , 100 for additional coordination , sampling , evaluation , and lab cost.
b) Authorize the Chairman to execute the above referenced Agreement for Professional
Services.
ACCOUNT INFORMATION :
Description Account No. Amount
South County RO Plant 47121936-033190 $31 100.00
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS :
Attachment A : Amendment No. 2 to Work Order No . 6
APPROVED FOR AGENDA :
Indian River Co. Approved Date
Administration
By:
Utilities
/Joseph k Baird, County Administrator Budget 1
For:
Legal
Date Risk Manager ,
F]CtilitiestHTILITY - ENGlNEER1W WTP - South RMFDEP Permit Renewal March 2005 - Kimley-Hom Work Order 6Vtgenda - Kimely Hom SCRO Amendment 2 to WO 6lanuary 200-1 doe
Attachment 1
❑ � /� IGmleya to
� [ and Associates, Inc.
Memorandum
4431 Embarcadem Ddw
Wed Palm Beech, Fbdda
3%87
To: Erik Olson, Terry Southard, Himanshu Mehta, Gerry LeBeau
From: John Potts
Re: Analysis of FDEP November 3, 2006 RAI on South WTP Concentrate
Discharge Permit Renewal, Proposal for Engineering Fee Increase
044572009
Date: December 18, 2006
The November 3, 2006 Additional Information Request (RAI) in regards to
the application for renewal of the South RO Water Plant (South ROWTP) by-
product discharge permit requested the following analytical investigations.
• FDEP remains of the opinion that the intermittent toxicity is a result of
Major Seawater Ion Imbalance (MSHT).
• FDEP has requested water chemistry testing of those ions associated with
MSIIT on by-product treated by the current chlorine/aeration as well as the
aerated only processes. This testing is to include ammonia and fluoride
which are not part of the MSI1T ions. It is our opinion that this testing is
intended to identify subtle yet sufficiently significant differences in the
treatment processes that could have an effect on the toxicity as it relates to
MSIlT.
• The data collected is to be compared in a fashion similar to that used in
comparing water quality data from the raw water supply wells serving this
plant.
• The levels of ions present are to be compared with information developed
by the Gas Research Institute using the two toxicity models developed
during the Gas Research Institute studies.
• Should data indicate that MSUT is likely the cause of intermittent toxicity
in the by-product then the MSUT testing must be conducted again.
The RAI was professional in nature and contained no deadline based
statements. This can be interpreted to imply that FDEP is in agreement with
■
TEL 561 845 8865
FAX 581 on 8175
❑ � � Kimley-Horn Memo, December 18, 2006, Page 2
. . and Associates, Inc.
the methodical approach to a highly technical issue being pursued by Indian
River County Utilities (IRCU).
Kimley-Horn proposes the following work plan to address the requests by
FDEP and also extended some amount of investigation into the issue of the
water quality changes in the by-product that could be causing intermittent
bioassay test failures.
Task 1
Collect samples of concentrate almost simultaneously for analysis of the
MSIIT ions plus fluoride and ammonia. A total of three samples would be
collected, at the outfall representing the current treatment process, prior to the
current treatment process to be aerated, and a split sample of the sample
collected prior to current treatment process that would not be aerated. This
sampling would be conducted twice in one day separated by at least eight
hours. This testing program can be expressed in tabular form as follows.
Subsequent
Sample No. Location Treatment Ions Analyzed
Sample 1 Concentrate Outfall None Ca, K, Cl, Na, HCO3,
Fl, NH3, Mg, SO4i Br
Sample 2 Upstream Chlorine Acid, Aeration same
Sample 3 Upstream Chlorine None same
The intent in this testing program would be to determine if numerical changes
occur in the concentrations of tested ions as a result of the two treatment
processes. The laboratory performing the analyses will be specifically
directed to utilize high accuracy testing so that differences can be noted.
The estimated cost of this Task it is $9,600 which is composed of $3,600 in
laboratory charges and $6,000 in Kimley-Horn staff time collecting the
samples, aerating Sample 2, directing the laboratory, and reviewing the results.
Task 2
This Task includes acquiring the Gas Research Institute computer models,
GRI-SRT and GRI-MSIR, and applying these models to both the previously
❑ � /� KimleyHorn Memo, December I8, 2006, Page 3
and Associates, Inc.
developed data on by-product produced at this plant as well as the new data
developed under Task 1 .
The estimated cost of this Task is $3 ,000 which includes $500 for the cost of
the Gas Research Institute models and $2,500 in Kimley-Horn staff time
analyzing data-
Task
ataTask 3
This Task includes engaging Mr. Ed Weinberger and Dr. John Doi as official
consultants to this project. Both of these individuals represent a significant
body of knowledge and experience in dealing with MSIIT. The issue on this
project, in the opinion of FDEP, is that by-product produced at the South RO
WTP will occasionally cross the line and exhibit toxicity due to MSIIT and
other times will not. These two individuals can assist in this matter.
The estimated cost of this task is $6,500.
Task 4
This Task includes an allowance for conducting another MSIIT bioassay test
process to conclude, or not conclude, that the by-product toxicity is due to
MSIIT. This test process would not be conducted unless information
developed in the first three tasks gives strong indication that MSIIT can occur
and under what conditions it occurs so that this test process would be
conducted only on concentrate that is known to exhibit toxicity due to MSITT.
We would need to understand what causes the by-product to have ion content
sufficient to cause toxicity. Obviously, there are times when by-product
produced at this facility does not contain sufficient ion concentrations to cause
toxicity as demonstrated by previous testing.
The estimated cost of this Task is $ 14,000 which includes $ 12,000 for the
MSIIT protocol testing and $2,000 in Kimley-Horn staff time collecting the
samples as well as directing the laboratory.
❑ fin KimleyHorn Memo, December 18, 2006, Page 4
and Associates, Inc.
Task 5
This Task includes assembling a report to FDEP providing both the data and
analysis of this data to respond to the RAI. This Task also includes Kimley-
Horn staff involvement in research and investigation of related topics on this
matter.
The estimated cost of this Task is $9,000.
In summary, this memorandum estimates the additional work required to
conduct analyses, collect data, perform water quality/bioassay testing, and
respond to FDEP will cost $42, 100. There is currently approximately $ 11 ,000
remaining in the previous authorizations for Kimley-Hom's work on this
project.
Accordingly, we respectfully request an increase in the Work Authorization
value for this project in the amount of $31 , 100 to a total of $ 120,280.
ohn Potts
Copy: Mark Miller, Fannie Howard
x:\WS72009\Co=slDEC OMEF x,u Analysis a Fee Extmdoc
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO WORK ORDER NUMBER 6
This Amendment Number 2 to Work Order Number 6 is entered into as of this 23 day of
January 2007 (" Lffective Date") pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract
:Xgreemcnt for professional Services entered into as of ;lpril 6, 2004 ("Agreement") , by and between
Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida l"COUNTY") and
Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc ("CONSUL'11AN'1"') .
1 . The COUNTY has selected the CONSULTANT to perform the professional services
ser forth in existing Work Order Number 6, Effective Date February 08, 2005 .
2. The COUNTY and the CONSULTANT desire to amend the above referenced work
order as set forth in Attachment 1 (Scope of Work) , Attachment 1 (Fee Schedule) , and Attachment
1 (-Time Schedule) attached to this Amendment and made a part hereof by this reference, all in
accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement .
3. From and after the Effective Date of this Amendment, the above referenced work
order is amended as set forth in this Amendment. Pursuant to paragraph 1 .4 of the Agreement, nothing
contained in env Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the
Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fitlly set forth
herein.
IN WITNESS WHLRAOF, the parties hereto have execut8d?khis , Amendment as of the date
first written above
CONSULTANT: BOARD OF COU14TY COMMISSIONERS
Kimley Horn and Associates Inc.. OF INbIAN RIVER''GOUNTY
Bv: f (- �`!' . Bv: r� CLI _
Gary C heeler,"Chairman
Date
7 BCC .Approved Date : 01 - 23 - 2007
� � —
Attest: J . K. Barton. Clerk of Court
Bv: —
Deputy Clerk
Approved :
By :
,eph A . 3a xd, CountN
isrrator
Approv as to form and legal sufficienci.
By ,
-
'Marian F. Fell, Assistant Countv Attornev
Attachment 1
❑ �� Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Memorandum
1431 Emp BAve
WW Palm Beach, Fbft
38487
To: Erik Olson, Terry Southard, Himanshu Mehta, Gerry LeBeau
From: John Potts
Re: Analysis of FDEP November 3, 2006 RAI on South WTP Concentrate
Discharge Permit Renewal, Proposal for Engineering Fee Increase
044572009
Date: December 18, 2006
The November 3, 2006 Additional Information Request (RAI) in regards to
the application for renewal of the South RO Water Plant (South ROWTP) by-
product discharge permit requested the following analytical investigations.
• FDEP remains of the opinion that the intermittent toxicity is a result of
Major Seawater Ion Imbalance (MSIIT).
• FDEP has requested water chemistry testing of those ions associated with
MSIIT on by-product treated by the current chlormelaeration as well as the
aerated only processes. This testing is to include ammonia and fluoride
which are not part of the MSIIT ions. It is our opinion that this testing is
intended to identify subtle yet sufficiently significant differences in the
treatment processes that could have an effect on the toxicity as it relates to
MSIIT.
• The data collected is to be compared in a fashion similar to that used in
comparing water quality data from the raw water supply wells serving this
plant.
• The levels of ions present are to be compared with information developed
by the Gas Research Institute using the two toxicity models developed
during the Gas Research Institute studies.
• Should data indicate that MSIIT is likely the cause of intermittent toxicity
in the by-product then the MSIIT testing must be conducted again.
The RAI was professional in nature and contained no deadline based
statements. This can be interpreted to imply that FDEP is in agreement with
■
TEL 581 845 0865
FAX 561 863 8175
❑� n lamleyHorn Memo, December 18, 2006, Page 2
and Associates, Inc.
the methodical approach to a highly technical issue being pursued by Indian
River County Utilities (IRCU).
Kimley-Hom proposes the following work plan to address the requests by
FDEP and also extended some amount of investigation into the issue of the
water quality changes in the by-product that could be causing intermittent
bioassay test failures.
Task 1
Collect samples of concentrate almost simultaneously for analysis of the
MSIlT ions plus fluoride and ammonia. A total of three samples would be
collected, at the outfall representing the current treatment process, prior to the
current treatment process to be aerated, and a split sample of the sample
collected prior to current treatment process that would not be aerated. This
sampling would be conducted twice in one day separated by at least eight
hours. This testing program can be expressed in tabular form as follows.
Subsequent
Sample No. Location Treatment Ions Analyzed
Sample I Concentrate Outfall None Ca, K, Cl, Na, HCO3,
Fl, NH3, Mg, SO4, Br
Sample 2 Upstream Chlorine Acid, Aeration same
Sample 3 Upstream Chlorine None same
The intent in this testing program would be to determine if numerical changes
occur in the concentrations of tested ions as a result of the two treatment
processes. The laboratory performing the analyses will be specifically
directed to utilize high accuracy testing so that differences can be noted
The estimated cost of this Task it is $9,600 which is composed of $3,600 in
laboratory charges and $6,000 in Kimley-Hom staff time collecting the
samples, aerating Sample 2, directing the laboratory, and reviewing the results.
Task 2
This Task includes acquiring the Gas Research Institute computer models,
GRI-SRT and GRI-MSTR, and applying these models to both the previously
❑ � /� Kimley-Horn Memo, December IS, 2006, Page 3
and Associates, lnc.
developed data on by-product produced at this plant as well as the new data
developed under Task 1 .
The estimated cost of this Task is $3 ,000 which includes $500 for the cost of
the Gas Research Institute models and $2,500 in Kimley-Horn staff time
analyzing data.
Task 3
This Task includes engaging Mr. Ed Weinberger and Dr. John Doi as official
consultants to this project. Both of these individuals represent a significant
body of knowledge and experience in dealing with MSUT. The issue on this
project, in the opinion of FDEP, is that by-product produced at the South RO
WTP will occasionally cross the line and exhibit toxicity due to MSITT and
other times will not. These two individuals can assist in this matter.
The estimated cost of this task is $6,500.
Task 4
This Task includes an allowance for conducting another MSITT bioassay test
process to conclude, or not conclude, that the by-product toxicity is due to
MS11 T. This test process would not be conducted unless information
developed in the first three tasks gives strong indication that MSI1T can occur
and under what conditions it occurs so that this test process would be
conducted only on concentrate that is known to exhibit toxicity due to MSITT.
We would need to understand what causes the by-product to have ion content
sufficient to cause toxicity. Obviously, there are times when by-product
produced at this facility does not contain sufficient ion concentrations to cause
toxicity as demonstrated by previous testing.
The estimated cost of this Task is $14,000 which includes $ 12,000 for the
MSITT protocol testing and $2,000 in Kimley-Horn staff time collecting the
samples as well as directing the laboratory.
❑ I� K IGY-Horn Memo, December 18, 2006, Page 4
and Associates, Inc.
Task 5
This Task includes assembling a report to FDEP providing both the data and
analysis of this data to respond to the RAI. This Task also includes Kimley-
Horn staff involvement in research and investigation of related topics on this
matter.
The estimated cost of this Task is $9,000.
In summary, this memorandum estimates the additional work required to
conduct analyses, collect data, perform water quality/bioassay testing, and
respond to FDEP will cost $42, 100. There is currently approximately $ 11 ,000
remaining in the previous authorizations for Kimlcy-Hom's work on this
project.
Accordingly, we respectfiilly request an increase in the Work Authorization
value for this project in the amount of $31 , 100 to a total of $ 120,280.
ohn Potts
Copy: Mark Miller, Fannie Howard
H:\0445720091Cons\DEC 06\FDEP RAI Analysis & Fa Extra.dw