Feasibility of Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area March 31, 2009 Phil Waller, P.E.

Feasibility of Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area

March 31, 2009

Phil Waller, P.E.

SWUCA and MIA Recovery Strategy

Aquifer Recharge Concepts

Direct Aquifer RechargeRecharge Wells

Indirect Aquifer RechargeRapid Infiltration Basin

(RIB)

Project Scope of Work

• Task 1 – Similar Projects, Hydrogeology, Water Quality, and Permitting Summary

• Task 2 – Groundwater Modeling of indirect and direct aquifer recharge concepts

• Task 3 – Cost Analyses of selected recharge concepts

• Task 4 – Final Summary Report of findings

Similar Projects Review

Direct and Indirect Recharge CaliforniaGroundwater Replenishment System in Orange Co., CA

Similar Projects Review

RIBs in Florida

Commonly used for effluent disposalSecondary treatment requiredSome wetland polishing prior to RIBs

WATER CONSERVII – Orange Co. Florida

FDEP Reclaimed Water Treatment RequirementsD

iffi

cu

lty

Less

More

Ambient Aquifer Water Quality

Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

> 3,000 mg/L

Filtration and HLDMeet Drinking Water

Standards

Ambient Aquifer Water Quality

Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

< 3,000 mg/L> 500 mg/L

Multiple BarriersTOC / TOX

1 Year Pilot Test

Ambient Aquifer Water Quality

Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

< 500 mg/L

Avon Park Formation TDS mg/L

Ambient Aquifer Water Quality

Multiple BarriersCarbon Absorption

TOC / TOXMutagenecity Testing2 Year Full Scale Test

SWFWMD Permitting

• No new groundwater level impacts to the MIA.

• Minimum flows and levels established for priority water bodies in the SWUCA.

• Net benefit in the SWUCA must be demonstrated.

Indirect Aquifer Recharge Concepts Areas

Area 2 – Moderate connection to UFA Lakeland Area

Area 3 – Minimal connection to UFA Engineering Enhancements

Area 1 – High connection to UFA Lake Wales Ridge Area

Change in water level in the Upper Floridan AquiferDrawdown (ft)

Area 1 Indirect Recharge Model Simulation

4 MGD Withdrawal Only From Avon Park Formation

Area 1 Indirect Recharge Model Simulation

5 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal From Avon Park Formation

Change in water level in the Upper Floridan AquiferDrawdown (ft) Mounding (ft)

Modeled Direct Aquifer Recharge Areas

20 MGD Recharge Only Model Simulations

Area 5 Water Level Improvements MIA PR

Area 1 Middle +1.99 ft +0.33 ft

Area 2 South +2.10 ft +0.60 ft

Area 3 South +1.77 ft +0.75 ft

Direct Aquifer Recharge Modeled Withdrawal Areas

Coastal (Area 1) Direct Aquifer Recharge

20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary

Inland (Area 2) Direct Aquifer Recharge

20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary

Area 3SMIA= +0.73 feetPR= +0.02 feet

Inland (Area 2) Direct Aquifer Recharge

20 MGD Recharge with 15 MGD Withdrawal Response Summary

Combination Configurations Selected for Costing

Indirect Recharge Configuration

WWTF

5-Mile Long Pipeline

2 Withdrawal Wells

5-Mile Long Pipeline

5 MGD,

500 ACRE,

4 RIB Site

1-mile distance

Chloramination

Pump Station

Indirect Recharge 5 MGD AADF Withdrawal 4 MGD AADF

Coastal Direct Recharge Configuration

Advanced WWTF UV

Storage Tank

Direct Recharge 20 MGD AADF Withdrawal 15 MGD AADF

10-Mile Long Pipeline

Chloramination

Future Facilities Located at AWWTP

(10-acre footprint)

Cl2-

16 Recharge Wells 24 Monitor Wells 890 acres

15-Mile Pipeline

UV Vacuum DO

Removal

8 Withdrawal Wells (1-acre per well)

Pump Station

Inland Direct Recharge Configuration

Advanced WWTF

Pump Station

AOP/UV

Direct Recharge 20 MGD AADF

Future Facilities Located at AWWTP

(20-acre footprint)

Withdrawal 15 MGD AADF

10-Mile Long Pipeline

Cl2-

RO

MF

Chloramination

20-Mile PipelineUV Vacuum DO

Removal

8 Withdrawal Wells (1-acre per well)

Storage Tank

16 Recharge Wells 24 Monitor Wells 890 acres

Estimated 2009 Recharge Concept Costs

Recharge Rate

(AADF in MGD)

Withdrawal Rate

(AADF in MGD)

Total Recharge

and Withdrawal

Capital Costs

(Million $)

AnnualO & M

andCapital Costs

(Million $)

Total Production

Cost $/1,000 Gallons

Indirect Aquifer Recharge Areas 1 & 25 4 $51.9 $6.4 $4.36

Indirect Aquifer Recharge Area 35 4 $64.8 $7.6 $5.19

Direct Aquifer Recharge Area 1 Middle10 9 $134.2 $12.6 $3.8520 5 & 10 $250.9 $23.8 $4.3420 15 $230.0 $22.1 $4.0520 9 & 9 $248.7 $23.7 $3.6120 18 $237.4 $22.8 $3.47

Direct Aquifer Recharge Area 2 South10 9 $224.3 $22.6 $6.1820 5 & 10 $422.3 $42.9 $7.8420 15 $401.3 $41.3 $7.5420 9 & 9 $420.0 $42.9 $6.5320 18 $408.7 $41.9 $6.38

Recharge Concept Summary

Recharge TypeCapital Costs

($ Million)Production Costs

($/1,000 gal)Risk Issues

Rapid Infiltration Basins1 $52M $4.30 Low

•Land intensive•Common to Florida•Minimal MIA water level improvement

RIBs with Engineered Enhancements2 $65M $5.20 High

•Land intensive•Minimal MIA water level improvement•Connector wells difficult to permit

Coastal Direct Recharge3 $230M $4.00 Medium •Metals mobilization

Inland Direct Recharge4 $420M $7.50 High

•Metals mobilization•Supplemental treatment•Full-scale testing

15 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal25 MGD Recharge and 4 MGD Withdrawal320 MGD Recharge and 15 MGD Withdrawal420 MGD Recharge and 15 MGD Withdrawal

Feasibility of Aquifer Recharge Using Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area

The End

Phil Waller, P.E.

Phil Waller, P.E.