REVIEW OF RECLAIMED WATER ISSUES

CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FL

Prepared by

P.O. Box 221890, Hollywood, FL 33022-1890

October 2020
INTRODUCTION

This report was developed in response to a request by the City of Delray Beac a
review of issues associated with Florida Department of Health Palm Beach County (FDOH)
concerns about cross connection issues . A
cross-connection with the reclaimed water system was discovered and reported in late 2018 as a
part of the 12C capital improvement project. In February 2020, the FDOH required delivery of
the reclaimed water to be discontinued and has requested numerous tasks to be accomplished to
turn the reclaimed system back on, which the City has been pursuing over the past eight (8) months.

A series of questions were posed to be answered in this report:

Is there a database of addresses where the City installed reclaimed water and the date of
the installation?
Specifically, for Area 12C, what was the scope of the work? Did the City get exactly what
it paid for?
Who did the work?
Who inspected the work?
Were the laws at the time of installation complied with?
Was a permit required at the time and was a permit was obtained?
Was the scope sufficient to comply with the laws at the time of the installation?
Which employees were in charge of the program?
Was there any discussion and/or direction about the project at the Commission level?
Are there any emails between staff and the contractors that may shed some light on what
happened in Area 12C?
Was there any evidence that the health department inspected anything at the time of
installation?

Then beginning in 2018:

What happened with the 2018 issue when residents that complained about the water, the
back and forth with the testing and the health department?
What did the health department do after notified about the complaints in 2018?
Was the staff responsive enough in 2018?
Did the supervisors act to address the problem in a timely fashion?

To accomplish this task, Public Utility Management and Planning Services, Inc. reviewed as many
of the following items that were available and provided by the City, noting that the City is only
required to retain records for ten (10) years, and it took some time to retrieve items such as emails
and bid information and put it into a format that was accessible:

1. Copy of database of backflow devices

2. List of addresses with missing backflow devices (that have been installed) tied to GIS
3. Construction plans 12C basin
4. Copy of specifications for 12C basin

1|Page
 5. Copies inspection reports from the engineer for 12C basin
6. Bids and bid recommendation for 12C basin
7. Bid plans for 12C basin
8. As-built plans for 12C basin
9. List of inspectors for engineering firm on 12C project
10. E-mails related to the reuse issues from associated personnel
11. 12C Engineer-of-Record information
12. List of backflow inspectors from City 2016 to date with employment dates, job description
and duties
13. Utility standards with respect to reclaimed water and backflow device installations
14. City ordinances/policies on backflow devices installed in City
15. Copies of all communications in any form with any employee of FDOH from or to any
City employee and City responses to all FDOH inspections
The following information was requested only limited amounts were available:

1. Copies of phone logs or phone records for all employees involved with backflow program,
construction of 12C project and resolution of backflow issues 2017 to date
2. Copies of all backflow inspection reports for 12C project
3. Construction plans, as-builts and specifications for all sections of reclaimed water
installations prior to 12C
4. Engineers who were signing off on City standards
5. Names and copies of all emails for backflow inspectors 2003 to date
6. Emails of all engineering, directors, deputy directors, etc. regarding backflow, 2003 - date
7. Test reports for backflow devices in City - historical back to 2003
8. Plumbing permits for changes to irrigation systems 2003 to date
9. Copies of permits for backflow devices 2003 to date
10. City standards over time regarding backflow installations and equipment type
11. Reference standards for changes to backflow devices
12. Any FDOH inspections of City water system
13. List of backflow prevention devices over five (5) years old
14. List of propertie
Despite many records that could not be retrieved, multiple file dumps were provided by the City
for this review, involving over 20 Gb of data. Given that the City was not able to provide certain
data above, answers to the question posed and conclusions drawn are based on the data provided,
plus interviews/discussions with several current and former City staff members and the
Department of Health.

REGULATIONS AFFECTING -CONNECTIONS

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 42 U.S.C. § 300f to 300j-26, has jurisdiction over the
public health aspects of the drinking water supply. The primary federal statute governing the
safety of public water systems in the United States is the SDWA. Although major portions of the
SDWA, as amended, deal with information gathering, source protection, and potable water
supplier assistance, federal and state enforcement of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) is also authorized.

2|Page
The SDWA (see 42 U.S.C. 300f(4)(A)) public water system (PWS) means a
system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other
constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at
least 25 individuals. The public water system includes (i) any collection, treatment, storage and
distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system and used primarily in connection
The 1986 SDWA amendments permitted transfer of regulatory oversight
to the States. Florida was one. Cross connection control was included as a portion of the rules to
protect public from health risks due to connections to non-potable water sources.

FDOH cites 62-550.200 Definitions for Public Water Systems (26) which says -

or indirectly, with any other water supply system, sewer, drain, conduit, pool, storage reservoir,
plumbing fixture, or other device which contains or may contain contaminated water, sewage or
other waste, or liquid of unknown or unsafe quality which may be capable of imparting
contamination to the public water supply as the result of backflow. By-pass arrangements, jumper
connections, removable sections, swivel or changeable devices, and other temporary or permanent
devices through which or because of which backflow could occur are considered to be cross-
connections. The absence of a backflow device, a device that cannot be found, is not operational
or beyond its useful life, is a considered a cross connection by rule.

62-555.360 Cross-Connection Control for Public Water Systems. (1)(a) notes that
Recommended Practice
for Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control: AWWA Manual M14, Third Edition. The
third edition of AWWA Manual M14 is incorporated herein
hereto as an attachment). Note there is a 4th edition of this manual produced 10 years later as well
(also included in the attachments).

Further, 62-555.360 (1) -connections between a public water system and a wastewater
system or reclaimed water system are prohibited (i.e., an air gap shall be maintained between any
public water system and any wastewater system or reclaimed water system). The Department shall
allow an exception to this requirement if the supplier of water provides justification for the
exception and provides alternative backflow protection that achieves a level of reliability and
public health protection similar to that achieved by an air gap (e.g., two biannually-tested reduced-

Further, 62-555.360 ty water system (CWS) shall establish and

implement a cross-connection control program utilizing backflow protection at or for service
connections from the CWS in order to protect the CWS from contamination caused by cross-
s. This program shall include a written plan that is developed
using recommended practices of the American Water Works Association set forth in
Recommended Practice for Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control: AWWA Manual
M14

62-555.360 (3) Upon discovery of a prohibited or inappropriately protected cross-

connection, public water systems either shall ensure that the cross-connection is eliminated, shall

3|Page
ensure that appropriate backflow protection is installed to prevent backflow into the public water
system, or shall discontinue water service. If the discovered cross-connection is on the premises

described in Table 62-555.360-2, the CWS shall ensure that appropriate backflow protection is
provided at or for the water service connection to the customer regardless of whether the cross-
connection is eliminated or whether internal backflow protection is installed at the cross-
connectio

M14 v3 and v4 both The water purveyor should field-test or require to be field-tested
the backflow-prevention assemblies it relies on under these circumstances:

on installation,
at least annually,
after repairs,
after relocation or replacement, and
on responding to a reported backflow incident.

The water purveyor must specify the field-test procedures it will accept. Note that buried devices
cannot be tested and therefore do not comply with M14 v3 of v4.

M14 v3, p 57 notes low-hazard internal-protection

applications. A dual check does not meet the requirements of a backflow-prevention

For reclaimed water sites, M14 v3, p. 70 states: Protection recommended. An air-gap separation
or a reduced-pressure principle backflow-prevention assembly is recommended on each potable
water line entering a reclaimed-water use site. A dual check does not meet this standard.

For updates from AWWA, M14 v4, p. 21, notes that requent testing of assemblies (e.g., a
minimum of once per year) to determine the need for repair or replacement Assurance (through
regulation) that assemblies will be maintained, repaired, or replaced if test results indicate the
need to do so.

M14 v4, p. 33, s The water purveyor should maintain all correspondence with its
customers for at least 3 to 5 years or as required by local jurisdiction. The most current service
agreement and instructions to install backflow preventers to pr
distribution system should be maintained as a permanent record. All correspondence with the state
or provincial authority and the local administrative authority should be maintained for at least 5

M14 v4 p. 41, notes tha

back-siphonage and should be used only for low hazard internal protection applications. A dual
check does not provide the same level of protection as a backflow prevention assembly and should

M14 v4, p. 42, states: on-testable devices require periodic replacement to ensure proper
operation. Replacement frequency will depend on local jurisdiction.

4|Page
M14 v4, p. 58, notes that dual check shall be installed where it can be inspected or replaced as
necessary

M14 v4, p. 64, states the original manufacturer may no longer produce repair parts for some older
assemblies. In these cases, the assembly may need to be replaced.

M14 v4, p. 90, states that ny mechanical apparatus can fail to perform as designed. Failure may
be the result of a design flaw, operating conditions that exceed design parameters, improper
installation, normal wear on moving parts, corrosion, etc. Frequent testing of assemblies
(e.g., a minimum of once per year) to determine the need for repair or replacement

Table 6-5 (on p. 90 of M14 v4

should be replaced every f High hazard
at referencing atmospheric breakers, not dual check valves.

M14 v4, p. 126, notes to maintain

th

To summarize, in order to comply with the requirements in M14, the City:

Must have a written backflow program

Must have designated staff responsible for the program
Must have ongoing reporting for regulatory purposes
Must have devices located where they can be tested, maintained and/or replaced
Must replace devices that are not testable in accordance with manufacturer
recommendations
Probably should have RPZs as opposed to dual check valves although the Florida
Administrative Code permits the latter.

Reclaimed water is noted in all references as a potential cross connection issue.

5|Page
TIMELINE OF EVENTS

Reclaimed water, also known as recycled water or reuse water, is domestic wastewater that has
been treated, filters and disinfected. Although reclaimed water is highly treated and disinfected,
it still contains some constituents at levels outside the desirable range for drinking water.
Specifically, reclaimed water may have higher levels of salts, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus),
metals, and emerging contaminants (for example, traces of pharmaceuticals). Reclaimed water has
been safely used for non-drinking purposes in Florida for more than 40 years.

i 1993) when the South County Regional

Wastewater Treatment Board was studying the use of reclaimed water as it considered upgrades
to the Wastewater Treatment Plant by Brown and Caldwell Consultants, who completed a
feasibility study in June 1993 for the SCRWWTP.

In 2003, the City of Delray Beach (City) contracted with Mathews Consulting, a Baxter and
Woodman Company to develop a Reclaimed Water Master Plan to serve as a planning document
from which a reclaimed system could be implemented. The 2003 Reclaimed Water Master Plan
(Plan) presented the development of the reclaimed water system in phases so that the required
capital improvements could be budgeted and scheduled over the course of several years. The
City into 15 geographic areas, numbered from 1 thru 16 (there
is no area 13). Areas 1 thru 8 are west of I-95, the other 7 areas (Areas 9 thru 16 - less number 13)
are east of I-95. The first phases consisted of providing reclaimed water to the golf courses to
eliminate their withdrawals from the regional water supply, also referred to as Areas 1 thru 4. In
2006, the City started installation of the transmission and distribution mains, delivering to some
commercial properties along NW 17 Ave (just south of the wastewater plant) and along the western
edge of the E-4 Canal bank (west of Congress) to serve the Municipal Golf Course. In 2007,
transmission mains traversed south along Homewood Blvd and west along Lowson Blvd to serve
the Seagate Club (formerly the Hamlet). Service was also provided to the Fairways of Delray.

In 2007, the ordinance was amended to make connections to the system mandatory within
90 days from the date reclaimed water became available. Available is defined as when the city
provides a point of service. A point of service is defined as a service line terminating at a meter
of Way (ROW) and the residential property line.
Points of connection are determined by City staff. In some cases, reclaimed water has been
installed as a part of larger neighborhood improvement projects that incorporated upgrades to all
utility related appurtenances within the ROW so that the roadway is impacted only once.
Therefore, when designing a reclaimed water distribution pipe along a residential street, each
residential property is deemed a candidate for receiving a point of connection. This diminishes the
occurrence of cutting a newly resurfaced roadway for a future service connection.

In 2008 the Florida Legislature passed Senate

Outfall Program, reused and
the use of the outfalls for wastewater disposal to be eliminated by December of 2025, accelerating
the need to extend the reuse program. In 2008, pipes continued south along Homewood to
Germantown Road, south along Via Verona, crossing the L-37 Canal to provide service to the Del
Aire Country Club. Connections also included Clearbrook, Lakeview GC, Pines of Delray East

6|Page
and West, and the Atlantic High School. In 2009, after the 2006-2008 drought, focus was diverted
to the Barrier Island to offset the demand on the potable supply used for landscape irrigation.
These were referred to as Areas 11 and 12; subdivided for constructability as 11A, 11B, 12A-1,
12A-2. 12B, and 12C, from 2010 thru 2018.

The last phase of the residential connections was Area 12C, the area from Lewis Cove south to
Del-Haven Dr., and along the eastern side of A1A from Casuarina Rd south to Del-Haven Dr. In
this case, the installation of the residential reclaimed connections was incorporated into the general
construction contract for installing the reclaimed transmission and distribution mains, as well as
other utility infrastructure such as potable water mains, sanitary sewer mains, and storm water
mains. This project was constructed by Lanzo Construction. The Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) on this project was the firm of Mathews Consulting. The project
commenced from 1/10/2018 and completed 3/19/19.

The actual installations of reclaimed water meters and connections was the subject of a meeting
3/13/2018 meeting to discuss 144 connections in 12C, which discussed the following:

Each Property must be Permitted to complete the Private Side Work

Private Side Preconstruction Video
City Permitting Department will only issue 12 to 20 at a time need to get ahead
Discuss Scope of Work (Bid Description)
Licensed Plumber to obtain Permit with City Building Department (Reference this Project)
Plumber must be certified to work with City of Delray Beach
Permit Applications available online
Permit Application must include:
1. All 144 Property Locations
2. Signed Contract with the City
3. Recorded Bonds
4. Bid Tab
Denise Barker is Point of Contact with City Building Department
Once Permit has been issued discuss Site Visits and Field Investigation for locating
connections and Determining Installation Process
Plumbing Contractor to visit each property with Lanzo Superintendent and Mathews
Resident Project Representative (RPR)
Contract requires Private Property disturbed to Restore in Kind, so the path of least impact
should always be selected.
Connections cannot be made until Private Side Permit issued, Reclaimed Water Main is
Tested and Accepted, and Permit Inspections conducted
Private side piping can be installed up to connection points prior to Reclaimed Water Main
being completed as long as permit is issued
Mathews Consulting to provide Special Inspector sign off for all Permit Inspections
1. Connection
2. Cut and Cap of Existing
3. Restoration
Discuss Construction Schedule for completing this task
Contractor Submits Private Property Preconstruction Video

7|Page
 As-built Survey Connection Points, Piping from Point A to Point B, Cut and Cap Locations,
any significant underground items
Once Restoration Completed, walkthrough Inspections Completed Punch List issued

There were no minutes provided for this meeting. There was no premise inspection included in
the agenda. There were to be plumbing permits from the Building Department. Rebecca Travis
was assigned by Mathews Consulting as the Special Inspector sign off fo
which appears to apply to the plumbing connection and check valves for the Building Department.
It is unclear if any utility representatives were involved.

A price for the private side connections was requested from Lanzo Construction. The reclaimed
water connection and dual check valves were added as work directive to the Lanzo Construction
dated 8/23&24/2108 (signed by the Public Works Director Susan Goebel-Canning and Asst. Public
Works Director Missie Barletto). The item was approved by Aaron Cutler at Mathews Consulting
9/25/2018 and sent to Lanzo Construction although the contractor had already directed his subs to
begin pulling permits for this work in August after the City signed the work directive. Plumbers
working as subcontractors to Lanzo Construction proceeded with connections in the Fall.

During this reclaimed 12C project construction, an actual cross connection was created. On
November 15, 2018, the contractor connected the reclaimed service at 801 S. Ocean Blvd.
(Building permit 18-175369 dated 8/29/18 to Marini Plumbing Inc.). They also installed a
reclaimed water meter box at 819 S. Ocean . The 819 S.
Ocean Blvd address is actually the south end of the 801 S. Ocean property, but field staff thought
they were two (2) separate residences (within the concrete walled and gated compound), not
knowing that the potable meter located at 819 S. Ocean Ave was also connected to the 801 S.
Ocean Drive irrigation system. The at 801 and 819 were under
unity of title. The 819 S. Ocean Blvd potable water meter was not protected with a backflow
device, and therefore the 819 S. Ocean Blvd irrigation meter was not disconnected.

Within a few days (11/19/2018), there were water quality (colored water) complaints at several
area addresses: 855, 900, 921, 969, 1127 and 1191 S. Ocean Drive. Ms. Christine Ferrigan,
Industrial Pretreatment Inspector for the City noted particles in the water. A summary of the water
quality issues was noted as follows based on notes from a memo summarizing the incidents in
Exhibit D):

analyzes were performed on 11/21/1

pH of 7.46, a chlorine residual of 2.1 mg/l and tested negative for total coliform bacteria.
(potable) water supply.
The issue appeared to clear up, however another similar complaint was received on
12/3/2018 from 1171 S Ocean Blvd. The initial thought was that either underground
construction activity related to the reclaimed water project 12C in the area disturbed
sediments in the distribution system, or a recent chlorine burn reacted with distribution
system piping and thus caused water discoloration.
As part of the investigation, water from the exterior hose bib of the above residence was
tested for chlorides (121 mg/l), orthophosphate (1.39 mg/l) and total coliform bacteria

8|Page
 (negative). Although these results were within safe drinking water limitations, they are
higher than but lower than typical
reclaimed water used for irrigation. Because of these test results, it appeared that there was
the possibility of a cross connection between the domestic and reclaim water systems.
An i
evening of 12/5/18 to inform them of a potential distribution system issue; although no
direct contact was made at this point, a voicemail message was left.
The Utilities Department began testing fire hydrants in the area. Elevated levels of
chlorides were detected in two of the hydrants which was further indication of the possible
existence of a cross connection. Samples taken from hydrants further away from this area
fell within the normal range of potable water. This was an indication that the issue was
contained to a limited area of the distribution system.
Because of these results, it appeared that the origin of the issue was being narrowed down
to the vicinity of Bauhinia Road/Seagate/S Ocean Blvd., where recent irrigation
connections were made to the new reclaimed water system as part of the 12C construction
project.
After analyzing this information, a decision was made to shut down the reclaimed water
system in this area at approximately 11 AM on 12/6/2018 and inspect the recent
D).

The 801 S. Ocean Blvd. cross connection was confirmed on 12/6/2018, was reported to FDOH
and was disconnected to the barrier island
from Atlantic Ave., south to the Delray Beach/Highland Beach bor
department to do a series of sampling at strategic points in the area to ensure the contamination
remained isolated to this limited area. Testing of the distribution system were taken on 12/6/2018
and 12/7/2018. The bacterial tests indicated no total coliforms were present. As a side note, when
asked about the incident, Aaron Cutler at Mathews Consulting indicated in a June 4, 2019 email
to Cynthia Fuentes, copied to Ms. Ferrigan (copy included in Exhibit D) that when the cross
connection issue happened at 801 Property, the Reclaimed Source was shut down and all
Reclaimed Meter Boxes were locked. The Properties were not provided Reclaimed Water, nor the
meter unlocked, until Cross Connection Specialist observed the Dual Check Valve
Assembly on the Potable (customer side). It should be noted that reclaimed water is highly
chlorinated, s

On 12/7/2018, Ms. Craig noted in an email to staff (copy in Exhibit D) The health department
was assured by our collective actions and path forward. We've arranged for code red and hand
The boil water notice was lifted
12/8/2018 after samples showed no coliforms in the water.

The final report was submitted by Ms. Craig on December 19, 2018 with a series of figures
showing the properties with complaints, testing by staff done 12/4 and 12/15, and the results of
testing done 12/6 and 12/7 (copy in Exhibit D). There was a follow-up email to the FDOH asking
if there was further information from Susan DiMascio dated 12/20/2018 (copy in Exhibit D).

The City Manager, Mayor and Commission were aware there was an issue based on an email from
Mark Lauzier to Ms. Craig (copied to elected officials) dated 12/8/2018 regarding some confusion

9|Page
by resident on the boil water notice (copy in Exhibit D). A memo to Ms. Craig from Asst. City
Manager Caryn Gardner-Young asked about the specifics of the incident on 12/11/2018, clearly
in anticipation of a City Commission update that evening. The boil water issue was also discussed
briefly (as an update) at the 12/11/2018 Commission meeting when City Manager Mark Lauzier
boil water precautionary advisory that occurred Friday and over the
weekend. The City Manager stated he was confident that the Utilities Department had a good
plan and were working with FDOH. He stated staff will address the communications issues and
require maps for these type of things in

There were a series of internal discussions about reclaimed water service, including a May 2019
conversation that included Asst City Manager Caryn Gardner-Young, Asst. Public Works Director
Missie Barletto, Deputy Utilities Director Victor Majtenyi and Deputy Utilities Director Ed Soper.
Added internal discussion were held with respect to a growing list of people disconnecting from
reclaimed water system starting in June 2019.

There does not appear to be any correspondence fro until

1/2/2020. New Environmental Health Director (for FDOH) Rafael Reyes noted that data was
submitted to the Health Department in mid-2019 indicating that people may have been made ill,
and that multiple cross-connections may have existed. This appears to be subsequent to a meeting
with the City Attorney on 3/13/2019 (with Public Works, Utilities and the CEI Mathews
Consulting (no minutes of other documentation provided) and subsequent to information provided
to Asst. City Manager Caryn Gardner-Young on May 10, 2019 that Ms Gardner-Young did not
find to be substantiated enough for further action (no medical or hospital records appear to have
been supplied as supporting data).

Ms. Ferrigan emailed ICM Neal DeJesus (1/30/20) that DOH requested my report concerning the
cross connection that occurred on 12/6/18. A meeting was held with City staff and FDOH on
February 3, 2020. Subsequently, Mr. Reyes notified the City on 2/4/2020 that FDOH had
confirmed the existence of cross connections
systems and directed the City to proceed with a City-wide boil water notice, 14 months after the
801/819 cross-connection incident.
answered a FDOH inquiry that there was one physical cross connection as defined in Rule 62-
555.360 F.A.C., which was reported to the Department of Health in December 2018, and all
appropriate actions taken including public notice and a boil water requirement implemented.

were found i -connection as at the time the

contractor was in the process of completing the construction and the Department was
aware of the status of the construction project and required no further documentation from the City
other than the final report of the incident, which was supplied by Director Marjorie Craig on
FDOH disagrees with this interpretation of the rules and found that the
dozen instances of absent backflow prevention devices were also cross connection violations.
In a 2/22/20 email from Mr. Gretsas and Mr. DeJesus, the Mayor and City Commission were
advised that FDOH has requested a meeting to discuss the 12/6/2018 incident (copy in Exhibit D).

While FDOH wanted Delray Beach to issue a city-wide boil water order, Mr. Gretsas was able to
convince Mr. Reyes not to take this drastic step by shutting off the Ci reclaimed water system

10 | P a g e
delivery of reclaimed water to all areas of the City, we have taken the additional actions: 1) Inspect
every possible location served by both potable water and reclaimed water for any cross connection,
eliminate any cross connections found immediately, and install any backflow prevention devices
required. 2) Complete two consecutive days of satisfactory bacteriological water samples from
each site where a physical cross connection is found in accordance with FAC Rule 62-555.360 and
Chapter 62-610 FAC. 3) If the above steps indicate that an area of compromise exists in more than
an isolated area, the City will complete a satisfactory two-day bacteriological survey from all sites
in the approved bacteriological sampling plan. 4) The City also will undertake an immediate
review of all reporting requirements in FAC Chapter 62-620 to ensure that the City is providing
appropriate records a

With respect to the question about backflow devices City-wide, Mr. Reyes also asked for
have
the specific date of connection for each property serviced by reclaimed

substantial funding to initiate the replacement of older devices. Unfortunately, the program was
hindered by Hurricane Irma in 2017 a

all backflow devic

channels identified this issue to FDOH. Note that the records of reclaimed meter installation dates
is maintained by the City's Utility Billing Division, housed in the Finance Department, not the
Utilities Department.

At the time of this correspondence, City staff appears to have been unaware that FDOH was
employing the broader definition of a cross connection through the incorporation of AWWA M14
v4. On February 12, Deputy Utilities Director Heller requested clarification by email of the
of FAC 62-550.200 definition of a cross connection following a
conversation with FDOH staff who asked the City to report separately how many addresses had
missing backflow prevention devices and how many addresses had actual cross connections
City staff viewed that FDOH was incorporating the broader definition of a physical cross
connection. No response from FDOH was made available that provided clarification on this
inquiry.

The following three (3) months were focused on addressing this issue including location via GPS
of all reclaimed water meters. The City hired Florida Technical Consultants to GPS, photograph
and document the reclaimed water meter locations. However, they noted that most backflow
devices are buried so they could not verify the information for many of them. To help with
replacement of old backflow devices, Ms. Barletto, now Public Works Director, noted that the City
received commitments fro
crews from Johnson Davis on Tuesday (4 people); 2 crews from Line Tech (4 people); and 2 crews
from Giannetti Corporation (4 people). Inspections and will include 5 utilities personnel for
cross connection inspections supplemented by 2 contracted inspectors for building department
inspection requirements (from CAP Florida Inc.). The Public Works Project Management Group
will be committing 3 additional personnel to assist with cross connection inspections. Parks &
Recreation has committed 1 person to assist with In an April 2020 memo to Mr.

11 | P a g e
Gretsas via Suzanne Fisher, Asst. City Manager, Ms. Barletto notes that
inspection phase of the reclaimed investigation did not uncover any physical cross connections
other than the one discovered in December 2018 during the construction of the Reclaimed 12C
project, the testing phase on private properties has uncovered several violations which are treated
as c 4/22/20 at 120 S. Ocean Blvd, which
was immediately addressed by notice to the property owners, tested and 4/24/20 put back into
service.

Ms. Barletto conveyed the inspection reports for Reclaimed Area 12C, including Lewis Cove,
Rhodes Villa Avenue, Del Haven Drive, Brooks Lane and White Drive to FDOH on 4/13/2020.
This represents most of the Reclaimed Area 12C section, with the exception of Ocean Boulevard
addresses.

It appears that by May 2020, all devices had been replaced in the 11A, 11B, 12A, 12B and 12C
areas. As of 5/19/2020, an email from FDOH noted that based upon the findings of the inspections
and the corrective actions taken, the City may activate the reclaimed water service to these
properties in sections 11A, 11B, 12A -12B and 12C on the barrier island.

QUESTIONS POSED:

There were 14 question posed for review. The questions and responses are as follows:

Question 1: Is there a database of addresses where the City installed reclaimed water, and the date
of the installation?

RESPONSE: There is now for the locations. The City hired Florida Technical Consultants to
create a GIS database of all backflow devices by address, photo, GPS location, size, age (how
many exceed five (5) years), date of neighborhood project, phase (to come from City or
consultant). This is included a complete list of backflow devices with columns of each address,
photo, GPS and size for upload to the GIS system. The GIS database was built and field verified
on the City platform. The task was completed in June 2020. However, the cross-connection staff
appears to continue to use Excel spreadsheets instead of the GIS database. Information provided
by Ms. Ferrigan indicates there are 1326 reclaimed water meters; the FTC field team identified
over 1400 field points, although some are not meters. All are in the

Question 2: Specifically, for Area 12C, what was the scope of the work? Did the City get exactly
what it paid for?

RESPONSE: The scope of work involved water, sewer, stormwater, reclaimed water and paving.
The total effort was over $4 million.
lines, new sewer pipe, new services for each, drainage and roadway improvements including
elevation adjustments. The contractor was responsible up to the meter box per the detail sheets in
the plans. One detail notes a check valve is required on reclaimed water but the requirement for
the contractor to install dual check valves is unclear in the specs and drawings.

12 | P a g e
In prior contracts, Line-Tec was hired to install the backflow devices using a piggy-back contract
from Boynton Beach. This was not done for Area 12C. The reclaimed water connection and dual
check valves were added as change order to the Lanzo Construction dated 8/24/2108 (by the Public
Works Director and Asst Director), making it clear the specs did not contemplate the dual check
valve installation in the original contract.

The City appears to have received the services intended substantially in conformance with the
plans, specifications and subsequent change order.

Question 3: Who did the work?

RESPONSE: For Area 12C, Lanzo Construction was the contractor for the project which appears
to have included water, sewer, reclaimed water and drainage (identified as Bid No. 2017-041 - see
attached backup). Project was closed out 3/19/19 and final pay application paid. The project was
in the warranty period until March 2020.

Question 4: Who inspected the work?

RESPONSE: Mathews Consulting received a $318K contract for design and CEI services for the
work. Dave Mathews was listed as the Engineer-of-Record for Mathews Consulting. The
Engineer-of-Record takes responsibility if he/she signs/seals and dates the plans so this becomes
an installation/specification issue. The bid plan set shows what the Engineer-of-Record required
and the record drawings what the contractor installed. Besides Dave Mathews as the Engineer-of-
Record, Aaron Cutler, Courtney Marshall, Rick Adams and Rebecca Travis are consulting
engineers involved with the project. There were emails from the consultant that note that the City
was to perform the backflow inspections, not Mathews Consulting. However, Rebecca Travis
submitted a series of certifications to Ms. Barker in the Building Department. These certification
states they are
Connection Specialist, we have verified that the improvements were constructed in substantial
conformance with the conditions listed in the enclosed permit and construction plans and
There was no paperwork
attached to her letters, and no paperwork provided to indicate that the
did any inspections of the installations.

Question 5: Were the laws at the time of installation complied with?

RESPONSE: Yes. The change order to Lanzo Construction to install the backflow devices was
issued 8/27/2018. 141 dual check valves from ¾ to 2 inches were approved at a cost of $26,315.13.
Lanzo Construction was to install these via subcontracted, licensed plumbers with building permits
secured for each. That appears to be what transpired. They did not complete construction until
2019, so someone had deemed the backflow devices to be necessary prior to energizing the system.
There is confusion as to whether or not the reclaimed system was actually energized at 801 S.
Ocean Blvd at the time of the cross connection incident.

13 | P a g e
Question 6: Was a permit required at the time and was a permit was obtained?

RESPONSE: There is no backflow permit issued by the State, County or Department of Health.
A City plumbing permit for connections and backflow devices on the customer side of the meter
appear to have been issued in the 12C project. Per the meetings between staff and the City,
Mathews Consulting was to provide the certification of installation. There are two certification
letters from Rebecca Travis to Denise Barker to this end.

It is less clear if permits were required prior to the 12C project. Victor Majtenyi, in a 2/7/2020

2009, the Cit

Mr. Majtenyi indicated his memo was in response to a
question about the LineTec installing the backflow devices and a prior Building Official indicating
there was little need to create permits since it was a City project.

Question 7. Was the scope sufficient to comply with the laws at the time of the installation?

RESPONSE: There is no indication otherwise. The plans were approved by the Department of
Health and the Department of Environmental Protection. The backflow devices were not part of
the permit, but were added via work directive approved by the City in August 2018.

Question 8: Which employees were in charge of the program?

RESPONSE: The person responsible for the project is unclear. The project engineers for the City
appears to have been Cynthia Fuentes and Tracy Lutchmansingh in Capital Projects, which is not
part of the Utilities Department, and Denise Barker in the Building Department. Other employees
or former employees known to have knowledge of the issue from construction though 2019 include
Marjorie Craig, Ralph Lugo, Victor Majtenyi, Brian Heller, Caryn Gardner-Young, Christine
Ferrigan, Sue DiMascio and Scott Solomon. George Gretsas, Missie Barletto and Neal DeJesus
became involved after the Health Department notified the City of an issue in January 2020.

Question 9: Was there any discussion and/or direction about the project at the Commission level?

RESPONSE: Briefly The City Commission awarded the project to Lanzo Construction on
12/11/2017 (Reso 2017-041).

The cross connection incident at 801/819 S. Ocean Bvld. happened in on December 6, 2018 and a
boil water notice was issued for the barrier island. Within the 12-11-2018 City Commission
minutes, the
advisory that occurred Friday and over the weekend. The City Manager stated he is confident that
the utilities department has a good plan and they are working with the Health Department. He
stated staff will address the communications issues and require maps for these type of things in the
future. There were no added details provided.

Question 10: Are there any emails between staff and the contractors that may shed some light on
what happened in Area 12C?

14 | P a g e
RESPONSE: Yes. There are indications that the 12C reclaimed water extension may not have

n inspection first by the Delray Beach cross connection control

several causal concerns that may not have been anticipated:

1. The Delray Beach cross connection control inspector

was not an official position with the City.
2. S , despite the City requiring connection and
providing no exceptions. There was initial effort by staff to enforce the ordinance but it is
clear that exceptions were made, and potentially encouraged since form letters were
initiated and supplied by City staff to residents. Some of these residents may have taken it
upon themselves to reconnect potable water to their site without permits or notification to
the City.
3. There were sites where it was believed to be cost prohibitive to both the City and the
customer to provide reclaimed as it involved running a separate line for potable water for
outdoor showers/boat docks.
4. There appear to be sites with multiple meters. Multiple meters potentially lead to confusion
and interconnects that are unexpected.
5. There were sites lacking accessibility (fence hopping to install the meter boxes).

The responsibility for inspection of connections for reclaimed water was divvied up among parties

In addition, -Check
side of the meter, underground and out of sight. An alternative
device is the Reduce Pressure Zone (RPZ) backflow device, an above ground apparatus measuring
The direction to staff was to use the less obtrusive
DC (emphasis added). From a cost comparison, the installation (material and labor) of a DC device
is approximately $500, vs an RPZ device at approximately $1,800 (depending on the most typical
line from the reclaimed
meter to the irrigation source (typically at the irri This is a long standing policy
the City has used so the original decision-maker is unknown.

Question 11: Was there any evidence that the health department inspected anything in the 12C
basin at the time of installation?

RESPONSE: There was no data provided to indicate FDOH inspected the project. The permit
does not require them to do so, so this is not unexpected.

Question 12: What happened with the 2018 issue when residents complained about the water; the
back and forth with the testing and the health department?

RESPONSE: Cross control inspection reports between 11/26/2018 and 12/42018 exist for 909,
921, 969, 1171 that indicate issues with water quality complaints that were investigated by C.

15 | P a g e
Ferrigan and reports or people being sick due to yellow water. There are emails and apparent in
person or phone discussions between Ms. Ferrigan and residents, but it is unclear that this
information was transmitted to the leadership team until May 2019 (to Caryn Gardner-Young).

Question 13: What did the health department do after notified about the complaints in 2018?

RESPONSE: It appears they accepted the notice and plan from Ms. Craig in December, 2018 but
no further correspondence appears for over a year. Then the FDOH put the City on notice of a
potential violation in early 2020, after submission of the 11/26/2018 12/4/2018 inspection reports
in mid-2019. The City proceeded to address their concerns thereafter, including a complete
shutdown of the reclaimed water system in February 2020.

Question 14: Was the staff responsive enough in 2018? (i.e., Did the supervisors act to address
the problem in a timely fashion?

RESPONSE: It is unclear that the staff of the City understood the significance of the issue beyond
Ms. Craig, who has years of utility experience and Ms. Ferrigan who had previously been involved
with reclaimed water in Boca Raton. Activity to find the issues appears to have started on
December 3 after water quality concerns emerged for a second time in the same vicinity. Ms.
Craig reported concerns in the potable water system on 12/5/2018 and reported the incident on
12/6/2018. Follow-up up appears to have occurred between FDOH and Ms Craig over the next
several days, culminating in the 12/19/2018 report to FDOH summarizing the incident. Therefore,
the City appears to have responsive in investigating, correcting and reporting the cross-connection
incident.

CONCLUSIONS

1. There was at least one known physical cross connection at 801 S. Ocean Blvd in the 12C
project. This was acknowledged by Ms. Craig in her letter to DOH dated 12/19/2018. The
issue resulted in part from not understanding the private property plumbing and not
implementing a protocol to test for it. More recently, two cross connections were found
one at 120 S. Ocean on the side of the meter and the other at 1029 Langer Way.
Both were connected in Area 12A which was awarded in 2014.
2. There were no records provided to indicate anyone tested the premise plumbing systems
before conversion to reclaimed water. That protocol needs to be developed and applied in
all cases before connection occurs. On a construction project (for example Area 12C), this
is normally something expected of the Engineer of Record
cross-connection and engineering staff. However, Aaron Cutler at Matthews Engineering
indicated that the formal oversight for cross connection inspections was with the Ci
Cross Connection Specialist . It appears that
instead, for area 12C, Rebecca Travis submitted a certification of construction completion
for reclaimed water connections (examples dated 4/23/2019 and 6/19/2019) which indicate
the City inspected them, but provided no details, which may indicate a construction
sequencing issue and confusion here as to whom has what responsibility.
3. (premise) plumbing systems.

16 | P a g e
 meter and for dual check installations. This does not appear to be enforced. There appear
to have been private systems where irrigation and inside water systems were
interconnected. This manifests itself with the potential of having exterior showers,
gazebos, etc. having reclaimed water connected to them which previously were potable
water. There is no way to verify if customers alter their plumbing systems (which they
apparently do) without implementing a protocol for testing same and requiring building
permits for plumbing alterations.
4. The City cannot test the backflow devices for most properties. The City has been installing
dual check valves on the potable water system. The Engineer of Record suggested that the
City directed Matthews to specify the wrong backflow device. Aaron Cutler also said the
City required the dual check valves. Victor
device utilized was the Dual-
Z)

The direction to staff was to use the less obtrusive DC. Dual check valves
were being installed in 2019 per Spencer Britt.

FDOH References Manual M14-v3. AWWA M14 notes that should

be used to isolate only non-health hazards. Florida Administrative Code (FAC) section
62-555.360(4)(c) notes that Dual check valves shall be considered acceptable for reducing
risks from back-flow only at residential properties served by reclaimed water. That is
confusing, especially since the version of M14 referenced is 16 years old and a newer
version is available.

If we accept the dual check valves as adequate per 62-555.360(4)(c), the concern remains
that backflow devices should be located above ground to prevent cross connections with
stormwater/flooding. M14 v4, p. 58, notes that dual check shall be installed where it
can be inspected or replaced as necessary The dual check valves provided by the City
are buried and non-testable, so there is no way to ensure they are working properly and
therefore they do not comply with M14.

17 | P a g e
 Dual Check underground RPZ that is testable aboveground

5. The City lacks a tracking system for its system. It is unclear that the contracted backflow
inspection company (unknown) actually inspected the sites on a regular basis (many places
do this annually of every 2 years) pre-2017. If he/she did, it is unclear what action the City
took when issues were identified. For example, if a site with reclaimed water did not have
a backflow device, and it was noted in the documentation to the City, what did the City do
with that information? No documentation was submitted to indicate the City responded in
this manner. Ms. Ferrigan emails indicate she has not found these records either.

The GIS system (Public Works), the capital projects program (Public Works), utility billing
(Finance), the CityWorks work order system, and cross connection (Utilities but no
designated person) are not coordinated. These systems should all be connected. Disparate
systems lead to confusion on responsibility and tracking.

18 | P a g e
 For example, there is confusion about addresses as well. In a May 2020 email, C. Ferrigan
advised Andrea Guerrera, Utilities Financial Manager, that The owner of 1019 Brooks
Lane refused reclaimed water back in the fall of 2018 (12C) because his young daughter

converted back on his own, the orrection- 1021 Brooks Lane converted back to
potable water for irrigation because of medical issues with his daughter and not 1019

rooks Lane had a reclaimed meter installed in October

2018. Since April 2019 no usage registered on that meter. The customer has not been

this address, or a service order to r

Brooks Lane and 1027 Brooks Lane converted back to potable for their irrigation. No opt

It is unacceptable to not know what addresses are served and not. When someone
disengages on their own, action should be taken. Having a disconnected system between
the GIS system, the cross-connection Excel sheets and a separate set of billing system
records contributes to the knowledge issues.
6. The City lacks the resources to implement the program. There is no actual position for
cross connection inspector, but it Mr.
Gretsas advised FDOH t he replacement of the older backflow devices has been
programmed within the last three years of the operational budget cycles. Due to the
hurricanes, staffing changes at all levels, lack of a consistent employee knowledge base,
and procurement challenges, the programs could not be fully initiated. Staff was able to
initiate replacements in fiscal year 2018-2019, starting with the northern end of the island,
referred to as Area 11B. The City did not complete the work. Storms aside, based on the
2020 spring efforts, there are insufficient resources to address the backflow program
requirements.
7. The City lacks access to its system. Access to the reclaimed water meters appears to be an
issue. The cross-connection inspector indicates that they were buried, behind fences etc.
The FTC investigation also confirmed some of these systems are not accessible and dual
check valves are buried, and not in the meter boxes.
8. The City lacks clear lines of responsibility for projects. On large projects that involve
multiple parties, the lines of responsibility are unclear. For example, the reuse connections
were handled by the engineer/industrial pretreatment inspector/project manager. Multiple
people cannot be responsible. Failure to manage project responsibilities, and to have one
person responsible to implement the project increases the potential for errors, as appears to
have happened in Area 12C.
9. The City does not appear to enforce its ordinance on connections. Lynn Gelin, City
Attor The language of section 59.06(C) of the Code of Ordinances says
shall be mandatory.
As written, the ordinance does not provide exemptions from this requirement. At the time
that email was sent, staff was in the process of preparing an amendment to the Code that
would have provided a medical exemption subject to approval by the city manager that
Ms. Ferrigan notes, in
an em 12C area where majority of the locations have

19 | P a g e
 -out of reclaimed
see form signed 5/28/2020 by Robert Lukens, 1020 S. Ocean Blvd. in Exhibit D.
Most o
There is no indication the City initiated legal proceedings as a result. This creates a
potential cross connection/contamination issue on both systems when the public can alter

10.
water on their own, which means that they hired a plumber to go into the meter box or
-establish potable water service. It is unclear how they did
this, who did it and whether any City personnel were present for the conversions.
11. The City lacks control of its communications. Not only does it appear that there is a lack
of a cohesive communication strategy on reclaimed water to residents on why reclaimed
water is being provided (hence not wanting), there appears to be multiple, uncoordinated
communications channels from staff to regulatory agencies and the public. That creates
the potential for confusion as to who has the correct facts and actions taken.
12. The FDOH does not appear to have been overly concerned about the December 2018
incident at the time, which created a false sense of compliance within the City staff.
Education or guidance from FDOH on cross connection control as it relates to reclaimed
water does not appear to have been ongoing.

U ck of institutional control,
which is a failure to have the appropriate resources, funding, oversight, policies and internal
expertise in place to properly manage the utility system.

Resolving these issues is fairly straight-forward, through implementing the following suggestions:

1. Provide the Utilities Department with engineering staff and require the utility-related
expertise needed to help with regulatory issues and oversee utility capital projects, as
opposed to having a separate department construct these facilities.
2. Create a Cross Connection Control Inspection position and designate this person to
implement and maintain the cross connection program
3. Provide the appropriate financial, staffing and educational resources to support an
expanding reclaimed water program. The resources are insufficient at present to implement
this program properly.
4. Revisit the policy on the placement and type of backflow devices. They should be
accessible, and preferably above ground. For protection of the public, especially in light
of these incidents, the City should consider installing above-ground RPZs going forward
as a standard in light of recent events. Implementation can be done as the devices are
replaced.
5. Review and develop a detailed policy regarding connections to reclaimed water systems,
including a protocol for fully testing premise plumbing to verify no interconnections exist.
This is a cross-connection/engineering staff effort that is required by statute.
6. Formalize policies regarding ongoing testing of connections to reclaimed water systems to
ensure that unpermitted changes to the plumbing system do not compromise the integrity
table water or reclaimed water systems. This is a cross-

20 | P a g e
 connection/engineering staff effort that should involve the Building Department and Code
Compliance.
7. Develop a means to utilize the GIS system and CityWorks for tracking and monitoring the
backflow program as opposed to the cross connection program using a separate excel based
system. Photographs, test reports, repairs, changes to the backflow or meter, observations
of premise plumbing, etc. should all be included in the GIS system. This is a cross-
connection/engineering/GIS/utility billing department staff effort.
8. Develop a more robust reclaimed water educational program and a better communications
plan when expanding reclaimed water.
9.
time goes on, including the potential for additional cross connections. Opting out creates
added problems in the future when new property owners are unaware of the differences
between properties. Consistency is important throughout the utility system. Code
compliance should help and support this effort.
10. The City should pursue legal recourse when people alter the City system (i.e. convert back

is acceptable.

21 | P a g e