florida water resources journal - november 2013

Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information:Florida Water Resources Journal

1402 Emerald Lakes DriveClermont, FL 34711

Phone: 352-241-6006 • Fax: 352-241-6007Email: Editorial, [email protected]

Display and Classified Advertising, [email protected] Office:

P.O. Box 745, Windermere, FL 34786-0745Web: http://www.fwrj.com

General Manager: Michael DelaneyEditor: Rick HarmonGraphic Design Manager: Patrick DelaneyMailing Coordinator: Buena Vista Publishing

Published byBUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for

Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc.

President: Patrick Lehman, P.E. (FSAWWA)Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority

Vice President: Howard Wegis, P.E. (FWEA)Lee County Utilities

Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA)Seacoast Utility Authority

Secretary: Holly Hanson (At Large)ILEX Services Inc., Orlando

Moving?The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do notcount on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly ofaddress changes by the 15th of the month preceding themonth of issue. Please do not telephone address changes.Email changes to [email protected], fax to 352-241-6007, ormail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald LakesDrive, Clermont, FL 34711

Membership QuestionsFSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-957-8447 or

[email protected]: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training QuestionsFSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-957-8443 or

[email protected]: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other InformationDEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-957-8448Florida Water Resources Conference: 888-328-8448FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators:

John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – [email protected]: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

WebsitesFlorida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.comFWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.orgFSAWWA: www.fsawwa.orgFWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.orgFlorida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org

Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademarksymbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the namesonly in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no in-tention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publicationnecessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspon-dence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subjectto editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons.

Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Re-sources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members,representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, li-ability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising fromauthors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or otherright of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

Florida Water Resources Journal, USPS 069-770, ISSN 0896-1794, is published monthly by Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc., 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711, on behalf of the Florida Water & Pollution Control Operator’s Association, Inc.; Florida Section, American Water Works Association; andthe Florida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership duessupport the Journal. Subscriptions are otherwise available within the U.S. for $24 per year. Periodicals postage paid at Clermont, FL and additional offices.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Volume 65 November 2013 Number 11

Florida Water Resources Journal • November 2013 3

NEWS AND FEATURES10 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Provides Drinking Water

Information; Seeks Input from Permit and License Holders46 Florida Teams Compete in Operations Challenge at WEFTEC48 News Beat

TECHNICAL ARTICLES4 Comparing Aluminum and Iron Coagulants to Remove Organic Carbon,

Color, and Turbidity from a Florida Slough—David T. Yonge and StevenDuranceau

12 Engineered Biofiltration for Drinking Water Treatment: OptimizingStrategies to Enhance Performance—Jennifer Nyfennegger, ChanceLauderdale, Jess Brown, and Kara Scheitlin

28 Bench-Scale Evaluation of Chlorine-Ammonia Process for BromateControl During Ozonation—Hongxia Lei, Dustin W. Bales, and Jon S. Docs

38 Dynamic Operation of Ultrafiltration Membranes for Potable WaterProduction—Christopher C. Boyd and Steven J. Duranceau

EDUCATION AND TRAINING17 TREEO Environmental Training22 FSAWWA Fall Conference26 FWPCOA Training Calendar27 CEU Challenge35 FWPCOA State Short School

COLUMNS18 FSAWWA Speaking Out—Jason Parrillo20 Certification Boulevard—Roy Pelletier25 FWEA Focus—Greg Chomic36 FWEA Chapter Corner—Kevin Vickers,

Devan Henderson, and Kristi Fries44 C Factor—Jeff Poteet

DEPARTMENTS49 Service Directories52 Classifieds54 Display Advertiser Index

ON THE COVER—An aerial view of thewater treatment facilities at the NorthSprings Improvement District in CoralSprings. (photo: Michael Gardner)

4 November 2013 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Disinfection has been used to treatpathogenic microorganisms in theUnited States since 1908 (Environ-

mental Protection Agency, 1999). Disinfec-tants such as chlorine and ozone are highlyreactive chemicals, making them efficient forinactivating pathogens. In the mid-70s how-ever, chemists in Rotterdam discovered thatfour trihalomethanes were observed to in-crease following chlorination of a surfacewater supply (Rook, 1974). In more recenttimes, ozone and other disinfectants have beenshown to react with natural organic matter toform disinfection byproducts, or DBPs (VanLeeuwen, 2000; Kim Mi Hyung, 2005;Edzwald, 2011). Under the Stage 1 Disinfec-tants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule(D/DBPR), the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) has regulated some DBPs suchas trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloaceticacids, or HAAs (Lovins, Duranceau, Gonzalez,& Taylor, 2003). Strategies to maintain DBPrule compliance include either altering the dis-infectant or removing the precursor matter.Efforts that focus on postformation treatmentare limited to chloroform, which is a semi-volatile DBP that can, under certain condi-tions, be removed by stripping; however, thisapproach is limiting and does not addressnonvolatile DBPs.

Natural organic matter (NOM) refers tocomplex organic chemicals present in naturalwaters originating from biological activity, de-caying organic matter, excretions from aquaticorganisms, and runoff from land (Crittenden,Trussell, Hand, Howe, & Tchobanoglous,2005). It is of particular concern in drinkingwater treatment for both its effect on the aes-thetic quality of the water and the fact thatNOM serves as a surrogate for DBP precur-sors. In drinking water treatment, NOM andDBP precursors are often quantified by meas-uring the total organic carbon (TOC) or dis-solved organic carbon (DOC), which istypically nonpurgeable (Wallace Brian, 2002).Although most groundwater has TOC con-centrations less than 2 mg/L, surface watertypically ranges from 1-20 mg/L. Swamps andhighly colored surface water may have TOC

concentrations as high as 200 mg/L (Critten-den et al., 2005). A common surface watertreatment method for NOM removal includescoagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, andfiltration (Crittenden et al., 2005).

Objective

The research for this article was con-ducted by the University of Central Florida(UCF) to assist Carollo Engineers with its ef-forts in the development of the Dona Bay Wa-tershed Management Plan for Sarasota Countyand the Southwest Florida Water ManagementDistrict (SWFWMD). Carollo Engineers iden-tified six overall treatment objectives neededto achieve the treatment goals for the sourcewater and meet drinking water standards. Theoverall objectives include treatment goals fortotal solids, natural organics, total dissolvedsolids (TDS), hardness, hydrogen sulfide(H2S), synthetic organic compounds (SOCs),methyl-isoborneal (MIB), geosmin, iron, andmanganese, and included disinfection evalua-tions (Carollo Engineers Inc., 2012). Iron andmanganese control will be used to achieve pos-sible odor and color treatment goals. Someform of stripping or aeration may be imple-mented to address odor concerns caused byH2S if surrounding wells were to be incorpo-rated as alternative sources to the Cow PenSlough (CPS) overland flow. Solids and or-ganics removal were critical in order to ac-count for turbidity, TOC, and color issues.

The primary objective of research con-ducted by UCF’s civil, environmental, andconstruction engineering (CECE) departmentwas to conduct coagulant selection in supportof the overall project by assessing the treata-bility of turbidity, color, and TOC through abench-scale jar testing evaluation of conven-tional treatment. Information regarding coag-ulant dosages, type, optimum pH ranges, andpercent removals were studied to compare theeffectiveness of traditional coagulants withtwo coagulants less established in treatingFlorida surface water. Iron-based coagulantshave often been used in conventional Floridadrinking water plants and, although effective

at removing organics, they can also add unde-sired color to the water. Aluminum sulfateprovides a clear color alternative to the ferricbased coagulants, but can add chemical costsdue to the likely need for postcoagulation pHadjustment. Both aluminum chlorohydrate(ACH) and poly aluminum chloride (PACl)are advanced cationic and colorless chemicalsdesigned to effectively treat industrial, munic-ipal, and wastewaters at pH values near neu-tral, but have not previously been testedextensively on highly organic Florida surfacewater.

Raw Water Quality

The CPS is a man-made canal in theDona Bay watershed located along the westerncoastal region of central Florida in SarasotaCounty. The CPS is one of three main tribu-taries contributing to the Dona Bay. The waterin the slough flows south and eventually con-verges with Fox Creek and Salt Creek beforeflowing into the Shakett Creek, and ultimately,Dona Bay. The CPS was originally constructedin 1966 as a drainage system for flood protec-tion in the Myakka River basin (SWFWMD,2009). Historical rainfall and stream flow datafor the CPS describe flows ranging from 0 to2,000 cu ft per sec (cfs), indicating widely vari-able and flashy flows corresponding to rainfallevents. The size of the contributing catchmentfor the CPS is approximately 35,380 acres.Land-use data from the SWFWMD for theCPS basin is categorized into seven classes. The

Comparing Aluminum and Iron Coagulantsto Remove Organic Carbon, Color, and

Turbidity from a Florida SloughDavid T. Yonge and Steven Duranceau

David T. Yonge, E.I. is a graduate student atthe University of Central Florida in Orlandopursuing his doctorate in environmentalengineering specializing in drinking watertreatment and Steven J. Duranceau, Ph.D.,P.E. is associate professor of environmentalengineering in the civil, environmental, andconstruction engineering department at theUniversity of Central Florida.

F W R J

Continued on page 6

data indicates that the CPS basin is dominatedby agricultural and urban land use.

The natural organic content of Floridasurface water is typically high, with TOC val-ues often greater than 15 mg/L and true colorvalues as high as 700 platinum-cobalt units(PCU). The water quality in the CPS is repre-sentative of typical Florida surface water.Water from the CPS contains high amounts ofnatural organic carbon, color, and suspendedsolids. The presence of trace levels of organiccontaminants were found that included insec-ticides, herbicides, and petroleum hydrocar-bons. Because the majority of the slough isbordered by fertilized agricultural lands, nu-

trient runoff from sheet flow over the agricul-tural lands has been observed during periodsof heavy rainfall. Visual observations indicatedthat leaching of excess nitrates and phosphatesfrom surrounding lands had caused algaeblooms and nitrogen concentrations to spikewithin the slough. Figure 1 provides photo-graphs taken during average conditions (left)and during a eutrophic event (right).

Table 1 compares the values from histor-ical data to the values obtained during the2012 UCF treatability study. Many of the 2012values fall within the range of the historicaldata taken over the years 1963-2011. More re-cent data collected in 2012 indicated thatDOC, sodium, strontium, TOC, and total sus-

pended solids (TSS) had increased over time.This was not surprising as there were less than30 historical samples taken for carbon andmetals analyses. The maximum values for TSScorresponded to a eutrophic event; these num-bers are shown in Figure 2. Because the his-torical data makes no mention of eutrophicevents that cause increases in algae concentra-tions, it is possible that in the past sampleswere not taken for TSS during such occur-rences.

Methods and Materials

ApproachJar testing is considered to be an accept-

able and economical method for simulating afull-scale coagulation, flocculation, and sedi-mentation (CFS) basin and was chosen to de-termine the effectiveness of each coagulant.For the purpose of this study, effectiveness wasevaluated based on the removal efficiency oforganics, color, and turbidity.

Organic content was measured in termsof nonpurgeable dissolved organic carbon(NPDOC; herein after referred to as DOC)which assumes filtration will be implementedafter the sedimentation process, and is definedas the fraction of organic carbon remainingthat has the potential to act as a DPB precur-sor. The CFS removal efficiency is a functionof many parameters, including mixing inten-sity, mixing times, chemical addition, pH,temperature, etc. Variables such as mixing in-tensity and mixing times were held constantand did not change during the study. Coagu-lant concentrations ranged from 80 mg/L to240 mg/L and were increased in increments of20 mg/L for each coagulant. The establishedeffective testing range for pH was 4.0 to 8.0and pH was measured in increments of 0.5 pHunits. By varying pH and coagulant concen-

Figure 1. Photographic Comparison of the Cow Pen Slough

Table 1. Comparison of Historical and UCF Raw Water Quality


Continued from page 4

trations, effective removals were determinedfor a wide range of concentrations and pH val-ues. Table 2 provides descriptions of the fivecoagulants under investigation.

ProceduresRaw field samples were collected from a

sampling bridge by repetitively lowering 5-galbuckets from the bridge into the slough. Rawsamples were transferred into 15-gal drums fortransportation and storage. Field parameters,including turbidity, pH, temperature, and con-ductivity, were measured on site during sam-pling and 1-L amber sample bottles were filledfor laboratory analyses for each drum. Titra-tions curves were developed on the raw waterto determine the appropriate volume and nor-mality of pH adjusting chemicals, which werenecessary to obtain the target pH values foreach coagulant dose. After determining the ap-propriate caustic or acid dosages for each co-agulant dose, coagulant concentrations couldbe varied and interference from varying pHand temperature values could be minimized.

The jar testing equipment was pro-grammed using the American Society for Test-ing and Materials (ASTM) standard jar testingsequence of 120 revolutions per min (rpm) for1 min, 50 rpm for 20 min, and 0 rpm for 15min (ASTM, 2003). The proper volume of co-agulant and corresponding caustic or acid vol-ume was measured and delivered onto septasusing a pipette. To minimize variation amongcoagulated samples and obtain equal reactiontimes, the septas were simultaneously droppedinto the jars once the jar testing sequence wasinitiated. During the flocculation stage of jartesting, the pH and temperature wererecorded. At the end of the settling period, 450mL of each settled sample was collected andtested for turbidity and filtered for DOC andcolor analysis.

Extensive field and laboratory qualitycontrol measures were taken throughout thisstudy. To assess the consistency of the preci-sion of the analytical instrumentation, dupli-cate measurements were taken. For fieldmeasurements, duplicates were taken every sixsamples. During the bench-scale testing, du-plicates were prepared for each jar test run, aswell as for each metal and anion analyses. Toassess the consistency of the accuracy of theTOC analyzer, one out of every five sampleswas spiked with 1 mL of 200 parts per mil(ppm) TOC solution created monthly forDOC analysis. Quality control requirementsfor field data were followed according to theanalytical methods listed in the laboratoryquality assurance procedures for the UCF En-vironmental Systems Engineering Institute(ESEI) housed within the CECE department

(Real-Robert, 2011). Quality control measuresfor laboratory data collection were performedaccording to the Standard Methods for the Ex-amination of Water and Wastewater (Eaton,Clesceri, Rice, & Greenberg, 2005) and EPA’sHandbook of Analytical Quality Control inWater and Wastewater Laboratories.

Results

Ferric ChlorideThe maximum removal obtained using

ferric chloride was 89 percent, yielding atreated water DOC concentration of 2.90mg/L. Consistent DOC removals of 80 percentwere observed in the ferric chloride concen-tration range of 100 to 240 mg/L. This broadvariation in ferric chloride concentration sug-gests that there is a low correlation betweencoagulant dose and the removal efficiency.Consistent DOC removals of 80 percent wereobserved within the pH range of 4.0 to 5.0.This narrow range of pH suggested a correla-tion between pH and DOC removal efficiency.Color removal appears correlated to the DOCremovals achieving higher removals at lowerpH values. Final color readings varied from 21PCU to < 5 PCU, with an average value of 8PCU achieving the maximum containmentlevel goal (MCLG) of 15 PCU.

Ferric SulfateThe DOC removals between 60 and 65

percent were achieved at concentrations as lowas 80 mg/L with treatment using ferric sulfate.Doubling the dosage to 160 mg/L was required

to reach the maximum DOC percent removalof 71 percent. Ferric sulfate does show a simi-lar correlation to that of ferric chloride at pHvalues above 5.5, in that increasing the pHcaused a decrease in DOC removals. However,unlike ferric chloride, at pH values above 6.5,increasing the ferric sulfate dosages did notproduce a significant response in DOC re-movals. Only a 10 percent increase in DOC re-moval was achieved by raising the pH above6.5. The maximum DOC removal was 71 per-cent and resulted in a final DOC concentra-tion of approximately 3.5 mg/L. The requiredcoagulant concentration of ferric sulfate is 50percent higher and removed nearly 15 percentless DOC than that of ferric chloride. Ferricsulfate was also less effective for color treat-ment as only 16 percent of the samplesachieved the MCLG of 12 PCU.

Aluminum SulfateAluminum sulfate correlates well with the

ferric sulfate results, even though the optimumpH and coagulant ranges are more con-strained. Only at a pH range of 4.5 to 5.5 andby dosing alum to a concentration of 180 mg/Lwas a 55 percent removal of DOC observed.At 55 percent removal, final DOC valuesranged from 5.5 to 7.5 mg/L. At pH valueshigher than 6.5, increasing the alum concen-tration has little effect on DOC percent re-movals, yielding the lowest DOC removalsrelative to the other coagulants. However, onaverage, alum was 82 percent efficient at re-moving color, yielding 95 percent of the val-ues below 12 PCU.

Table 2. List of Coagulants

Table 3. Summary of Data

Florida Water Resources Journal • November 2013 7Continued on page 8


Poly Aluminum HydroxychlorideThe PACl achieved similar DOC removals

to alum ranging from the lower 60s to thelower 20s, but with a less constrained effectivepH range of 4.0 to 5.5. The DOC removals inthe lower 50 percent range were observed atPACl concentrations of 100 mg/L, with a max-imum DOC removal of 61 percent at 240mg/L. Raw water DOC values were 16 mg/Lfor the jar tests conducted using PACl. Post-CFS DOC values were observed as low as 5.29mg/L. Color removal was relatively high ascompared to the other coagulants, with an av-erage value of 71 percent. Turbidity removalsranged from 30 to 60 percent in the pH rangeof 4.0 and 5.5.

Aluminum ChlorohydrateAluminum chlorohydrate achieved con-

sistent DOC removals of over 60 percentwithin a pH range of 6.0 to 7.0. A strong cor-relation between pH and DOC removal existswith ACH, while ACH concentration seems tohave a minimal effect on overall DOC re-moval. Removals from 60 to 70 percent wereobserved at nearly neutral pH and ACHdosages of 80 mg/L. The raw water DOC con-centration within these ranges was 30 mg/L.Maximum DOC removals were observed inthe lower 80s, with post-CFS DOC readingsranging between 5 and 6 mg/L. The ACH ef-fectively removed color, with 33 percent of thesamples showing color values under 5 PCUand 80 percent of the values meeting theMCLG of ≤12 PCU. The ACH achieved an av-erage turbidity removal of 46 percent withinthis pH range. Table 3 provides the ranges foreach coagulant dose observed to obtain opti-mal removals of DOC, color, and turbidity.

Discussion

Due to the variability in raw water qual-ity over time it is necessary to consider thewater quality at the particular date of sam-pling. The sampled raw water contained DOCconcentrations ranging from 10 mg/L to 30mg/L and color units ranging from 28 PCU to275 PCU. It was observed that ferric-based co-agulants were less effective for removing tur-bidity, oftentimes adding to the turbidity ofthe water, whereas aluminum-based coagu-lants (specifically PACl and ACH) proved ef-fective at decreasing turbidity.

The data collected during this study indi-cate that the water quality of the CPS is poorrelative to other Florida surface water. Organiccontent in the CPS was found to be generallyhigh, with TOC values averaging above thetypical surface water range of 1 to 20 mg/L.Oftentimes the TOC concentration was 50percent higher than representative Florida sur-face water, reaching concentrations over 30mg/L. Raw turbidity concentrations over 5nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) wereconsistently observed, with turbidity spikes ashigh as 23 NTU. Additionally, field observa-tions revealed that the apparent color of thewater was dark. True color values in the CPSranged from 30 to 280 PCU, reflecting charac-teristics of swamplike waters. At least one in-stance of an algae bloom was observed. Eachof these factors suggested that the water wouldbe difficult to treat.

The factors that appear to have con-tributed to the poor quality of water includethe surrounding land use and the variable en-vironmental conditions. The CPS was origi-nally designed as a drainage system for floodprotection and consequentially contains highamounts of debris, vegetation, suspended

solids, color, and organic content. The CPScatchment mainly consists of land classified asagricultural, urban, and nonforested wetland.The occurrences of algae blooms in the CPSsuggest agricultural and urban runoff has hada negative effect on the water quality of theslough.

From the bench-scale jar testing evalua-tion, the MCLGs and maximum containmentlevels (MCLs) for turbidity and organics re-moval were not attainable with the use of CFSalone. For example, the lowest turbidityachieved after CFS was 0.49 NTU and theMCLG for turbidity was 0.3 NTU. Therefore,traditional filtration techniques or membranefiltration may need to be supplemented tomeet EPA regulations. Specifically the resultsof the jar testing evaluation indicated that fer-ric chloride and ACH were the most effectivecoagulants at DOC and color removal at thelowest dose concentrations.

Ferric sulfate was effective at DOC re-moval but required a higher concentration ofcoagulant and was the least effective coagulantat removing color depicted in Figure 2. Thetraditional iron-based coagulants and alumhad low turbidity removals and they wereoften observed to add turbidity to the water.The PACl and ACH had similar percent re-movals for color and turbidity achieving con-sistent percent removals of 95 percent and 45percent, but PACl was less effective than ACHat removing organics. Alum was the least ef-fective at removing organics and was the sec-ond least effective coagulant for removingcolor. This study of nontraditional coagulantperformance revealed that ACH was more ef-ficient at removing DOC, color, and turbidityunder the conditions tested in this evaluationthan the other coagulants evaluated.

Acknowledgements

The information presented in this articlewas but one component of a larger researchproject funded cooperatively by SarasotaCounty Government (1001 Sarasota CenterBlvd., Sarasota, Fla. 34240) and the SouthwestFlorida Water Management District(SWFWMD, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville,Fla. 34604-6899). Carollo Engineers Inc. (401N. Cattleman Rd., Suite 306, Sarasota, Fla.34232) was selected by Sarasota County andSWFWMD to perform a treatability analysisto develop, analyze, and integrate treatment al-ternatives for a new water supply; in that ef-fort, Carollo Engineers retained the CECEdepartment at UCF through Agreement16208093 to conduct coagulant selection re-search in support of the overall project.

The authors are grateful to the contribu-Figure 2. Coagulant Comparison Chart



tions and assistance of UCF students Paul Bis-cardi, Christopher Boyd, Alyssa Filippi, Gene-sis Rios, Jennifer Roque, Nick Webber, andJayapregasham Tharamapalan. The authorswish to acknowledge the efforts of Maria Real-Robert, CECE’s laboratory coordinator, for herlimitless assistance. The contents herein do notnecessarily reflect the views and policies of thesponsors, nor does the mention of tradenames or commercial products constitute en-dorsement or recommendation. The com-ments and opinions expressed herein may notnecessarily reflect the views of the officers, di-rectors, affiliates, or agents of Sarasota CountyGovernment, SWFWMD, Carollo Engineers,and the University of Central Florida.

References

• Amirtharajah A., M. K. (1982). Rapid-mixDesigh for Mechanisms of Alum Coagula-tion. AWWA, 74(4), 210-216.

• ASTM. (2003). Standard Practice for Coag-ulation-Flocculation Jar Test of Water.ASTM International, D2035-80.

• Carollo Engineers, Inc. (2012). TreatabilityAnalysis for Cow Pen Slough and Interme-diate Aquifer Water Sources - Technical Mem-orandum No.5. Sarasota.

• Crittenden, J., Trussell, R. R., Hand, D.,Howe, K., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2005).MWH's Water Treatment: Principles and De-sign. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

• Eaton, A., Clesceri, L., Rice, E., & Greenberg,A. (2005). Standard Methods for the Exami-nation of Water and Wastewater (21 ed.).Washington: American Public Health Asso-ciation, American Water Works Association,Water Environment Federation.

• Edzwald, J. (2011). Water Quality and Treat-ment: A Handbook on Drinking Water. Den-ver: McGraw-Hill.

• Environmental Protection Agency. (1999).25 Years of the Safe Drinking Water Act: His-tory and Trends. Rockville, MD: U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency: EPAPublication No. 816-R-99-007.

• Kabsch-Korbutowicz, M. (2006). Impact ofPre-coagulation on Ultrafiltration ProcessPerformance. Desalination, 232-238.

• Kim Mi Hyung, Y. M. (2005). Characteriza-tion of NOM in the Han River and Evalua-tion of Treatability Using UF-NFMembrane. Environmental Research, 116-123.

• Lovins, W. A., Duranceau, S. J., Gonzalez, R.M., & Taylor, J. S. (2003). Optimized coagu-lation assesment for a highly organic surface

water supply. American Water Works Associ-ation, 94-108.

• Real-Robert, M. (2011). Environmental En-gineering Laboratories: Quality Assur-ance/Quality Control. Orlando: University ofCentral Florida - Department of Civil, Envi-ronmental, and Construction Engineering.

• Rook, J. (1974). Formation of HaloformsDuring Chlorination of Natural Waters.Water Treatment and Examination, 23(2),234-243.

• SWFWMD. (2009). Proposed MinimumFlows and Levels for Dona Bay/Shakett Creekbelow Cow Pen Slough. Sarasota.

• Van Leeuwen, F. (2000). Safe Drinking Water:the Toxicologist's Approach. Food and Chem-ical Toxicology, 38, 51-58.

• Wallace Brian, P. M. (2002). Total OrganicCarbon Analysis as a Precursor to Disinfec-tion Byproducts in Potable Water: OxidationTechnique Considerations. Journal of Envi-ronmental Monitoring, 35-42. ��


Florida Department of Environmental Protection Provides Drinking Water Information;

Seeks Input from Permit and License HoldersMaking up approximately 75 percent of

the human body, water is an essential compo-nent of life, carrying oxygen through the bloodand providing nutrients to cells, while flush-ing waste out of the body.

In order to supply water to the 19 million

Florida residents who obtain their drinkingwater from public supply water systems, thestate’s 6,326 drinking water facilities must treatraw water to meet health and safety standards.

These systems are permitted to utilize ap-proximately 6,566 mil gal per day of raw water

to generate potable water for Florida’s resi-dents and visitors. Raw water comes fromthree sources: surface water, shallow groundwater (surficial aquifer), and deep groundwater (Floridan Aquifer).

Surface water is mostly rain-driven andcontains stormwater runoff. The water ismainly collected in a stream, river, reservoir,canal, lake, or wetland. Because its water qual-ity is the most variable, it requires specializedtreatment in order to meet health standardsfor drinking water. Clear Lake, for example, isfed through a series of canals and a local envi-ronmental preserve and is the water source forWest Palm Beach.

Surficial aquifers can reach up to 400 ft indepth and are one of Florida’s freshwatersources. The freshwater is separated from theFloridan Aquifer by shallow beds of sea shellsor soil that are not permeable to water. TheBiscayne Aquifer, for example, is the primarysource of water for all of Dade and Browardcounties, as well as the southern portion ofPalm Beach County.

The Floridan Aquifer—a deep aquifer thatis part of the principal artesian aquifer sys-tem—produces brackish water, which requiresmore treatment than any other source. It is oneof the most productive aquifers in the worldand provides water for hundreds of thousandsof people in Tallahassee, Orlando, Jacksonville,and St. Petersburg, as well as parts of Georgia.

While each source of raw water requirestreatment, the method of treatment varies byfacility. It can range from simple disinfectionby injecting chlorine into the raw water, all theway to the use of filtration, sedimentation, co-agulation, pH control, corrosion inhibition,and ultimately, reverse osmosis.

In order to assist Florida’s water treat-ment plants in achieving compliance with thefederal and state Safe Drinking Water Acts, the


Florida Department of Environmental Pro-tection (FDEP) provides yearly funding tobuild or improve domestic wastewater anddrinking water facilities, to reclaim minedlands, and to implement stormwater andother nonpoint source management projects.

Learn more about drinking water by visiting the Department’s website,www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/index.htm, which provides resourceful infor-mation and links.

Do you have a permit or license with theFlorida Department of Environmental Pro-tection? How much does it cost to get a per-mit or license and to comply with the terms?To help determine the economic impact reg-ulations have on businesses, FDEP has de-signed a survey to capture some of that data.

The survey addresses the following per-mits or licenses:� Coastal Construction Control Line � Consumptive Use Permit (CUP)� Domestic Wastewater Permit� Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) � Industrial Water Permit� Joint Coastal Permit � National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Stormwater Construc-tion Generic Permit (CGP)

� NPDES Stormwater Multisector GenericPermit

� NPDES Stormwater Municipal SeparateStorm Sewer System (MS4)

� Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) Operating Permit

� RCRA Post Closure or Hazardous andSolid Waste Amendment (HSWA) Cor-rective Action Permit

� Underground Injection Control� Used Oil Permit� Wastewater Treatment Plant/Drinking

Water Plant/ Distribution System OperatorCertification

If your business requires a FDEP permit,your input will serve as a valuable tool for as-sessing the effects of permitting on the econ-omy. The survey, located on the FDEPbusiness portal home page, is available atwww.dep.state . f l .us/secretar y/por tal /default.htm, or use the QR code that links tothe portal. ��


The use of biological drinking watertreatment processes for the treatmentof surface water and groundwater has

recently been increasing in North America.Biofiltration can simultaneously remove awide range of dissolved organic and inorganiccontaminants, while achieving particle re-moval goals. Organic compounds, includingcolor and taste and odor (T&O)-causing com-pounds, are not only removed but also de-stroyed in this process. This can limit theformation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs)and lower regrowth potential in the distribu-tion system. Operation of biofilters requireslow energy input, minimal chemicals, and lit-tle waste production. Although biofiltrationcan provide numerous benefits, biofilter sys-tems can be susceptible to hydraulic and waterquality challenges, such as shortened runtimes,biological clogging, and breakthrough of con-taminants such as T&O, manganese (Mn), andorganic carbon.

Drinking water biofilters are often de-signed and operated similarly to conventionalgranular media filters, and backwashing is theprimary means of biofilm control. However,backwash protocols can be ineffective at restor-ing clean-bed headloss and preventing under-drain fouling, even with the addition ofchlorine or chloramines. These disinfectantsmay not effectively remove extracellular poly-meric substances (EPS), which are a primaryfoulant of biofilters (Lauderdale et al., 2011).Adding chlorine or chloramines to biofilters canalso harm the biology needed for achievingwater quality goals. The EPS are significant toboth fouling and headloss issues because theycan occupy as much as 1,000 times the voidspace of filter media compared to bacteria(Mauclaire et al., 2004). An alternative approachfor biofilm control is to manage microbial EPSproduction through 1) nutrient supplementa-tion, and/or 2) direct removal of EPS throughhydrogen peroxide (H2O2) supplementation.

Pilot studies, which spanned two WaterResearch Foundation (WRF) tailored collabo-ration (TC) projects (#4215 and #4346), fo-cused on investigating enhancement strategies

for drinking water biofilters. Pilot tests wereconducted at three surface water plants inFlorida and Texas. The TC project #4215, En-gineered Biofiltration for Improved Hydraulicand Water Treatment Performance, identifiedtwo “engineered biofiltration” strategies (nu-trient and peroxide enhancement) that pro-vided multiple water quality and hydraulicbenefits with minor implementation require-ments (Lauderdale et al., 2011). The follow-up study, TC #4346, Optimizing EngineeredBiofiltration, provided essential studies to val-idate, optimize, and explore these strategies toachieve sustained performance.

Background

A purposefully operated biological system(i.e., engineered biofiltration) includes biolog-ical treatment objectives as important aspectsof biofilter design and operation. The goal ofthis work is to shift the practice of biofiltrationfrom a passive process, designed and operatedaround conventional filtration objectives, to anintentionally operated biological system. Thestudies described here include pilot-scale stud-ies of two strategies to meet this goal: nutrientand peroxide enhancement.

Nutrient EnhancementOptimal microbial growth relies on a

proper balance of carbon, nitrogen, and phos-phorus. The typical target ratio of assimilablecarbon: ammonia-nitrogen: orthophosphate-phosphorus (C:N:P) is 100:10:1 (USEPA,1991). This molar ratio converts to a concen-tration ratio of 1 mg/L C: 0.117 mg/L N: 0.026mg/L P. The biological filter feed at typicalwater treatment facilities has nondetectableamounts of phosphorus (<0.01 mg/L), due toremoval through enhanced coagulationand/or source water limitation. This phospho-rus-limiting condition can be unfavorable forbiofilter operation because phosphorus is anessential nutrient to maintain a healthy mi-crobial population. In addition, phosphorusdeficiency may lead to increased microbialproduction of EPS, which are strongly adhe-

sive and may cause clogging of biofilter mediaor underdrains. For that reason, adding phos-phorus to the biofilter feed water may improvethe “type” of biogrowth in the filters to mini-mize clogging, decrease headloss, and main-tain uniformity of flow.

Peroxide EnhancementLow doses of hydrogen peroxide (≤1

mg/L) effectively oxidize and remove EPS andinactive biomass without negatively affectingthe biological activity desired for water treat-ment. Hydrogen peroxide may also improvebiofilter treatment performance by causing cer-tain microorganisms to express oxidoreductaseenzymes that produce free radicals. These freeradicals can also remove EPS, as well as oxidizerecalcitrant organic compounds.

Materials and Methods

Pilot BiofiltersPilot studies were conducted at three sur-

face water treatment plants (WTPs): John KubalaWTP in Arlington, Texas; Tampa Bay RegionalSurface WTP in Tampa; and Bachman WTP inDallas. Each pilot skid (Intuitech, Salt Lake City,Utah) included four parallel biofilters (6-in. di-ameter columns). The pilot biofilter columnscontained the same media configuration as thefull-scale system at the host site (Table 1). Biofil-ter feed (from upstream ozonation and coagula-tion processes) were supplied to the pilot

Engineered Biofiltration for Drinking Water Treatment: Optimizing

Strategies to Enhance PerformanceJennifer Nyfennegger, Chance Lauderdale, Jess Brown, and Kara Scheitlin

Jennifer Nyfennegger, Ph.D., P.E., is a leadtechnologist with Carollo Engineers Inc. inSarasota. Chance Lauderdale, Ph.D., P.E.,is a vice president with HDR in Denver. JessBrown, Ph.D., P.E., is a vice president withCarollo Engineers in Orange County,Calif., and is the director of the CarolloResearch Group. Kara Scheitlin, P.E., is aproject engineer with Carollo EngineersInc. in Dallas.

F W R J

Continued on page 14

equipped with progressive cavity feed pumps(one dedicated pump per column) with auto-matic flow control. Peristaltic feed pumps al-lowed flow-paced chemical injection to thecombined biofilter feed water for spiking con-taminants, such as 2-Methylisoborneol (MIB)and Mn. Biofilter effluent was pressure-fed to abackwash water storage tank. Each pilot includeda backwash system with dedicated pump and air-scour system. Backwash protocols simulated thatof the hosting full-scale facility. Pilot instrumen-tation included on-line effluent turbidimeters,flow transmitters, and pressure sensors for mon-itoring headloss. Each pilot was equipped withan automatic data logger, which recorded the fol-lowing data every 10 min for the duration of thestudy: headloss, effluent turbidity, biofilter un-derdrain pressure, backwash underdrain pres-sure, filtration rate, runtime, and run volume.

Chemical FeedContaminants were spiked to the pilot

biofilter feed water using a peristaltic pump and40-L chemical tank. To promote mixing, a staticmixer was located downstream of the injectionpoint. Contaminant spiking tests were per-formed to characterize Mn and T&O (e.g., MIB)removal performance. Manganese spiking of thepilot biofilter feed water was performed usingreagent-grade manganese chloride from SigmaChemical (St. Louis, Mo.); the MIB (gas chro-matography-grade in methanol) was also pur-chased from the chemical company.

For testing of the enhancement strategies,nutrients or peroxide were fed to the top of thespecified biofilter using dedicated peristalticpumps supplied by 40-L chemical tanks. Phos-phorus (PO4-P) supplementation was per-formed using NSF-60-certified 83 percentphosphoric acid. Caustic (50 percent sodiumhydroxide) was used for the biofilter feed pHadjustment at Tampa Bay and Dallas. Peroxidesupplementation used food-grade 3 percenthydrogen peroxide (Arlington pilot) or tech-nical-grade 20 percent hydrogen peroxide(Tampa Bay and Dallas pilots).

Analytical MethodsWater quality samples of the pilot biofil-

ter feed and effluent streams were collectedtwice per week throughout the pilot study pe-riod. Results were used to verify operation(e.g., dosed nutrient and hydrogen peroxideconcentrations) and to evaluate water treat-ment performance of the pilot biofilters. Ana-lytical methods for key parameters are:� Turbidity. In-line nephelometers (Hach or

ThermoScientific) were used for continu-ous turbidity measurement of pilot filter ef-fluents.

Table 1. Pilot Plant Setup and Operating Parameters

Figure 1. Biofilter Pilot Process Flow Schematic



� Hydrogen Peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide con-centration of the biofilter feed water wasmeasured on site using a CHEMets Colori-metric Hydrogen Peroxide Test Kit(Chemtech International, Media, Pa.).

� Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and DissolvedOrganic Carbon (DOC). Both TOC andDOC were performed using StandardMethod 5130B.

� Manganese (Mn). Total Mn measurementswere performed in accordance with Stan-dard Method 311B.

� Ammonia-nitrogen (NH4-N). The NH4-Nmeasurements were performed in accor-dance with Standard Method 4500.

� Orthophosphate-phosphorus (PO4-P). ThePO4-P measurements were performed inaccordance with U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (USEPA) Method 300.0.

� 2-Methylisoborneol (MIB). The MIB analy-ses were performed in accordance withStandard Method 6040D.

Pilot biofilter media samples from the top6 in. of each biofilter column were collectedtwice per month. Each sampling event in-cluded two samples: (1) after a backwash (i.e.,clean bed), and (2) at the completion of thesubsequent filter run (i.e., dirty bed). Themedia samples were used for microbial char-acterization, including:� Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The ATP

analysis on biofilter media was conductedusing a Deposit and Surface Analysis TestKit (LuminUltra, Fredericton, N.B.) and aluminometer (Kikkoman, Tokyo, Japan)following the manufacturer protocols.

� Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). Biofil-ter media samples were imaged using a JEM6490 LV scanning electron microscope(Peabody, Mass.).

� EPS. Sugars from EPS polysaccharides weremeasured using the method described byDubois et al. (1956).

Results and Discussion

Nutrient Enhancement StudiesThe biofilter feed water at the pilot sites

was typically phosphorus (PO4-P)-limited dueto source water limitation and/or PO4-P re-moval through upstream coagulationprocesses. Nutrient enhancement of biofiltersinitially targeted a total (background + dosed)bioavailable C:N:P molar ratio of 100:10:1. ThePO4-P and/or NH4-N were used to supplementnutrient deficiencies in select biofilters.

Nutrient supplementation testing at theArlington pilot included PO4-P supplementa-tion (0.02 mg/L as P) to satisfy the nutrient de-ficiency. Multiple benefits were achieved,

including improved hydraulics, water qualityperformance, and microbial characteristics(Lauderdale et al., 2011; Lauderdale et al., 2012):� Hydraulic Performance. The PO4-P supple-

mentation to the nutrient-enhanced biofil-ter feed decreased terminal headloss (at an18-hour filter runtime) by approximately 15percent, relative to the control biofilter. Thisimprovement in hydraulic performancetranslates to energy savings and reducedchemical usage to retreat backwash water.

� Water Treatment. Performance was trackedacross multiple parameters, including tur-bidity, DOC, Mn, and MIB. The PO4-P sup-plementation improved the removal ofDOC and Mn compared to the control. TheDOC removal across the filter bed was 19percent for nutrient-enhanced biofiltercompared to 11 percent for the control. Re-moval of background Mn was observed forboth the nutrient-enhanced and controlbiofilters. High concentrations of Mn werealso spiked to the biofilter feed (224 µg/L).Effluent Mn concentrations were nondetect(< 2.4 µg/L) for the nutrient-enhancedbiofilter, whereas the control biofilter efflu-ent averaged 25 µg/L. During simulatedlong-term, moderate MIB spiking to thepilot biofilter feed, mean effluent MIB con-centrations remained below the T&Othreshold (< 10 ng/L) for the nutrient-en-hanced and control biofilters. All pilotbiofilter effluent turbidities maintainedcompliance with the USEPA Surface WaterTreatment Rule.

� Microbial Characteristics. Compared to thecontrol biofilter, the nutrient-enhanced

biofilter media had lower-measured biofilterEPS concentrations (corresponding to thedecrease in headloss relative to the control),30 percent higher terminal (end of filter run)ATP concentrations (corresponding tohigher biomass concentrations), and moremorphological diversity and cell abundance.

Follow-up nutrient enhancement studiesat Tampa Bay and Dallas using PO4-P supple-mentation and pH adjustment of the biofilterfeed water improved hydraulic performance(>18 percent decreased terminal headloss rel-ative to the control) and had no significant ef-fect on water treatment performance (e.g.,DOC, MIB, Mn removal). Figure 2 presentsexample headloss and turbidity profiles for thecontrol and PO4-P-enhanced biofilter at theoptimal pH.

Optimization of the biofilter feed pH (8.0to 8.5) proved to be an important parameterto achieve hydraulic improvements at theTampa Bay and Dallas pilots. At ambientbiofilter feed pH (7.1-7.5), nutrient supple-mentation did not improve biofilter perform-ance. This was unexpected due to the resultsof the previous study, where nutrient additionshowed hydraulic and water quality improve-ments. One notable difference was the type ofcoagulant used in upstream processes (alumversus ferric). Without pH adjustment, chem-ical modeling suggested removal of bioavail-able PO4-P by ferric hydroxide carried overfrom upstream flocculation/sedimentationprocesses prior to penetrating the media bed(Figure 3). Increasing biofilter feed pH above

Figure 2. Profiles of the Control and Nutrient-Enhanced Biofilter at Optimized pH Conditions



the isoelectric point of the carryover floc (i.e.,creating a positive surface charge) inhibits ad-sorption of negatively charged PO4-P onto fer-ric hydroxide carryover. As a result, the PO4-Pstays in solution and is available for microor-ganisms in the filter bed. Thus, the biofilterfeed pH was adjusted to approximately 8.0 atDallas and 8.5 at Tampa Bay. This process ad-justment resulted in decreased headloss acrossall filters at Dallas, and further improvementin the hydraulic performance of the nutrient-enhanced column relative to the control atboth Dallas and Tampa Bay.

Peroxide Enhancement StudiesThe pilot studies at both the Florida and

Texas utilities showed that peroxide supple-

mentation significantly improves biofilter hy-draulic performance. The strategy was firstidentified at the Arlington pilot when biofilterterminal head loss (at 24 hours) decreasedfrom 6.5 ft (n = 1) to an average of 2 ft (n = 6)after initiating a continuous 1 mg/L peroxidedose to the biofilter feed water (Lauderdale etal., 2011; Lauderdale et al., 2012). These resultsshowed a promising trend and provided thebasis for further study.

Validation testing of the peroxide en-hancement strategy was conducted by initiallyaugmenting the peroxide biofilter feeds atTampa Bay and Dallas with 1 mg/L of perox-ide. Following preliminary confirmation ofthe hydraulic benefits associated with perox-ide supplementation, the peroxide dose wasoptimized by adjusting the biofilter feed con-

centrations to between 0.1 mg/L and 2 mg/L. At Tampa Bay, hydraulic improvements

were observed for the peroxide doses tested(0.5 to 2 mg/L), as shown in Figure 4. The op-timum peroxide dose was 0.75 to 1 mg/L. Atthese concentrations, headloss improved by anaverage of 25 and 27 percent, respectively, at24-hour filter runtimes. Algae growth was alsoinhibited by peroxide addition, as illustratedin Figure 5. Peroxide feed robustness testsshowed that hydraulic performance improvedduring a period of “overfeeding” peroxide (10mg/L), and hydraulic performance degradedto match control biofilter headloss trendswhen a peroxide feed failure was simulated. Ef-fluent water quality (e.g., DOC, turbidity, Mn,and MIB) from the peroxide-enhanced biofil-ter was similar to the control at all peroxidedoses tested.

The peroxide dose that provided the besthydraulic improvement at the lowest cost dif-fered for Tampa Bay (0.75 mg/L) and Dallas,where a 0.1 mg/L peroxide dose resulted in 33percent lower headloss. These results demon-strate the need to evaluate and optimize per-oxide feed for hydraulic improvement on acase-by-case basis, as biofilter peroxide de-mand is likely dependent on multiple factors,including temperature, source water, micro-bial ecology, and upstream treatment.

Biofilter Media TypeThe parallel operation of anthracite and

GAC media in the pilot studies provided acomparison of treatment and hydraulic per-formance of each media type. The nutrientand peroxide enhancement strategies im-proved anthracite biofilter hydraulic perform-ance over the control GAC filters. However,anthracite biofilter water treatment perform-ance was inferior to the GAC biofilters forboth Tampa Bay and Dallas under all test con-ditions (e.g., control, peroxide enhancement,and nutrient enhancement).

The ATP analysis of GAC media collectedfrom the control and peroxide-supplementedbiofilters showed that the peroxide supple-mentation (0.1 – 10 mg/L) did not signifi-cantly impact microbial activity. However, ATPconcentrations in the anthracite biofilter de-creased during periods of peroxide supple-mentation (0.5 – 2 mg/L). These resultsindicate that GAC may be a more robust sup-port media to support biological growth.

Pretreatment (Coagulation) OptimizationTesting

Pilot-scale-enhanced coagulation pre-treatment optimization was performed con-currently with the biofiltration pilot at theDallas pilot site. The pilots were tested for ho-

Figure 3. Photo of

CarryoverFerric Floc

Accumulatedon the Top

(Feed Side)of the

Biofilter

Figure 4. Average Hydraulic Performance of GAC Biofilters Supplemented WithVarying Doses of Hydrogen Peroxide Relative to the Control Biofilter (No Peroxide)



listic, multiprocess optimization. At coagulantdoses of 60 mg/L and 30 mg/L (asFe2(SO4)3*9H2O), results showed the samelevel of combined DOC removal through thecoagulation and biofiltration processes. Thisdemonstrates synergy between the coagulationand biofiltration processes. This test result alsopresents a significant opportunity for cost sav-ings on chemical costs, while achieving or-ganic carbon and DBP precursor removalgoals.

Conclusions

Pilot testing spanning two Water Re-search Foundation projects (TC #4215 and#4346) identified, validated, and optimizedtwo “engineered biofiltration” strategies withminor implementation requirements: (1) nu-trient enhancement and (2) hydrogen perox-ide supplementation. These studies identifiedconditions that allow nutrient enhancementto be applicable across multiple water sourcesand treatment schemes. The pH was identifiedas an important parameter for biofilter nutri-ent optimization, which may broaden the ap-plicability of this enhancement strategy.Pilot-scale optimization of the peroxide en-hancement strategy at Tampa Bay Water andDallas Water Utilities showed that the optimaldose for biofilter performance improvementwas site-specific, indicating that biofilter per-oxide demand is likely dependent on multiplefactors. Optimization studies for the biofiltra-tion process and upstream coagulation processidentified a synergy between the processes.The results of this pilot-scale test showed thatbiofilters decreased coagulant requirements by>50 percent, while achieving organic carbonand DBP precursor removal goals. This high-lights the importance of holistic, full-processevaluations for optimizing water treatment fa-cility operation and performance.

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible through thefinancial contributions of the Water ResearchFoundation, Tampa Bay Water, Dallas WaterUtilities, and the City of Arlington.

The participation of the following organ-izations made it possible to develop the dataand analysis presented in this document:Tampa Bay Water, Dallas Water Utilities, Cityof Arlington Water Utilities, University ofMichigan, University of Texas, Veolia WaterNorth America, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency (USEPA) Office of Research andDevelopment (Cincinnati, Ohio), and CarolloEngineers Inc.

References

• Dubois, M, Gilles, K, Hamilton, J, Rebers, P,and Smith, F. 1956. Colorimetric Methodfor Determination of Sugars and RelatedSubstances. Anal. Chem., 28, 3, 350.

• Lauderdale, C., Brown, J., Chadik, P, Kirisits,M. 2011. Engineered Biofiltration for En-hanced Hydraulic and Water Treatment Per-formance. Water Research Foundation,Denver.

• Lauderdale, C., Chadik, P., Kirisits, M.,Brown, J. 2012. Engineered Biofiltration:Enhanced Biofilter Performance throughNutrient and Peroxide Addition. JournalAmerican Water Works Association, 104(5),E298-E309.

• Mauclaire, L., Schurmann, A., Thullner, M.,Gammeter S., and Zeyer, J., 2004. Sand fil-tration in a water treatment plant: biologi-cal parameters responsible for cloggingJournal of Water Supply: Research andTechnology AQUA 53 (2) 93-108.

• USEPA. 1991. Site Survey Characterizationfor Subsurface Remediation. EPA/625/R-91/026. Office of Research and Develop-ment, Washington. ��

Figure 5. Photo Showing Inhibition ofAlgae Growth in the BiofilterSupplemented With HydrogenPeroxide (Third Column From the Left)



Strategic Planning: The Roadmap to Achieve

Section�s Future Goals

After attending this year’s strategic plan-ning retreat held on October 3-4 in Ft.Lauderdale, I reminisced on how excit-

ing it was to participate in my first strategicplanning event. The year was 2004, and the

event was held in Tampa. At that time I wasnot fully aware of how important strategicplanning is, nor did I fully grasp the conceptof vision and mission statements that guideour core principals. That event was the start of

a journey much larger than I could have everimagined.

This year marks the sixth time I have par-ticipated in strategic planning for the section:2004, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2011, and now in2013. The purpose of having strategic plan-ning retreats is to continually review the sec-tion’s vision and mission statements and itsgoals, make sure they align with where themembership wants the section to be, and de-termine the best way to get there.

The following is the definition of strategicplanning from Wikipedia (italics mine):

“Strategic planning is an organization’sprocess of defining its strategy, or direction,and making decisions on allocating its re-sources to pursue this strategy. In order todetermine the future direction of the or-ganization, it is necessary to understand itscurrent position and the possible avenuesthrough which it can pursue particularcourses of action. The key components ofstrategic planning include an understand-ing of an entity's vision, mission, values,and strategies. � Vision: Outlines what the organization

wants to be, or how it wants the worldin which it operates to be (an ‘idealized’view of the world). It is a long-term viewand concentrates on the future. It can beemotive and is a source of inspiration.

� Mission: Defines the fundamental pur-pose of an organization or an enter-prise, succinctly describing why it existsand what it does to achieve its vision.

� Values: Beliefs that are shared amongthe stakeholders of an organization.Values drive an organization's cultureand priorities and provide a frameworkin which decisions are made.

� Strategy: Narrowly defined, means ‘theart of the general.’ A combination of theends (goals) for which the firm is striv-ing and the means (policies) by which itis seeking to get there. A strategy issometimes called a roadmap, which isthe path chosen to plow towards the endvision. The most important part of im-plementing the strategy is ensuring thecompany is going in the right direction,defined as towards the end vision.”

FSAWWA SPEAKING OUT

Jason Parrillo, P.E.Chair, FSAWWA

Participants in the 2013 strategic planning retreat.


The one underlying constant behindstrategic planning is this: your goals and prior-ities will change. In 2007, the section’s goals andpriorities completely changed due in part toaligning the strategic plan to its business plan,which is the first time that had ever been done.In 2011, the section’s priorities changed, alongwith some slight changes to the goals after fur-ther review. This year, the section’s goals andpriorities have completely shifted again; thistime, adopting the AWWA’s newly releasedstrategic plan. You can find the Association’sstrategic plan at www.awwa.org/about-us/strategic-plan.aspx.

The members that participated in thisyear’s strategic planning retreat debated pas-sionately on whether or not we should alignthe section’s goals and/or how best to alignthose goals with those of the Association. Wealso had a lingering debate on the vision forthe section. Typically, when debates linger, it isdue to semantics; this was no different, and inthe end, we agreed to adopt the Association’smission and vision as our own, with a fewslight tweaks of the verbiage. The most inter-esting part of this development is that thestrategic goals were set first, prior to setting themission and vision; perhaps a bit backwards

in the process, but successful nonetheless. A strategic plan should be a living and

breathing document; it should be, by its verynature, dynamic, and it should constantlyevolve and adapt to whatever changes need tobe made to benefit the membership. The finalversion of the Florida Section strategic planwill be made availble on the website(www.fsawwa.org) when all revisions havebeen completed. For those of you who werenot able to participate this year, please keep akeen eye on the calendar of events so you don’tmiss the next strategic planning retreat.

Arguably, there is no better place to wit-ness the implementation of the strategic planthan at the Annual Fall Conference at the var-ious council and committee meetings. It isthere that we are able to craft and developplans of action to benefit our membership. AsI mentioned in my January article, perhaps themost valuable privilege you receive as a mem-ber of FSAWWA is the ability to bring all thestakeholders together in one room. As Florida’swater professionals, we have a body of talentthat is unsurpassed. We have utility personnel,engineers, manufacturers, regulators, contrac-tors, and academicians who provide a breadthand depth of knowledge found nowhere else.

This also provides a value in membershipfound nowhere else. You can engage in mean-ingful discussions about issues that directlyimpact the water industry and come up withcreative ways to solve the problem at hand—allwithout the barriers that office walls typicallyinvoke. Instead, there an open environment inwhich to collaborate, communicate, and cre-ate solutions.

As our strategic plan needs to be dy-namic, so is our conference, which will be heldDecember 1-5 at the Omni Hotel Resort atChampionsGate. This year, we are holding anopening general session for the very first time!We have a guest speaker confirmed and I ampositive you will find this new addition a wel-comed change, energizing you for the work-shops, technical sessions, and activities thatfollow. Immediately after the opening sessionthere will be the grand opening of the exibithall.

This is going to be historic occassion forthe Florida Section and one you will remem-ber throughout your career. Don’t miss thisonce-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Please makesure to visit the section website mentionedpreviously for more information on the con-ference. I look forward to seeing you there! ��


1. What is one problem associated with aer-ating water?A. Increase in pH.B. Reduction in hydrogen.C. Reduction in carbon dioxide.D. Possible contamination through the

atmosphere.

2. In what units is the presence of suspendedand colloidal matter that imparts a cloudyappearance to the water expressed?A. Specific ultraviolet absorbance

(SUVA) unitsB. Threshold odor number (TON) unitsC. Turbidity unitsD. Conductivity units

3. Tastes and odors such as grassy, septic,musty, and earthy are all related to whatwater quality related issue?A. AlgaeB. Manganese C. Mineral content in the presence of a

disinfectantD. Corrosion in metallic pipes

4. What is the health effect associated withwater that has excessive color?A. Gastrointestinal distressB. MethemoglobinemiaC. DysenteryD. There are no health effects.

5. When conducting titration with mostchemicals, where is the meniscus (level)determined?A. Top of the curve.B. Bottom of the curve.C. Middle of the curve.D. Either the top or bottom; it does not

alter test results.

6. What is the maximum filtration rate in atypical pressure filter?A. 2 to 3 gpm/sq ftB. 4 to 5 gpm/ sq ftC. 5 to 10 gpm/ sq ftD. 10 to 100 gpm/sq ft

7. What type of filter media is used to re-move tastes and odors?A. Granular activated carbonB. Clay brickC. GarnetD. Alum

8. What condition may occur when unusu-ally low pressures develop in a high-ser-vice pump?A. CavitationB. BackflowC. BackpressureD. Backsiphonage

9. How should a sample be preserved whensampling for iron?A. Acidified with nitric acid.B. Cooled to 4°C.C. Add preservative to fix pH above 8.0.D. Iron samples do not require preserva-

tives because it is a metal.

10. What is the purpose of a desiccator in alaboratory?A. Dispensing reagent volumes.B. Calibrating scale weights to known

values.C. Remove toxic gases from a flame

hood.D. Remove moisture from lab samples.

Answers on page 54

Readers are welcome to submitquestions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plantoperations for publication inCertification Boulevard. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email [email protected], or by mail to:

Roy PelletierWastewater Project Consultant

City of Orlando Public Works DepartmentEnvironmental Services

Wastewater Division5100 L.B. McLeod Road

Orlando, FL 32811407-716-2971

Certification Boulevard

Roy Pelletier

SEND US YOURQUEST IONS

Test Your Knowledge ofVarious Water Treatment Topics

LOOKING FOR ANSWERS? Check the Archives

Are you new to the water andwastewater field? Want to boostyour knowledge about topics youʼllface each day as a water/waste-water professional?

All past editions of CertificationBoulevard through the year 2000 are

available on the Florida Water Envi-ronment Associationʼs website atwww.fwea.org. Click the “Site Map”button on the home page, then scrolldown to the Certification BoulevardArchives, located below the Opera-tions Research Committee.

slb.com/url

Headline 30pt.Headline 21pt.

SERVICE/PRPDUCT DESCRIPTOR

Service Name

water.slb.com/destin-asr-article

© 20© 20© 20© 20© 20© 2020© 20© 20© 20© 20© 20©©©©© 2© 2© 13 S13 S13 S13 S13 S13 S13 S3 S3 S13 S13 S13 S3 S1 S3 Schluchluchluchluchluchluchluchluchchlummmbermbermbermbermbermmbermmbemberm geger.egergerger 11113-WS3-WS3 WS3-WSSSSSSWS3-W3-WS 00-00101-00100188888

The Destin Water Users’ aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) system has increased the reliability of the water supply, reduced demands on freshwater resources, and helps the utility avoid potential wastewater disposal impacts. With an aquifer similar to many coastal areas, the Destin ASR system provides a prototype for other regions.

Read the technical article at

Reclaimed water stored in an aquifer for beneficial reuse—a success story in Florida.

STRATEGIC STORAGE OF RECLAIMED WATER

Aquifer Storage and Recovery

The Water Environ-ment Federation(WEF) recently an-

nounced a dues increase. This column reviewsthe cost and benefits of membership and thedetails of this increase. First, let’s review thebenefits.

As you probably know, when you receiveyour membership renewal notice each year,the base membership fee includes member-ship in both WEF and the Florida Water Envi-ronment Association (FWEA). In a sense,WEF is our mother ship—an internationalfederation of water quality member associa-tions (MAs) that includes 51 MAs in NorthAmerica and more than 20 international MAs.The Federation provides FWEA with a sub-stantial amount of support, including WEFmember association and individual awards,WEF board participation at our annual con-ference and meetings, membership duesbilling and collection, WEF member associa-tion exchange meetings (WEFMAX), leader-ship training, and public education programsand materials. The FWEA is represented onthe WEF House of Delegates by two delegates;more on that later.

In addition, WEF also offers each of us asindividual members several benefits: technicalperiodicals, like Water Environment & Tech-nology; discounts on WEFTEC, WEF specialtyconferences, manuals of practice (MOPs), andother reference books; no-charge webcasts;and public policy representation and supportfor the wastewater industry at the federal level.And, if you haven’t done so recently, I recom-mend you visit the WEF website(www.wef.org); it contains a wealth of educa-tional and volunteer support material.

The FWEA members, and all of us as in-dividual WEF members, receive these benefitswhen we pay our annual membership fee.These fees are among the lowest in the waterquality industry and haven’t changed signifi-cantly over the past 10 years. Currently, a pro-fessional and academic member pays $131 peryear for the combined WEF and FWEA mem-bership; $88 of that goes to WEF and $43 goesto FWEA. A professional wastewater operatorpays $80 for the combined membership, with$47 going to WEF and $33 going to FWEA.

Those of us who belong to other professionalassociations know that these rates are verycompetitive.

The WEF staff recently concluded an in-depth examination of WEF’s pricing andmember support cost structure and deter-mined that it costs $159.69 per year to serve amember. Given the pricing structure outlined,it became readily apparent that maintaining(never mind improving) the current level ofservice would not be sustainable without ad-justments. These adjustments will take theform of three annual dues increases in 2014,2015, and 2016. In 2014, the WEF/FWEAcombined professional membership dues willincrease by $13 to $144, and the professionalwastewater operator dues will increase by $7to $87. The 2014 dues increase will show upon our renewal notices for the coming year.The Federation has not yet announced whatthe increases will be in 2015 and 2106.

As a fellow WEF member, even with theseproposed increases, I still consider WEF mem-bership to be a good investment. I have no hes-itation to pay the dues increase and Iappreciate what WEF has done to keep ourdues down for so long. I hope you come to thesame conclusion; however, if you have anyconcerns or questions, please do not hesitateto contact me at 407-948-0332 [email protected].

With all of that said, I am pleased to re-port that the FWEA board has decided not toincrease FWEA’s portion of the WEF/FWEAannual membership fee. Although the Floridamunicipal wastewater industry is starting toshow some signs of renewed economic vitality,we don’t feel that a state dues increase is ap-propriate at this time. As an almost all-volun-teer association, we have become accustomedto watching every penny spent, while provid-ing low-cost training and networking oppor-tunities to the membership.

And as mentioned in my July column,FWEA now offers an FWEA-only membershipto government employees. The $50 FWEA-only annual membership fee qualifies mem-bers to receive all the benefits of FWEAmembership, including the Florida Water Re-sources Journal, the Florida Watershed Jour-nal, and The Droplet, as well as discountedregistration fees for all FWEA conferences,seminars, and local chapter networking events.Our goal is to help water quality professionalsemployed by municipal and state government,

who may not receive employee-sponsoredmembership benefits, enjoy the benefits ofFWEA membership. If you are interested in,and qualify for, this membership category,please go to the FWEA website(www.fwea.org), click on the “Membership”tab on the home page, and then click on the“FWEA-only Membership” tab from the dropdown menu.

Announcing Our New WEF Delegate

I am pleased to announce that FWEApast-president Paul Pinault of CDM Smith hasaccepted the WEF delegate position being va-cated by Pam Holcomb of CH2M Hill. We ap-preciate Pam’s many years of dedicated serviceto the members of WEF and FWEA. We lookforward to Paul’s contributions to WEF, andhis continued support for FWEA, as his bringshis vast experience and industry relationshipsto the national stage. Paul started his term atthe WEF House of Delegates meeting on Oc-tober 5 at WEFTEC and will serve for twoyears. Paul will serve with WEF delegate JohnGiachino of The Haskell Company and FWEAExecutive Director Pat Karney, who was re-cently elected as a delegate-at-large to the WEFHouse of Delegates.

Florida continues to be well representedwithin the governing structure of WEF, to thebenefit of both the Federation and FWEA. ��

FWEA FOCUS

Greg ChomicPresident, FWEA

The Value of Membership

becomeA MEMBER

�Florida Water Resources Journal • November 2013 25

FWPCOA TRAINING CALENDARSCHEDULE YOUR CLASS TODAY!

* Backflow recertification is also available the last day of BackflowTester or Backflow Repair Classes with the exception of Deltona

** Evening classes

*** any retest given also

NOVEMBER5........Backflow Recert ..........................................Lady Lake ............$85/115

4-7........Backflow Tester ..........................................St. Petersburg ......$375/4054-8........Reclaimed Water Field Site Inspector ....Orlando ..............$350/380

8........Backflow Tester Recert*** ........................Deltona ................$85/115

DECEMBER2-5........Backflow Tester ..........................................Deltona ................$375/40513........Backflow Tester Recert*** ........................Deltona ................$85/115

16-18........Backflow Repair ........................................St. Petersburg ......$275/305

JANUARY 20147........Backflow Recert ..........................................Lady Lake ............$85/115

13-16........Backflow Tester ..........................................Deltona ................$375/40513-16........Backflow Tester ..........................................St. Petersburg ......$375/405

24........Backflow Tester Recert*** ........................Deltona ................$85/11527-31........Wastewater Collection C, B ......................Deltona ................$325/355

FEBRUARY3-7........Water Distribution Level 3, 2 ..................Deltona ................$275/305

10-12........Backflow Repair ........................................Deltona ................$275/30528........Backflow Tester Recert*** ........................Deltona ................$85/115

MARCH4........Backflow Recert ..........................................Lady Lake ............$85/115

3-6........Backflow Tester ..........................................St. Petersburg ......$375/40524-28........SPRING STATE SHORT SCHOOLSPRING STATE SHORT SCHOOL ............Ft. Pierce

28........Backflow Tester Recert*** ........................Deltona ................$85/115

You are required to have your

own calculator at state short schools

and most other courses.

Course registration forms are available at http://www.fwpcoa.org/forms.asp. For additional information on these courses or other training programs offered by the FWPCOA, please

contact the FW&PCOA Training Office at (321) 383-9690 or [email protected].


Earn CEUs by answering questions from previous Journal issues!

Contact FWPCOA at [email protected] or at 561-840-0340. Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website, www.fwrj.com.

Members of the Florida Water &Pollution Control Association (FWPCOA)may earn continuing education unitsthrough the CEU Challenge! Answer thequestions published on this page, based onthe technical articles in this month’s issue.Circle the letter of each correct answer.There is only one correct answer to eachquestion! Answer 80 percent of thequestions on any article correctly to earn0.1 CEU for your license. Retests areavailable.

This month’s editorial theme is

Water Treatment . Look above each set ofquestions to see if it is for wateroperators (DW), distribution systemoperators (DS), or wastewateroperators (WW). Mail the completedpage (or a photocopy) to: FloridaEnvironmental Professionals Training, P.O.Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, FL33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set ofquestions you choose to answer (makechecks payable to FWPCOA). You MUSTbe an FWPCOA member before you cansubmit your answers!

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge!

1. ____________ is/are identified by the authors as a surrogatefor disinfection byproduct precursors.a. Total dissolved solidsb. Synthetic organic compoundsc. Turbidityd. Natural organic matter

2. The true color value of Florida surface water is as high as________ platinum-cobalt units (PCU).a. 15 b. 50c. 100 d. 700

3. Jar testing discussed in this article was performance inaccordance with _____ standards.a. American Water Works Association (AWWA)b. Underwriters Laboratories (UL)c. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewaterd. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

4. Which of the following tested coagulants was not observed toadd turbidity to the water?a. Aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH)b. Alumc. Ferric chlorided. Ferric sulfate

5. _________ is a semivolatile disinfection byproduct that can beremoved by stripping under certain conditions.a. Bromodichloromethane b. Chloroformc. Haloacetic acid d. Ozonated hydrocarbon

Comparing Aluminum and Iron Coagulants to Remove Organic Carbon, Color,

and Turbidity From a Florida Slough

David T. Yonge and Steven J. Duranceau(Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DW/DS}

___________________________________________SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Article 1 ________________________________________LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 ________________________________________LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

If paying by credit card, fax to (561) 625-4858

providing the following information:

___________________________________________(Credit Card Number)

___________________________________________(Expiration Date)

1. The _________ strategy is often set to achieve a balancebetween biological activity and hydraulic performance.a. disinfection b. backwashc. nutrient balance d. flow control

2. Low doses of ____________ effectively oxidize and removeextracellular polymeric substances.a. hydrogen peroxide b. carbonc. nitrogen d. phosphorus

3. Without ____________ at the Tampa Bay and Dallas sites,nutrient supplementation did not improve biofilterperformance.a. increased backwash frequencyb. ammonia nitrogen enhancementc. frequent chlorinationd. pH adjustment

4. Of those tested, which biofilter media type was demonstratedto be superior under all test conditions?a. Sand b. Granular activated carbon c. Anthracite d. Fixed film

5. The study discussed in this article demonstrated thata. pH is not relevant to biofilter optimization.b. chlorine dioxide is the most effective agent for removing

spent biomass.c. biofilters can decrease coagulant requirements by > 50

percent.d. a light dose of powdered activated carbon can extend

biofilter life.

New Path to Permitting Aquifer Storage and Recovery Systems in Florida

Jennifer Stokke Nyfennegger, Chance Lauderdale, Jess Brown, and Kara Scheitlin

(Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DW/DS)



The David L. Tippin Water TreatmentFacility (Facility), located in Tampa, isan advanced ozonation water treatment

plant with a capacity of up to 120 mil gal perday (mgd), consisting of coagulation, floccu-lation, sedimentation, ozonation, and biofil-tration. Its source water comes from theHillsborough River. During the wet season(June-September), excess water is treated andpumped into a series of aquifer storage and re-covery (ASR) wells. The ASR water is thenpumped back out during the dry season (Oc-tober-May) to supplement water supply. Thehigh dissolved oxygen content of finishedwater pumped into the ASR wells frees bro-mide from the geological formation. The in-creased bromide from the ASR wells increasesthe total bromide in the water to a level wherebromate formation during ozonation nears orexceeds the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) maximum contaminant level(MCL) of 10µg/L on an annual average. Cur-rently, pH is used as the primary control strat-egy. A decrease in pH inhibits bromateformation; however, pH depression prior toozonation is operationally challenging andalso costly at the Facility.

A bench-scale study of an alternative bro-mate control strategy, i.e., the chlorine-am-monia process, was performed to evaluate theefficacy of the process to reduce bromate for-mation. The study was conducted simulatingfull-scale conditions using Hillsborough Riverwater. The chlorine-ammonia process involvesfirst adding chlorine, and, after a 5-min delay,ammonia is added, quickly followed by ozona-tion. The process forms hypobromite fromhypochlorite, which then reacts with theadded ammonia to form bromamines. Bro-mate formation is hence effectively minimizedas hypobromite is consumed and becomes lessavailable for bromate formation during theozonation process. The bromamines createdcan react with organics present in the water ina similar way to chloramines, providing a neg-ligible amount of disinfection prior to conver-sion back to bromide. This bromate controlstrategy allows water treated by ozone at a

higher pH, or with a longer ozone contact timeif needed, for meeting Cryptosporidium inac-tivation requirements and assisting taste andodor reduction.

Background

Potassium bromate (KBrO3) was identi-fied as a possible carcinogen in the early 1980s.It was first reported that oral administrationof potassium bromate led to renal cell tumorsin rats (Kurokawa et al., 1982) and further re-search showed that it was a probable carcino-gen to humans (Kurokawa, 1990). As a resultof this research, the U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA) added bromate to a listof contaminants for consideration of regula-tion in 1994. In 1998, EPA’s Stage 1 Disinfec-tion and Disinfection Byproducts Rule wentinto effect under the Safe Drinking Water Act,placing byproducts such as trihalomethanesand haloacetic acids under more stringent reg-ulation (EPA, 1998).

Bromate is a disinfection byproduct(DBP) associated with ozonation. Ozone as adisinfection method is becoming more popu-lar in the United States to meet higher disin-fection requirements, as well as increase tasteand odor control, going from 40 ozone instal-lations in 1991 to close to 280 in 2012 (Leobet al., 2013; EPA, 1999). The increasing mar-ket penetration of ozone combined with thenew EPA regulations made bromate mini-mization increasingly important.

The bromate formation mechanism dur-ing ozonation is well studied and primarilyconsists of three pathways. The first is a directpathway involving molecular ozone; the sec-ond is a direct-indirect pathway involving firstmolecular ozone and then hydroxyl radicalsfrom ozone decomposition; and the third is anindirect-direct pathway where the hydroxylradicals react first, then the molecular ozone(Song et al., 1997; von Gunten and Hoigné,1994; Haag and Hoigné, 1983). Von Guntenand Oliveras (1998) incorporated additionalreactions and successfully confirmed themodel based on laboratory experiments and

kinetic modeling. Based on bromate forma-tion mechanism, a novel approach using achlorine-ammonia process was developedusing a bench-scale ozonation system and itsefficiency evaluated at varying pH, ozone ex-posure, and chlorine concentrations (Buffle etal., 2004). Wert et al. (2007) confirmed the ef-ficacy of the chlorine-ammonia process forbromate reduction in a pilot-scale ozonationsystem using Colorado River water and vali-dated the pilot results with full-scale imple-mentation.

The water from the Hillsborough Riveris dramatically different from the ColoradoRiver. During the wet season, total organiccarbon (TOC) could spike up to 45 mg/L dueto the large amount of organic matter flushedout of the swamp and tributaries by heavyrains into the river. Color and other waterquality characteristics vary seasonally as well,which poses a unique challenge in treating theHillsborough River water. The purpose of thisstudy was to evaluate the chlorine-ammoniaapproach for bromate control using the Hills-borough River water, and determine the opti-mal doses and the associated financial benefit.As illustrated in Figure 1 of the general treat-ment process at the Facility, pH is controlledat 4.5 for enhanced coagulation. After coagu-lation/flocculation, pH is raised to 6.5 byadding lime or Ca(OH)2 (calcium hydroxide)before the bromide-containing water istreated by ozone. After ozonation, lime can nolonger be used for pH adjustment as it willcause a turbidity issue. As a result, causticsoda or sodium hydroxide (NaOH) has to beadded at two locations downstream of theozone to further increase pH to around 7.8

Bench-Scale Evaluation of Chlorine-Ammonia Process for

Bromate Control During Ozonation Hongxia Lei, Dustin W. Bales, and Jon S. Docs

Hongxia Lei is the water quality assuranceofficer and Jon S. Docs is seniorenvironmental scientist with City of TampaWater Department. During this project,Dustin W. Bales was a graduate student atthe University of South Florida and anintern with City of Tampa.

F W R J

before the water is sent to customers. This pHcontrol strategy is costly as only limitedamounts of lime can be used. Lime has a four-fold advantage over caustic soda as it costshalf as much, and its bivalent nature makes ittwice as effective. For this reason, the chlo-rine-ammonia process was investigated, asthis will allow ozone to occur at higher pHwithout violating bromate MCL, which willresult in more lime usage and less caustic sodaconsumption.

Materials and Methods

ReagentsThe Indigo Stock Solution consisted of

0.770 g of ACS-grade potassium indigotrisulfonate and 1 millilitre (mL) of 85 per-cent high-performance liquid chromatogra-phy (HLPC)-grade concentrated phosphoricacid per 1 liter of solution. The stock wasstored in an amber bottle for less than fourmonths. The Indigo Reagent Solution con-sisted of 50 mL of the Indigo Stock Solution,11.5 g of sodium phosphate monobasicmonohydrate, and 7.0 mL of HPLC-gradeconcentrated phosphoric acid. It was storedin an amber bottle for less than one week.The 100-mg/L bromide stock was created bydiluting 1000 parts per mil (ppm) bromidestock solution. The 400 ppm ammonia stockcontained 1529 milligrams (mg) of ammo-nium chloride per liter of solution. Chlorinestock had a target concentration of 600 ppm,and was made by adding 11 mL of 5-6 per-cent hypochlorite stock solution to 1 liter ofwater. Chlorine stock solution concentrationwas tested weekly to determine if the concen-tration remained steady. All solutions wereprepared with distilled deionized water (DDIwater).

Ozone stock solution was created by dis-solving a mixture of ozone and oxygen gasgenerated by an ozone generator operated at50 percent capacity and 1 liter per min oxygenflow rate into DDI water using a coarse gaswash bottle. Off-gas was treated with a sodiumthiosulfate solution for quenching. The gaswash bottle was placed in an ice bath prior togeneration. The generator was run for 30 minto achieve a steady state solution.

Experimental MethodsA 100-ml gastight syringe was used as the

reactor vessel in all experiments. The syringewas placed inside of a water bath, which wasmaintained at 20ºC. The syringe was con-nected to the outside of the water bath using1/16-in. diameter 316 stainless steel tubingwith a control valve for sampling and chemi-cal dosing (Figure 2).

Prior to each experiment, the pH of thetest water was adjusted to pH 7 using hy-drochloric acid or sodium hydroxide, fol-lowed by a bromide spike. Afterwards, thesample was placed in the reactor with theplunger removed. The syringe was filled tothe top, and the plunger was then pushed into ensure no air was in the syringe. A stirbar placed inside the reactor was stirred bya waterproof stir plate inside the water bath.The volume inside the reactor was adjustedto 85 mL. Some of the sample was retainedin a 5-ml syringe for final volume adjust-ment. After approximately 10 min (allow-ing temperature to adjust from roomtemperature), chlorine was added in the ap-propriate dose using a 500-µl gastight sy-ringe.

Approximately 1 mL of the retained sam-ple in the second syringe was used to flush thechlorine from the tubing into the reactor. After5 min, the ammonia was added in the appro-priate dose and flushed into the reactor usingthe same syringes and process. One min afterthe ammonia dosing, 7-8 mL of ozone stocksolution was added to the reactor. The stockwas then flushed out of the tubing and the vol-ume adjusted to exactly 100 mL using the 5-ml syringe. The 5-ml gastight syringes wereused to pull ozone samples from the reactor.They were prefilled with 3 mL of indigoreagent solution. Samples were taken everymin for the first 10 min, and less frequentlyafter 10 min until the ozone concentration was0.1 mg/L or below.


Continued on page30

Figure 2. Experimental Setup for the Bench-Scale Ozonation Apparatus.

Figure 1. Current Treatment Process at the Facility.

Analytical MethodsDissolved ozone was measured with a

spectrophotometer using a method similar tothe Standard Method 4500-Ozone (Chiou etal., 1995; Bader and Hoigne, 1981) in order tobe able to follow the rapid ozone decay. Bro-mate analysis was performed on an ion chro-matography system using EPA Method 300C.The CT values (ozone concentration × contacttime) were obtained by integrating the ozonedecay curve generated in each experiment.

Experimental DesignTable 1 shows the labeling identification

used for each condition and the associated pH,bromide concentration, chlorine concentra-tion, and ammonia concentration. Three dif-ferent chlorine concentrations were used withammonia varying for each chlorine concen-tration.

A pH value of 7.0 was selected as an im-provement of the pH of 6.5 currently imple-mented at the full-scale plant in order to lowerthe cost of caustic soda, in addition to the ben-efit of better bromate control. The testing

water was collected before ozonation from thefull-scale plant. The water was analyzed forTOC (4.1 mg/L), bromide (73 µg/L), bromate(non-detect), calcium hardness (124 mg/L),ammonia (0.1 mg/L NH3-N), UV-254 (0.06),and alkalinity (48 mg/L as CaCO3).

Baseline conditions at pH 7.0 without anychlorine or ammonia addition and bromidespiked at 0, 100, 150, 200, and 250 µg/L andwere studied first to establish the initial bro-mate formation without any optimization.Since the background bromide was 73 µg/L,the actual bromide concentrations were ad-justed accordingly, as reflected in Table 1. Therest of the matrix varied ammonia for threedistinct groups of chlorine concentrationsusing ratios similar to Wert et al. (2007) withbromide fixed at 273 µg/L, a number repre-sentative of the full-scale conditions duringthe dry season. Similarly, the initial ozone dosewas selected to achieve a target CT in the rangeof 4 to 7 min·mg/L, typically encountered atthe full-scale system.

Results and Discussion

The general relationship among bro-mate, bromide, and ozone demand is pre-sented in Figure 3 based on three years offull-scale data from the Facility. The full-scale ozone contactor has internal bafflesthat separate the contactor into eight cells,with water going in from cell No. 1 and leav-ing from cell No. 8. Ozone demand is the dif-ference between the ozone dosed and theozone concentration in cell 5, which is typi-cally close to non-detect. Clearly, bromateincreases with either bromide concentrationsor ozone demand. Ozone demand increasesduring high TOC and high color events (datanot shown). While pH has a large effect onbromate production, it is not included in thegraph because it is fixed to a tightly con-trolled range (6.2-6.5) to prevent bromateformation at the full-scale plant, making itdifficult to see any relationship between pHand bromate formation. Before the water istreated by ozone, TOC ranges from 1-5mg/L, cycling seasonally, with the highestrange occurring during the rainy summerseason and lowest during the drier winter.Flow rate also exhibits a seasonal trend, rang-ing from a dry season low of around 60 mgdto a wet season high of 100 mgd. Bromideconversion to bromate averages 1.8 percentduring the dry season and 3 percent duringthe wet season.

Bromate formation in all conditions mustbe compared with the same CT in order toidentify the best chlorine and ammonia dos-


Figure 3. Full-Scale Ozone Demand, Bromide, and Bromate at the Facility: 2009-2011. Continued on page 32

Table 1. Experimental Matrix Used for Bromide Concentrations of 273 µg/L and pH 7.



ing for bromate control. However, the actualCT achieved in the bench-scale experimentscould be different depending on the ozonedecay kinetics and initial ozone stock solution.To compare results between replications, bro-mate values had to be normalized using CTwith linear regressions. An example of thisprocess is illustrated in Figure 4. A CT insidethe range of CTs for each replicate was used topredict the bromate at a target CT that caneasily be compared to other sets. All the nor-malized bromate formation is presented inTable 2 as “CT-adjusted bromate” with its as-sociated CT used for interpolation. Note thatonly interpolation was used, but not the ex-trapolation, because the relationship betweenCT and bromate formation is nonlinear, andthus extrapolation is inaccurate. As a result,only interpolation was used and limited by theCT range achieved under each condition andbromate numbers could not be always ad-justed to the same CT.

After adjusting each data set to a targetCT within the range, a CT-adjusted bromatevalue can be calculated; all the variations of theexperiment can then be compared, to a certainextent. The groups at 0.25 mg/L and 0.5 mg/LCl2 all had CTs within a certain range, andwere able to be adjusted to 5.3 min·mg/L and6.2 min·mg/L, respectively. The data for 0.75mg/L Cl2 did not have consistent enough CTsto allow for this, so a CT for each conditionhad to be used. A higher CT leads to a higherbromate concentration. Because of this, set ID# 7-0.45-0.75-200 in Table 2 is likely a signifi-cantly better control measure compared to setID# 7-0.3-0.75-200 due the nearly identicalbromate value, but has a significantly higherCT value.

The least effective ammonia-chlorinedosing regimen (ID# 7-0.1-.25-200) resultedin an over 50 percent reduction in bromateformation. The most effective (the last three inTable 2) resulted in an 86 percent reduction inbromate formation. At typical plant condi-tions, this represents a near-zero risk of everexceeding the MCL for bromate. Overall, hav-ing ammonia in excess causes an improvementin bromate prevention throughout all condi-tions, except when chlorine was dosed at 0.75mg/L where no additional benefit was ob-served with 0.6 mg/L ammonia. The best bro-mate formation reduction was achieved whenchlorine was dosed at 0.75 mg/L and ammoniaat 0.45 mg/L (Figure 5).

The optimal chlorine and ammonia dosesfor bromate control presented is somewhatdifferent from the results presented by Wert etal. (2007), apparently due to the difference inwater quality parameters between the Col-

Figure 4. Example of Adjusted Bromate Calculation.

Figure 5. Bromate Formation at Varying NH3 :Cl2 Ratios.

Table 2. Bromate Formation Under Various CT Values in Bench-Scale Experiments.



orado River in Nevada and Hillsborough Riverin Florida. The Wert study utilized Lake Meadwater with the following characteristics: alka-linity (137 mg/L), total hardness (288 mg/LCaCO3), TOC (2.59 mg/L), and pH (7.95).The optimal ratio found in that study was 0.5mg/L NH3 to 0.5 mg/L Cl2, which was thehighest concentration of both used in thestudy. This ratio produced less than 1 µg/Lbromate at a CT of 4.41 min·mg/L. For com-parison, the best ratio in this study is 0.45mg/L NH3 to 0.75 mg/L Cl2, which produced1.09 µg/L bromate at a CT of 6.8 min·mg/L.The results in this study demonstrated againthe impact of source water and the necessityof running bench- or pilot-scale studies beforefull-scale implementation. However, results inFigure 5 do suggest that any of the chlorineand ammonia combinations investigated inthis study would work well with at least 50 per-cent bromate reduction.

To determine the cost/benefit of switch-ing to an increased ozonation pH, the buffercapacity of the water was determined by ex-periments (Figure 6), which was almost iden-tical to the theoretical buffer curve. Currently,lime is used to increase the water’s pH from4.5 to 6.5 and caustic soda from 6.5 to 7.5.With the chlorine-ammonia bromate controlapproach, lime can be used to increase pH to7.0 and caustic soda from 7.0 to 7.5. As a re-sult of this alternative practice, based on Fig-ure 6, lime usage would increase by about 21percent of the total required pH increase, andcaustic would decrease by 11 percent.

Because the Facility typically has no bro-mate concerns outside of the months of Janu-ary-May, the decision was made to increase theozonation pH prior to completion of the full-scale plant’s ammonia and chlorine pre-ozonation dosing facilities, which will becompleted in early 2014, when bromate willagain be an issue. On May 22, 2012, the pH ofozonation was increased to 7.0; the change im-mediately resulted in cost savings in the fol-lowing months. To determine the benefit ofthe change, costs for lime and caustic sodafrom the previous year were compared to thecurrent year. Because of the bivalent nature oflime, combined with its significantly lowercost over caustic soda, the treatment plant hassaved $495,500 in a four-month period com-pared to the same period of 2010 and 2011.The month-by-month costs can be seen inFigure 7. Once the capital improvement proj-ect is complete, allowing chlorine-ammoniaapproach to control bromate and ozonationoccurring at pH 7.0 year round, the estimatedannual chemical savings will be over $1 mil-lion.


Conclusions

Bromate control using the chlorine-am-monia process is very effective, resulting in a 50percent reduction in bromate over the controlgroup in the worst case and an 86 percent re-duction in the best case. A ratio of around 1:2NH3 :Cl2 with ammonia concentration of 0.45mg/L appears to be the most effective. Whilethe ideal ratio between chlorine and ammoniadoes vary and could be different for untestedwater quality matrices, this study has shown thisapproach is very tolerant. Under any of thestudied conditions, bromate was reduced by at

least 50 percent. This implies that if a utilitydoesn’t have the resources to perform its ownbench- or pilot-scale tests, this ratio could bedirectly applied and further optimized at thefull-scale plant due to the efficacy of the process.

References

• Bader, H.; Hoigné, J., Determination ofozone in water by the indigo method. WaterResearch 1981, 15, 449-456.

• Buffle, M.-O.; Galli, S.; von Gunten, U., En-hanced bromate control during ozonation:the chlorine-ammonia process. Environ-mental Science & Technology 2004, 38 (19),5187-5195.

• Chiou, C. F.; Mariñas, B. J.; Adams,, J. Q.,Modifed indigo method for gaseios andaqueous ozone analysis. Ozone Science andEngineering 1995, 17(3), 329-344.

• Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Guid-ance Manual: Alternative Disinfectants andOxidants. 1999, http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/mdbp/upload/ 2001_01_12_mdbp_alter_ chapt_3.pdf.

• Environmental Protection Agency, Nationalprimary drinking water regulations: disin-fectants and disinfection byproducts. Fed-eral Register 1998, 63 (241), 69390-69476

• Haag, W. R.; Hoigne, J., Ozonation of bro-mide-containing waters: kinetics of forma-tion of hypobromous acid and bromate.Environmental Science & Technology 1983,17 (5), 261-267.

• Song, R.; Westerhoff, P.; Minear, R.; Amy, G.,Bromate minimization during ozonation.Journal American Water Works Association1997, 89(6), 69–78.

• Kurokawa, Y.; Hayashi, Y.; Maekawa, A.;Takahashi, M.; Kokubo, T., Induction ofrenal cell tumors in F-344 rats by oral ad-ministration of potassium bromate, a foodadditive. Gann 1982, 73 (2), 335-338.

• Kurokawa, Y.; Maekawa, A.; Takahashi, M.;Hayashi, Y., Toxicity and carcinogenicity ofpotassium bromate--a new renal carcinogen.Environmental health perspectives 1990, 87,309-35.

• Loeb, B. L.; Thompson, C. M.; Drago, J.;Takahara, H.; Baig, S., Worldwide ozone ca-pacity for treatment of drinking water andwastewater: a review. Ozone: Science & En-gineering 2012, 34(1): 64-77.

• von Gunten, U.; Hoigne, J., Bromate forma-tion during ozonization of bromide-con-taining waters: interaction of ozone andhydroxyl radical reactions. EnvironmentalScience & Technology 1994, 28 (7), 1234-1242.

• von Gunten, U.; Oliveras, Y., Advanced Oxi-dation of Bromide-Containing Waters: Bro-mate formation mechanisms.Environmental Science & Technology 1998,32 (1), 63-70.

• Wert, E. C.; Neemann, J. J.; Johnson, D.; Rex-ing, D.; Zegers, R., Pilot-scale and full-scaleevaluation of the chlorine-ammonia processfor bromate control during ozonation.Ozone: Science & Engineering 2007, 29 (5),363-372. ��


Figure 6. Buffer Capacity Curve Showing Percentages of pH Change by Lime and Caustic Soda.

Figure 7. Combined Monthly Caustic Soda and Lime Costs at the Facility: 2010-2012.


FREE BBQ DINNER

� Monday, March 24, 4:30 p.m. �

COURSES

SCHEDULE

Florida Water & Pollution Control Operators Association

FWPCOA STATE SHORT SCHOOLMarch 24 - 28, 2014

Indian River State College - Main Campus

– FORT PIERCE –

Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester ..........................$375/$405

Backflow Prevention Assembly Repairer ......................$275/$305

Backflow Tester Recertification ......................................$85/$115

Basic Electrical and Instrumentation ............................$225/$255

Facility Management Module I ......................................$275/$305

Reclaimed Water Distribution C, B & A ........................$225/$255(Abbreviated Course) ................................................$125/$155

Stormwater Management C & B ...................................$260/$290

Stormwater Management A .........................................$275/$305

Utility Customer Relations I, II & III................................$260/$290

Utilities Maintenance ....................................................$225/$255

Wastewater Collection System Operator C, B & A ......$225/$255

Water Distribution System Operator Level 3, 2 & 1 ......$225/$255

Wastewater Process Control ........................................$225/$255

Wastewater Sampling for Industrial Pretreatment& Operators................................................................$160/$190

Wastewater Troubleshooting ........................................$225/$255

Water Troubleshooting ..................................................$225/$255

CHECK-IN: March 23, 20141:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

CLASSES: Monday – Thursday........8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Friday........8:00 a.m. to noon

For further information on the school, including course registration forms and hotels, download the school announcement at www.fwpcoa.org/fwpcoaFiles/upload/2014SpringSchool.pdf

3209 Virginia AveFort Pierce, FL 34981

For more information call the

FWPCOA Training Office 321-383-9690

FWPCOA STATE SHORT SCHOOL



Kevin Vickers, Devan Henderson,

and Kristi Fries

The Central Florida Chapter of FWEA hasbeen busy in 2013. The chapter has hostedand participated in activities ranging

from outreach and volunteer events to technicalluncheons. The chapter continues to be involvedin the community, and maintains partnershipswith other organizations in planning selectevents. The following is a list of the most recentactivities attended by chapter participants.

Technical Luncheon:Securing Critical Control

Systems in the Water Industry

A technical luncheon was held on May 16at the Dubsdread Tap Room near downtownOrlando. The main topic covered was titled,“Securing Critical Control Systems in the WaterIndustry.” There was discussion on the grow-ing need for cyber security, protecting criticalinfrastructure. and security recommendations.A special thanks to the presenters, Michael Sut-ton, P.E., and Tom VanNorman, CISSP.

In addition to the lunch program, FWEApresented a scholarship for academic and lead-

ership excellence at the University of CentralFlorida (UCF) to Mason Gardberg, who is inits college of engineering and computer sci-ence. Congratulations Mason!

6th Annual ASCE/FWEA Icebreaker

The FWEA partnered with the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to hold ajoint icebreaker event on July 18 at the OrlandoScience Center. There were 193 attendees rep-resenting 13 organizations:� Florida Water Environment Association

(FWEA)� American Public Works Association

(APWA)� Florida Engineering Society (FES)� Society of Women Engineers (SWE)� Central Florida Association of Environ-

mental Professionals (CFAEP)� Metropolitan Environmental Training Al-

liance (METRA) � FWEA Central Florida Chapter (CFC)� Florida Surveying and Mapping (FSMS) � Florida Floodplain Managers Association

(FFMA)� ASCE Education Committee� ASCE Young Members Forum (YMF) � Water for People � UCF Steel Bridge Team

Also in attendance were members fromthree public entities: UCF Alumni/EngineeringDepartment, City of Orlando, and OrangeCounty. Attendees were able to enjoy a fun nightof networking as well as learn about local organ-izations. Thank you to all of the sponsors whohelped to make this year’s icebreaker a success.

Oyster Mat Party

An Oyster Mat Party was held on August6 at the AECOM office in Orlando. This eventwas in partnership with the Coastal Conserva-tion Association (CCA) and The Nature Con-servancy (TNC). Attendees helped assembleoyster shell mats that will be used to help re-store local oyster reefs. The event was a bigsuccess! There were 47 attendees, and all to-gether they assembled 60 oyster mats. Partici-pants were also given the opportunity to namea reef. A special reef in the Mosquito Lagoonwill now bear the name “FWEA-ASCE.”

FWEA/FSAWWA Annual Wastewater Utilities Panel

The Annual Wastewater Utilities Panel washeld on August 23 at the Dubsdread Tap Room.This wastewater panel discussion featured rep-resentatives from five different utilities in thecentral Florida area, consisting of VicGodlewski, P.E., with City of Orlando; AndrewNeff, P.E., with Seminole County; Jason Her-

FWEA CHAPTER CORNER

Spotlight: Central Florida Chapter

Welcome to the FWEA Chapter Corner! Each month, the Public Relations Committee of the Florida Water Environment Association hosts this article to celebrate the success of recent

association chapter activities and inform members of upcoming events. To have information included for your chapter, send the details via email to Suzanne Mechler at [email protected].

SuzanneMechler

Presenter Michael Sutton

VICKERS HENDERSON FRIES

Pictured are Nicole Kolankowsky, Angel Martin, Scott Richards, Deborah Cole.

Participants working on oyster mats.

Pictured are Kunal Nayee, Daniel Mangrove,Derek Bieber, Chuck Olsen, Kirk Fusco, AngelMartin, Deborah Cole, and Jackie Martin.


rick, P.E., with Orange County Utilities; RobertPelham, P.E., with Toho Water Authority; andTed McKim, P.E., with Reedy Creek EnergyServices. Bob Morrell, P.E., with Orange CountyUtilities, served as panel moderator and facili-tated the discussions. The luncheon had a goodturnout of 125 attendees. A special thank youto our lunch sponsors: Barney’s Pumps Inc.,Tetra Tech, and Environmental MD Inc.

14th Annual ScholarshipGolf Tournament

The chapter held its 14th Annual Scholar-ship Golf Tournament on September 20 at Fal-con’s Fire Golf Club. The proceeds from the golftournament benefit the “Gabe Delneky Scholar-ship Fund” and the “Norm Casey ScholarshipFund” for local students who are pursuing engi-neering degrees at the UCF. The tournament isfunded by donations from sponsors and com-petitors playing in the tournament. The event washighly successful, with 104 golfers participatingand over $3,500 raised for the scholarship fund.

It was a fierce competition throughoutthe day, but the first-place team was from URSCorporation and included (from left to right)Tim Todd, Kevin Goolsby, David Wilcox, andCraig Fuller.

The MTS Environmental team, consistingof (from left to right) Mark Hickinbotham, BenFries, Bob Bierhorst, and Bob Solomon, securedsecond place.

The individual contest winners includedAndy Meiers, from the MaxWest Environ-mental Systems team, for Men’s Longest Drive,and Kim Krutski, from the Atkins team, forWomen’s Longest Drive. Greg Taylor, from theCDM Smith team, received the Closest-to-the-Pin Award, and Cameron Young, from theMoss Kelley team, took home a cash prize forbeing the Putting Contest Winner.

The chapter would like to gratefully thankall of the sponsors and participants involved inthe event. The platinum sponsors were: Atkins,Black and Veatch, Carollo Engineers, CPH Inc.,Environmental-MD, Heyward Florida Incor-porated, Jones Edmunds, MaxWest Environ-mental Systems, and Tetra Tech. The silversponsors were: Arcadis, BFA EnvironmentalConsultants, CH2M Hill, and EnviroSales ofFlorida. The bronze sponsors were: HydraService Inc. and Schneider Electric.

Thank you to the volunteers who made thisevent possible. The members of the Central

Florida Chapter Golf Tournament Committeewere Kristi Fries, chair of the Golf TournamentCommittee; Nicole Kolankowsky, chair of theFWEA Central Florida Chapter; and KennyBlanton, Angel Martin, Alyssa Filippi, Jackie Mar-tin, Stacey Smich, Deborah Cole, and Jay Morris.

Kevin M. Vickers, E.I., is project engineer withKimley-Horn and Associates Inc. Devan Hender-son, P.E., is project engineer with Reiss Engineer-ing Inc. Kristi Fries, P.E., is project manager in thecapital improvement and infrastructure division atCity of Orlando Public Works Department. ��


In March 2010, the University of CentralFlorida (UCF) began a two-year ultrafil-tration (UF) pilot test at the Lake Manatee

Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in ManateeCounty. In September of that same year, a sec-ond UF pilot study commenced at the MissionSan Jose WTP in Fremont, Calif. The LakeManatee and Mission San Jose WTPs wereidentified as excellent pilot test locations, be-cause the facilities treated two distinctly dif-ferent surface water sources. The LakeManatee WTP treats water from the LakeManatee Reservoir with alum coagulation,flocculation, sedimentation, and periodicpowdered activated carbon (PAC) dosing forseasonal taste and odor events. In contrast, theMission San Jose WTP practices ferric chloridecoagulation with upflow solids contact clari-fiers to treat water from the Sacramento delta.

Fouling management is a critical compo-nent of UF operation for surface water treat-ment, and coagulation, along with otherprocesses such as preoxidation and adsorption,are useful pretreatment options for UF mem-branes (Howe & Clark, 2006; Huang et al., 2009;Campinas & Rosa, 2010; Gao et al., 2011). Whilepretreatment improves feed water quality to UFprocesses, the selection of process parameters isalso important for fouling management. Astrong correlation exists between flux and mem-brane fouling (Field et al., 1995; Howell, 1995;Wu et al., 1999; Bacchin et al., 2006), and the se-lection of items such as the backwash frequencyand duration are also significant (Kim & Di-Giano, 2006; Smith et al., 2006). Regardless ofthe pretreatment and operating strategies, foul-ing inevitably develops at the membrane sur-face. Accordingly, it is important to identifyviable cleaning chemicals and chemical mainte-nance protocols for the water being treated(Yuan & Zydney, 2000; Katsoufidou et al., 2008;Strugholtz et al., 2005; Zondervan & Roffel,2007; Porcelli & Judd, 2010; Liu et al., 2006).

Surface water variability (Ouyang et al.,2006; Boyd & Duranceau, 2012) and the dy-namic operation of pretreatment processes re-sult in a continuously changing feed waterquality to UF membranes. Accordingly, per-formance improvements may be made possibleby varying UF operating protocols in responseto changing inputs. This article presents the re-

sults of a study designed to assess the impact ofdynamic UF process operation on membranefouling and productivity. Tools for analyzingprocess data during dynamic operation are pre-sented, along with additional recommendationsfor implementing dynamic operating protocols.

Description of Ultrafiltration Pilot Units

The Lake Manatee and Mission San Jose UFpilots were each equipped with a single DurasepUPF0860 (Toyobo CO. Inc) hollow-fiber UFmembrane operated in an inside-out direct fil-tration mode. Durasep UPF0860 membranefibers are manufactured from hydrophilic poly-ethersulfone (PES) blended withpolyvinylpyrrolidone and provide 150,000 daltoncutoff and 430 ft2 of surface area. The pilot unitsoperated at a constant flux and recorded processdata at regular intervals using onboard pressuresensors, feed and filtrate turbidity meters, andflow meters. Filtrate was collected in storage tanksfor use during backwashes and chemically en-hanced backwashes (CEBs). A programmablelogic controller (PLC) was employed to automatethe pilot units and two onboard chemical injec-tion systems enabled routine CEBs.

Process Data Analysis

Process Performance AssessmentIn this article, the filtration, backwash,

and CEB functions of an ultrafiltration processare termed “process events.” These processevents are further organized into sequencesand cycles, where a sequence consists of a con-secutive filtration and backwash event, and acycle contains a number of sequences culmi-nating in a CEB. Collectively, successive se-quences and cycles determine the performanceof UF processes by influencing membranefouling. UF process performance may be as-sessed by temperature correcting the trans-membrane pressure, or TMP (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). Thetemperature-corrected TMP (TCTMP) ad-justs for the effects of water temperature onoperating pressure. Membrane-specific tem-perature correction factors (TCFs) may also beused (Duranceau & Taylor, 2011).

(Equation 1) TCTMP20°C = TMPT(TCF) = TMPT (µ20°C÷µT)

Where, • TCTMP20°C is the TMP temperature cor-

rected to 20 °C• TMPT is the TMP recorded at temperature T• µ20°C is the absolute viscosity at 20°C• µT is the absolute viscosity at temperature T

The operating TCTMP is dynamic withrespect to time and influenced by both massremoval during filtration and the developmentof “irreversible” fouling. Here, irreversiblefouling is defined as fouling that is unresolvedby physical or chemical maintenance and ischaracterized using postbackwash and post-CEB TCTMP values. Accordingly, the post-backwash TCTMP reports the operatingpressure after a backwash and incorporatesmembrane fouling that was not resolved byphysical separation. Likewise, the post-CEBTCTMP reports the operating pressure after aCEB and incorporates chemically unresolvedfouling development. Postbackwash and post-CEB TCTMP values may be used to determineitems such as the frequency of maintenanceevents and the need for more intensive chem-ical clean-in-place (CIP) procedures.

Implementation of Data Analysis to AssessPerformance Changes

An investigation of the impact of differ-ent pretreatment options on UF membranefouling was conducted at the Mission San JoseWTP. Process parameters were held constantduring the study to isolate the impact of pre-

Dynamic Operation of UltrafiltrationMembranes for Potable Water Production

Christopher C. Boyd and Steven J. Duranceau

Christopher C. Boyd, Ph.D., is projectengineer on the water treatment team atAlan Plummer Associates Inc. in FortWorth, Texas. Steven J. Duranceau, Ph.D.,P.E., is associate professor of environmentalengineering in the civil, environmental, andconstruction engineering department at theUniversity of Central Florida in Orlando.

F W R J


treated feed water on membrane performance,and the pretreatment performance summaryis presented in Figure 1. (Note that the post-backwash TCTMP values reported in the fig-ure represent the last backwash in each cycle).Prior to the pretreatment change, the operat-ing, postbackwash, and post-CEB TCTMPdata were in close proximity. These results in-dicate minimal mass loading during filtrationand negligible physically and chemically unre-solved fouling development. In contrast, thesecond pretreatment option enhanced mem-brane fouling. Variations in the operatingTCTMP suggest increased mass loading dur-ing filtration, and the elevated post-CEBTCTMP values indicate an increased chemi-cally unresolved fouling tendency. Accordingly,the second pretreatment option increasesprocess operating costs and necessitates a newchemical maintenance protocol.

Process Productivity Benchmarking: Process

Recovery, Process Utilization, and Filtrate Encumbrance

In direct filtration, the process recoveryquantifies the volume of usable filtrate that is notconsumed during maintenance events (i.e., back-washes and CEBs). Process recovery values typi-cally range between 95 and 98 percent indrinking water applications (MWH, 2005) andmay be calculated using Equation 2. While theprocess recovery quantifies the fraction of feedwater available for downstream processes or dis-tribution, it does not account for the lost pro-duction time associated with operating functionssuch as maintenance events, valve actuations, andintegrity tests. A new process utilization term ispresented as Equation 3 that benchmarks UFproductivity in terms of the theoretic maximumfiltrate volume (VFil,Max). Since the calculation ofVFil,Max assumes continuous filtrate production at

a constant flux over the duration of operation,any operating function that consumes filtrate orreduces available filtration time encumbers afraction of the VFil,Max and reduces the process uti-lization. Thus, the process utilization representsthe extent to which the UF process approachesideal performance.

(Equation 2) Percent Process Recovery = [(VFil -VBW -VCEB) ÷ VFeed](100)

(Equation 3) Percent Process Utilization = [(VFil -VBW -VCEB) ÷ VFil,Max](100)

Where,• VFil is the volume of filtrate produced• VBW is the volume filtrate consumed during

backwashes• VCEB is the volume of filtrate consumed

during CEBs• VFeed is the volume of feed water • VFil,Max is the theoretical maximum filtrate

production

Dynamic Operation

Systematic Approach to Dynamic OperationA pilot-scale test of dynamic process oper-

ation was conducted at the Lake Manatee WTP.The primary test goal was to increase produc-tivity while maintaining sustainable process per-formance. To accomplish this goal, a systematicapproach was taken to incrementally increaseprocess recovery and utilization by varying a sin-gle operating parameter at a time and monitor-ing performance. Table 1 presents a summary ofthe different operating configurations evaluatedduring testing, with parameters in bold indicat-ing a change from the previous parameter value.As shown in the table, the initial operating con-figuration (Configuration 1) had process recov-ery and utilization values of 92.0 percent and87.2 percent, respectively. Increases in the re-covery and utilization were achieved by alteringthe backwash duration, CEB frequency, and fil-tration duration within the acceptable range ofvalues recommended by the membrane manu-facturer. These parameters were selected basedon an evaluation of filtrate encumbrance and adesire to decrease chemical use.

Figure 2 presents the results of the initialfiltrate encumbrance evaluation for the UF pilot.Routine backwash events encumbered 9.51 per-cent of the VFil,Max (inclusive of valve actuation),whereas CEBs encumbered a total of 3.03 per-cent. Accordingly, it was determined that themost significant filtrate production improve-ments could be achieved by altering the back-wash protocol (Configuration 2). A decrease inthe CEB frequency in Configuration 3 yielded

Figure 1. Mission San Jose Ultrafiltration Pilot: Process Assessment

Table 1. Test Plan



an additional productivity improvement whilehalving chemical consumption, and the finalthree configurations increased process recoveryand utilization by incrementally extending thefiltration duration from 45 to 75 min.

Assessing Performance During Dynamic Operation

Figure 3 presents the postbackwash andpost-CEB TCTMP data for the six operatingconfigurations. Configuration 1 has been sub-divided into two parts to reflect differences inthe CEB chemical protocols. The initial CEBprotocol called for consecutive citric acid andsodium hypochlorite CEBs; however, an injec-tion issue limited the pilot to sodium hypochlo-rite CEBs only. The CEB system was repaired forConfiguration 1b, and sodium hydroxide wasadded to the sodium hypochlorite solution toelevate the pH above 10. The new CEB protocolsuccessfully reduced the chemically unresolvedfouling developed during Configuration 1a andmaintained stable post-CEB TCTMP values.

Table 2 presents a summary of the aver-age post-CEB TCTMP data for the six operat-ing configurations. Post-CEB TCTMP valuesgenerally increased marginally with increasingprocess recovery and utilization. However, atwo-week pilot shutdown prior to the start of

Configuration 5 resulted in a slight reductionin chemically unresolved fouling relative toConfiguration 4. The 75-min filtration time inConfiguration 6 yielded the highest averagepost-CEB TCTMP, and the plot of post-CEBTCTMP versus runtime in Figure 3 indicatesan upward trend in chemically unresolvedfouling development.

The TMP required to maintain constantflux production influences UF process operat-ing costs. Figure 4 provides a percentage-baseddistribution of the TCTMP values recordedduring each configuration. The poor CEB per-formance of Configuration 1a is reflected inthe elevated operating pressures observed at

Figure 2. Filtrate Encumbrance for Configuration 1



the start of testing. In Configuration 2, de-creasing the backwash duration by 20 secondsdid not significantly affect operating pressures;however, the subsequent reduction in CEB fre-quency (Configuration 3) resulted in a greaterpercentage of TCTMP values between therange of 2.17 to 2.67 pounds per sq in. (psi).Configuration 6 yielded the highest operating

pressures as a result of chemically unresolvedfouling development and greater mass accu-mulation during the extended filtration time.

Recommended Operating ConfigurationThe criteria for selecting an operating con-

figuration were ranked in the following order ofimportance: (1) demonstration of sustainableperformance, and (2) process recovery and uti-

lization values greater than 95 percent and 92percent, respectively. These goals were intendedto allow for an acceptable level of filtrate pro-duction, while assessing the feasibility of mini-mizing chemical use and CIP frequency. Thepilot test results show that operating Configura-tions 4–6 achieved the process recovery and uti-lization targets. However, Configuration 6yielded the highest average post-CEB TCTMPvalues and operating pressures. The consecutiveupward trend in post-CEB TCTMP values forConfiguration 6 may also have indicated the startof a chemically unresolved fouling trend. Basedon these results, Configuration 5 was identified asthe most sustainable and productive option.

Figure 5 presents the filtrate encumbrancefor Configuration 5. The changes to the back-wash duration, CEB frequency, and filtrationduration decreased the filtrate encumbrance ofthe backwash from 9.51 to 5.14 percent. TotalCEB encumbrance also improved with a de-crease from 3.3 to 1.01 percent of the VFil,Max.These productivity improvements are reflectedin the volume of filtrate produced per UFmodule, as shown in Figure 6. Under operat-ing Configuration 5, net filtrate productionwas increased by 9,472 gal/week to 137,858gal/week. Operating Configuration 6 wouldhave yielded an additional 1,707 gal/week permodule relative to Configuration 5, but mayalso have increased CIP frequency.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The dynamic operation of a surface waterUF pilot successfully increased membrane pro-ductivity, while maintaining sustainable foulingmanagement. A systematic test plan was devel-oped using the concept of filtrate encumbrance,and membrane performance was evaluatedusing operating, postbackwash, and post-CEBTCTMP values. Using these techniques, processrecovery and utilization values of 96.2 percentand 93.7 percent were achieved. A site-specificcost-benefit analysis is recommended to enhancedecision making relative to dynamic process op-eration. This economic analysis componentshould focus on identifying the tradeoffs be-tween operating costs and filtrate production atincreasing process utilization values.

Acknowledgments

The research reported herein was fundedby UCF project agreements 16208085 and16208088. Thanks are in order for the compa-nies and municipalities involved in the acquisi-tion, maintenance, and support activitiesassociated with the two ultrafiltration pilots. Thecontributions of Harn R/O Systems Inc. (Venice,Fla.), Horizon Industries Inc. (Las Vegas, Nev.),

Table 2. Lake Manatee Ultrafiltration Pilot Chemically Enhanced Backwash Assessment

Figure 3. Lake Manatee Ultrafiltration Pilot: Process Assessment


Figure 4. Lake Manatee Ultrafiltration Pilot: Operating TCTMP Distribution


Toyobo CO. Ltd. (Osaka, Japan), the AlamedaCounty Water District (Fremont, Calif.), andBruce MacLeod, Mark Simpson, KatherineGilmore, Bill Kuederle, and others of the Man-atee County Utilities Department (Bradenton,Fla.) are duly recognized and greatly appreci-ated. Additional thanks are offered to Dr.Jayapregasham Tharamapalan for his dedicatedassistance with pilot testing activities.

References

• Bacchin, P., Aimar, P., & Field, R.W. (2006).Critical and sustainable fluxes: Theory, ex-periments and applications. Journal of Mem-brane Science, 281, 42-69.

• Boyd, C.C., & Duranceau, S.J. (2012). As-sessing and maintaining membrane per-formance in a post-sedimentationultrafiltration process. Water Practice &Technology, 7(2). doi: 10.2166/wpt.2012.041

• Campinas, M., & Rosa, M. J. (2010). Assess-ing PAC Contribution to the NOM foulingcontrol in PAC/UF Systems. Water Research,44, 1636-1644.

• Duranceau, S.J. & Taylor, J.S. (2011). Mem-branes. In J. K. Edzwald (Ed.), Water qualityand treatment: A handbook on drinking water(6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

• Field, R.W., Wu, D., Howell, J.A., & Gupta,B.B. (1995). Critical flux concept for micro-filtration fouling. Journal of Membrane Sci-ence, 100, 259-272.

• Gao, W., Liang, H., Ma, J., Han, M., Han, Z.,& Li, G. (2011). Membrane fouling controlin ultrafiltration technology for drinkingwater treatment production: A review. De-salination, 272, 1-8.

• Howe, K.J., & Clark, M.M. (2006). Effect ofcoagulation pretreatment on membrane fil-tration performance. Journal of the AmericanWater Works Association, 98(4), 133-146.

• Howell, J.A. (1995). Sub-critical flux opera-tion of microfiltration. Journal of MembraneScience, 107, 165-171.

• Huang, H., Schwab, K., & Jacangelo, J.G.(2009). Pretreatment for low pressure mem-branes in water treatment: a review. Environ-mental Science & Technology, 43(9), 3011-3019.

• Katsoufidou, K., Yiantsios, S.G., & Karabelas,A.J. (2008). An experimental study of UFmembrane fouling by humic acid and sodiumalginate solutions: The effect of backwashingon flux recovery. Desalination, 220, 214-227.

• Kim, J., & DiGiano, F.A. (2006). A two-fiber,bench-scale test of ultrafiltration (UF) for in-vestigation of fouling rate and characteristics.Journal of Membrane Science, 271, 196-204.

• Liu, C., Caothien, S., Hayes, J., Caothuy, T.,Otoyo, T., & Ogawa, T. (2006). Membranechemical cleaning: From art to science. (Pall

Corporation). Retrieved fromhttp://www.pall.com/pdfs/Water-Treat-ment/mtcpaper.pdf

• MWH. (2005). Water treatment: Principlesand design (2nd ed.). In J.C. Crittenden, R.R.Trussell, D.W. Hand, K.J. Howe, & G.Tchobanoglous (Eds.). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.

• Ouyang, Y., Nkedi-Kizza, P., Wu, Q.T.,Shinde, D., & Huang, C.H. (2006). Assess-ment of seasonal variations in surface waterquality. Water Research, 40, 3800-3810.

• Porcelli, N., & Judd, S. (2010). Chemical clean-ing of potable water membranes: A review. Sep-aration and Purification Technology, 71, 137-143.

• Smith, P.J., Vigneswaran, S., Ngo, H.H., Ben-Aim, R., & Nguyen, H. (2006) A new approachto backwash initiation in membrane systems.Journal of Membrane Science, 278, 381-389.

• Strugholtz, S., Sundaramoorthy, K., Pan-glisch, S., Lerch, A., Brügger, A., & Gimbel,R. (2005). Evaluation of the performance ofdifferent chemicals for cleaning capillarymembranes. Desalination, 179, 191-202.

• United States Environmental ProtectionAgency. (2005). Membrane filtration guid-ance manual, EPA 815-R-06-009, Office ofWater, Washington, DC.

• Wu, D., Howell, J.A., & Field, R.W. (1999). Crit-ical flux measurement for model colloids. Jour-nal of Membrane Science, 152, 89-98.

• Yuan, W., & Zydney, A.L. (2000). Humic acidfouling during ultrafiltration. EnvironmentalScience & Technology, 34 (23), 5043-5050.

• Zondervan, E., & Roffel, B. (2007). Evaluation ofdifferent cleaning agents used for cleaning ultrafiltration membranes fouled by surface water.Journal of Membrane Science, 304, 40-49. ��

Figure 5. Filtrate Encumbrance for Configuration 5

Figure 6. Comparison of Net, Total, and Maximum Filtrate Production


C FACTOR


The sixth annualSouthwest FloridaWater and Waste-

water Expo went off without a hitch. Thisevent, put on by the local chapters of FWP-COA, the Florida Section of AWWA(FSAWWA), and the Florida Water Environ-ment Association (FWEA), was the most suc-cessful Expo yet! The event had three morningtraining tacks, followed up by two trainingtracks in the afternoon. Over 100 students reg-istered for the training. Both continuing edu-cation credits (CEUs) and professionaldevelopment hours (PDHs) were awarded tothose students. The exposition hall had over60 vendors and an estimated 350 peoplewalked the floor. The photos here show vari-ous activities at the Expo.

Several volunteers and all of the instruc-tors, including Jason Sciandra, with theFWEA-Southwest Chapter; Ron Cavalieri,with FSAWWA-Region V; and Jon Meyer, withFWPCOA-Region VIII, did an outstanding

job, working together to put on this outstand-ing training event.

Benefits of Membership

A new fiscal year is upon us. As you know,FWPCOA is the industry's best networking or-ganization for operators and technicianswithin Florida. As a member of FWPCOA,you:� Receive a subscription to the Florida Water

Resources Journal. This is a monthly publi-cation jointly sponsored by FWPCOA,FSAWWA, and FWEA. This publicationkeeps its subscriber's abreast of currentevents in Florida's water and wastewaterprofessions.

� Receive discounts on residency trainingcourses provided by FWPCOA. Whetheryou work in the public or private sector, youcan't afford to let technology pass you by.As you know, CEUs are mandatory with li-cense renewals, and many utilities recognizeFWPCOA certifications as increasing youreligibility for new jobs or promotions.

� Get a chance to visit other utilities in yourarea: network with your fellow industry

workers, establish contacts, and make newfriends.

This is a great time to set up a groupmembership for your organization. A groupmembership will save you time from doing re-newals individually and will help assure thatyour team has available to them the resourcesthey need to excel.

Short School Schedule

Your association is already gearing up forour Spring State Short School. The school willbe held on March 24-28, 2014, at the IndianRiver State College in Ft. Pierce, which is wherethe school has been held the last few years.Mark the date on your calendars now, andmore information on the school will be forth-coming.

Career Kudos

As president of this outstanding organiza-tion, I get the pleasure to recognize those peoplein our industry that have done some outstand-ing things. I would like to recognize one of my

Jeff PoteetPresident, FWPCOA

Water and Wastewater Expo and Membership Provide Training and Professional Development

(photos: Mike Ehlen, FWPCOA-Region 8)


team members who will be retiring from our in-dustry later this month: Ronald Weis.

Ron began his career in the drinkingwater industry in 1983 as an operator traineefor the Deltona Corporation on Marco Island.Ron’s intrinsic hunger for knowledge helpedhim quickly gain the understanding of thewater treatment process, and he rapidly roseto a leadership position in the utility.

In 1990, Ron was put in charge of a newtreatment expansion project: a high-pressurereverse osmosis (RO) treatment plant. In 1991Ron earned a Class “A” drinking water licensefrom the state of Florida and the RO plantwent online in April of 1992. In an effort toimprove operational efficiencies and reducemembrane fouling, booster pumps wereadded to the second stage of the process—thefirst application of this type in the UnitedStates. Today, this process is utilized univer-sally!

Although the utility’s ownership haschanged several times during Ron’s career (it’scurrently owned and operated by the City ofMarco Island), he has continued to work atthis facility. On November 8 of this year, after30 years of service, Ron will be retiring fromthe utility. Through Ron’s efforts, the facilityhas been recognized for outstanding opera-tional performance and safe work practicesthroughout his tenure. Although this chapterof Ron’s life will be closed, new opportunitieswill arise—and perhaps the Association will beable to tap into Ron’s expertise! Congratula-tions Ron, on an outstanding career!

Nominations Sought

I mentioned this in my last article, but Ibelieve it’s worth mentioning again: the FWP-COA nominating committee has nominatedthe current slate of officers to continue in theirrolls in 2014. Nominations will also be encour-aged from the floor during the November boardmeeting prior to the election. Those wishing topresent a floor nomination should review therelevant bylaw sections carefully, as they needto be meticulously followed. The state bylawscan be found online at www.fwpcoa.org.

Please keep in mind that this is your As-sociation. If you’re not involved in the organ-ization, we would love for you to becomeengaged. Your involvement will directly bene-fit the industry and may help you in your pro-fessional endeavors. For regional contactinformation please check out our website, lookfor the region that you belong to, and you’llfind the information you need.

The November board meeting will beheld in Daytona Beach on November 16. Ihope to see you there! ��

At the 2013 Florida Water ResourcesConference in April, two teams earned thehonor of representing the state at this year’sOperations Challenge at WEFTEC: “TeamGRU” from Gainesville Regional Utilities andCity of St. Cloud’s “Methane Madness.”

The Water Environment Federation con-ference was held October 5-10 in Chicago atthe McCormick Place Convention Center. TheOperations Challenge showcases what opera-tors and technicians do to overcome flooding,a sewer collapse, process failure, or other suchemergencies.

The contest was held October 7-8. Teamsfrom all across the United States, sponsored bya WEF member association or recognized op-erator association, competed in the event.Winners were determined by a weighted pointsystem for five events—collection systems, lab-oratory, process control, maintenance, andsafety—designed to test the diverse skills re-quired for the operation and maintenance ofwastewater treatment facilities, collections sys-tems, and laboratories ��.

(photos: Mike Delaney)

Florida Teams Compete in Operations Challenge at WEFTEC


The two teams in action during the various phases of the competition; the Gainesville team is in the blue shirts and the team from St. Cloud is wearing black shirts.

Greg Chomic,president of theFlorida WaterEnvironment As-sociation,cheered for hisstate teams.


Gunster, a businesslaw firm in West PalmBeach, announced thatGregory M. Munson, anattorney and formerdeputy secretary for waterpolicy with the Florida De-partment of Environmen-tal Protection, has joined the firm as ashareholder in its Tallahassee office.

In his most recent role at the Department,Munson supervised its activities related to thestate’s water management districts and coastaland aquatic-managed areas. He acted as one ofthe lead negotiators for Governor Rick Scott’s$880 million water quality agreement with thefederal government, recently codified by theFlorida Legislature as the long-term plan forEverglades restoration. He also oversaw revi-sion to Florida consumptive use permittingrules governing all consumptive uses of waterin the state. As general counsel, he managed lit-igation regarding the Clean Water Act and thetri-state dispute over the Apalachicola River.

In his new position, he will be a memberof Gunster’s environmental and land use prac-tice, concentrating in the area of water use andwater rights. ��

News Beat

PS Form 3526: Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation(Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685)

(1) Publication Title: Florida Water Resources Journal. (2) Publication Number 0896-1794. (3) Filing Date: 09/30/13. (4) Issue Frequency: Monthly. (5) No. of Issues PublishedAnnually: 12. (6) Annual Subscription Price: $6/members, $24/non-members. (7) Complete Mailing Address of Known Office of Publication: 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Clermont,FL 34711. Contact Person: Michael Delaney. Telephone: 352-241-6006. (8) Complete Mailing address of Headquarters or General Business Office: 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Cler-mont, FL 34711. (9) Publisher: Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc. 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Clermont, FL 34711. Editor: Rick Harmon, 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Clermont, FL34711. Managing Editor: Michael Delaney, 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Clermont, FL 34711(10) Owner: Florida Water Resources Journal, Inc. 1402 Emerald Lakes Dr., Clermont,FL 34711. Stockholders: (33 1/3% each) Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association, P.O. Box 109602, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410-9602; Florida Sec-tion/American Water Works Association, 769 Allendale Rd., Key Biscayne, FL 33149; Florida Water Environment Association, 4350 W. Cypress St. #600, Tampa, FL 33607. (11)Known Bondholders, Mortgages, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1 Percent or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: None. (12) The pur-pose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status of federal income tax purposes: Has not changed during preceding 12 months. (13) Publication Name:Florida Water Resources Journal. (14) Issue Date for Circulation Data Below: October 2012.

(16) This Statement of Ownership will be printed in the November 2013 issue of this publication. (17) Signature and Title Editor, Publisher, Business Manager, or Owner. I certify thatall information furnished on this form is true and complete: I understand that anyone who furnishes false or misleading information on this form or who omits material or informationrequested on the form may be subject to criminal sanctions (including fines and imprisonment) and/or civil sanctions (including multiple damages and civil penalties). Date: 9/30/13

Actual No. Copies ofSingle Issue PublishedNearest to Filing Date

6,9750

6,900

6,90000

6,90075

6,97598.92%

(15) Extent and Nature of Circulation

a. Total No. of Copies (Net Press Run)b. Paid and/or Requested Circulation

(1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales (not mailed)(2) Paid or requested Mail Subscriptions (Include advertisers proof copies/exchange copies)

c. Total Paid and/or Requested Circulation (Sum of 15b(1) and 15b(2)d. Free distribution by Mail (Samples, complimentary, and other free)e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail (carriers or other means)f. Total Distribution (Sum of 15c and 15f)g. Copies Not Distributedh. Total (Sum of 15g and 15g)i. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15c/15gx100)

Average No. CopiesEach Issue During

Preceding 12 Months

7,427

0

7,352

7,35200

7,352

757,427

98.99%

ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Tank Engineering And ManagementConsultants, Inc.

Engineering • Inspection

Aboveground Storage Tank SpecialistsMulberry, Florida • Since 1983

863-354-9010www.tankteam.com


ENGINEERING DIRECTORY

Showcase Your Company in the Engineering or Equipment & Services Directory

[email protected]

EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

Contact Mike Delaney at 352-241-6006

Fort Lauderdale954.351.9256

Gainseville352.335.7991

West Palm Beach561.904.7400

Jacksonville904.733.9119

Key West305.294.1645

Miami305.443.6401

Navarro850.939.8300

Orlando407.423.0030

Tampa813.874.0777 813.386.1990

Naples239.596.1715


EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORY

CentralFloridaControls,Inc.

Instrumentation Calibration

Troubleshooting and Repair Services

On-Site Water Meter Calibrations

Preventive Maintenance Contracts

Emergency and On Call Services

Installation and System Start-up

Lift Station Controls Service and Repair

Instrumentation,Controls Specialists

Florida Certified in water meter testing and repair

P.O. Box 6121 • Ocala, FL 34432Phone: 352-347-6075 • Fax: 352-347-0933

www.centra l f lor idacontrols .com

CEC Motor & Utility Services, LLC1751 12th Street EastPalmetto, FL. 34221

Phone - 941-845-1030Fax – 941-845-1049

[email protected]

• Motor & Pump Services Test Loaded up to 4000HP, 4160-Volts

• Premier Distributor for Worldwide Hyundai Motors up to 35,000HP

• Specialists in rebuilding motors, pumps, blowers, & drives

• UL 508A Panel Shop, engineer/design/build/install/commission

• Lift Station Rehabilitation Services, GC License # CGC1520078

• Predictive Maintenance Services, vibration, IR, oil sampling

• Authorized Sales & Service for Aurora Vertical Hollow Shaft Motors

Motor & Utility Services, LLC



EQUIPMENT & SERVICES DIRECTORYShowcase Your Company inthe Engineering or Equipment

& Services Directory

Contact Mike Delaney at 352-241-6006

[email protected]

Posi t ions Avai lableWater Plant Superintendent

The City of Miramar Utility Department is seeking qualifiedcandidates for a Water Plant Superintendent. This position isresponsible for supervising day to day operations of a potable watertreatment plant in the City of Miramar. It requires Florida State Class“A” Operators license and 10 years progressive supervisory experiencein water system operations. Starting salary is $48,426 annually. Formore information and to apply for this position, please go to the Cityof Miramar’s employment website at http://www.miramarjobs.us.

Senior EngineerMathews Consulting is a local South Florida civil engineeringconsulting firm located in West Palm Beach, Florida. MathewsConsulting is currently seeking a dynamic, team oriented SeniorEngineer (min. 10 years civil engineering experience) to play a key rolein our growing South Florida practice.

Candidate must have a Bachelors degree in Civil or EnvironmentalEngineering and a Florida P.E. license. The types of projects that thecandidate will be involved with include water/wastewater,pipelines/pump stations, and hydraulic modeling and engineering formunicipal infrastructure and facilities. Responsibilities will includeproject engineering/design, report writing, project management,construction field visits and interaction with clients. Candidate mustbe able to work independently and as a team player with excellentcomputer, communication and organization skills. Competitive salaryand comprehensive package including health and life insurance,retirement plan and employee incentives are available.

Please send letters of interest and resume to: Rene Mathews, MathewsConsulting Inc., 477 S. Rosemary Avenue, Suite 330, West Palm Beach,Florida 33401. Tel: 561-655-6175. Fax: 561-655-6179. Email:[email protected]

CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE

The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applicationsfor the following positions:

- Wastewater Plant Operator Class C- Water Plant Operator Class C- Collection Field Tech - I- Collection Field Tech II- Utilities Operator II- Customer Service Technician I

Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete jobdescriptions and employment application. Applications may besubmitted online, emailed to [email protected] or faxed to 407-877-2795.

City of St. Petersburg –Water Maintenance Manager IRC27324

$64,987 - $97,435 DOQ – Open Until Filled; Supervisory, technicalwork in construction, installation, maintenance and repair of potableand reclaimed water systems; requirements: high schooldiploma/GED equivalency; State of Florida Drivers License; State ofFlorida Class "A", "B" or "C" license in Water Distribution and FW &PCOA certificates in Cross Connection Control and/or ReclaimedWater - See detailed requirements, apply online atwww.stpete.org/jobs or mail resume to Employment Office, PO Box2842, St Petersburg FL 33731 EOE/DFWP/Vets.' Pref.

Town of Lake PlacidFlorida Certified Double “C” Water Treatment Plant and WastewaterTreatment Plant Operator. The Town of Lake Placid is 10 miles southof Sebring, Florida and has 26 beautiful lakes for fishing andrecreation. Call 863-699-3748 and ask for Gary Freeman. Downloadapplication form at www.lakeplacidfl.net. EOE/DFWP.

C L A S S I F I E D S


City of ClermontOPERATIONS CHIEF Position # 823

The City of Clermont is seeking a Waste Water Operations Chief.Minimum three (3) years supervisory experience in operations,maintenance and repair of public utility wastewater treatment plant.Strong management and computer skills required. Valid FL Driverslicense req. Apply to Human Resources Department at: 685 W.Montrose St., Clermont, FL 34711. Resumes will not be acceptedwithout a completed application.

Position starting pay- $19.43

Pre-employment physical, drug screen and back ground checkrequired.

EOE/Vet Pref/DFWP

Del-Jen, Inc - Water Wastewater SupervisorDel-Jen, Inc is seeking a qualified candidate for a UtilitiesWater/Wastewater Supervisor. Individual will supervises day to dayoperations in the following areas: water plant operations, waterdistribution systems, sewage collection systems, water samplingcollections and FDEP regulatory requirements. As a minimum, musthave both a current Florida Class "E" driver's license or equivalent anda current Florida Class “A” water plant operator’s certification. Seedetailed requirements at http://www.del-jen.com/. To apply by mailsend resume to Del-Jen, Inc, ATTN: HR, PO Box 33370, Pensacola, FL32508-5300. EOE

We are currently accepting employment applications for thefollowing positions:

Water & Wastewater Licensed Operator’s – positions are available inthe following counties: Pasco, Polk, Highlands, Lee

Instrumentation Technician – Pasco

Maintenance Technicians – positions are available in the followinglocations: Jacksonville, Lake, Marion, Ocala and Palatka

Employment is available for F/T, P/T and Subcontract opportunitiesPlease visit our website at www.uswatercorp.com

(Employment application is available in our website)4939 Cross Bayou Blvd.

New Port Richey, FL 34652Toll Free: 1-866-753-8292

Fax: (727) 848-7701E-Mail: [email protected]

Water and Wastewater Utility Operations, Maintenance,Engineering, Management

Utilities Storm Water Supervisor$51,494-$72,457/yr. Plans/directs the maintenance, construction,repair and tracking of stormwater infrastructure. AS in Management,Environmental studies, or related req. Min. five years’ exp. instormwater operations or systems. FWPCOA “A” Cert. req. Apply: HRDept., 100 W. Atlantic Blvd., Pompano Beach, FL 33060. Open untilfilled. E/O/E. Visit www.mypompanobeach.org for details.

Purchase Private Utilities and Operating RoutesFlorida Corporation is interested in expanding it’s market in Florida.We would like you and your company to join us. We will buy orpartner for your utility or operations business. Call Carl Smith at 727-835-9522. E-mail: [email protected]

Indian River County BCCWATER PLANT OPERATOR B

Skilled work in the operation of a water plant. This position requiresa high school diploma / GED. Must possess a Class B Florida waterplant operator's license and a valid Florida driver's license. Mustpossess knowledge of water operations and basic repair of pumps.Must be able to read meters and charts accurately. Apply: Indian RiverCounty Human Resources, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.Review full job posting and download employment application at:www.ircgov.com. Fax: (772) 770-5004. EOE/AA.

Posi t ions WantedBEVERLY BARTA - Seeking position which utilizes skill set andinternational experience in the water resource sector; Safety Surveys,Services Support, Environmental Reporting/Compliance. MS inEnviro. Engineering (U of F), REM, CESCO, and recent Small WaterSystems Laboratory Certification (U of Cal) and FL DEP Class DWater Treatment plant Operator License. email:[email protected] www.linkedin/in/beverlybarta

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES - Classified ads are $18 per line for a60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $54 minimum. Theprice includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Shortpositions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject [email protected]

Looking For a Job? The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help!

Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information.


Display Advertiser Index

American Flow Control ......................19CEU Challange ..................................27Crane Pumps ....................................39Crom ................................................33Data Flow..........................................31Elster ................................................10FSAWWA Conference ..................22-24FWPCOA Short School ......................35FWPCOA Training ..............................26Garney ..............................................13Gerber Pumps Electro Coagulation ....48Hudson Pump....................................47John Meunier ......................................9Oldcastle ..........................................46Rangeline..........................................55Regional Engineering ........................44Reiss Engineering................................5Schlumberger ..................................21Stacon ................................................2Swan ................................................37Treeo ................................................17US Water ..........................................45Xylem................................................56

Editorial Calendar

January . . . . . .Wastewater TreatmentFebruary . . . . .Water Supply; Alternative SourcesMarch . . . . . . . .Energy Efficiency; Environmental StewardshipApril . . . . . . . . .Conservation and Reuse; . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florida Water Resources Conference

May . . . . . . . . . .Operations and Utilities ManagementJune . . . . . . . . .Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production; . . . . . . . . . . . . .FWRC ReviewJuly . . . . . . . . .Stormwater Management; Emerging TechnologiesAugust . . . . . . .Disinfection; Water QualitySeptember . . . .Emerging Issues; Water Resources ManagementOctober . . . . . .New Facilities, Expansions and UpgradesNovember . . . .Water TreatmentDecember . . . .Distribution and Collection

Technical articles are usually scheduled several months in advance and are due 60 daysbefore the issue month (for example, January 1 for the March issue).

The closing date for display ad and directory card reservations, notices,announcements, upcoming events, and everything else including classified ads, is 30 daysbefore the issue month (for example, September 1 for the October issue).

For further information on submittal requirements, guidelines for writers, advertisingrates and conditions, and ad dimensions, as well as the most recent notices,announcements, and classified advertisements, go to www.fwrj.com or call 352-241-6006.

From page 20

1. D) Possible contamination throughthe atmosphere.Contamination of water through aeration is anassociated problem. The other choices listed are allbenefits of aeration. The increase in pH assists iniron removal by converting ferrous ion to ferrichydroxid,e and the reduction in hydrogen andcarbon dioxide have added benefits such as reducingchemical dosages like chlorine for disinfection.

2. C) Turbidity unitsTurbidity is a measure of the amount of lightreflected by suspended particles, though it is not ameasure of the concentration of solids because whiteparticles reflect more light than dark particles. Oftenexpressed as nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs,)water having turbidities greater than 5 NTUs isclearly visible with the naked eye.

3. A) AlgaeTastes and odors that have an earthy or grassysmell are generally related to algae. When analgae bloom (rapid and massive increase in algae)occurs, the population eventually dies off and thedecaying organic material imparts tastes andodors. Additionally, the decaying algae may createan oxygen demand and lower oxygen levels to apoint where anaerobic conditions are created.

4. D) There are no health effects.There are no direct health effects associated withcolor. Color due to iron or manganese may causered water or black staining, but neither havehealth effects. Sometimes color may be anindicator of other pollutants or contaminates inthe water that could cause sickness or disease.

5. B) Bottom of the curve.Most chemicals are water-based and the bottomof the curve of the liquids surface should be usedwhen determining chemical level. There are someexceptions, such as mercury, whose meniscus willactually curve in the opposite direction and forma slight rise in the liquids surface.

6. A) 2 to 3 gpm/sq ftA pressure filter is completely enclosed in a vesseland the water is forced through the media underpressure. Maximum filtration rates are typically2 to 3 gpm/sq ft (gal per min per sq ft). Exceedingthese filtration rates may force solids through themedia and result in increased turbidity levels inthe finished water.

7. A) Granular activated carbonGranular activated carbon, made from heatingcarbon such as wood, has high adsorptiveproperties that allow it to remove tastes andodors from drinking water. The adsorptiveproperties of activated carbon do not last

indefinitely and the spent carbon must beregenerated or replaced.

8. A) CavitationCavitation occurs when pressures drop inside ahigh-service pump that is in operation. This dropin pressure causes gas pockets to form in thewater, which then collapse, causing severedamage to the pump’s interior. This can occurwhen a pump is trying to deliver more waterthan it was designed for, commonly called“pumping off the curve.”

9. A) Acidified with nitric acid.Iron samples should be acidified with nitric acidto reduce the pH to <2. This ensures that the ironstays insoluble and does not form a scale buildupon the container wall,s resulting in anerroneously low iron result.

10. D) Remove moisture from labsamples.The desiccator is an apparatus for absorbing themoisture present in a substance. Typically, thesubstance is placed in an enclosed box, whichcontains a desiccant (drying agent) that removeshumidity (water) from the atmosphere.

Thank you to Scott Ruland, chief operator with the City of Deltona, for

providing these questions and answers.

Certification Boulevard Answer Key

florida water resources journal - november 2013

Documents

state of florida

executive manager

issue trademark names

fwpcoa operators

trademark owner

email changes

emerald lakesdrive

post office