Florida Water Resources Journal - August 2022

Page 1

Saveco FWRC FP AD 040621.qxp_Layout 1 4/6/21 2:06 PM Page 1

Are You Giving Wipes A Free Pass?

Stop Wipes before they get into your plant with a FSM Perforated Plate Belt Filterscreen.

• FSM® has been protecting plants for over 30 years. • A self-adjusting auto brush maintains optimal contact with the perf panels. • Verfied 85% debris capture.

415 Country Club Drive Winter Park, FL 32789 www.heywardFL.com

Cell (407) 948-0332 Office (407) 628-1880


Editor’s Office and Advertiser Information: Florida Water Resources Journal 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive Clermont, FL 34711 Phone: 352-241-6006 Email: Editorial, editor@fwrj.com Display and Classified Advertising, ads@fwrj.com

Business Office:

1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711 Web: http://www.fwrj.com General Manager: Michael Delaney Editor: Rick Harmon Graphic Design Manager: Patrick Delaney Mailing Coordinator: Buena Vista Publishing Published by BUENA VISTA PUBLISHING for Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. President: Richard Anderson (FSAWWA) Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Vice President: Jamey Wallace (FWEA) Jacobs Treasurer: Rim Bishop (FWPCOA) Seacoast Utility Authority Secretary: Mish Clark Mish Agency

Moving? The Post Office will not forward your magazine. Do not count on getting the Journal unless you notify us directly of address changes by the 15th of the month preceding the month of issue. Please do not telephone address changes. Email changes to changes@fwrj.com or mail to Florida Water Resources Journal, 1402 Emerald Lakes Drive, Clermont, FL 34711

Membership Questions FSAWWA: Casey Cumiskey – 407-979-4806 or fsawwa.casey@gmail.com FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318 FWPCOA: Darin Bishop – 561-840-0340

Training Questions FSAWWA: Donna Metherall – 407-979-4805 or fsawwa.donna@gmail.com FWPCOA: Shirley Reaves – 321-383-9690

For Other Information DEP Operator Certification: Ron McCulley – 850-245-7500 FSAWWA: Peggy Guingona – 407-979-4820 Florida Water Resources Conference: 407-363-7751 FWPCOA Operators Helping Operators: John Lang – 772-559-0722, e-mail – oho@fwpcoa.org FWEA: Karen Wallace, Executive Manager – 407-574-3318

Websites Florida Water Resources Journal: www.fwrj.com FWPCOA: www.fwpcoa.org FSAWWA: www.fsawwa.org FWEA: www.fwea.org and www.fweauc.org Florida Water Resources Conference: www.fwrc.org Throughout this issue trademark names are used. Rather than place a trademark symbol in every occurrence of a trademarked name, we state we are using the names only in an editorial fashion, and to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the trademark. None of the material in this publication necessarily reflects the opinions of the sponsoring organizations. All correspondence received is the property of the Florida Water Resources Journal and is subject to editing. Names are withheld in published letters only for extraordinary reasons. Authors agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Florida Water Resources Journal Inc. (FWRJ), its officers, affiliates, directors, advisors, members, representatives, and agents from any and all losses, expenses, third-party claims, liability, damages and costs (including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees) arising from authors’ infringement of any intellectual property, copyright or trademark, or other right of any person, as applicable under the laws of the State of Florida.

News and Features 4 EPA Announces $18 Million for Training and Technical Assistance for Small, Rural, and Tribal Wastewater Improvements 6 AWWA Begins Water 2050 Initiative to Prepare for a Sustainable Water Future 35 News Beat 45 Drop Savers Poster Contest Winners Announced—Melissa Velez 48 APWA Announces 2022 Public Works Project of the Year Award Winners 52 AWWA Launches New Source Water Protection Week 64 Technology Spotlight: YSI Ammonium and Nitrate Sensors for C1D2-Rated Areas

Technical Articles 10

eview of Nitrification and Distribution System Water Quality—Frederick Bloetscher and Daniel E. R Meeroff 24 Monochloramine Disinfection for Alternative Water Supplies—Sean P. Menard and Thomas W. Friedrich 54 Maintain Disinfection Residuals and Reduce Flushing With Chlorine Dioxide—Shelby Hughes, Rhea Dorris, and Madison Rice

Education and Training 19 2023 Florida Water Resources Conference 36 FWPCOA Training Calendar 38 FSAWWA Fall Conference General Information 39 FSAWWA Fall Conference Registration 40 FSAWWA Fall Conference Poker Night and Happy Hour 41 FSAWWA Fall Conference Par-Tee at TopGolf 42 FSAWWA Fall Conference Water Distribution Awards for Excellence 43 FSAWWA Fall Conference Competitions 44 FSAWWA Fall Conference Water Conservation Awards for Excellence 49 TREEO Center Training 53 CEU Challenge

Columns 18 Test Yourself—Donna Kaluzniak 20 FWEA Focus—Sondra W. Lee 22 Let’s Talk Safety: Accident Investigation: Key to Preventing Future Accidents 50 FSAWWA Speaking Out—Emilie Moore 60 C Factor—Patrick “Murf” Murphy 66 Reader Profile--Mauricio A. Linarte

Departments 68 70

Classifieds Display Advertiser Index

Volume 73

ON THE COVER: The City of St. Cloud Southside Water Reclamation Facility. For more information about the facility and monochloramine disinfection, go to page 24. (photo: Sean P. Menard)

August 2022

Number 8

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; and the Florida Water Environment Association. Members of all three associations receive the publication as a service of their association; $6 of membership dues support 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

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


EPA Announces $18 Million for Training and Technical Assistance for Small, Rural, and Tribal Wastewater Improvements The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced up to $18 million in available federal funding to build a pipeline of technical assistance (TA) providers that can serve rural, small, and tribal municipalities through the Clean Water Act Prevention, Reduction, and Elimination of Pollution Grant Program. This investment delivers on President Biden’s Justice40 initiative and will support TA providers to help utilities improve vital wastewater management that is essential to healthy communities. This funding will also elevate the impact from Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding available to small, rural, and tribal communities. The Training and Technical Assistance for Rural, Small, and Tribal Municipalities and Wastewater Treatment Systems for Clean Water Act Prevention, Reduction, and Elimination of Pollution Grant Program was established by the America’s Water

Infrastructure Act of 2018. The program aims to provide training and tools to improve small wastewater system operations and management practices, making them more sustainable and resilient, and supporting EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment. “All communities need clean and safe water and EPA is committed to helping them meet that need,” said Radhika Fox, EPA assistant administrator for water. “The agency is pursuing multiple approaches to help, including grant funding that can be used to help unlock investments through the historic bipartisan law that addresses infrastructure.” This grant program highlights EPA’s priorities to advance equity, address climate change, and help bridge the gap between community needs and federal funding. The EPA is seeking applications from organizations with experience delivering results-oriented

4 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

technical assistance to rural, small, and tribal publicly owned wastewater systems and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Once selected, grantees will provide technical assistance in the following areas: S A cquisition of financing and funding S P rotection of water quality and compliance assistance S T ribal wastewater systems S D ecentralized wastewater systems S L agoon wastewater systems By prioritizing investment and technical assistance in small, rural, and tribal systems, EPA is taking another step to fulfill the Biden Administration’s commitment to help all communities benefit from the BIL. This initiative intends to ensure that federal agencies deliver at least 40 percent of benefits from certain investments, including water and wastewater infrastructure, to underserved communities. S

Settled Solids Management

WWTP Tank Cleaning Florida’s Original On-Line Tank Cleaning Service Since 1982

Inventors of Sand Dragon Technology

State Funding Available to Pay for Cleaning - Contact us for Details!

WE REMOVE GRIT WHILE YOUR PLANT REMAINS IN SERVICE & FULL OF WATER Eliminate Your Grit: visit SSM.Hydro-int.com or call 407.322.0330 or email SSM@Hydro-int.com

AWWA Begins Water 2050 Initiative To Prepare For Sustainable Water Future The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has announced its landmark Water 2050 initiative, a collaborative exploration to envision the future of water and chart a course for water community success and sustainability. “Water 2050 will prepare us for the future of water—how it’s managed, protected, collected, treated, distributed, used, and returned to the environment,” said Chi Ho Sham, AWWA past president. “With outsidethe-box thinking, a longer-term view, and cross-discipline corroboration, we will make the water community a better steward of the world’s most vital resource in a proactive and resilient way.” The multi-year initiative is anchored in five intimate think tanks, where both young and more-experienced thought leaders examine the future of water through the prisms of sustainability, technology, economics, governance, and social/ demographic. Recommendations flowing from each facilitated think tank will serve as calls to action for AWWA, its sections, and the wider water community. In addition, AWWA members will engage in Water 2050 discussions and provide input at AWWA events over the next two years.

Official Launch: June 13, 2022 Water 2050 was launched at AWWA’s 2022 Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE22), which was held June 12-16 in San Antonio, with a keynote panel discussion on the initiative and a Water 2050 exhibit in the AWWA Pavilion. A video, “The Future We Create,” featuring thoughts from AWWA young professionals on the future of the industry, is in development and will be

shown at water-related events throughout the initiative. “With so many challenges and opportunities on the horizon, this is certainly the right moment to take a longer strategic view of the future and engage with bold, innovative thinkers,” said Joe Jacangelo, AWWA president. “We cannot know exactly how the world will look in 2050, but if we think critically and collaboratively with others, we can develop a more perspicuous understanding of how to prepare for it.” A select advisory team is developing the Water 2050 event design and providing leadership and guidance. The team includes: S Andy Richardson, chair emeritus at Greeley and Hansen S Sue McCormick, AWWA past president and former Great Lakes Water Authority chief executive officer S Jennifer Sara, global director for the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice. The first Water 2050 think tank is to be held Sept. 21-23, 2022, at the Springs Preserve in Las Vegas, where 20 to 25 thought leaders will explore issues related to the sustainability driver. The gathering will be facilitated by Strategies with Rox.

Program Impetus and Goals The AWWA board of directors and six advisory councils planted the first seeds for Water 2050 during a council summit discussion in Denver in October 2021. During that gathering, the board and council members identified several critical drivers that would influence the future of water and the work of water professionals. “Water 2050 will significantly influence

6 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

how AWWA builds member value and engages the water community in the years ahead,” said David LaFrance, AWWA chief executive officer. “It will also be a foundation for collaboration with new and existing partners who will help us understand the challenges we face. “Collaboration is the key,” LaFrance added. “Water 2050 will only be successful if there is engagement from many partners and forward-looking experts from within and outside the water profession.”

Next Steps Starting in 2022 and working through the end of 2023, those involved with Water 2050 will: Engage in Meaningful Conversations Thought leaders from within and outside the water sector will gather at the think tanks to examine the future of water through the prism of five key drivers. Enlist Strategic Partners Collaboration among water utilities, service providers, academia, water-sector organizations, and nontraditional partners will be essential. They will reach beyond the water sector to engage corporate water users, nonprofit organizations, and other stakeholder groups for fresh insights. Foster Intergenerational Responsibility The water leaders of today and tomorrow must work together to create a successful future. The voices of young and emerging professionals will be key throughout the initiative. Continued on page 8

Cleaner Water for a Brighter Future® is a registered trademark owned by Lakeside Equipment Corporation. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. © 2022 Lakeside Equipment Corporation.

Visit us at BOOTH #2729 October 10-12, 2022 New Orleans, LA

FLEXIBILITY IS ONLY ONE ADVANTAGE OF OUR CLOSED LOOP REACTOR PROCESS. We have more than 60 years of experience in oxidation ditch technology and more than 2000 installations. Lakeside’s CLR process offers a variety of wastewater treatment options, including several operational modes, nitrogen and phosphorus removal, and an adaptable configuration, providing maximum flexibility with consistently high quality effluent. The CLR process is simple to operate and can be configured in several shapes, including the conventional racetrack, folded U-shape or concentric multichannel designs. Lakeside’s staff delivers full service from initial concept through construction to plant operation. The result: reliable results with minimal operator attention and maintenance. When performance counts, count on the industry leader for more than 90 years!

REPRESENTED LOCALLY BY: Trippensee Shaw, Inc. Eustis and Sebring, FL www.TrippenseeShaw.com T. 863.382.2101

Florida Panhandle Only T: 205.424.7570 www.eshelmancompany.com

Cleaner Water for a Brighter Future® Speak to one of our experts at 630.837.5640, email us at sales@lakeside-equipment.com, or visit www.lakeside-equipment.com for more product information.

CLR Process Components Magna Rotors Velocity Control Baffles Rotor Covers Level Control Weirs E.A. Aerotor Process Monitoring and Control Systems

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 6 Capture Collective Knowledge AWWA will report on insights from each think tank and publish additional guidance to support the water community in realizing the Water 2050 vision. All of this supports the critical mission of the water community: safe water, healthy people, and a sustainable planet. This will be done by examining the five critical drivers of the future of water.

The Future of Water: Five Forces Five critical drivers have been identified that will influence progress toward a sustainable and resilient water future. These drivers will be considered by the Water 2050 think tanks and shape all future work supported by this initiative. Sustainability Managing the planet’s limited water resources and built infrastructure for water is paramount. Climate change is among the biggest risks. It will bring conditions that are more forceful and less predictable: extended droughts and heatwaves, increased hurricanes and wildfires, and severe winter storms. The future will require skillful and creative stewardship of our most vital natural resource, as well as innovative approaches to keep water infrastructure strong and resilient. Technology As the world enters the fourth industrial revolution, water professionals have access to new technologies that are changing the way they interact with water resources,

water systems, and the people they serve. Advances in data, analytics, the Internet of Things (IoT), machine learning, and artificial intelligence will increasingly empower consumers and influence water system operations. Adoption of new technologies will solve complex problems and sometimes introduce unintended challenges.

public trust. Simultaneously, potential population shifts between urban and rural areas are creating resource and infrastructure challenges, while also forcing communitydriven water solutions. Population growth in water-stressed communities will require innovative thinking to manage limited supplies.

Economics Water is a critical economic engine for North American communities and across the globe. Increasingly, the water community is asked to do more with less, while also addressing rising infrastructure needs. Economic factors, such as regionalization; supply chain resilience; decentralized treatment; and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, should be considered when assessing risks and value and the benefits of a circular economy. Rate setting will occur in a world more keenly aware of equity and affordability challenges.

Charting the Future

Governance The roles of federal, provincial, state, and local governments significantly impact how water utilities are operated and regulated. Both economics and governance will shape the model of tomorrow’s water utilities. Some communities may turn to regional solutions to gain efficiencies. As regulatory structures evolve, communities will have to evaluate new approaches, such as fit-for-purpose standards and decentralized treatment. Social/Demographic Public interest and concern about water quality and equity is rising, which means that all communities must work to strengthen

8 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

The launch of the Water 2050 initiative is a bold and exciting step for the U.S. water sector and should act as a springboard for the adoption of smart technology and other innovations for the industry. The multiyear exploration will chart a course for sustainability and success. “When I’m asked why AWWA is undertaking the immense initiative of Water 2050, the answer is clear,” said LaFrance. “Most people think that water is simple, and we know that it’s not. Water 2050 will bring together wide-ranging voices to address these complexities for a better water future. We want to drive water’s future—not wait for the future to come to us.” More information about the initiative is available at www.awwa.org on the Water 2050 resource page. S


Want More from Your

Belt Press?

The P6 Difference Zero Pump Maintenance 10-Year Wear Warranty Reduce Polymer Increase Cake Solids Optimize System (Also Centrifuges and Screw Presses)

CONTACT: Stephen Gerber www.p6polymix.com

PHONE: 407 834 9104

EMAIL: sales@gerberpumps.com www.gerberpumps.com

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Review of Nitrification and Distribution System Water Quality Frederick Bloetscher and Daniel E. Meeroff


he goal of water utilities is to provide highquality drinking water that does not pose a public health concern, and to provide sufficient quantities of that water when needed to their customers (Bloetscher, 2011). An adequate and safe potable water supply is a key requirement for a stable society; however, the provision of safe drinking water is a public trust issue—the public trusts the utility system’s ability to deliver adequate supplies of safe drinking water. The expectation of water systems in the United States and Canada is that they will operate 24 hours a day, uninterrupted, and provide safe, clean drinking water for all who need it (Bloetscher, 2008). When these expectations are not met, problems with public trust will likely occur; Flint, Mich., is a prime example. Rarely does the public understand what is required to meet these expectations, which is a credit to the effectiveness to which these systems have been designed and operated for well over 100 years. The proof is that, in the U.S., for the most part, publicly owned water and sewer systems comply with all regulations on a consistent basis, but the backlog of infrastructure needs means that longer-term compliance may become an issue. Biofilms are one of the issues that can complicate regulatory compliance.

Biofilms Defined Biofilms result from microorganisms, which are the most widely distributed life forms on the planet (Chapelle, 1993). They are known to inhabit and thrive in the presence of moisture and nutrients, both of which exist in plentiful supplies in water distribution networks, where microorganisms can grow in the form of biofilms (Videla, 1996). Biofilms are complex aggregates of microorganisms embedded in a highly hydrated extracellular matrix that show structural heterogeneity resulting from a diverse and complex microcosm. Biofilms are often observed as an unwanted accumulation attached to a surface, such as the inner wall of a water distribution pipeline. During biofilm growth, microorganisms excrete extracellular polymeric substances, which lead to the formation of a slime layer that connects cells and anchors them to the surface and to each other. From the microbial

perspective, biofilms provide an ideal habitat as a source of nutrients, oxygen stratification, resistance to velocity currents, and protection from grazers and biocides (Videla, 1996). From the utility perspective, the undesirable accumulation of biofilms with actively growing slime layers can lead to biofouling. If left uncontrolled, biofilms can catalyze the formation of calcium carbonate deposits that restrict the effective pipe diameter and become a considerable issue for water distribution systems, particularly with regard to hygienic, operational, and economic consequences. Pathogenic microorganisms have been isolated from biofilms, including viruses, fungi, yeast, protozoa (such as amoebae and ciliates), invertebrates, and microbial toxins (Eboigbodin et al., 2008; Bachmann and Edyvean, 2006; Meeroff et al., 2019; and references therein). The presence of these microorganisms in potable water distribution systems represents a potential public health threat. Specifically, release of pathogens harbored in biofilms can lead to an increase in the incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms from waterborne infections caused by bacterial, viral, and parasitic microorganisms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified biofilms as the source for 65 percent of human bacterial infections from community water supply-associated outbreaks (EPA, 2008c). Gofti et al. (1999) reported epidemiological evidence that children showed close to four digestive problems per person per year and one episode of diarrhea per person per year, attributable to pathogens that developed in the water transmission network after centralized disinfection. According to the World Health Organization, diseases associated with unsafe water distribution, sanitation, and hygiene cause approximately 1.7 million deaths per year (Prentice, 2002). Mature biofilms in drinking water distribution systems are a highly diverse potential source of human pathogens. A wide range of primary pathogens (i.e., that cause disease in healthy individuals) and opportunistic pathogens (i.e., that cause disease in individuals with underlying conditions that may facilitate infection) have demonstrated the ability to survive and thrive in biofilms. Primary pathogens, opportunistic pathogens and indicator organisms, including

10 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Frederick Bloetscher, Ph.D., P.E., and Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D., E.I., are professors at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton.

Clostridium (Emde et al., 1992), E. coli (Emde et al., 1992; Geldreich, 1996; Sartory and Holmes, 1997), Enterobacter (LeChevallier et al., 1987; Emde et al., 1992; Geldreich, 1996; Sartory and Holmes, 1997; Lee and Kim, 2003), Legionella (Murga et al., 2001), Pseudomonas (LeChevallier et al., 1987; Emde et al., 1992; Geldreich, 1996; Norton and LeChevallier, 2000; Lee and Kim, 2003), and Staphylococcus (Gelreich, 1996; Lee and Kim, 2003), among others (see Bloetscher et al., 2010; Meeroff et al., 2019), have been reported in biofilms collected from water distribution networks. An important point to consider is that only coliforms are routinely analyzed for in drinking water, as mandated under the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the Groundwater Rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); however, the pathogens and opportunistic pathogens are not. Table 1 summarizes some of the bacteria typically found in a biofilm. In addition to health effects resulting from pathogens, biofilms can also contribute to taste, odor, and color issues, which may lead to operational changes at the treatment plant or for the transmission network. Biofilms may also compromise the proper enumeration of indicator organisms and weaken pipe integrity by microbially influenced corrosion (MIC), which is defined as a microbially mediated electrochemical process that permits the onset and acceleration of corrosion (Videla, 1996). Once mature colonies are established, the effects of MIC are often seen. Microbes cause corrosion directly through metabolic processes that form corrosive chemical species, such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, sulfate, ferric, or manganic chlorides (Dillon, 1995). Within the community structure of the biofilm, sulfur can be reduced by anaerobic bacteria to release hydrogen sulfide, which can significantly increase the susceptibility of the pipe to pitting. At the same time, any aerobic bacteria present in the biofilm can corrode metals directly via oxidation. The heterotrophic biomass typically found in a biofilm is supported by the

synergistic effects of mixed growth rates, mixed metabolisms, and high surface-area-to-volume ratios, which allow the biofilm to remain active within the relatively hostile conditions of a pipe environment. For water distribution systems constructed with metallic materials, corrosion and corrosion control are ongoing issues that, if not addressed, can result in pipe damage/failure, premature aging/replacement, clogging, and increased maintenance requirements. Proper corrosion control has also been shown to increase disinfection effectiveness on biofilms in iron pipes (Le Chevallier et al., 1990). This all raises the question: Can the existence of biofilms be verified in the water distribution system, and if so, where does it come from and what can be done about it?

Table 1. Bacteria Commonly Found in Distribution System Biofilms (from Bloetscher et al., 2021).

Ideal Conditions for Biofilm Growth Biofilm growth in water distribution systems occurs when microorganisms attach themselves to the pipe walls. The steps in the life cycle of a biofilm include attachment, slime formation, growth, and detachment, or sloughing (Videla, 1996). Key requirements for biofilm development include an active microbial community and interaction with pipe materials (Videla, 1996). The first microorganisms to attach are called “pioneers,” which are most commonly facultative anaerobes that excrete a mass of extracellular polysaccharides, forming the foundation for colonization and further growth. Fleming and Wingender (2001) estimated that 50 to 90 percent of the biofilm matrix was extracellular material, while only 25 percent was cell matter. Through microbially mediated redox mechanisms, micronutrients are released within this growing layer, which attracts other species. As the biofilm continues to coat the pipe surface, acid formers can reduce the pH near the pipe wall and accelerate corrosion (Videla, 1996). This phenomenon can create localized anodes and, in conjunction with abiotic reactions caused by dissimilar metals or pipe defects, can lead to a steady cathodic deterioration over time. As the biofilm matures, it grows thicker from the diverse community of microorganisms attracted to the biofilm and from the accumulation of particles that stick to the extracellular polymer matrix. Once a critical thickness is achieved, a depleted oxygen layer forms near the wall and an anaerobic environment, in which sulfatereducing bacteria (SRB) proliferate because the transport of oxygen into the anaerobic layer of the biofilm is limited by the biological activity in the upper layers, is created. The appearance of SRB is indicative of mature biofilm growth, but the biofilm cannot continue to increase in thickness

indefinitely. The bulk fluid velocity will act to reduce the thickness of the biofilm on the pipe wall as a result of friction and shear. Periodically, portions of the growing mass become detached (sloughing), releasing bacteria into the bulk fluid. Sloughing can also occur if the system is disturbed by changes in the water velocity, water quality, or water hammer. Sloughing spreads the biofilm. A variety of factors are known to affect biofilm development in distribution networks, including environmental parameters (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc.), water quality (nutrients, inorganics, dissolved organic carbon, etc.), pipe materials, system hydraulic regime (stagnant conditions), corrosion control measures, presence of a disinfectant residual, and sediment accumulation (Meeroff et al., 2019; and references therein). Most of the data on the factors that influence biofilm development are based on changes in total viable counts (e.g., heterotrophic plate count) or on changes in the growth of specific microorganisms (e.g., total coliforms). Although a number of comprehensive review articles have been published (Geldreich, 1996; Geldreich and LeChevallier, 1999; Batté et al., 2003; Bachmann and Edyvean, 2006), the

interaction among these factors is complex and variable, making predictions difficult. Currently, researchers lack techniques for effective detection, diagnosis, and control of biofilms. Low pH, low hardness, high chlorides, high sulfates, and a ratio of chlorides to bicarbonate above 0.3 all indicate a greater potential for corrosion and biofouling (Geldreich, 1996). One effective diagnostic tool involves the heterotrophic plate count (HPC) test. Samples that yield HPC counts of more than 500 colonyforming units (CFU)/100 mL and have chlorine residuals less than 0.2 mg/L typically indicate stagnant water or conditions that promote biofilm growth (Geldreich, 1996). Since HPC is nonselective, biofilm material can be collected from a pipe and cultured to isolate specific organisms or their deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) signatures (Meeroff et al., 2019). For instance, persistent coliform levels may indicate extensive biofilm shedding (Crozes and Cushing, 2000). Biofilms can become a point source of coliforms, leading to TCR violations; therefore, mechanisms for controlling biofilms may be of benefit to reducing coliform levels, as well as other opportunistic pathogens. Continued on page 12

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 11

Nitrification in the Water Distribution System Another result of biofilms is nitrification. Nitrite and nitrate are produced during nitrification through ammonia utilization by nitrifying bacteria found in the biofilms. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2002), the microbial process for nitrification involves two steps. The first step is the reduction of nitrogen compounds (primarily ammonia), which are sequentially oxidized to nitrite and then nitrate. The nitrification process is primarily accomplished by two groups of autotrophic nitrifying bacteria that can build organic molecules using energy obtained from inorganic sources; in this case, ammonia or nitrite. In the first step of nitrification, ammonia-oxidizing bacteria convert ammonia to nitrite, according to equation 1. NH3 + O2 → NO2- + 3H+ + 2e-


Nitrosomonas is the most frequently identified genus associated with this step, although other genera, including Nitrosococcus, and Nitrosospira, can perform this biologically mediated step. Some subgenera, Nitrosolobus and Nitrosovibrio, can also autotrophically oxidize ammonia (Watson et al., 1981). In the second step of the process, nitriteoxidizing bacteria convert nitrite to nitrate, according to equation 2 (EPA, 2002). NO2- + H2O → NO3- + 2H+ +2e-


Nitrobacter is the most frequently identified genus associated with this second step, although other genera, including Nitrospina, Nitrococcus, and Nitrospira, can also autotrophically oxidize nitrite (Watson et al., 1981). Various groups of heterotrophic bacteria and fungi can also carry out nitrification, although at a slower rate than autotrophic organisms (Verstraete and Alexander, 1973; Watson et al., 1981). Speciation of nitrifying bacteria in drinking water systems (Wolfe, 1990 and 2001) suggests that the number of heterotrophic nitrifiers in those systems may be negligible compared to autotrophic nitrifiers. According to equations 1 and 2, for every mole of ammonia-N produced, a 1-mole equivalent of nitrite-N is produced. Subsequently, for every mole of nitrite-N produced, a 1-mole equivalent of nitrate-N is produced (EPA, 2002). Ammonia can also be released from chloramines through a series of complex reactions. Reactions 2 through 6 in Table 2 describe five mechanisms of ammonia release presented by Woolschlager et al. (2001). According to Valentine et al. (1998), the overall net stoichiometries can be used to examine the relationship between chloramine decay and ammonia production. It should be noted that nitrifying bacteria are obligate aerobic organisms commonly found in terrestrial and aquatic environments (Holt et al., 1995; Watson et al., 1981). Their growth rates are controlled by: substrate (ammonia-N) concentration, temperature, pH, light, oxygen concentration, and microbial community composition (EPA, 2002). These issues are discussed further. Under the SDWA, primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established for nitrite-N, nitrate-N, and the sum of nitrite-N plus nitrate-N. The MCLs are 1 mg/L for nitrite-N,

Table 2. Overview of Nitrification and Chloramine Reactions (from Woolschlager et al., 2001) Reaction Description Ammonium and nitrate utilization Release of ammonia through chloramine decay Release of ammonium through oxidation of organic matter by chloramine Release of ammonium through oxidation of organic matter by chloramine Release of ammonia through catalysis reactions of chloramine at pipe surfaces Release of ammonia through oxidation of nitrate by chloramine

Reaction NH3 + O2 → NO2- + 3H+ + 2eNO2- + H2O → NO3- + 2H+ +2e3NH2Cl → N2 + NH3 + 3H+ +3Cl-

Eq. (1) (2) (3)

10NH2Cl + 9H2O + 10C3H7O2N → HCO3- + 4CO2 +Cl-+ 11NH4+


NH2Cl + 2H+ + 2Fe+3 → 2Fe+3 + NH4+ +Cl-


3NH2Cl → N2 + NH3 + 3H+ +3Cl-


NH2Cl + H2O + NO2- → NH3 +HCl + NO3-


12 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

10 mg/L for nitrate-N, and 10 mg/L for nitrite + nitrate (as N). The current nitrite and nitrate standards are measured at the point of entry to the distribution system, so any subsequent elevated nitrite/nitrate levels resulting from nitrification within the distribution system are not identified by compliance monitoring. Sources of Ammonia, Nitrate, and Nitrite Excess nitrogen in the form of ammonia in finished water can be the principal cause of nitrification, since ammonia serves as the primary substrate in the nitrification process. Natural sources of nitrogen generally have minimal impacts on water supply distribution systems because the concentration of nitrite-nitrogen in surface water and groundwater is normally far below 0.1 mg/L (Sawyer and McCarty, 1978). Ammonia occurs naturally in some groundwater supplies, and groundwater can become contaminated with nitrogen as agriculture runoff or fertilizer percolates into aquifers. In south Florida, ammonia is common and can be well above 1 mg/L in some groundwaters. Furthermore, ammonia is deliberately added to a chloraminated water supply. Chloramination is commonly used for secondary disinfection purposes to control microbial growth in finished water disinfection byproducts during chlorination. This is particularly an issue for water systems that have warm water (>60°F) and high background levels of organics. Chloramines include monochloramine, dichloramine, trichloramine, and organochloramines. For disinfection purposes, monochloramine and dichloramine are the preferential forms. In systems utilizing chloramination, the concentration of free ammonia present in the distributed water will be a function of the chlorine-to-ammonia-N (Cl2:NH3-N) ratio. Free ammonia is almost completely eliminated when a 4.67:1 weight ratio of Cl2:NH3-N is used (Kirmeyer et al., 1993, 1995, 2000). Chloramination is typical in south Florida. Of interest is that the Groundwater Rule applies when water sources have no ammonia in the raw water (quenching is not permitted by the federal rules). This rule permits reduced monitoring if 4-logs of virus removal can be demonstrated. Regulatory agencies encourage this compliance; however, where utilities have ammonia, the 4-log guidelines do not apply. As a result, the argument to chlorinate the ammonia “out of the water,” free chlorinate the water, and then add ammonia back in to create chloramines (monochloramine) does not comply with federal drinking water standards. The nitrogen does not disappear—it’s just combined with chlorine and adds “food” to the nitrogenconsuming bacteria. As a nutrient, the nitrogen is still present and would potentially be available to be used as a nutrient by bacteria. As a result,



mg N Oxidized/mg TKN/hr

mg N Oxidized/mg TKN/hr

Nitrosomonas 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0














Figure 1. pH and oxidation rate versus pH for Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter (from Grady and Lim, 1980)

the 4-log Groundwater Rule has the unintended consequence of acting as a source of ammonia to the water distribution network. Natural Organic Material Song (1999) documented the impact of natural organic material (NOM) on chloramine decay by altering NOM concentrations through granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption of the test water. Figure 1 shows the impact of NOM on chloramine decay rates. Bone et al. (1999) hypothesized that the NOM oxidation mechanism is the dominant pathway for chloramine decay early in the decay process (i.e., within 24 hours), and that autodecomposition is the dominant cause of chloramine decay later. It should be noted that GAC removal of organics is compromised when the organic content has a relatively high contribution of humic material, which describes the situation in south Florida (Ødegaard et al., 2010). pH and Alkalinity Water pH is an important factor in nitrification activity for two reasons. First, a reduction of total alkalinity may accompany nitrification because a significant amount of bicarbonate is consumed in the conversion of ammonia to nitrite. A model developed by Gujer and Jenkins (1974) indicates that 8.64 mg/L of bicarbonate (HCO3-) will be utilized for each mg/L of ammonia-nitrogen oxidized. While reduction in alkalinity does not impose a direct public health impact, reductions in alkalinity can cause reductions in buffering capacity, which can impact pH stability and corrosivity of the water toward lead and copper, as well as biogeochemically induced deposition of calcium carbonate that might clog the pipeline. Secondly, nitrifying bacteria are sensitive to pH. Nitrosomonas has an optimal pH between approximately 7 and 8, and the optimum pH range for Nitrobacter is approximately 7.5 to 8. Some utilities have reported that an increase in pH (to greater than 9) can be used to reduce the occurrence of nitrification (Skadsen et al., 1996). According to Wilczak (2001), pH appears

to be the most important factor controlling the rate of chloramine autodecomposition. Thomas (1987) stated that the rate of chloramine decay approximately doubles for a drop in pH of 0.7 units. In Florida, Cates and Lavinder (1999) noted that raising pH reduced nitrification. Figure 1 shows that a pH above 8.7 limits nitrification activity. Monitoring According to Wilczak et al. (1996), nitrification is often indirectly identified by detection via monitoring the following (EPA, 2002): S R esidual disinfectant levels. Low levels of residual disinfectant can allow bacteria in the biofilm to multiply. When residual disinfectant drops below the baseline, nitrification may soon follow; therefore, monitoring and mapping levels of residual disinfectant prove to be a quick and inexpensive tool to pinpoint affected areas and focus mitigation measures. S N itrite and nitrate levels. Monitoring nitrite and nitrate levels can signal when preventative action is needed. Systems are required to sample for nitrate and nitrite quarterly in the distribution system. More-frequent monitoring may be beneficial in identifying trends and action trigger levels. S Ammonia levels. Ammonia is food for nitrifying bacteria; if ammonia levels are decreasing in at least part of the distribution system, nitrification could be the cause. If the ammonia levels in the system are less than the ammonia levels of the water leaving the treatment plant as finished water, or less than the system’s baseline ammonia levels, then nitrification may be occurring. Monitoring will determine baseline ammonia levels for the system, and then a closer review of data from any system location for decreasing ammonia levels might trigger mitigation action. S D issolved oxygen levels. A noticeable decrease in dissolved oxygen concentration may indicate bacteria are consuming oxygen

via the nitrification process during the biologically mediated conversion from ammonia to nitrate. S pH and alkalinity. (as noted previously) S Temperature change. An increase in water temperature is an indirect indicator of biological activity; higher temperatures facilitate higher bacterial growth rates. S HPC counts. Frequently, but not always, systems that have nitrification occurring may also have increases in HPCs, coliform-positive test results, or both, since the conditions that are favorable to indicator microorganisms are the same as those favorable to the nitrogenoxidizing microorganisms. If these issues occur, nitrification is suggested, and a more-active control strategy must be implemented.

Example of Results From Distribution System Samples Tables 3 and 4 outline the results from a series of samples for the water system studied. These results indicate that the conditions are such as to favor nitrifying bacteria, although none were specifically identified. Of greater concern is the presence of Pseudomonas species.

Nitrification Control Strategies Nitrification can degrade water quality, and the formation of nitrite/nitrate and disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation during nitrification mitigation are the only water quality issues identified in the literature with the potential to impact public health directly. The problem is greatest when temperatures are warm and water demand is low; however, there are multiple effective means to control nitrification issues. Nutrient Control Biofilms are more difficult to remove from pipelines once established, and therefore, they must be monitored and controlled. Many Continued on page 14

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


adjusted only to the extent that the finished water enters the distribution system at a pH above 8.7, and preferably around 9. This is relatively straightforward to accomplish for groundwater treated by lime softening, but for nanofiltration plants, the pH is usually under 7, so preventing aggressive water and keeping the pH below 8 would be an appropriate goal.

Continued from page 13 different methods have been used to control biofilms; however, in most circumstances, biofilm control requires the use of a variety of tools, and the relative effectiveness is typically sitespecific. In general, biofilms can be managed by removing organic matter and nutrients during water treatment, inactivation of microorganisms via sensible use of disinfectants and residuals, pH control and proper distribution system maintenance practices (i.e., flushing, avoiding stagnant conditions, minimizing corrosion of iron pipe surfaces, and managing contamination from external sources). Nutrient suppression involves controlling the source of assimilable organic carbon (AOC), or phosphorus and nitrogen. This can be accomplished by GAC, enhanced coagulation, preozonation, or membrane processes; unfortunately, several months are required before impacts of nutrient control can actually be observed in the system. Rather than reduce the phosphorus levels, which are rarely limiting in water distribution networks, phosphate can be added (less than 1.1 mg/L P) to sequester iron to inhibit corrosion (Batté et al., 2003). In practice, however, this method leads to either a limited change in microbial distributions or an increase in biomass.

Disinfection A common strategy for disinfection is chemical control or treatment of nitrifying bacteria. Such treatment typically involves either the maintenance of high distribution system disinfectant residuals (greater than 2 mg/L) or periodic breakpoint chlorination. Analytical survey results of ten U.S. utilities showed that greater than 90 percent of distribution system samples with increased nitrite and nitrate levels, indicative of nitrification, occurred in water with disinfectant residuals less than 2 mg/L (Wilczak et al., 1996). Many utilities have found that increasing disinfectant residuals by increasing chemical doses or managing water age has helped to control nitrification. Utilities can use booster chlorination in the distribution system to increase disinfectant residuals. This practice is generally not employed in chloraminated distribution systems because chloramines are normally more stable than free chlorine (Woolschlager et al., 2001; Valentine et al., 1998). In addition, uncontrolled blending of chlorinated and chloraminated water could occur near a chlorine booster station; in some cases, uncontrolled blending has been shown to cause unintended breakpoint chlorination, increases in DBP levels, or decreases in disinfectant residuals (Mahmood et al., 1999; Muylwyk et al., 1999). The key to stopping nitrification is to starve the nitrifying bacteria of nitrogen. The most

pH Control A major factor that is often overlooked is that the pH of the water going into the water distribution system may encourage nitrification bacterial growth. Nitrosomonas has an optimal pH between approximately 7 and 8, and the optimum pH range for Nitrobacter is approximately 7.5 to 8. To reduce the potential for growth in water distribution systems with lime softening plants, the appropriate lime dose should be used and

Table 3. Bacteria Isolated in Water Samples

Bacteria Isolated Bacilllus sp. Pseudomonoa fluorescens

Site 1 x

Site 2 x

Site 3 x

Site 4





Enterobacter cloacae


Atypicla mycobacterium


Candida Yeast


Enterobacter cloacae

Site 6 x x


Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Micrococcus sp. Staphylococcus sp. (not S. aures)

Site 5

x x









x x






Steno. maltophilia Agrobacteriaum radiobacter

14 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

x x

effective way to do this is to temporarily convert disinfectant from chloramine to free chlorine. Free chlorine is more effective at inactivating ammonia-oxidizing bacteria colonies than chloramines (Wolfe et al., 1990). As a result, breakpoint chlorination is also used by utilities to treat nitrifying bacteria. Nitrification mitigation techniques, such as breakpoint chlorination or temporarily switching from chloramines to free chlorine, can result in increased levels of DBPs regulated under the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule. The EPA suggests that DBP samples collected during a nitrification mitigation episode not be included in MCL compliance calculations, and it specifically allows short-term exceedance of maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDLs) to control microbiological contamination problems. Because biofilms provide a barrier to mass transfer, there are diffusion-limited zones within the thickness of the film in which microorganisms are exposed to sublethal doses, leading to increased survivability and resistance. Once a biofilm is established, it may take a high level of chlorine residual (>0.2-1.0 mg/L) to reduce microbial levels appreciably (Le Chevallier et al., 1990). It may take one to two months of continuous chlorination to eradicate all biofilmassociated biomass and desorbable organics at a dose of 3.5 mg/L Cl2, with a residual of 0.1-0.2 mg/L Cl2 (Fass et al., 2003). Superchlorination in problematic areas isolated from the rest of the network can be an effective approach, but high chlorine doses may not be recommended in situations that require precise control of DBPs and pipe corrosion. Chloramines can be an effective alternative because they are capable of deeper penetration into the biofilm, but they are less reactive (LeChevallier et al., 1990; Bachmann and Edyvean, 2006). Other options include alternative disinfectants (e.g., hydrogen peroxide or ultraviolet [UV]), pH adjustment, membrane processes, or Cu or Ag ionization units). Distribution System Maintenance Distribution system maintenance is vitally important in controlling biofilms. From a hydrodynamic perspective, transmission networks should be designed and operated to minimize sediment accumulation, microbial adhesion, and regrowth. During stagnant flow conditions or during periods of low demand, conditions will be favorable for biofilm establishment. It’s precisely in these areas of the system, where nutrients can accumulate, that ferrous materials provide fresh surfaces for colonization and disinfectant residuals can become rapidly depleted. Routine systematic flushing (annually or semi-annually) is a primary component of proper

distribution system maintenance, although it does not prevent recolonization (Walker and Morales, 1997). Flushing and/or pigging (use of a water-propelled device), along with valve turning at regular intervals, are typically used in practice. Specific subsections of a distribution system can be isolated and flushed with high velocities to discourage biofilm growth. Shock chlorination may also be part of a targeted flushing process. Dead zones (resulting in excessive hydraulic residence times) can be eliminated by valve exercising and eliminating excess storage, while low-flow areas can be eliminated by line resizing (Crozes and Cushing, 2000) or routing flow to fire hydrants. Eboigbodin et al. (2008) noted that temperature and velocity also play a major role in biofilm formation. Continual positive pressure is also recommended (Kirmeyer et al., 2000) and is a best available technology (BAT) in the TCR. Niquette et al. (2000) demonstrated that proper pipe material selection is important in biofilm control. They noted that polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene had the least potential to form biofilms, although polyethylene may promote the growth of Legionella more than PVC (van der Kooij and Veenendaal, 2001). They also noted that ferrous materials were more likely to form biofilms than any other material. Cloete et al. (2003) reported similar findings, demonstrating that galvanized iron had the least resistance to biofilm formation among the materials they tested. Asbestos concrete and cast iron showed similar biofilm formation potential. They found PVC to have more resistance than the other materials; thus, changing pipe materials is another control option, and nonferrous materials should be used whenever possible. If ferrous materials must be used, coatings (e.g., cement lining) can be used to discourage fouling and biofilm corrosion. Unfortunately, existing pipelines cannot easily be replaced or lined. In these cases, treatment of the problem in situ may be the next best option. According to Schrempp et al. (1994), mechanically cleaning pipelines; draining and cleaning reservoirs; and dead-end, unidirectional, and continuous flushing were not sufficient to control nitrification at one Midwestern utility. When these strategies were replaced with breakpoint chlorination, nitrification was controlled, and target residuals could be maintained. Some systems using breakpoint chlorination have reported an initial increase in HPC bacteria and total coliform levels immediately following treatment, which is probably attributable to biofilm sloughing (Odell et al., 1996; Wilczak et al., 1996). Replace Aging Infrastructure Corroding pipes and equipment provide plenty of crevices for nitrifying bacteria to

Table 4. Bacteria Isolated With Swab

Swab 1

Swab 2

Swab 3

Swab 4

Swab 5

Swab 6t








Pseudomonoa fluorescens







Atypical mycobacterium


Candida Yeast




Steno. maltophilia


Bacteria Isolated

escape exposure to residual disinfectant. If excessive maintenance is required to keep the infrastructure clean, then replacement of the problematic components with newer, less corrodible equipment should be considered. Reduce Water Age Nitrification will usually show up first in areas where residence time (or “water age”) is highest; for example, dead-end mains, storage tanks, and areas where pressure planes overlap. These areas should be monitored carefully for biofilm development. Disinfectant levels drop when water stands still in the system. If water usage drops, a temporary solution is to flush mains to keep new water moving (TCEQ, 2017). Pipe looping also helps to alleviate water age. Water conservation strategies can exacerbate water age issues, since, in most cases, the pipes are oversized for potable water service. Preventive Maintenance Utilities should include measures to reduce biofilms in their regularly scheduled maintenance: S Some systems have found that a hard flush once a year helps to keep nitrification in check. S Especially with cast iron pipes, mechanical pigging can remove deposits, where nitrifying bacteria can establish colonies. S Some systems find it necessary to temporarily convert to free chlorine disinfection as part of a periodic preventive maintenance routine.

Conclusions To determine the potential for biofilms to be present, even before they create water distribution impacts, an analysis of the water system should be undertaken. In the sample case presented here, the results suggested that nitrification was present, but no specific species were found in the samples. A major factor was that the pH of the water going into the water distribution system favored nitrification bacterial growth. To reduce the potential for growth in water distribution systems for lime softening plants, the appropriate lime dose should be used and adjusted

only to the extent that the finished water enters the distribution system at a pH above 8.7, and preferably around 9. The lack of flow (indicative of low water use and closed valves) encourages nitrification. The use of rechlorination stations should be reviewed (Barrett et al., 1985; Potts, 2001). The use of chloramines, while needed to maintain a residual, likewise adds ammonia. The ammonia provides a substrate for these bacteria, especially if the chlorination dose has combined with the raw ammonia to achieve 4-log removal under the Groundwater Rule. Finally, if ammonia is present in the raw water, the 4-log virus rule does not apply. Trying to extinguish the ammonia is not permitted under the federal rules, and only adds nitrogen to the water, which provides food for nitrification bacteria. Pipe materials, maintenance, flushing programs, and monitoring are ongoing processes that can help minimize the potential for nitrification in the water distribution system.

References • B achmann, R. T. and Edyvean, R. G. J. (2006). Biofouling: an historic and contemporary review of its causes, consequences and control in drinking water distribution systems. Biofilms, 2(3): 197-227. • Barrett, S.E., M.K. Davis, and M.J. McGuire. 1985. Blending Chloraminated and Chlorinated Waters. Journal AWWA (1): 50-61. • Batte, M., Mathieu, L., Laurent, P., and Prevost, M. (2003). Influence of phosphate and disinfection on the composition of biofilms produced from drinking water, as measured by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Can. J. Microbiol. 49, 741. • Bloetscher, F. 2011. Utility Management for Water and Wastewater Operators. America Water Works Association, Denver, Colo. • Bloetscher, F., Daniel E. Meeroff, Ph.D., Sharon Long, Ph.D., P.E., ND. Ongoing Issues in Water Distribution Systems and Solutions to Address Them. Science Letters, SL/2021/0294. • Bloetscher, F., Meeroff, D. E., Pisani, J. V., & Long, S. C. (2010). Resolving problematic biofilms Continued on page 16

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 15 in buildings and compounds. Environmental Engineering Science, 27(9), 767-776. • Bloetscher, F. 2008. Water Basics for Decision Makers: What Local Officials Need to Know about Water and Wastewater Systems. America Water Works Association, Denver, Colo. • Bone C.C., Harringtom G.W., Oldenburg P.S., Noguera D.R. Ammonia Release from Chloramine Decay: Implications for the Prevention of Nitrification Episodes. Proceedings of AWWA Annual Conference, Chicago, Ill., 1999. Grady, C.P.L, Jr., and H.C. Lim, 1980. Biological Wastewater Treatment. Marcel Dekker Inc., N.Y. • Cates, J. and Lavinder, S. 1999. Improving Chloramine Residuals and Minimizing Nitrification. Florida Water Resources Journal, 1999, v:2. 26-28. • Chapelle, Francis H. (1993), Groundwater Microbiology and Geochemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. • Cloete, T.E.; Westaard, D.; and Van Vuuren, S.J. (2002), Biofilm Formation in Hot Water Systems. Water Science and Technology, 46:9:95. • Crozes, G.F., and Cushing, R.S. (2000). Evaluating Biological Regrowth in Distribution Systems. AwwaRF, Denver, Colo. • Dillon, C.P. (1995), Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, N.Y. • Eboigbodin, Kevin E.; Seth, Allyson; and Biggs, Catherine A., A Review of Biofilms in Domestic Plumbing. Journal AWWA, 100:10, pp 131-138. • Emde, K.M.E., Smith, D.W., and Facey, R. (1992). Initial investigation of microbially influenced corrosion (MIC) in low temperature water distribution systems. Water Research, 26(2): 169-175. • Fass, S., Block, J.-C., Boualam, M., Gauthier, V., Gatel, D., Cavard, J., Benabdallah, S. and Lahoussine, V. (2003). Release of organic matter in a discontinuously chlorinated drinking waternetwork. Water Research, 37(3): 493–500. • Flemming, H.C. and Wingender, J. (2001) Relevance of Microbial Extracellular Polymeric Substances (EPSs) – Part 1: Structural and Ecological Aspects. Water Science and Technology, 43:6:1. • Galli, E.; Silver, S.; and Withot, B. (1992). Pseudomonas: Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. American Society of Microbiology, Washington, D.C. • Geldreich, E.E. (1996). Microbial Quality of Water Supply in Distribution Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. • Geldreich, E.E., and LeChevallier, M. (1999). Microbiological quality control in distribution systems. Chapter 18. pp. 18.1-18.49. In: Water Quality and Treatment (5th ed.). Letterman, RD (ed.). McGraw-Hill Inc. New York, N.Y.

• G ofti, L., Balducci, F., Gratacap-Cavailler, B., Joret, J.C., Ferley, J.P., and Zmirou, D. (1999). Waterborne microbiological risk assessment, epidemiological validation of dose–response functions for viruses and protozoans. Epidemiology, 4: S56 (abstract). • Gujer W., and D. Jenkins, 1974. A Nitrification Model for Contact Stabilization Activated Sludge Process. Water Res., 9(5):5. • Holt, David, Rory D. Todd, Anaick Delanoue, and Jennifer S. Colbourne. 1995. A Study of Nitrite Formation and Control in Chloraminated Distribution Systems. In Proc. 1995 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference; Part II. AWWA, Denver, Colo. • Kirmeyer, G.J., M. Friedman, J. Clement, A. Sandvig, P.F. Noran, K.D. Martel, D. Smith, M. LeChevallier, C. Volk, E. Antoun, D. Hiltebrand, J. Dyksen, and R. Cushing. 2000. Guidance Manual for Maintaining Distribution System Water Quality. AwwaRF and AWWA, Denver, Colo. • Kirmeyer, G. J., Odell, L. H.; Jacangelo, J.; Wilczak, A. and Wolfe. R. 1995. Nitrification Occurrence and Control in Chloraminated Water Systems. AwwaRF and AWWA, Denver, Colo. • Kirmeyer, G., W. Richards, and C.D. Smith. 1994. An Assessment of Water Distribution Systems and Associated Research Needs. AwwaRF, Denver, Colo. • Kirmeyer, G.J., G.W. Foust, G. L. Pierson, J.J. Simmler, M.W. LeChevallier. 1993. Optimizing Chloramine Treatment. AwwaRF and AWWA, Denver Colo. • LeChevallier, M.W., Lowry, C.D., and Lee, R.G. (1990). Disinfection of biofilms in a model distribution system. Journal AWWA, 82(7):8799. • Lee, D.-G. and Kim, S.J. (2003). Bacterial species in biofilm cultivated from the end of the Seoul water distribution system. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 95(2): 317-324. • Mahmood, F., J. Pimblett, N. Grace and B. Utne. 1999. Combining Multiple Water Sources and Disinfectants: Options for Water Quality Compatibility in Distribution Systems. In Proc. 1999 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Tampa, Fla.: AWWA. Prepared by AWWA with assistance from Economic and Engineering Services Inc. 15. • Meeroff, D.E., Shaha, B., Bloetscher, F., Esiobu, N., Mercer, B., McCorquordale, D., Kari, R. and Bennett, M., 2019. Characterization of biofilms and mineralogical scale in underground injection well disposal of landfill leachate and industrial wastewater streams. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7(11), p.69. • Murga R., Forster, T.S., Brown, E., Pruckler, J.M., Fields, B.S., and Donlan, R.M. (2001). Role of biofilms in the survival of Legionella

16 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

pneumophila in a model potable water system. Microbiology, 147(11): 3121-3126. Muylwyk, Q., A.L. Smith and J.A. MacDonald. 1999. Implications on Disinfection Regime When Joining Water Systems: A Case Study of Blending Chlorinated and Chloraminated Water. In Proc. 1999 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Tampa, Fla.: AWWA. Norton, C.D. and Le Chevallier, M.W. (2000). A pilot study of bacteriological population changes through potable water treatment and distribution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66(1): 268-276. Niquitte, P.: Servais, P. and Savoir, R. (2000), Impacts of Pipe Materials on Densities of Fixed Bacterial Biomass in Drinking Water Distribution System, Water Research, 34:6:1952. Odell, Lee H., Gregory J. Kirmeyer, Andrzej Wilczak, Joseph G. Jacangelo, Joseph P. Marcinko, and Roy L. Wolfe. 1996. Controlling Nitrification in Chloraminated Systems. Journal AWWA, 88(7):86-98. Ødegaard, H. Østerhus, S.; Melin, E., and B. Eikebrokk, 2010 NOM removal technologies – Norwegian experiences, Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 3, 1–9, 2010. Potts, D.E., W.G. Williams, C.G. Hitz. 2001. A Satellite Chloramine Booster Station: Design and Water Chemistry. In Proc. 2001 AWWA. Distribution System Symposium, San Diego, Calif.: AWWA. Prentice, T. (2002). Overview. In: Murray C, Lopez A, editors. The World Health Report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization. pp 7 – 14. Sartory, D.P. and Holmes, P. (1997). Chlorine sensitivity of environmental, distribution system, and biofilm coliforms. Water Science and Technology, 35(11-12): 289-292. Sawyer, C.N., and P.L. McCarty. 1978. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, NY. *Stage I DBP Rule FACA Meeting, 2000. Schrempp, Tom, Ron Goold, Bennet Kwan and Darshan Sarai. 1994. Effect of Mechanical Cleaning and Free Residual Chlorine on the Chlorine Demand and Nitrification Process in a Chloraminated System. In Proc. 1994 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference; Part II. San Francisco, Calif.: AWWA. Skadsen, J. and Larry Sanford. 1996. The Effectiveness of High pH for Control of Nitrification and the Impact of Ozone on Nitrification Control. In Proc. 1996 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Boston, Mass.: AWWA. Song, Daniel J., Ali Sheikholeslami, Linnea L. Hoover, Kathrin A. Turner, H. Hubert Lai, and Andrzej Wilczak. 1999. Improvement of Chloramine Stability Through pH Control, TOC Reduction and Blending at EBMUD,

• • • •

California. In 1999 AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings. Chicago, Ill.: AWWA. Thomas P.M. “Formation and Decay of Monochloramine in South Australian Water Supply Systems,” 12th Federal Convention, Australian Water and Wastewater Association, Adelaide, Australia, p.268-276, 1987. TCEQ, 2017 Controlling Nitrification in Public Water Systems with Chloramines, TCEQ, Austin, Texas, https://www.tceq.texas.gov/ drinkingwater/disinfection/nitrification.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Nitrification, Office of Water, USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Federal Register, 19(141). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July 2002. List of Contaminants and Their MCLs. USEPA 816-F-02-013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. National primary drinking water regulations; disinfectants and disinfection byproducts; proposed rule. Federal Register, 59, 38668– 38829. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Drinking Water; National Primary Drinking

• • • •

Water Regulations; Filtration, Disinfection; Turbidity, Giardia lamblia, Viruses, Legionella, and Heterotrophic Bacteria; Final Rule. Federal Register, 54(124):27486- 27541.). Valentine R.L., Ozekin K., Vikesland P.J. “Chloramine Decomposition in Distribution System and Model Waters.” AwwaRF, Denver, Colo., 1998. Van der Kooij, and D. And Veenendaal, H.R. (2001), Biomass Production Potential of Materials in Contact with Drinking Water: Methods and Practical Importance. Water Science and Technology, 1:3:39. Verstraete, W., and M. Alexander. 1973. Heterotrophic Nitrification in Samples of Natural Ecosystems. Envir. Sci. Technol., 7(39). Videla, Hector A. (1996), Manual of Biocorrosion, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Walker, J.T., and Morales, M. (1997). Evaluation of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) for the control of biofilms. Water Sci. Technol. 35, 319. Watson, S.W., F.W. Valos, and J.B. Waterbury, 1981. The Family Nitrobacteraceae. In The Prokaryotes. Edited by M.P. Starr et al. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Wilczak, Andrzej, Joseph G. Jacangelo, Joseph P. Marcinko, Lee H. Odell, Gregory J.

Kirmeyer, and Roy L. Wolfe. 1996. Occurrence of nitrification in chloraminated distribution systems. Journal AWWA, 88(7):74-85. Wilczak, Andrzej, 2001. Chloramine Decay Rate: Factors and Research Needs. In 2001 AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: AWWA. Wolfe, Roy L., Nancy I. Lieu, George Izaguirre and Edward G. Means. 1990. Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria in a Chloraminated Distribution System: Seasonal Occurrence, Distribution, and Disinfection Resistance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 56(2): 451-462. Wolfe, R.L., and N.I. Lieu. 2001. Nitrifying Bacteria in Drinking Water. In Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology, edited by G. Bitton. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Woolschlager, J.E., B.E. Rittmann, P. Piriou and B. Schwartz. 2001. Developing an Effective Strategy to Control Nitrifier Growth Using the Comprehensive Disinfection and water Quality Model. In Proc. World Water and Environmental Resources Congress. Renton, Vir.: ASCE., Alexandria, Va. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Test Yourself

What Do You Know About PFAS? will be required to test for how many PFAS chemicals?

Donna Kaluzniak

1. P er the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PFAS website, PFAS are a group of manufactured chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of their useful properties. The acronym PFAS stands for a. per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. b. perfloric alkaline substances. c. p hosphoric acid substrates. d. poly-acidic and alkaline substances. 2. P er EPA’s PFAS website, two of the most widely used and studied PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and a. perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). b. perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). c. perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA). d. perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA). 3. P er EPA’s June 23, 2022, public webinar, Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PFOA, PFOS, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS (PFAS Health Advisories Webinar), it released new drinking water health advisories for those four chemicals. A numeric health advisory level shows how much of a chemical a. is going to be allowed when a drinking water regulation is passed. b. has a definite negative health effect for drinking water customers. c. i s legally allowed to be present in drinking water. d. is not expected to have negative health effects over a certain period of exposure. 4. P er the EPA website on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5), public water systems

a. F our c. 1 7

b. 1 0 d. 29

5. Per EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories Webinar, it issued interim health advisories for PFOA at a level of 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt), and PFOS at a level of a. 0.004 ppt. c. 0 .02 ppt.

b. 0 .04 ppt. d. 0 .3 ppt.

6. Per EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories Webinar, what is the final health advisory level for GenX chemicals (PFOA replacement)? a. 0.8 ppt c. 1 0 ppt

b. 2 ppt d. 1 2 ppt

7. P er the EPA document, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitment to Action 2021-2024 (PFAS Strategic Roadmap), when does it expect to establish a national primary drinking water regulation for PFOA and PFOS? a. Fall 2022 c. F all 2023

b. S pring 2023 d. Fall 2024

8. P er EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, for which two PFAS chemicals does it expect to issue health advisories in 2022? a. PFNA and PFDA b. PFBA and PFDA c. PFDA and GenX chemicals d. PFBS and GenX chemicals 9. P er EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, it will issue new guidance recommending that state-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits include monitoring for 40 unique PFAS for which wastewater or stormwater discharges? a. A ll wastewater or stormwater discharges b. Industrial wastewater or stormwater facilities only

18 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

c. Domestic wastewater facility discharges only d. Facilities where PFAS is expected or suspected to be in wastewater or stormwater discharges 10. P er EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, biosolids can sometimes contain PFAS. When spread on agricultural fields, the PFAS can contaminate crops and livestock. What will serve as the basis for determining whether regulation of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids is appropriate? a. A literature study b. A risk assessment c. The results of UCMR5 testing d. Sewage sludge surveys Answers on page 70 References used for this quiz: • U .S. Environmental Protection Agency PFAS website: https://www.epa.gov/pfas • U .S. Environmental Protection Agency Public Webinar June 23, 2022, Drinking Water Health Advisories for Four Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) PFOA, PFOS, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ documents/2022-06/PFAS%20 Health%20Advisories%20Public%20 Webinar-%20FINAL%20FINAL.pdf • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule website: https://www.epa.gov/dwucmr/fifthunregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA’s Commitment to Action 2021 –2024: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/ documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_ final-508.pdf

Send Us Your Questions Readers are welcome to submit questions or exercises on water or wastewater treatment plant operations for publication in Test Yourself. Send your question (with the answer) or your exercise (with the solution) by email to: donna@h2owriting.com



The FWRC technical program provides many opportunities to share your environmental knowledge and solutions to water and wastewater professionals at the 2023 Florida Water Resources Conference. Join industry professionals dedicated to improving and sustaining Florida's waters. Submit your abstract for consideration as a session, workshop, or roundtable discussion.

Submit by 11.1.2022 Notifications by 1.13.2023 www.fwrc.org will be open for submission after September 15, 2022 Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Don’t Overly Disinfect Your Organization Sondra W. Lee, P.E. President, FWEA


hen it comes to disinfection at the Thomas P. Smith Water Reclamation Facility (TPSWRF) in Tallahassee, the first thing that pops into my mind is how easy it is to forget about this part of the treatment process. It nearly fits into an “out of sight, out of mind” category. A system like this, which runs well and doesn’t demand too much attention, doesn’t happen without some planning, great teamwork, and a little bit of flexibility.

Planning Prior to 2011, the TPSWRF was rated for 26.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of disinfected effluent using gaseous chlorine. Due to the dangers of elemental chlorine,

personnel at the facility underwent a fair amount of training to maximize the safety of everyone there, but when planning was underway for a facilitywide upgrades project, the City of Tallahassee wanted to consider alternatives for disinfection. A study was completed in 2008 and evaluated three options: gaseous chlorine, onsite generation, or delivery of 12 percent sodium hypochlorite. Ultraviolet (UV) was not considered due to the desire to deliver public access reclaimed water directly from the facility, which may require adding chlorine into the effluent to meet permit requirements. Equipment Selection Tallahassee decided to place safety concerns at the top of its criteria for disinfection alternatives. The 20-year present worth analysis for capital and operation and maintenance costs resulted in chlorine gas as the most cost-effective alternative. With the safety concerns of this option and the potential for significant future regulatory restrictions regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, Tallahassee discarded

20 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

this option. It also discarded the second most cost-effective option to generate sodium hypochlorite onsite. At the time of the study, technology to create sodium hypochlorite at treatment facilities was somewhat new and staff had concerns about issues in handling the hydrogen gas byproduct of the onsite process. The city decided it would rather wait a few years to let the technology improve; therefore, bulk delivery of sodium hypochlorite was selected, even though it was not the most cost-effective option when evaluating a 20year life cycle cost. Ten years later, this appears to have been a great choice.

Teamwork In general, the disinfection process at TPSWRF appears to operate trouble free. Admittedly, when compared to many processes at the facility, the disinfection system is rather simple, but when something runs well and doesn’t pose many problems, it’s so easy to forget about it. A large part of the success is that the

operators, maintenance crew, electricians, and control technicians work at this facility not only take a lot of pride in their work, but they work together as a single team across the entire site. It takes time and effort to build a strong team, and this is important for leaders to keep in mind, too. When you can trust those well-maintained teams to continue their course, it’s easy to turn your focus to the more problematic areas of the organization. I had this habit while serving as the operations supervisor. I used to think, if things ran well, then nothing needs to be said, since that’s how it should be. Over time I realized how important it is to not ignore your best team members and to speak up when you’re pleased with how things are operating, expressing gratitude for all the good work taking place.

Allow Experimentation Aside from having a good maintenance program at this facility, team members feel comfortable with offering suggestions for further improvement. Most systems have operational procedures that need to be followed, but it doesn’t mean that adjustments cannot be made to the procedure. After the new disinfection facility was placed online the operations and maintenance teams collectively made some changes to improve the system. Removal of Mixer One of the first items to be removed was the inline mixer that discharged the bleach

in a channel just upstream of the chlorine contact basins. These units appeared to corrode rapidly, and over time, the team felt that there might be enough turbulence in the channel to handle the mixing without the unit. After some experimentation, while staying in compliance, the team came up with a new static solution to feed chlorine to the channel, which is still in place today. Change in Dosing Strength Another staff-led change was made to the strength at which the sodium hypochlorite was dosed, eliminating a step in the dosing process. Sodium hypochlorite is delivered at a 12 percent solution and was diluted to 6 percent using softened water, making it easier for an operator to dial in the correct dosage without wasting excess chlorine. A fair amount of equipment was used in the dilution process that was often problematic and the team members asked if they could begin dosing at full strength. Honestly, I had concerns that this would be a costly way to dose chlorine, but upon listening to the team members, and their commitment to monitor bleach usage and stay in compliance, we decided to give it a try. They were able to successfully demonstrate that this easier-to-maintain setup can deliver chlorine without excessive bleach usage. Allowing team members to make suggestions and try out new methods has provided a system that continually improves, even though it was rather trouble free to begin with.

Flexibility, Not Complete Disinfection It would be much easier for us to stick with the standard procedures, like purchases based only on a 20-year life cycle or holding fast to the designer’s operating protocols. The work involved to do something out of the norm can at first feel like it’s too much trouble. Also, not all suggestions and trials made by team members are successful. Our experience is that allowing some flexibility, while staying in compliance, has led to great improvements across the facility. Starting out with equipment that has better reliability and that the team members feel comfortable with creates a base to a well-operating system. Setting up a culture of teamwork and good communication helps maintain the overall system. Most importantly, however, don’t completely forget about your low-maintenance systems and well-operating teams. Keep up a good balance between monitoring and autonomy, as long as compliance and regulations continue to be met. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


L ET’ S TA LK S A FE TY This column addresses safety issues of interest to water and wastewater personnel, and will appear monthly in the magazine. The Journal is also interested in receiving any articles on the subject of safety that it can share with readers in the “Spotlight on Safety” column.

Accident Investigation: Key to Preventing Future Accidents Your safety program is in place, your employees have been trained, and still, accidents will happen at work. When they do, they need to be investigated, and this should be considered a vital part of your safety program. Why should accidents be investigated? S To identify the causes of the accident S To recommend corrective actions S To prevent the accident from occurring again An accident should always be investigated if it results in one or more of the following: S Fatality or fatalities S Serious injury S Property damage S Near miss of any of the above

An accident investigation should be handled by the supervisor(s) involved, a safety manager or inspector (if there is one on staff), and/or a safety committee consisting of various employees. Anyone involved in an accident investigation should have appropriate training from a certified safety professional.

Investigating an Accident The investigation following components:




Planning S Accident reporting policy in place S Investigation training of staff S Development of report forms Fact Finding S At the scene S Time of day, location, and type of work being done S Safety protection devices provided; were they being used? S Actions that caused the accident S Preservation of evidence S Interviews of witnesses (Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?) S Collection of evidence, including photographs

Analyses S Review of data S Distinguishing facts from opinions S Meeting with all safety personnel involved in the investigation Conclusions S Each identified contributing factor should be addressed S Keep records of incidents, their causes, and the corrective measures taken Recommendations S One for each conclusion S List of corrective actions S Final report documented and filed S Follow up after recommendations implemented

Accident Investigation Form The form here will help you in your accident investigation. Make sure that all employees are aware of the program. Ask employees, when they are on a jobsite, to be aware of their surroundings and the actions taking place. Their awareness could help in an accident investigation and maybe even prevent the accident from happening in the first place. For more information read AWWA Manual of Practice M3, Safety Management for Utilities, seventh edition. S

Let’s Talk Safety is available from AWWA; visit www.awwa.org or call 800.926.7337. Get 40 percent off the list price or 10 percent off the member price by using promo code SAFETY20. The code is good for the Let’s Talk Safety book, dual disc set, and book + CD set.

22 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Accident Investigation Form Date/Time:

Person(s) injured:

Describe injury: Describe property damage: Describe activities or job being performed:

Cause Factors Y  q  q  q

N  q  q  q

PROCEDURES Are procedures established? Are procedures written? Was employee familiar with procedure? q  Was Was supervisor supervisor familiar familiar with with q procedure? procedure?   Were procedures followed? followed? q q Were procedures Y Y  q  q  q  q

N N  q  q  q  q

  q q  q  q  q  q Y Y  q  q Y Y  q   q  q  q 

 q  q  q  q N N  q  q N N  q   q  q  q 

EQUIPMENT and and TOOLS TOOLS EQUIPMENT Was the proper equipment used? Was the proper equipment used? Was the the proper proper equipment equipment available? available? Was Was the proper equipment on site? Was the proper equipment on-site? Was the equipment properly Was the equipment properly maintained? maintained? Was the employee trained to operate Was the employee trained to operate the equipment? the Wereequipment? the proper tools used? Were Were the the proper proper tools tools used? available? Were the proper tools available? Were the proper tools on site? Were tools on-site? Were the the proper tools properly maintained? Were the tools properly maintained? TRAINING/EXPERIENCE TRAINING/EXPERIENCE Was employee trained for task? Was employee trained for task? training documented? Was training documented? LIFTING LIFTING Was the item under other equipment? Was the item under other equipWas the item stuck? ment? heavy? Was the item item too stuck? Was item in awkward position? Was the item too heavy? Was help Was item requested/received? in awkward position? Was help available?

q Y q   Y   q  q  q q q Y q  

q N q   N   q  q  q q q N q  

Y  q q 

N  q q 

q q Y N q q    Y q 

 N q 

q   q

q   q

q q q q

Was help requested/received? PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) Was help available? Was PPE available? Was PPE used? PERSONAL PROTECTIVE Was PPE appropriate for the job? EQUIPMENT Was Was PPE PPE properly available?maintained? Were respirators Was PPE used? used? Were employees trained in use Was PPE appropriate for the job?of PPE?PPE properly maintained? Was Were respirators used? SUPERVISION Were employees trained in use of Was PPE?supervisor at site? Was employee deficient in skill or ability? SUPERVISION Has employee accomplished this Was supervisor at site? task before? Was employee deficient in skill or Employee had (__) month(s)/year(s) ability? experience? Has employee accomplished this task before? OTHER FACTORS Employee had (__) mo/yr Were allergies, hearing, eyesight, or experience inadequate strength factors? Was fatigue a factor (overtime or OTHER secondFACTORS job)? Were allergies, hearing, Did employee suffer heateyesight, or inadequate strength factors? exhaustion? Was stress fatigueaafactor factor(job (overtime or secor other)? ondlockout/tagout job)? Was performed? Did employee suffer heat exhaustion? Was stress a factor (job or other)? Was lockout/tagout performed?

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022

139 19



Monochloramine Disinfection for Alternative Water Supplies Sean P. Menard and Thomas W. Friedrich


quifer recharge, including aquifer storage and recovery (ASR), aquifer recharge (AR), and managed aquifer recharge (MAR), has become an important component of alternative water supply projects. The water sources available as options for AR projects include potable water, reclaimed water, stormwater, and raw surface water. The level of pretreatment (prescreening, physical/ chemical, biological treatment, filtration) and final disinfection is determined by the aquifer type (greater than 10,000 total dissolved solids [TDS] or less than 10,000 TDS), the end use, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulatory requirements. Monochloramine is a combined chlorine disinfectant that is being increasingly used in the municipal wastewater industry; it’s also being evaluated to treat stormwater and/or surface water before discharge to AR wells or aquifer storage and recovery wells. Wastewater facilities that have final effluent and/or reclaimed water quality requirements limiting the level of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5) are evaluating the feasibility of converting to the monochloramine process as a stable total chlorine disinfectant to mitigate the formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs), while still meeting disinfection requirements for total and fecal coliforms. An added benefit is a reduction in free chlorine demand and a corresponding decrease in the total chemical use and cost for disinfection. Jones Edmunds has had the opportunity over the past several years to work with multiple Florida-based clients to evaluated adding a monochloramine disinfection system to a facility to begin disinfecting raw water or to replace and optimize an existing disinfection system for more-efficient wastewater treatment. In recent years, clients have requested that monochloramine disinfection be implemented in a facility before the effluent enters recharge wells as an optimized method of disinfection that will reduce DBPs and fecal or total coliforms, and will be stable to preserve the water in the aquifer without harm to a future water resource. The key purposes of implementing these monochloramine projects have been to address the following challenges before sending water

to the AR wells or sending excess reclaimed water to a surface water outfall: S Reducing TTHMs, HAA5, dibromochloromethanes (DBCMs), and dichlorobromomethanes (DCBMs). S Meeting the required reduction of fecal coliforms and total coliforms. S Reducing chlorine demand and subsequent sodium hypochlorite chemical use and reducing overall operational costs due to reduced dosing requirements and morestable total chlorine residual. This article highlights the consulting firm’s approaches (completed and pending) to address a client’s individual challenges on a project and corresponding coordination used to implement the monochloramine into new and existing disinfection systems, including: S Monochloramine Formation Approaches S Key Components of Retrofitting a Monochloramine Design to an Existing System S Client Coordination and Communication S Specific Equipment Analysis S Discussion of Chemical Maintenance Requirements S Findings, Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations of Improvements Regulations—current and pending—will also be discussed, and program costs (capital and operation and maintenance [O&M]) that are related to these projects are summarized.

Client Backgrounds City of St. Cloud The City of St. Cloud owns and operates the Southside Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), which is a Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) process with effluent disk filtration and high-level disinfection that currently treats approximately 3.75 mil gal per day (mgd) average annual daily flow (AADF) of wastewater from the city, which has a population of approximately 50,000. The WRF is permitted for a design AADF of 7.6 mgd. The WRF is designed to produce water for 100 percent unrestricted public access reuse, with no alternative disposal methods. A 95-mil-

24 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Sean P. Menard, P.E., CDT, ENV SP, is an engineer and department manager, and Tom Friedrich, P.E., BCEE, is a vice president with Jones Edmunds & Associates Inc. in Tampa.

gal (MG) reclaimed storage pond and 29-MG reject storage ponds, along with a 20-mgd high-service pump station, are located at the wastewater treatment facility (WWTF).

City of St. Cloud Southside Water Reclamation Facility

A Class V, Group 3 injection well, and associated monitoring wells, were permitted and constructed onsite from 2014 through 2017. The goal of the Southside injection well—through the injection of excess reclaimed water—is to offset wet season storage volume concerns (overflow of storage ponds), protect the impacted aquifer, and eliminate unpermitted discharges of reclaimed water from the ponds. The injection well permit requires that only reclaimed water be injected into the well. Water not meeting Chapter 62610, Florida Administrative Code (FAC), Part III, unrestricted public access reuse water standards cannot be injected. The city’s injection well was permitted for construction and testing and placed into operation July 2017. The injection well is constructed into the lower portion of the Avon Park Formation within the Lower Floridan aquifer (LFA) with a 14 in. steel casing set to approximately 300 ft below land surface (bls). The well transitions to a 12-in.-diameter steel casing set to approximately 1,652 ft bls,

an open-hole interval of a nominal 15-in.diameter from 1,652 ft bls to 2,000 ft bls, and a nominal 11-in.-diameter hole from 2,000 ft bls to 3,060 ft bls, as shown in Figure 1. The Class V, Group 3 injection well has a permitted capacity of 2 mgd AADF and is permitted to achieve up to a maximum instantaneous injection rate of 4.87 mgd, which is based on a velocity of 10 ft per second in the final casing, with an inside diameter of 11.75 in. The background TDS concentration of the top of the injection zone was over 3,000 mg/L. The injection well is completed in the LFA, a zone that has a concentration greater than 3,000 mg/L, and the lower portion of the injection zone contains groundwater that is similar to seawater in TDS concentrations. The injection well operation permit application was submitted in May 2020 and is currently under review for approval before this injection well system will be considered fully operational. During the testing period and data submittal, the TTHMs and HAA5 were found to be at low concentrations in the injection well system’s monitoring well data, but above the primary drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for TTHMs at 80 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and HAA5 at 60µg/L in the reclaimed water before injection into the wellhead. To mitigate these DBPs before they are routed to the injection well,

the city evaluated the feasibility of converting the facility’s primary disinfectant from free chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) disinfection to monochloramine (combined chlorine) disinfection. This project included benchscale testing and extended pilot testing of a full-scale monochloramine system. The city is currently implementing a full-scale, automated monochloramine system, which will be discussed later. City of Bradenton

City of Bradenton Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility

The City of Bradenton owns and operates an advanced WWTF that uses Carrousel oxidation ditches with deep bed denitrification filters with high-level disinfection to produce Part III reclaimed water for customers. It

discharges excess dechlorinated reclaimed water into the lower Manatee River and lower Tampa Bay through the WWTF outfall. The facility currently treats approximately 6.5 mgd of wastewater from the city, with a population of approximately 66,000. The WWTF is currently permitted for the construction of a Class V, Group 3 recharge well to be installed onsite. The goal of the WWTF recharge well, through the injection of the treated reclaimed water, is to provide an environmental benefit of reduced nutrient loading to the lower Tampa Bay Estuary to reduce total nitrogen and to help restore aquifer levels in the most impacted area (MIA) within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA), while benefiting citizens by processing variable wastewater flows and treating these flows to a quality that will protect the aquifer for future alternative water supplies. The city undertook its recharge well project primarily to provide an achievable, measurable benefit for recharge to the MIA through the rise in elevation of the potentiometric groundwater surface of the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) to help restore aquifer levels, while also supplementing the storage capacity of the treated effluent during the seasonal wet periods. The city’s recharge well has been permitted for construction and testing as of April 2019, Continued on page 26

Figure 1. St. Cloud Injection Well (IW-1) Construction Diagram

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 25 but is still awaiting Water Management District cooperative funding and has not been constructed. The injection well is proposed to be constructed into the Avon Park Formation within the UFA, and the recharge well is expected to be 24 in. in diameter and cased

to approximately 900 ft bls with an open-hole interval from 900 ft bls to 1,500 ft bls, as shown in Figure 2. The Class V, Group 3 recharge well is designed to receive an average of 10 mgd of reclaimed water flow and will be capable of receiving instantaneous flows of 18.6 mgd. The

Figure 2. Bradenton Recharge Well (RW-1 Option 1) Construction Diagram

design intent is to locate the well in a zone that has a TDS concentration greater than 3,000 mg/L. This is targeted as a suitable zone based on regulatory standards (principal treatment versus full-treatment requirements) for discharge of reclaimed water to groundwater, as outlined in Chapter 62-610, FAC. The city’s outfall discharge to the Manatee River, a Class III marine water, has discharge limit requirements for two of the trihalomethane (THM) DBPs: DBCM and DCBM. Before the oxidation ditch mechanical aerators were upgraded with variable frequency drives (VFDs), dissolved oxygen (DO), and an ammonia-based control system, the WWTF historically had low-level ammonia bleed that, when blended with a free chlorine residual, promoted the formation of chloramines. The city observed that the DBCM and DCBM were always in compliance with the stringent discharge effluent discharge limits; however, following the 2018 oxidation ditch improvements, the WWTF, now completely nitrified with effluent ammonia levels at or below 0.1 mg/L and without the low-level ammonia present, had free chlorine disinfection that produced DBCM and DCBM levels above the surface water discharge limits. To meet the surface water discharge standards for DCBM and DBCM, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) annual testing for primary and secondary drinking water standards for TTHMs and HAA5 is used to uphold the drinking water standards when operating an AR well under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit. The city is converting its facility’s public access reuse water from a free chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) disinfection system to a full-scale, automated monochloramine (combined chlorine) disinfection system. This project included a temporary monochloramine system already in place being converted to a full-scale, automated system, which will be discussed later. Southwest Florida Water Management District

Figure 3. Flatford Recharge Well (RW-1) Construction Diagram

26 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Aerial of Flatford Swamp Used for Aquifer Recharge Project

Continued on page 28


Maintenance & Repair Service Available

Water & Wastewater Process Treatment & Pumping Equipment

Copyright ©2021 Tencarva Machinery Company. All Rights Reserved.


Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 26 The Southwest Florida Water Management District is constructing an AR well that is designed to convey between 0.5 and 2 mgd of surface water from the Myakka River and recharge it into a Class V Group 2 AR well. The goal of the recharge well program— through the injection of the recharge water— is to offset dry season reservoir withdrawals, protect the primary source water (the Myakka River), prevent or slow saltwater intrusion, and improve natural water systems in the area through the managed AR well. The district undertook the AR well program primarily due to environmental damage, such as tree mortality in the 4.5-sqmi wetland area of Flatford Swamp, which the district owns within the Upper Myakka River Watershed, approximately 3 mi east of the MIA of the SWUCA. The district’s recharge well was permitted for construction and testing as of February 2017 and constructed in March 2019. The surface facilities of the well are currently being completed and were placed into operation for testing at the end of 2021. The recharge well is constructed into the Avon Park Formation within the UFA with a 24 in. steel casing set to approximately 950 ft bls, and an open-hole interval of a nominal 24-in. in diameter from 950 ft bls to 1,350 ft bls, as shown in Figure 3. The Class V, Group 2 injection well is designed for a daily recharge capacity of between 0.5 and 2 mgd AADF. The background TDS concentration of the recharge zone is 1,520 mg/L; however, almost no primary drinking water standards were above their respective MCLs in the background water quality of this zone. The district originally had a permit from

FDEP’s UIC group that allowed the use of a zone of discharge (ZOD) for meeting primary and secondary drinking water standards. Since the construction of the well, FDEP has communicated that a ZOD for primary drinking water standards may no longer be a regulatory option for this recharge well system and disinfection must now be applied before going down the well. The district is coordinating the construction of the additional disinfection system to the already constructed well system since FDEP has changed its position. The district is constructing a monochloramine disinfectant system for the surface water from the Myakka River to prevent creation of DBPs, while still reducing fecal coliforms and total coliforms below the limits before injection into the wellhead.

Monochloramine Formation Background As chlorine is mixed in water, the various bacteria, viruses, and other compounds that can be oxidized by free chlorine create a chlorine demand and will actively reduce portions of the free chlorine that have not already bonded with the ammonia source. This process results in a zero chlorine residual until the demand has been satisfied. Initial testing is recommended to determine this demand as part of implementing the full-scale design of any monochloramine application, since the demand encountered will be specific to each facility and will impact the dosing rates. After the initial free chlorine demand is met, the additional remaining chlorine that was added will combine with the ammonia to form monochloramine. This formation will continue as long as free ammonia is present in the water.

Figure 4. Breakpoint Curve

28 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

To properly form monochloramine, the chlorine and ammonia must be dosed at the correct quantities to ensure that excessive free ammonia is not present, as this could result in exceeding effluent nitrogen limits, and to ensure that excessive free chlorine is not present, as this could begin impairing the chloramine formation. The proper chemical dosing rates for chloramine formation are commonly referenced regarding the ratio of chlorine to ammonia being dosed. A ratio of 4.5 to 5 parts of chlorine for every part of ammonia has historically been shown to most commonly form proper monochloramine. The molecular weight of ammonia is 17 compared to the molecular weight of nitrogen, which is 14; therefore, the ratio is used interchangeably as Cl:NH3 or as Cl:N. Monochloramine formation is also pH-dependent, with optimum formation at pH 8.5. A pH range of 7 to 9 is recommended for proper monochloramine formation. Figure 4 shows the breakpoint curve. This phenomenon shows the chloramine formation as it changes regarding the addition of a chlorine source, thereby increasing the chlorine-to-ammonia ratio. The peak and initial drop shows that, after a certain dosing ratio, the addition of more chlorine will begin to “burn off ” the combined chlorine residual by converting the monochloramine formed to dichloramine. Although not necessarily harmful, dichloramine is most recognized by its foul taste and odors and does not provide appropriate disinfection. The valley and initial rise in Figure 4 show that, as more chlorine continues to be added, increasing the chlorine-to-ammonia ratio further, the chlorine residual continues to lower until the breakpoint is reached. After this point, when all of the monochloramine has been burned off by converting to dichloramine and finally trichloramine, which dissipates quickly from water, the addition of chlorine will start to increase the chlorine residual at the standard rate expected of a hypochlorite-disinfection system. As a result, the desired chemical dosing ratio is to stay close to the range of 4.5:1 to 5:1 to optimally form monochloramine without beginning the burn-off process. This dose is most optimally noted during sampling by the presence of no free chlorine residual, while containing a small free ammonia residual. This residual is ideally in the range of 0.1 mg/L or less, showing that not all of the free ammonia in the water reacted with the dosed free chlorine (causing a zero free ammonia reading) and that no excess of free ammonia existed, causing high nitrogen readings in the effluent. The chemical reactions of sodium hypochlorite and ammonium sulfate

mixtures forming monochloramine allow the theoretical doses needed for the formation to be determined. Each project for each client requires careful evaluation and calculation of the appropriate doses of each of the chemicals to form monochloramine at differing flow rates (the diurnal pattern) observed at many municipal WWTFs. Part of this evaluation typically includes the expected dosing rates for the WWTF’s minimum average daily flow (MinADF), current AADF, maximum average daily flow (MADF), design AADF, and peak daily flow (PDF), respectively. The MinADF is often estimated as 0.3 times the current AADF, the rated AADF is based on the latest permit value, the PDF is estimated as the peaking factor (often three) times the current AADF, and the other rates are based on historical flow data. All values are often rounded up to the nearest 0.25 mgd for preliminary evaluation. Although the chemical dosing rates are theoretically accurate, unknown demands in the wastewater and other variables are related to dosing location separation, pump stroke lengths, and similar items that require proper preliminary testing to refine the dosing rates before implementing a full-scale design. The primary benefits of using monochloramine disinfection over hypochlorite disinfection are: S M onochloramine is a more-stable disinfectant than free chlorine. S A s a stable disinfectant, less demand impact occurs between the dosing point and the residual reading, often resulting in much lower chlorine use and reduced chemical costs. S M onochloramine is a combined chlorine and is measured as a total chlorine residual, which has been shown to reduce common DBPs, such as TTHMs, HAA5, DBCMs, and DCBMs, by reducing the amount of excess chlorine introduced into the system. Although chemical stability and reduced operating costs are ideal, the reduction of the DBPs is very important for the application of municipal WWTFs producing reclaimed water using any form of discharge well and/or surfacewater discharge. The TTHMs are produced by the reaction of chlorine and organic materials in the wastewater effluent and can be controlled several different ways, with varying process, capital, and operational cost considerations. Based on experience with similar WWTFs, the most cost-effective method of TTHM control at a facility that uses sodium hypochlorite for disinfection is to use sequential chlorination with ammonia for chloramination to mitigate DBP formation. This process produces a

Figure 5. St. Cloud Injection Well and Monitoring Wells

combined chlorine residual that inhibits TTHM formation. The chloramination process involves applying chlorine and ammonia to water to produce a combined available chlorine residual (chloramine) that inhibits TTHM formation. This reduction is directly related to meeting the RCW annual testing for primary and secondary drinking water standards (Rule 62-550.310, FAC, and Rule 62-550.320, FAC) of ≤80 µg/L for TTHMs and ≤60 µg/L for HAA5. Most municipalities with wells are also responsible for upholding the drinking water standards when operating a well under a UIC operating permit; therefore, mitigating the formation of DBPs is essential for operating any of these systems.

Monochloramine Designs of Each Facility The key components of evaluating each facility for retrofitting or constructing a new monochloramine system primarily include the following: S Monochloramine Formation Approaches S Coordination of the Existing System to Determine any Retrofitting Approaches S Client Coordination and Communication S Specific Equipment Analysis S Discussion of Chemical Maintenance Requirements S Findings, Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations of Improvements

Regulations, current and pending, will also be discussed, and program costs (capital and O&M) related to these projects are summarized. Monochloramine Formation Approaches The formation of monochloramine may not be ideal in many situations, and the water quality of the liquid intended to be dosed should be carefully evaluated before monochloramine disinfection is considered. Low pH environments are not conducive to stable chloramine formation. Expected flow ranges should be evaluated to verify that the equipment can handle the full range of expected flows. Background chlorine demand will likely prioritize chlorine reaction before the ammonia source and should be evaluated to determine the required base chlorine levels to be dosed before the Cl:N dosing ratio. Background ammonia available in the source water may be usable in the chloramine formation and should be evaluated to determine the required base ammonia levels, which may already exist before additional dosing to meet the Cl:N dosing ratio. As discussed earlier, each of the example project facilities had to assess whether retrofitting a monochloramine design was possible or if a new monochloramine design had to be created in its entirety. The St. Cloud and Bradenton facilities had existing chlorine disinfection onsite in the form of 12.5 percent liquid sodium hypochlorite, which promoted Continued on page 30

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 29 the use of that equipment as the chlorine source in the monochloramine formation. The Flatford facility had no source disinfection and required pH adjustment of the source water (raw water in the range of 6.5 pH, where greater than 8 is conducive to chloramine formation), as well as the chlorine and ammonia source chemical. St. Cloud Pilot Study Jones Edmunds coordinated with FDEP for the approval of a two-month pilot test between Feb. 13 and April 13, 2020, to demonstrate the effectiveness of monochloramine as an alternative disinfection method and to maintain reduced TTHM and HAA5 levels in the St. Cloud Southside effluent as part of demonstrating the constructability and testing of the installed wells. Figure 5 shows the final well construction diagram for the injection well and associated monitoring wells. The city has an analyzer building where continuous samples of its permitted effluent, before disinfection (EFB,) its flash mixer (where chemical dosing occurs), and its permitted effluent after disinfection (EFA), are hydraulically fed. All samples and measurements were obtained from this source. The existing hypochlorite tanks and pump skids were used for the chlorine source, and the city had a 300-gal ammonium sulfate tote and a spare peristaltic pump for the ammonia source. As part of the FDEP-approved pilot study, the WWTF connected the ammonium sulfate

tote and spare in-house peristaltic pump to the disinfection system. Piping was already installed to convey ammonium sulfate to a dosing location adjacent to the hypochlorite dosing point and immediately upstream of the flash mixer to allow almost instantaneous mixing of chlorine and ammonia sources after dosing. The flash mixer promotes uniform mixing of the chemicals for the formation of monochloramine. When the pilot was initiated, the pump was set at the same flow-paced signal as the hypochlorite feed pumps and at a lower dosing ration, but did not have an automatic residual trim. Monochloramine, free ammonia, and total chlorine measurements were recorded from the sample lines, and sodium hypochlorite and/ or ammonium sulfate doses were adjusted to achieve desired monochloramine levels. The existing hypochlorite and ammonia pumps were manually set to pump at chemical feed rates generally in accordance with the dosing rates required at the variable flow rates of the diurnal pattern of the facility, but were adjusted based on the different live flow rates at the time of testing. The dosing rates were calculated using the chemical equations and molar ratios of the process. The total volume of the one chlorine contact tank online during the pilot was calculated to be approximately 190,300 gal using the dimensions of the tank (106 ft x 8 ft x approximately 10 ft) with three trains. The contact time was calculated based on the live flow rate at the time when the

Figure 6. St. Cloud Injection Well Water Quality

30 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

initial dose was set. Another sample was taken from the EFA location at that time to determine the effective residual. One sample of EFB and one sample of EFA were taken after the chemical doses were set. The jars were appropriately labeled, and the following details were noted: S The time the sample was taken. S The current plant flow (mgd). S The estimated residual time (calculated after the dose start based on the flow meter reading). S The time range between residuals as dosing pumps change. S The ratio of chlorine to ammonia (e.g., 4.5:1, 5:1, etc.). After the samples were collected, they were tested for monochloramine and free ammonia using the city’s Hach DR 850 analyzer and for total chlorine using the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) total chlorine analyzer. Modifications were made to the analyzer so that it could be used to perform the monochloramine and free ammonia tests. The city used a CLX analyzer for the flash mixer and a CL17 analyzer for the residual. The ammonium sulfate and sodium hypochlorite doses were adjusted based on the test results according to these guidelines: S If monochloramine was low and free ammonia was 0 mg/L NH3 – N, this implied that all of the ammonia was being used to form monochloramine and the CL:N ratio was greater than 5; therefore, an increase in ammonium sulfate was needed. S I f monochloramine was low and free ammonia was greater than 0.1 mg/L NH3 – N, this implied that all of the chlorine was being used to form monochloramine and the CL:N ration was less than 5; therefore, an increase in sodium hypochlorite was needed. S If monochloramine was low and free ammonia was between 0 mg/L NH3 – N and 0.1 mg/L NH3 – N, this implied that the CL:N was in the appropriate range, but at too low a dose; therefore, an increase in sodium hypochlorite and ammonium sulfate was needed at the same ratio. An additional sample of EFB and EFA was taken after the estimated contact time was achieved to record the residual. The process of testing the samples and adjusting chemical dosing rates was to be repeated until the desired ammonium sulfate dosing ratio and monochloramine levels were achieved. Based on the pilot study, approximately 1,200 gal of ammonium sulfate were used across the two-month period. The ammonium

sulfate pump used for the pilot had to be turned down to the minimum ranges. Free ammonia and monochloramine monitoring has continued to be performed with manual Hach test kits through the pilot since it started in spring 2020. As a result, the ratio of ammonia to chlorine cannot be continuously controlled or adjusted to reduce excess free ammonia at all points throughout the day, resulting in underdosing or overdosing ammonia since the flow varies diurnally over a typical 24-hour period. In addition, the ability to remotely monitor or control this system is not available through SCADA. Facility staff takes manual monochloramine and free ammonia samples one to two times daily. Extra samples were taken of the DBPs during pilot testing. The samples taken have shown consistent, reduced levels of TTHMs and HAA5, while meeting fecal and total coliform requirements. The highest TTHM value observed from these samples was 10.9 µg/L and the highest HAA5 was 31.5 µg/L, well below the respective 80 µg/L and 60 µg/L limits. Total coliforms remained below four colony-forming units (CFU)/100 mL and all fecal coliform samples yielded nondetect values. In addition, the total chlorine residual has shown an increased stability, resulting in minimized disinfection rejection events since the monochloramine disinfection began. The graph in Figure 6 shows historical water quality. Figure 6 also displays the TTHMs of the reclaimed and injected water into the St. Cloud injection well. This also contains information on the monitoring wells and the total stored volume of water recharged into the injection well. Background samples were collected for nearly three years, since the well was first put into operation after construction and before the monochloramine pilot was put into place, providing baseline conditions for the system. The water in the facility had a maximum TTHM of almost 300 µg/L before the operation of the monochloramine system. The figure shows that the TTHM values began declining generally, but the monochloramine pilot has not reached any value of 20 µg/L or greater (less than a quarter of the limit) in almost a year and a half of its operation. Figure 7 displays the HAA5 of the reclaimed and injected water into the St. Cloud injection well; this also contains information on the monitoring wells and the total stored volume of water recharged into the injection well. Background samples were collected for approximately nine months before the monochloramine pilot was put into place, providing baseline conditions for the system. The water in the facility had a maximum HAA5 of almost 300 µg/L before the operation of the

Figure 7. St. Cloud Injection Well Water Quality Haloacetic Acids Trends

Figure 8. St. Cloud Injection Well Water Quality Fecal Coliform Trends

monochloramine system. The figure shows that the HAA5 values since the monochloramine pilot have not reached 60 µg/L or greater (remaining under the limit), except for one occasion in the almost year and a half of its operation. Figure 8 displays the fecal coliforms of the

reclaimed and injected water into the St. Cloud injection well. This also contains information on the monitoring wells and the total stored volume of water recharged into the injection well. Background samples were collected for nearly three years since the well was first put Continued on page 32

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Figure 9. St. Cloud Injection Well Water Quality Total Coliform Trends Table 1. Injection Well Operation Data Overall (July 3, 2017, through Aug. 16, 2021) Parameter


Median Value

Minimum Value

Maximum Value

Data Count











Fecal Coliform Total Coliform

#/100 mL #/100 mL

1.00 2.11









1.00 U

1.00 U

* 1.00 U – represents nondetectable value

Table 2. Injection Well Operation Data Before Monochloramine System Installation (July 3, 2017, through Feb. 12, 2020) Parameter


Median Value

Minimum Value

Maximum Value

Data Count











Fecal Coliform Total Coliform

#/100 mL #/100 mL

1.00 1.11









1.00 U

1.00 U

* 1.00 U – represents nondetectable value

Table 3. Injection Well Operation Data After Monochloramine System Installation (Feb, 31, 2020, through Aug. 16, 2021) Parameter


Median Value

Minimum Value

Maximum Value

Data Count













Fecal Coliform

#/100 mL


1.00 U*






Total Coliform

#/100 mL


1.00 U

* 1.00 U – represents nondetectable value

32 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Continued from page 31 into operation after construction and before the monochloramine pilot was put into place, providing baseline conditions for the system. The water in the facility had a maximum fecal coliform of almost over 2, with a multitude of quantifiable values before the operation of the monochloramine system. The figure shows that the fecal coliform values since the monochloramine pilot have not reached any detectable values, except for two occasions in the almost year and a half of its operation. Figure 9 displays the total coliforms of the reclaimed and injected water into the St. Cloud injection well. This also contains information on the monitoring wells and the total stored volume of water recharged into the injection well. Background samples were collected for nearly three years since the well was first put into operation after construction and before the monochloramine pilot was put into place, providing baseline conditions for the system. The water in the facility had a maximum total coliform of too numerous to count (TNTC), with a multitude of quantifiable values before the operation of the monochloramine system. The figure shows that the total coliform values following the start of the monochloramine pilot were nondetectable, but multiple quantifiable values began after the first few months of operation. After research into this issue, nitrifying bacteria were found to be forming along the walls of the chlorine contact tanks after monochloramine dosing. This was due to two primary reasons: 1. The pilot system overdosing ammonia as a result of not having a fully automated, SCADA-monitored, compound loopcontrolled ammonium sulfate chemical feed system and simply flow-pacing the ammonium sulfate feed pumps off the hypochlorite feed pumps. 2. Naturally occurring bacteria due to continued use of monochloramine disinfection in the warm, humid Florida environment, with direct sunlight exposure for extended periods. A chlorine burn was found to be required as part of facility maintenance approximately every nine to 12 months to disinfect any nitrifying bacteria forming a coating on the interior tank walls. Since this maintenance began, no detectable values have been reached in the almost nine months of the monochloramine system’s operation. Table 1 shows the overall operation data for the injection well during the monochloramine pilot period, Table 2 shows the operation data before the monochloramine system was

installed, and Table 3 shows the operation data after the monochloramine system was installed. As of the end of August 2021, the city has injected almost 150 MG of reclaimed water. The city issued a purchase order for the fullscale monochloramine project at the end of August 2021. The fully automated, SCADAmonitored, compound loop-controlled system was constructed and online by January 2022. Bradenton Pre-Existing Monochloramine System The Bradenton WWTF chlorine contact tanks currently use free chlorine in the form of 12.5 percent liquid sodium hypochlorite, which is dosed at the clear well of the tertiary effluent filters. The clear well contains a standpipe with a vortex breaker, which conveys flow to the chlorine contact basin. The total chlorine residual is monitored at the dosing location and at the chlorine contact’s effluent weir. The tertiary filter’s dosing point also includes a 300-gal ammonium sulfate storage tote with a chemical feed pump that can be operated manually without flow control or residual trim. When used, the pump is set at a constant feed rate and turned on to begin forming monochloramines by the addition of ammonia, but the chemical feed pumps are not flow-paced, and no ammonia or monochloramine monitoring analyzer is provided; therefore, the ratio of ammonia to chlorine cannot be properly controlled. This results in underdosing or overdosing ammonia, since the flow varies diurnally over a typical 24hour period. In addition, the ability to remotely monitor or control this system is not available through SCADA; therefore, the system is currently not used due to these issues. The city issued a purchase order for the full-scale monochloramine project in September 2021. The fully automated, SCADAmonitored, compound loop-controlled system was constructed and online by February 2022. This monochloramine system differs from the St. Cloud system due to the surface water discharge previously discussed. With the total nitrogen limit of 3 mg/L being required, the tight control of the automated system is critical to prevent excess ammonia from being dosed. Equipment was selected for this application according to the constraints described in the equipment analysis that follows, with the ammonia being dosed upstream of the existing hypochlorite dose and the standpipe with vortex breaker being allowed to act as a static mixer, providing almost instantaneous mixing. The city also requested a fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) enclosure for all equipment except the chemical tanks. Figure 10 shows the proposed well

Figure 10. Bradenton Proposed Recharge Well and Monitoring Wells

construction diagram for the recharge well and associated monitoring wells. Specific Equipment Analysis To implement a fully automated, SCADAmonitored, compound loop-controlled ammonium sulfate chemical feed system, specifically designed chemical feed equipment and analyzers should be created. The primary components consist of chemical storage tanks (for ammonium sulfate, sodium hypochlorite,

and possibly sodium hydroxide if pH control is needed), chemical feed pumps (to convey all stored materials in the specific order required for appropriate formation), and an analyzer (reading monochloramine, free ammonia, pH, and preferably also free chlorine for the reasons described in the St. Cloud pilot earlier). The monochloramine equipment for each of the three designs was sized for the full range of flows (from MinADF to PDF). Continued on page 34

Florida-Based Multidisciplinary Services Firm Providing Environmental & Infrastructure Solutions Since 1974

Thomas Friedrich, PE, BCEE

Sean Menard, PE, CDT, ENV SP, Assoc. DBIA

Asset Management | Civil/Environmental | Solid Waste | Water Resources | Utilities Infrastructure JonesEdmunds.com




Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 33 Systems can be easily sized for larger, less common peaks through additional quantities of similarly sized equipment; sizing can also accommodate future flows that may be expected for the wells. An analyzer building may also be considered to contain the water quality monitoring instruments that measure the water at and after dosing. Sample pumps may also be required to convey flow from the dosing location to the analyzer or from the analyzer back to a drain. Table 4 lists the major equipment required for the proposed monochloramine systems, together with their general design guidelines. Cost Analysis For the St. Cloud and Bradenton facilities, the operational cost savings in hypochlorite dosing reduction offset the operational cost savings in monochloramine dosing so significantly that both projects are projected to reach the payback period for implementation of their monochloramine chemical feed system retrofits in approximately five years.

City of St. Cloud Based on 2019 data, the city used 12.5 percent sodium hypochlorite for high-level disinfection and the monthly and average annual use was estimated and rounded as 23,000 gal per month and 272,685 gal per year. The contract price in 2019 was $0.495/gal of sodium hypochlorite. When a combined chlorine residual is used during the monochloramine pilot, the amount of free chlorine was shown to be significantly reduced since combined chlorine does not react with other oxidizable compounds in the effluent; therefore, minimal free chlorine demand exists. The estimated free chlorine usage that the city experienced, while using a monochloramine residual for the first twomonth period from Feb. 13 to April 13, 2020, was estimated and rounded to 26,895 gal, which equates to 13,450 gal per month and 161,400 gal per year. This resulted in an estimated 12.5 percent saving of sodium hypochlorite use (i.e., 111,310 gal per year) and an annual chemical cost savings of $55,000/year. The ammonium sulfate dose will need to be coordinated in the field through preliminary testing, once the compound loop

Table 4. Key Components of the Monochloramine Systems

System •

Chemical Storage Tanks

• •

• • • Chemical Feed Pumps

• •

• Chemical Analyzers

• •

Key Components Typically sized to allow 30-day deliveries assuming 24-hour operation Minimum volume to accommodate chemical delivery truck Vertical, double-wall tanks to allow dual containment and prevent chemical spills to the ground (instead of a single wall, requiring a separate concrete containment structure) and even pressure distribution (instead of horizontal) Two equally sized tanks, if possible, to allow redundancy and reduce the overall footprint Typically sized to meet peak hourly flows while allowing turndown to MinADFs Multiple pumps for redundancy and if the range of flows is too broad (most pumps have a maximum turndown of 10 percent of the designed rate) Pump skid and enclosure should be considered for outdoor applications Matching other onsite equipment allows for standardization that can be beneficial regarding spare parts and redundancy in maintenance and coordination with manufacturers Select type of analyzer based on water quality (i.e., water with a historically high color should not consider an analyzer that uses ultraviolet [UV] 254 to take sample readings due to the negative impact on the transmissivity of the unit’s ability to read parameters) Reliability including consistent customer service Evaluate proprietary reagents compared to reagents that can be made in-house with a recipe

34 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

is incorporated, and will likely decrease further from the results of the pilot. The city has been using a monochloramine dose of approximately 3 mg/L. During the initial two months of the pilot, an estimated four totes (approximately 1,200 gal) were used, projecting an estimated 7,200 gal per year. The projected dosage of ammonium sulfate at the current facility flow is approximately 1,000 gal per month or 12,000 gal per year. The added cost for the addition of ammonium sulfate per year at the current estimated $1.80/gal contract price is approximately $12,500 to $21,500 per year. The net savings in disinfectant chemical costs (between $55,000 and $12,500 and $55,000 and $21,500) is approximately $42,500 to $33,500 per year (savings = sodium hypochlorite reduced cost/year minus ammonium sulfate/year). City of Bradenton Based on 2020 data, when the city used free chlorine for high-level disinfection, the monthly and average annual use could be as high as 18,000 gal month and 219,000 gal per year. When a combined chlorine residual is used, the amount of free chlorine use is significantly reduced since combined chlorine does not react with other oxidizable compounds in the effluent; therefore, minimal free chlorine demand exists. The estimated free chlorine usage for using a monochloramine residual is 5,840 gal per month and 71,040 gal per year, resulting in an estimated savings in free chlorine usage of $72,215 per year. The ammonium sulfate dose will need to be coordinated in the field through preliminary testing; amonochloramine dose of 3 mg/L was assumed for cost estimating. The added cost for the addition of 22,600 gal of ammonium sulfate per year is $40,681. The net savings in disinfectant chemical is approximately $31,534 per year (savings = free chlorine reduced cost/year minus ammonium sulfate/year)

Summary and Recommendations The City of St. Cloud, City of Bradenton, and Southwest Florida Water Management District have each prepared to implement a monochloramine disinfection system to disinfect treated wastewater or raw, screened surface water at one of their AR well sites to better manage the seasonal limitations of their storage, benefit the MIA within the SWUCA, provide an environmental benefit of reduced nutrient loading to surface waters, and/or mitigate saltwater intrusion and improve natural water systems. Each of these has an impact on future alternative water supplies through aquifers or

through surface waters. Existing and changing regulations exist for AR wells and surface waters, with an increased requirement to meeting primary and secondary drinking water standards, which can most economically be met through surface disinfection. Monochloramine was selected for this disinfectant to mitigate DBPs. The monochloramine system is intended to reduce DBPs and coliforms, while maintaining minimum chlorine residual. In the extended St. Cloud pilot example, TTHMs were reduced from a median of 136 mg/L to a median of 4.2 mg/L, the HAA5 were reduced from a median of 32.05 mg/L to a median of 15.90 mg/L, fecal coliforms were reduced from a multitude of quantifiable

values to no detectable values (with two exceptions), and total coliforms were reduced from a multitude of quantifiable values to no detectable values (once the chlorine burn maintenance was coordinated), all before being injected down the onsite well. Water quality monitoring has demonstrated that these DBPs and coliforms have decreased since the addition of the monochloramine disinfection and have remained low (between nondetect and values well below regulation limits), suggesting that the chloramination in place of the chlorination has limited the DBPs and coliforms, while still maintaining required disinfection residual for the formation of public access reuse.

Water quality data for the Bradenton application, with discharge to surface water (including DBCM and DCBM reduction requirements) and for the Flatford application with surface water as the source water, will be determined during the subsequent phases of each of those projects, which are both currently in construction. The ability to show the efficacy of the monochloramine disinfection systems at the surface of these recharge wells on mitigating DBPs, lowering long-term O&M costs, and securing an operation permit will further advance the feasibility of monochloramine disinfection for other AR wells throughout S Florida.

NEWS BEAT The mayor of the City of Orlando has asked residents to stop watering lawns and washing cars immediately, saying that water usage needs to be cut back because of the recent surge of COVID-19 hospitalizations. The Orlando Utility Commission treats the city’s water with liquid oxygen, and supplies that usually go toward water treatment have been diverted to hospitals for patients suffering from the virus, according to Buddy Dyer, Orlando mayor. “We acknowledge that the main priority for the liquid oxygen should be for hospitals,” Dyer said at a news conference. The city-owned utility typically goes through 10 trucks of liquid oxygen a week, but its supplier recently said that it would be cut back to five to seven trucks a week to accommodate hospitals. About 40 percent of the utility commission’s potable water is used for irrigation, so any strains on the water supply will be greatly reduced if residents stop watering their lawns, washing their cars, or using pressure washers. On its website, the utility said residents should prepare to follow the conservation measures for at least two weeks. Since the 1990s, the utility has used liquid oxygen to remove the slight discoloration and rotten-egg smell that is found naturally in Florida’s water supply. Officials at one of the Orlando area’s largest health care systems said that they had 1,620 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, twice the level of what it was during last winter’s peak high for AdventHealth.


Kennedy Jenks has announced that

Matthew (Matt) Munz recently joined the company as a senior project manager, based out of Tampa, serving water and wastewater utility clients across the state. Munz has previously managed multimillion-dollar water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and Matthew Munz reuse projects. Using both conventional and design-build delivery methods, he has led projects through all stages, including feasibility studies, planning, permitting, design, construction, and commissioning. He is experienced in a variety of water, wastewater, reclaimed water, and reuse projects, including feasibility studies, master planning, permitting, design, construction, and commissioning utilizing both conventional and alternative delivery methods. Munz has managed projects ranging in value from less than $10,000 to over $2 million and has substantial experience providing construction engineering and inspection services for utilities projects ranging from treatment plant upgrades to underground utility relocations. He has a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from the University of South Florida.


The American Public Works Association (APWA) has selected a new president-elect, long-time active member Keith Pugh, P.E., PWLF. Previous president-

elect, Dan Hartman, stepped down from his role, citing ongoing health issues and his concern that he would not be able to give the role the energy it deserves. Keith Pugh Pugh has been active with APWA for over 20 years, starting with serving on the Engineering and Technology Committee. He’s served on other national committees within APWA and been very active in leadership in the North Carolina Chapter. He is a client success manager with WithersRavenel in Asheville, N.C., and will assume the office of president at the Public Works Expo (PWX), scheduled to be held August 28-31, 2022, in Charlotte, N.C. “The APWA has an excellent process with which to fill vacancies in unfortunate situations. The selection of Keith Pugh as president-elect means APWA will continue to be in good hands,” said Stan Brown, APWA president. “His breadth and depth of experience will serve the association well.” “I am excited to have been chosen to fill the unexpired term of president-elect,” said Pugh. “It’s a challenging role and I look forward to diving into it and helping to guide AWPA through the next year of my presidency.” The APWA is a not-for-profit, international organization of more than 30,000 members involved in the field of public works. It serves its members by promoting professional excellence and public awareness through education, Continued on page 59

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022




for the latest updates on classes August

Member / Non Member

1-5..... FALL STATE SHORT SCHOOL..................................................... Ft. Pierce

15-18..... Backflow Tester Course.............................................................. Deltona.............. $375/405 18..... Backflow Tester Recertification and Exams............................. Deltona.............. $85/115 22-25..... Backflow Tester Course.............................................................. St. Petersburg.... $375/405 25..... Backflow Tester Recertification................................................. St. Petersburg.... $85/115 29-1..... Region IX Wastewater Collections C Course........................... Deltona.............. $325/325


12-14..... Backflow Repair Course.............................................................. St. Petersburg.... $275/305 12-15..... Backflow Tester Course.............................................................. Deltona.............. $375/405 14..... Backflow Tester Recertification................................................. St. Petersburg.... $85/115 16..... Backflow Tester Recertification and Exams............................. Deltona.............. $85/115 22..... Region IX Reclaimed Water Distribution C Course (Abbreviated).... Deltona.............. $125/155 23..... Region IX Reclaimed Water Distribution B Course (Abbreviated).... Deltona.............. $125/155


3-5..... Backflow Repair Course.............................................................. Deltona.............. $275/305

11-14..... Water Distribution 2..................................................................... Deltona.............. $325/325 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 training@fwpcoa.org. 36 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

You are required to have your own calculator at state short schools and most other courses.

Complete Visibility in Full Wastewater Tanks SediVision®️ technology delivers unprecedented high-resolution image mapping of full wastewater tanks. Eliminate probing. Know with accuracy, where and how much material is under dark water.






The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure The FSAWWA Fall Conference brings together utilities, consultants, manufacturers, regulators, and students. Register and learn from the industry’s best through technical session, workshops, and exhibits. Network with water industry professionals. Over 160 exhibitors will give you first-hand information on the latest developments to help your utility take actions to implement Florida’s future.

Exhibitor Registration: Registration opens June 1, 2022 www.fsawwa.org/2022exhibits

Attendee Registration: Starts August 1, 2022 fsawwa.org/2022fallconference

For more information: fsawwa.org/2022fallconference Hotel Accommodations: fsawwa.org/2022hotel Host hotel is Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress

CHEER for Meter Madness!

Prep for HYDRANT Hysteria!

Let loose at the RODEO!

Join the Tapping FUN!

Technical Sessions

• Cybersecurity • Asset Management and GIS • Sanitary Sewer Systems • Potable Reuse • PFAS/PFOS • Emerging Water Quality Issues (UCMR 5 Testing, LCRR, etc.) • Alternative Water Solutions – • • • • •

No-Surface - Discharge Rule, I Need More Water! Solutions for Water Treatment Challenges Hydraulic Modeling – Solutions to Increase Knowledge and Address Challenges Funding the Utility System Workforce planning – Is It Us? Water Conservation

Conference Highlights

• BBQ Challenge &

Incoming Chair’s Reception

• Operator Events:

Meter Madness Backhoe Rodeo Hydrant Hysteria Tapping Competition

Professionals Events: Aging Well - Protecting • YoungLuncheon Water Bowl Our Infrastructure

Fresh Ideas Poster Session

• Water for People’s Fundraising Events: Exhibitor’s Raffle Fundraiser


Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Poker Tournament Monday, November 28, 2022 Starts at 9:00 pm TopGolf Tournament Wednesday, November 30, 2022 8:00 am Shotgun start


Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

Online Registration Deadline: November 15, 2022 fsawwa.org/2022fallregistration

First Name: ___________________________________________________________ Last Name: _______________________________________________ Name to Appear on Badge: ___________________________________________________ AWWA Member No: ________________________________ Organization: ________________________________________________________________ Position | Title: _____________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________________________________________ State: _____________________________ Zip: ___________________________ Phone: (______) ________-__________ Fax: (______) ________-__________ Email: ________________________________________________________ CEU|PDH Registration: We offer 0.1 CEU and 1 PDH per hour of participation in Technical Sessions, Symposiums, and Workshops. Fall Conference Course # 05100590

 I am a Florida Professional Engineer, No: ____________________________________  I am a Florida Licensed Operator, No: _______________________________________ Please select one:  Plant  Distribution  Collection


Member By Nov. 1

Full Registration (3 days):

Includes: Monday Workshops, Opening General Session, BBQ, Technical Sessions, Exhibits, Meet & Greet (Does not include Laws/Rules, Utility Systems Symposium, and Business & Awards Luncheon)

By After Nov. 1 Nov. 1

After Nov. 1

















Daily Registration: Workshops, Technical Sessions and Exhibits Please select a day:

 Monday (Includes all Monday events, except Laws/Rules & Utility Systems Symposium)  Tuesday  Wednesday Special Registration: (Must register)

Speaker (One-day only)*

Select day:

 Mon

 Tue

 Wed





Retired AWWA member

Select day:

 Mon  Mon

$50 $50

$50 $50

$50 $50

Operator Competitions

 Wed  Wed  Wed

$50 $50

    

 Tue  Tue  Tue













 

Free with full or one-day registration

 Spouse (Lunch not included) Students - Free (Registration required if attending) Exhibit Hall Only

 Mon

Engineering Laws | Rules 2.0 PDH

Monday AM





Utility Systems Symposium

Monday 8-5





Students/Young Professionals Lunch

Tuesday PM





FSAWWA Business & Awards Luncheon

Wednesday PM





(Includes lunch) 0.8 CEU | 8.0 PDH

 Tue

 Wed

Free Events: (You will need to register for an accurate count if you are attending the following events)

  

Opening General Session

Monday AM





BBQ after Exhibits Meet & Greet

Monday PM

Water Conservation Symposium (No Credits)

Wednesday AM

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

$0 $0

Register online is strongly recommended at: www.fsawwa.org/2022 fallregistration Questions: Peggy Guingona | peggy@fsawwa.org Note: A 30% service fee will be retained on any cancellation by Nov. 1. No refunds after Nov. 2, 2022. Hotel Accommodations

Host hotel is Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress. The special rate is $165. Visit fsawwa.org/2022hotel

Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Thank you for your interest in the FSAWWA.


The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

Poker Night & Happy Hour Monday, November 28, 2022 8:30 - 11:30pm Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress

Join us at poker after the BBQ and continue the networking. Your participation will benefit the Likins Scholarship Fund, Water Equation, and Water For People. Register Today!

fsawwa.org/2022poker It is not necessary to participate in the tournament in order to be a sponsor. Please send Terry Gullet at tgullett@neptunetg.com a pdf or jpeg version of your company logo for all sponsorships.

Pre-Paid Buy-ins: Blackjack Buy in | $20.00 (2000 in chips) Poker Buy In | $40.00 (5000 in chips) At the Door Buy-ins: Blackjack Buy in | $30.00 (2000 in chips) Poker Buy In | $50.00 (5000 in chips) Grand Prize: 50” HDTV!

Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Opportunities to Sponsor Straight | $50

• One of four at a game table sponsors • Logo on a prominently displayed

sponsor board at the registration table

Full House | $150

• One of two at a game table sponsors • Logo on a prominently displayed

sponsor board at the registration table

• 2 Blackjack or 2 Poker Buy-ins Royal Flush | $250

• Sole game table sponsor • Logo on a prominently displayed •

sponsor board 4 Poker Buy Ins or 5 Blackjack Buy-ins

Any contribution of prizes is greatly appreciated for the worthwhile cause. Pre-purchase Buy-In and Table Sponsorships through Conference Registration. Buy-Ins may be purchased at the door during first hour of play with a credit card, personal check, or cash. Space is limited so pre-purchase to ensure that you have a chance to win. Entry tickets and chips have no cash value. Once they are purchased no refunds will be given. Only paid entries and sponsors will be allowed access to the hall.


The Roy Likins Scholarship Fund

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

Par-Tee at TopGolf

Wednesday, November 30, 2022 Registration starts at 5:00 pm Event: 6:00 - 9:00 pm

Join us at TopGolf. Have fun and network with water industry professionals. Your participation will benefit the Likins Scholarship Fund, Water Equation, and Water For People. Register Today!

fsawwa.org/2022golf Location:

TopGolf Orlando 9295 Universal Blvd. Orlando, FL 32819 (407) 218-7714 | topgolf.com/us/orlando

Entry: Entry Fee includes: Entry into the tournament, buffet food, 2 drink tickets per person, and fellowship with conference attendees Individual/Additional Registration | $125 Individuals will be placed into bays with other registrants Individual Utility Operator Registration | $50 Individuals will be placed into bays with other registrants Social Attendee | $50 Come mingle with friends and colleagues (Food and 1 Drink Ticket included)

Opportunities to Sponsor Eagle Sponsor | $850

• Your company’s logo streaming • • •

on all TVs of the tournament bays. Recognized with signage at bay. 1 bay with up to 6 entries. Recognition at the awards ceremony.

Birdie Sponsor | $750

• Recognized with signage at bay. • 1 bay with up to 6 entries. • Recognition at the awards ceremony. Food & Beverage Sponsor | $500

• Recognized with signage. • Recognized on rotating bay displays. • Recognition at the awards ceremony. It is not necessary to participate in order to be a sponsor. Please send Chase Freeman a pdf or jpeg version of your company logo for all sponsorships. Email: Cfreeman@spiritgroupinc.com

Rain or shine, let’s play golf for a great cause.

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

2022 Water Distribution System Awards

Divisions based on the Number of Water Services Division 1 = 1 - 5,999 Division 2 = 6,000 - 12,999 Division 3 = 13,000 - 19,999

The FSAWWA Water Distribution System Awards are presented to utilities whose outstanding performance during the preceding year deserves special recognition by the section.

Division 4 = 20,000 - 29,999

The Award Criteria is based upon the following:

Division 7 = 70,000 - 129,999

Water Quality Operational Records Maintenance Professionalism Safety Emergency Prepardness Cross Connection Control Program Must be an AWWA member (Organizational or Individual) Actively supports the activities of the FSAWWA Demonstrates high standards and integrity The selection committee is under the Manufacturers/Associates Council.

Division 8 = 130,000+

• • •

Division 6 = 46,000 - 69,999

Send applications to: Mike George 10482 Dunkirk Road Spring Hill, FL 34608 tapitflorida@att.net


2021 Winners: Division 1: Division 2: Division 3: Division 4: Division 5: Division 6: Division 7: Division 8:

Division 5 = 30,000 - 45,999

Not Awarded South Walton Utility Co., Inc. City of Zephyrhills Utility Department Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. City of Boca Raton Utility Services Department Broward County Water and Wastewater Services Lee County Utilities Water Distribution Hillsborough County Public Utilities Department

Friday, October 21, 2022 Download the application form:

www.fsawwa.org/ distributionawards

E W Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Thank you for your interest in the FSAWWA.

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

Join the Competition

2022 Competitions

Tuesday & Wednesday, November 29 - 30, 2022

Let loose at the RODEO!

fsawwa.org/2022fallconference FSAWWA hosts fun and lively competitions between municipalities to find the most skilled person or team in the Meter Madness, Tapping, Hydrant Hysteria, and Back Hoe Rodeo contests. Please join us as a spectator or visit our website to download the application to complete.

Join the Tapping FUN!

Back Hoe Rodeo: Tuesday | 10:00 am - 12:00 pm

Backhoe operators show off their expertise by executing several challenging lifts and drops of various objects in the fastest time.

Tapping Contests: Tuesday | 11:00 am - 2:30 pm

In a contest of skill and dexterity as well as speed, teams of four compete for the fastest time while they perform a quality drill and tap of pipe under available pressure. Penalties are assessed in seconds for infractions of rules such as leaking connections or safety violations. Only two taps are allowed per team.

CHEER for Meter Madness!

Ductile Iron Tap: 11:00 am - 12:00 pm Fun Tap: 1:00 - 2:30 pm

Meter Madness: Tuesday | 4:00 - 5:00 pm

Contestants are challenged to put together a completely disassembled meter against the clock. To make the contest more interesting, three to six miscellaneous parts are included in the bucket of meter components. Once the meter is assembled, it must operate correctly and not leak.

Prep for HYDRANT Hysteria!

Hydrant Hysteria: Wednesday | 9:00 - 11:00 am

Hydrant Hysteria is a fast paced two person competition as to who can assembly a fire hydrant quickly, totally, and accurately. Two or more teams go head to head while assembling the hydrant. All parts will be assembled in proper manner and reassembled hydrant shall be tested by the judges for ability to operate correctly.

Sponsorship Opportunities Please Contact: Mike George tapitflorida@att.net (352) 200-9631

Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Thank you for your interest in the FSAWWA.

FSAWWA Water Use Efficiency Division

2022 Water Conservation Awards for Excellence This annual awards program of the FSAWWA Water Use Efficiency Division (WUED) recognizes innovative and outstanding achievements in water efficiency throughout Florida.

Award Categories:

• Comprehensive Water Conservation Programming • Program Element- Single Program Highlight Agencies will be awarded one of the following awards: Best in Class or Show of Excellence.

For online application and information, visit : fsawwa.org/2022wcawards Entries must be submitted by: Monday, October 17, 2022


For additional information, please contact: Keeli Carlton Water Use Efficiency Division (WUED) Chair kcarlton@mywinterhaven.com

Aging Well- Protecting Our Infrastructure

Looking forward to seeing you at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress on November 27 to November 30, 2022.

Thank you for your interest in the FSAWWA.

Drop Savers Poster Contest Winners Announced Melissa Velez, P.E., LEED AP

Every year the Florida Section of the American Water Works Association (FSAWWA) sponsors the “Drop Savers” Water Conservation Poster Contest. Students from Kindergarten to 12th grade are encouraged to create a poster depicting a water conservation idea in slogan form, drawing form, or both. The contest allows students to promote water awareness and the importance of water conservation in their daily routines.

Poster Guidelines Posters are designated under one of the following categories: Division 1 - K indergarten and First Grade Division 2 - S econd and Third Grade Division 3 - Fourth and Fifth Grade Division 4 - M iddle School: Grades Six, Seven, and Eight

Division 5 - High School: Grades Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve S P osters are drawn on 8 ½-inch x 11-inch white paper (horizontally or vertically) S Each poster must portray a water conservation idea in a slogan, drawing, or both. Students may use crayons, paint, color pencils, or markers. No highlighters, photos, or computer graphics are permitted. S Students must work on posters individually, otherwise posters will be disqualified. S Only original artwork will be accepted (i.e., no trademarked or copyrighted materials).

Poster Committee Responsibilities The Drop Savers Committee’s responsibility is to invite and provide each water utility in Florida with the guidelines for running their own poster contest. Once water utilities select their winners, they send the first-place winner’s poster to the Drop Savers Committee, where they will participate in the state competition. This year, there were 97 posters from 27 water utilities that participated in the contest.

Poster Prizes The prizes for this year included: S F irst-Place Winners: • $100 Amazon gift card • Plaque displaying the poster • Calendar displaying the poster • Water conservation kit • Certificate S S econd-Place Winners: • $75 Amazon gift card • Calendar displaying the poster • Water conservation kit • Certificate S Th ird-Place Winners: • $50 Amazon gift card • Calendar displaying the poster • Water conservation kit • Certificate

Poster Winners The winning Drop Savers posters are pictured here.


FIRST PLACE Hillborough County and City of Tampa Ayaan Sangomola

SECOND PLACE City of Winter Garden Harper Lopata

THIRD PLACE Gainesville Regional Utility Arian Barnes

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



FIRST PLACE Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Vighnesh Pamnani

SECOND PLACE Port St. Lucie Utility Systems Jovyn Griffith

THIRD PLACE Manatee County Utilities Bruno Mariduena


FIRST PLACE City of Melbourne Eloise Hughes

SECOND PLACE Toho Water Authority Katherine GiaHan Tran

THIRD PLACE Bonita Springs Utility Arwen Mouritsen


FIRST PLACE City of Hollywood Ana Bottger

46 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal


THIRD PLACE City of Margate Chelsea Randolph


FIRST PLACE Manatee County Eleni Sarantopoulos

SECOND PLACE Orange County Annabella Urdaneta

THIRD PLACE Hillsborough County and City of Tampa Miki Lin

Melissa Velez, P.E., LEED AP, is an engineering manager at Black & Veatch in Coral Springs. S

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


APWA Announces 2022 Public Works Project of the Year Award Winners The American Public Works Association (APWA) has announced the winners of the 2022 Project of the Year awards. Each year APWA recognizes the efforts of public works agencies, contractors, and consultants who develop, own, and maintain infrastructure projects that promote excellence in construction management and administration.

Award Categories Awards are provided in four divisions and five categories. The divisions are: S Projects less than $5 million S Projects $5 million but less than $25 million S Projects $25 million to $75 million S Projects more than $75 million S S S S S

The categories are: S tructures Transportation Environment Historical restoration/preservation Disaster or emergency construction repair

Projects of the Year for Small Cities/Rural Communities are awarded to those cities or counties with a population of 75,000 or less and in the same categories listed. “We are very excited to recognize the Project of the Year award recipients at PWX, APWA’s annual conference and exposition to be held in August in Charlotte, North Carolina,” said Stan Brown, P.E., PWLF, president of APWA. “These projects exemplify the creativity and engineering skill our members and their partners possess.” “The projects that have received these awards are a great illustration of our members’ ingenuity, creativity, and willingness to partner to improve the quality of life for residents throughout North America,” said Scott D. Grayson, CAE, APWA chief executive officer.

2022 Winners The winners of the 2022 Public Works Projects of the Year Awards are: Disaster or Emergency Construction/Repair S Less than $5 million: Irondequoit Bay Marine Park Revitalization (Irondequoit, N.Y.) S $5 million but less than $25 million: 7th Street and Salt River Bridge Emergency Repair (Phoenix, Ariz.) Environment S Less than $5 million: Albany Street Stormwater Pond (Thurston County, Wash.) S $5 million but less than $25 million: Minnehaha Park Area Sewer Rehabilitation (Eagan, Minn.) S $25 million to $75 million: Reedy River Basin Sewer Tunnel Project (Greenville, S.C.) S More than $75 million: Lick Run Valley Conveyance System and Greenway (Cincinnati, Ohio) Historical Restoration/Preservation S Less than $5 million: Water Works Park Water Treatment Plant High Lift Pump Station Roof Rehabilitation (Great Lakes Water Authority, Mich.) S $5 million but less than $25 million: Langone Park and Puopolo Playground Renewal (Boston, Mass.) S $25 million to $75 million: Main Street Station Train Shed Rehabilitation (Richmond, Va.)

48 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S More than $75 million: San Francisco Animal Care and Control Facility (San Francisco, Calif.) Structures S Less than $5 million: Veteran’s Memorial Park Phase II (Chandler, Ariz.) S $5 million but less than $25 million: Hardberger Park Land Bridge (San Antonio, Texas) S $25 million to $75 million: I-579 Urban Open Space Cap (Pittsburgh, Penn.) Transportation S Less than $5 million: Great Western Trail (Sycamore, Ill.) S $5 million but less than $25 million: Mountains to Sound Greenway Trail I-405 to 132nd Avenue S.E. (Bellevue, Wash.) S $25 million to $75 million: Fairview Avenue North Bridge Replacement (City of Seattle Department of Transportation) S More than $75 million: Yonge Street Bus Rapid Transit Project (York Region Transit Corp.) Small Cities/Rural Communities Projects of the Year S Disaster/Emergency: Caswell Beach Dune Infiltration Project (Caswell Beach, N.C.) S Environment: North Pleasant Valley Desalter Facility Project (Camarillo, Calif.) S Historical Restoration/Preservation: City of Saratoga Springs (N.Y.) City Hall S Structures: T.B. Hanna Station–Universal Design (Raymore, Mo.) S Transportation: La Quinta Village Complete Streets–A Road Diet Project (La Quinta, Calif.) For more information on any of this year’s project winners, see the current issue of the APWA Reporter at https://apwa.partica.online/ reporter/july-2022/project-of-the-year. S


Register online at go.ufl.edu/FWRJTREEO

Wastewater Certified Professional Operator Certificate This program is designed to train professionals in the foundational concepts of wastewater operations.The program focuses on testing wastewater quality, process control and troubleshooting, and maintaining permit compliance with Department of Environmental Protection. Learn more at go.ufl.edu/FWRJWPOCP


Water Class A Certification Review Gainesville, FL | $720

SCADA Systems Gainesville, FL & Virtual | $575 CEUs 1.2 DS DW WW

12-16 SEP

Wastewater Class C Certification Review

20-21 SEP

Pumping Systems Operation and Maintenance

26-30 SEP

Water Class C Certification Review

27-29 SEP

Introduction to Electrical Maintenance

Virtual | $730

Gainesville, FL | $575 CEUs 1.6 DS DW WW

Virtual | $720

Gainesville, FL | $605 CEUs 2.0 DS DW WW

4-5 OCT

FDEP SOPs for Water & Groundwater Sampling & Meter Testing

14 OCT

Building an Effective Safety Program

17-20 OCT

Gainesville, FL | $310 CEUs 1.2 DW DS WW

Gainesville, FL | $295 CEUs 8.0 DW WW DS

Water Distribution Systems Operator Level 2 & 3 Training Virtual | $699 CEUs 3.2 DS DW WW - Level 2 CEUs 3.2 DS DW WW - Level 3

Visit www.treeo.ufl.edu for a full schedule of courses including: Backflow Prevention Assembly Tester Training & Certification Backflow Prevention Assembly Repair and Maintenance Training & Certification Backflow Prevention Recertification Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Aging Infrastructure: Bridging the Funding Gaps Emilie Moore, P.E., PMP, ENV SP Chair, FSAWWA


he need for upgrades to aging infrastructure has been welldocumented for many years. Since 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has estimated the investment needed to help maintain infrastructure in the United States in a state of good repair. The most recent ASCE analysis, as reported in its 2021 study, “Failure to Act” (www.asce.org/failuretoact), has identified that the long-term investment gap continues to grow, and has risen from $2.1 trillion to $2.59 trillion over 10 years. Additionally, ASCE estimates that, by 2039, continued underinvestment in infrastructure at current rates will cost $10 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) and more than 3 million jobs, and $2.24 trillion in exports over the next 20 years. Furthermore, ASCE reports, per the 2021

study, that the category of water/wastewater/ stormwater has the second highest infrastructure category funding gap, calculated at $434 billion, based on current trends, through 2029. Surface transportation has the highest infrastructure category funding gap, calculated at $1.2 trillion, based on current trends, through 2029. The total funding gap, based on current trends and extended to 2029, is $2.6 trillion.

AWWA Annual Survey Results The American Water Works Association (AWWA) conducted its annual survey of issues facing the water community between October and December 2021. This survey has been conducted annually since 2004 and tracks water professionals’ perceptions of their ability to safeguard public health, support and strengthen communities, and protect the environment. The results from the 2021 survey are documented in AWWA’s 2022 “State of the Water Industry” (SOTWI) report. A large portion (about 48 percent) of participants reported having 20 or more years of water sector experience. The top 10 of the 20 issues identified in the report, as ranked by survey participants, are:

An aged train trestle. (photo: Emilie Moore)

50 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

S Renewal and replacement of aging water infrastructure S Financing for capital improvements S Long-term drinking water supply availability S Aging workforce/anticipated retirements S Public understanding of the value of water systems/services S Emergency preparedness S Watershed/source water protection S Public understanding of the value of water resources S Groundwater management and overuse S Cybersecurity issues Per the AWWA survey, the top two water issues are renewal and replacement of aging water infrastructure and financing for capital improvements. Additionally, the report summarizes the optimism of water professionals about the health of the water industry, as shown in Figure 1, based on a scale of 1 (not sound) to 7 (very sound). Though optimism slid from the 2021 report to the 2022 report, it still trends above the 19-year average.

National Funding Opportunities and Updates Utilities are familiar with nationwide financial programs that help support infrastructure projects. The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) is a $1.9 trillion package that was signed into law in March 2021 and is managed through the U.S. Treasury Department. The ARPA has provided a path for utilities to obtain financial support for critical capital needs related to pandemic relief assistance. About $362 billion has been allocated by ARPA for state and local fiscal recovery and $10 billion for capital projects. Some eligible funding needs include investments in water infrastructure and providing premium pay for essential workers. The U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was signed into law in November 2021 and is also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). It targets $1.2 trillion in spending and earmarks $82.5 billion in critical water investments, with the largest investments allocated to improving safe drinking water and sanitation. The act reauthorizes a number of existing drinking water programs, appropriates

expanded funding for water infrastructure and other programs, and commits $15 million for lead service line replacement. The BIL offers another opportunity for utilities to access federal funding, and much of it will be distributed over five years (Fiscal Years [FY] 2022-2026) primarily through state, tribal, and territorial drinking water and clean water State Revolving Funds (SRFs). Most of the funding will be paid out by states as loans or grants via existing SRFs. On June 13, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the 2022 notices of funding availability for the agency’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and the State Infrastructure Financing Authority WIFIA (SWIFIA) program. The WIFIA program is a federal loan and guarantee program that targets the acceleration of investment in U.S. water infrastructure by providing long-term, low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and nationally significant projects. This year’s total funding is up to $6.5 billion to support $13 billion in water infrastructure projects, while creating 40,000 jobs (EPA Announces $6.5 Billion in New Funding Available for Water Infrastructure Projects, EPA). The notice of funding availability includes $5.5 billion for the WIFIA program and an addition $1 billion for the SWIFIA program. This funding cycle is prioritizing funding in these four areas: S Increasing investment in economically stressed communities S Making rapid progress on lead service line replacements S Addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and emerging contaminants S Supporting water innovation and resilience

often require mandatory reporting, waivers, additional provisions, and extensive paperwork. As an example, SRF programs contain the American Iron and Steel provision requiring recipients to use iron and steel products produced in the U.S. Utilities have been successful in receiving waivers for water and wastewater treatment products not manufactured in the U.S. The BIL requires any “manufactured goods” to be sourced domestically, which will likely create

some challenges and potentially increase project costs and delay project delivery if impacted by supply chain issues. Waivers and carve-outs are still a work in progress. As we know, nothing in life is free, but as physicist and chemist Marie Curie said: “Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.” Let’s go get some funding to help improve the world of aging infrastructure that we live in. S

Figure 1. State of the Water Industry 2004-2022

Letters of interest may be submitted by prospective borrowers and received at EPA any time on or around Sept. 6, 2022. The submission period closes when all available funds are committed to prospective borrowers. To date, EPA has closed 88 WIFIA loans that are providing over $15 billion in credit assistance to help finance nearly $33 billion for water infrastructure, while creating about 100,000 jobs, serving 49 million people, and saving ratepayers over $5 billion.

The Paper Trail and the Path Forward For some utilities, obstacles to applying for funding may include administrative burdens, overly restrictive programs, or a lack of funding awareness. These funding programs

Aging filtration system. (photo: Emilie Moore)

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


AWWA Launches New Source Water Protection Week

Chi Ho Sham

Rebecca Ohrtman

Jennifer Heymann

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) invites water utilities, sections, and other partners to join in declaring Sept. 26 – Oct. 2, 2022, as the firstever “Source Water Protection Week.” Throughout the week, AWWA will be raising awareness about the importance of protecting precious drinking water sources. AWWA’s Source Water Protection Week materials are now available, and additional resources will be added until September 26. “AWWA and many other organizations at the federal, state, and local level recognize the need to join forces to advance the protection of limited drinking water at the source,” said Chi Ho Sham, AWWA past president. “This includes sharing tools and information, collecting data, supporting assessment and protection plans, and encouraging upstream entities to take on shared responsibility.” As part of Source Water Protection Week, AWWA is hosting a #ShowYourSource social media contest. Beginning September 26, utilities and partner organizations are encouraged to post photos or short videos on social media using the hashtag #ShowYourSource to showcase their precious water sources. The idea of an AWWA Source Water Protection Week stems from a meeting with Sham; Jennifer Heymann of American Water, a past chair of AWWA’s Source Water Protection Committee, and a current trustee and vice chair of the Water Resource Sustainability Division; and Rebecca Ohrtman of Water Quality Consulting LLC, a water quality consultant with 15 years of source water protection

52 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

program experience at the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Ohrtman facilitated the establishment of the 2016 Iowa Source Water Protection Week. This concept expanded upon a Source Water Protection Week that American Water employees celebrated in September 2020. “Those of us on the front lines of drinking water protection share a unique opportunity to protect local water sources, including surface water and groundwater, as part of an effective and cost-efficient multiple-barrier approach to providing reliable and high-quality drinking water to the communities we serve,” said Heymann. Ohrtman noted that many water quality and quantity challenges are both pressing and ongoing. “We can utilize new technologies to update and improve source water assessments and collaborate with local stakeholders to develop viable source water protection plans,” she said. “When implemented, these plans can reduce risks to drinking water supplies, providing public health advantages, as well as economic benefits,” she added. “Source water planning provides local awareness and education.” More information about source water protection is available on AWWA’s resource page at www.awwa. org, where Source Water Protection Week materials can also be downloaded. Other information is available at the Source Water Collaborative Learning Exchange website at www.sourcewatercollaborative.org. S

Operators: Take the CEU Challenge!

___________________________________ SUBSCRIBER NAME (please print)

Members of the Florida Water and Pollution Control Operators Association (FWPCOA) may earn continuing education units through the CEU Challenge! Answer the questions published on this page, based on the technical articles in this month’s issue. Circle the letter of each correct answer. There is only one correct answer to each question! Answer 80 percent of the questions on any article correctly to earn 0.1 CEU for your license. Retests are available. This month’s editorial theme is Disinfection and Water Quality. Look above each set of questions to see if it is for water operators (DW), distribution system operators (DS), or wastewater operators (WW). Mail the completed page (or a photocopy) to: Florida Environmental Professionals Training, P.O. Box 33119, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. 33420-3119. Enclose $15 for each set of questions you choose to answer (make checks payable to FWPCOA). You MUST be an FWPCOA member before you can submit your answers!

EARN CEUS BY ANSWERING QUESTIONS FROM PREVIOUS JOURNAL ISSUES! Contact FWPCOA at membership@fwpcoa.org or at 561-840-0340. Articles from past issues can be viewed on the Journal website, www.fwrj.com.

Article 1 ____________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 2 ____________________________________ LICENSE NUMBER for Which CEUs Should Be Awarded

Article 3 ____________________________________ 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)

Monochloramine Disinfection for Alternative Water Supplies Sean P. Menard and Thomas W. Friedrich (Article 1: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW/WW02015406) 1. D isinfection of water entering the Flatford injection well is now required because a. b acteriological counts have increased recently. b. the well’s zone of discharge allowance will no longer apply. c. S outhwest Florida Water Management District is seeking an increase in allowable injection volume. d. a change in injection zone water quality has been detected. 2. A pH greater than _____ is conducive to chloramine formation. a. 7 b. 8 c. 9 d. 10 3. G uidelines for adjusting ammonium sulfate and sodium hypochlorite in the St. Cloud test stated that, when monochloramine was low and free ammonia was greater than 0.1 mg/l, a. a n increase in ammonium sulfate was needed. b. there was no change in either ammonium sulfate or sodium. c. a n increase in sodium hypochlorite was needed. d. a n increase in both ammonium sulfate and monochloramine was needed. 4. W hich of the following is not listed by the author as a primary benefit of using monochloramine over hypochlorite disinfection? a. M onochloramine is a more stable disinfectant. b. M onochloramine produces less disinfection byproducts. c. M onochloramine use is less costly. d. M onochloramine use is less hazardous. 5. A ratio of __________ parts of chlorine for every part of ammonia has been shown to most commonly form proper monochloramine. a. 2 – 3 b. 3 – 4 c. 4.5 – 5 d. 5 – 5.5

Review of Nitrification and Distribution System Water Quality Frederick Bloetscher and Daniel E. Meeroff (Article 2: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW02015407) 1. A 2001 study noted that ______ pipe material is more likely to form biofilm than any other material. a. plastic b. cement c. asbestos cement d. f errous 2. According to a 2001 study, _______ appears to be the most important factor in controlling the rate of chloramine decomposition. a. chloramine concentration b. temperature c. pH d. time 3. T he most frequently identified bacteria genus associated with the first step of nitrification is a. Nitrospira. b. Nitrobacter. c. Nitrococcus. d. Nitrosomonas. 4. S amples that yield heterotrophic plate counts of 500 colony-forming units (CFU)/100 ml and chlorine residuals of less than ______ mg/l typically indicate conditions that promote biofilm growth. a. 0.2 b. 0.4 c. 1 d. 1.5 5. T o control nitrification, ______ is the preferred pH for lime-softened water entering the distribution system. a. 8 b. 8.5 c. 9 d. 9.3

Maintain Disinfection Residuals and Reduce Flushing With Chlorine Dioxide Shelby Hughes, Rhea Dorris, and Madison Rice (Article 3: CEU = 0.1 DS/DW02015408) 1. T he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum residual disinfectant level for chlorine dioxide is ____ mg/l. a. 0 .2 b. 0 .4 c. 0 .6 d. 0 .8 2. During the 90-day pilot study, the reduction in systemwide total residual chlorine was ___ percent. a. 1 8 b. 4 3 c. 5 5 d. 9 6 3. P rior to conducting the pilot study, the Pasco and Summertree water distribution system sampling revealed the presence of __________, and indication nitrification was occurring. a. a mmonia b. N itrosomonas c. n itrite and nitrate d. e levated heterotrophic plate counts 4. W hich of the following is not listed as an advantage of chlorine dioxide over free chlorine? a. L ess reactive to changes in pH b. M ore effective against viruses, bacteria, and fungi c. F orms fewer disinfection byproducts d. C an be used at lower concentrations and shorter contact times 5. _ _______________ is a byproduct formed by the aqueous dissolution of chlorine dioxide. a. C hlorite b. H ypochlorite c. E lemental chlorine d. D ichloroethane

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Maintain Disinfection Residuals and Reduce Flushing With Chlorine Dioxide Shelby Hughes, Rhea Dorris, and Madison Rice


onsecutive drinking water systems have limited control over their influent water quality, yet they must maintain disinfection residuals throughout the extent of their distribution systems, creating unique water quality challenges. The Summertree Water Distribution System (Summertree) is owned and operated by Utilities Inc. of Florida (UIF), located in New Port Richey in Pasco County. The existing Summertree system has approximately 11.5 mi of water main, varying from 2 in. to 12 in. in diameter. The water main material is variable, but generally consists of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ductile iron, and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe. In December 2016, UIF interconnected with the Pasco County Utilities (Pasco) distribution system and began purchasing potable water for delivery to UIF’s Summertree customers. Thereafter, UIF decommissioned the existing wells and water treatment plant. Pasco County receives water from Tampa Bay Water, which uses chloramination for primary disinfection. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires, by Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Rule 62-555, that

Figure 1. Chlorine Dioxide Mixing (left) and Storage (right) Tanks

chloramine residuals are maintained above 0.6 mg/L. Following the interconnection with Pasco’s distribution system, the Summertree system required frequent flushing to maintain adequate chloramine residuals at the perimeter of the service area. Chloramine residuals observed during testing of Pasco’s water at the point of connection (POC) were inconsistent, contributing to the difficulty of meeting minimum chloramine residual at remote points in the system. Additionally, the system’s susceptibility to high water age in outlying areas increased the degradation of chloramine residuals. Seasonal population changes and low water use further exacerbated the high water age issue. Frequent flushing was successful at reducing the water age and maintaining adequate chloramine residuals, but consistently wasted large volumes of purchased potable water. Utilizing chlorine dioxide as an oxidant was identified as a potential solution to help maintain disinfectant residuals throughout the Summertree system and reduce the need for flushing. In the Summertree Water Distribution System Analysis Report, completed by KimleyHorn in 2017 (Summertree Analysis[1], 2017), pressure and constituent modeling,

Figure 2. Chlorine Dioxide Transfer Pump

54 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Shelby Hughes, P.E., Rhea Dorris, P.E., and Madison Rice, E.I., are with Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. in St. Petersburg.

along with the analysis of various field and laboratory data to assess water quality, resulted in the recommendation that UIF implement a chlorine dioxide storage and injection system at the POC to maintain residuals throughout the system. Based on this recommendation, other utilities’ successes with similar systems, and historical knowledge of chlorine dioxide use, UIF completed a chlorine dioxide pilot program to promote residual retention throughout the Summertree system. The pilot program was necessary to confirm the optimal chlorine dioxide dosage and to demonstrate the ability of chlorine dioxide to reliably maintain the system residual. The results of this pilot study confirm that utilizing chlorine dioxide as an oxidant successfully maintained the chloramine residual throughout the Summertree system and reduced the need for flushing. During the pilot, data were collected and analyzed, leading to the development of this

Figure 3. Chlorine Dioxide Storage Tank (left), Dosing Pump (center), and Flow Meter (right)

article that identifies the value in continuing the addition of chlorine dioxide at Summertree for the benefit of the utility, its customers, and the environment.

Preliminary Analysis of Need The water quality analysis completed as part of the 2017 Summertree analysis was performed to identify recommended improvements to address observed deficiencies within the distribution system. A hydraulic model was developed to analyze system pressure, water age, and water quality. System pressure was determined to be sufficient to meet FDEP’s regulatory requirements for pressure during peak demand and fire flow scenarios. The hydraulic model was also used to determine the water age in the distribution system from the POC. Water age was assessed because it’s a parameter used to indicate water quality. The higher water ages, the more time it has to undergo chemical and biological reactions, resulting in reduced chloramine residuals. It should be noted that the water age was not considered within the Pasco system; the water age at the POC was assumed to be zero hours for this analysis. Under average day demand conditions without flushing, the water age of the system from the POC was 48 hours or less, except for streets at the extent of the system, and several dead ends. Water age along the extent of the system ranged from 49 to 254 hours (two to 10.5 days). The water age at the dead ends was approximately 60 hours (two and a half days). The water quality analysis for the 2017 Summertree analysis was performed at 17 locations throughout the distribution system and the POC to characterize the water coming from Pasco’s distribution system. The POC samples were all within compliance of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Chloramine residual ranged from 0 to 1.5 mg/L throughout the Summertree system. The lowest chloramine residual was found at the extent of the system and dead ends. The total chloramine residual at the POC ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 mg/L. The inconsistent chloramine residual coming from Pasco contributed to the difficulty of maintaining sufficient residual in the Summertree system. The samples were tested for evidence of nitrification, which is an issue that can plague distribution systems using chloramine disinfection. Nitrate and nitrite were found in all samples taken in the distribution system, with the average nitrite and nitrate concentrations being 0.44 parts per mil (ppm) and 0.70 ppm, respectively.

Figure 4. Chlorine Dioxide Injection Point

Figure 5. Point of Connection Sampling Point

Figure 6. Sampling Point Exhibit

Nitrate was 0.44 mg/L on average at the POC. This indicates that nitrification, an ammonia oxidation process performed by bacteria, was occurring in the Summertree and Pasco systems. The presence of biological growth within the pipelines contributes to the degradation of disinfectant residual, increasing the difficulty of maintaining the minimum required residual at the system extent. It should be noted that since the completion of the 2017 Summertree analysis, Pasco implemented changes to the distribution system to reduce water age in remote areas, increasing the chloramine residual at the POC. While the chloramine residual is now consistently higher, it’s still variable.

Use of Chlorine Dioxide as an Oxidant Chlorine dioxide is a strong and selective oxidizer and offers several advantages in the treatment and distribution of drinking water. Chlorine dioxide forms fewer disinfection byproducts (DBPs) than traditional chlorine and chloramine treatments. It also can be used at lower concentrations and shorter contact times to achieve equivalent disinfection than the contact times and concentrations required by chlorine and chloramine disinfection. Chlorine dioxide is also less reactive to changes in pH and has been proven more effective over a broader range of pH than free chlorine[2]. Continued on page 56

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 55 Chlorine dioxide is as effective as chlorine disinfection against viruses, bacteria, and fungi, and more effective at the inactivation of Giardia and Cryptosporidium parvum[3]. The reduction of biological growth in the system through chlorine dioxide addition allows the chloramine residuals to persist throughout the extent of the system by reducing potential reactants that contribute to residual degradation; therefore, introducing chlorine dioxide to reduce or eliminate biological growth can maintain the chloramine residual within the system for a longer period and consequently reduce or even eliminate the need for flushing.

Pilot Study Utilizing the results of the Summertree analysis to set up dosing parameters, and coordinating with Applied Oxidation LLC for equipment and chemicals, the full-scale pilot study was designed. A pilot testing approval package was submitted to FDEP. After approval

and communication with customers, the 90-day pilot study was implemented at the Summertree POC. The 90-day time frame was selected as the minimum duration expected to allow the chlorine dioxide to react with and break down any existing biological growth within the system, even to the extremities of the pipe network. Pilot Setup and Equipment The pilot program included the physical components to mix, store, and inject the powder-generated chlorine dioxide into the distribution system at the POC. The physical equipment required to complete the full-scale pilot test includes the following components: S Chlorine dioxide mixing tank – A 125-gal HDPE tank for mixing the two-component chlorine dioxide powder and solution water. S 15-gal-per-minute (gpm) magnetic drive transfer pump – A pump to transfer the fully mixed chlorine dioxide solution from the mixing tank to the storage tank. S Chlorine dioxide storage tank – A double-

walled 275-gal HDPE tank for the storage of the 0.3 percent chlorine dioxide solution S FlexPro feed pump – A pump to transfer the chlorine dioxide solution from the storage tank to the chlorine dioxide injection point after the POC with Pasco. S Grab sample analyzer – One handheld analyzer (Palin Test Unit) for routine daily monitoring of the chlorine dioxide residual and chlorite at each of the sampling stations identified. S Sampling points – Sampling taps located within the distribution system are used to pull representative grab samples of the treated water: • POC • Sample Point 1 (first customer) • Sample Point 2 (location of average water age) • Sample Point 3 (perimeter of the distribution system reflecting maximum water age) S Shade tent – To prevent excessive exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which would

Figure 8. Total Chlorine in Summertree System

Figure 7. Pilot Process Flow Diagram

56 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Figure 9. Chlorine Dioxide Residual in Summertree System

otherwise cause degradation of chlorine dioxide. The dosing rate was initiated at 0.5 mg/L and adjusted manually as needed. Chlorine dioxide and chlorite were monitored daily with a handheld grab sample analyzer. All normal water quality measurements continued during the pilot study. These physical components were inspected once per day as the operations staff was completing its sampling efforts, as well as during the routine operation and maintenance protocol. Photographs of the pilot equipment are shown in Figures 1 through 5, sampling locations within the Summertree system are shown in Figure 6, and a process flow diagram of the pilot is shown in Figure 7.

Figure 10. Chlorite Residual in Summertree System

Results and Observations Regulatory Compliance Sampling Throughout the pilot study, total chlorine residual (as Cl2), chlorine dioxide, and chlorite were monitored daily using the handheld analyzer at the POC at Sample Point 1, Sample Point 2, and Sample Point 3. The Cl2 was monitored as a substitute for chloramine due to its ease of measurement. The total chlorine had an average of 3.98 ppm and a maximum single sample reading of 5.0 ppm across the Summertree system. The total chlorine at the POC was variable, but consistently remained near the FDEP limit of 4 mg/L. Figure 8 shows the total chlorine throughout the entire system during the 90-day pilot study. The residual chlorine dioxide had an average of 0.05 ppm and a maximum of 0.39 ppm across the Summertree system. Many chlorine dioxide readings were measured as 0.02 ppm, which is the lower detection limit of the handheld analyzer. The chlorine dioxide residual at the POC consistently remained well below the EPA maximum residual disinfectant level (MRDL) of 0.80 ppm, averaging at 0.08 ppm, with a maximum residual of 0.39 ppm. Figure 9 shows the chlorine dioxide throughout the entire system during the 90-day pilot study. Chlorite is a byproduct formed by the aqueous dissolution of chlorine dioxide and therefore increases as chlorine dioxide is consumed; it’s also an EPA-regulated primary contaminant. The chlorite residual was an average of 0.27 ppm and a maximum of 0.91 ppm across the Summertree system. The chlorite residual at the POC consistently remained below the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 1 ppm, averaging at 0.21 ppm, with a maximum residual of 0.70 ppm. The chlorite levels throughout the system are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 11. Total Chlorine Residuals and Flushing Volumes

Systemwide Disinfection Residual Results Total chlorine is monitored daily by UIF operators. Results from January 2020 through January 2021 were analyzed to evaluate the effect of chlorine dioxide on overall residual permanence. Total chlorine is measured at the POC and two random points within the system. Before the chlorine dioxide pilot study, there was, on average, a 43 percent reduction in total chlorine from the POC to the random sampling points throughout the distribution system. During the 90-day pilot study, the reduction in total chlorine throughout the system averaged 18 percent. The addition of chlorine dioxide significantly enhanced the system’s ability to maintain disinfectant residuals. Figure 11 shows the total chlorine residuals at the POC, two random sampling points within the Summertree system, and the system average residual. The volume of water flushed throughout the Summertree system is also displayed to show the effect the chlorine dioxide had on flushing activity. During the 90-day pilot study, a 96 percent reduction in monthly flushing was observed, resulting in substantial cost savings by a reduction of 96 percent of purchased water, as well as reduced waste of potable water. As evidenced in the

figure, the increased clustering of the data during the piloting period indicated greater stability in the system in maintaining the chlorine residual over time. Disinfection Byproduct Results The DBP samples were collected every 30 days (days 30, 60, and 90) during the pilot study. The DBP samples demonstrate compliance with FDEP requirements for the formation of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). Consistent sampling locations were utilized for the TTHMs and HAA5 distribution system analysis. The POC represents the point that the Summertree system connects to the Pasco County distribution system, with an assumed water age of 0 to 16 hours. This assumption was made in the Summertree analysis as a baseline for water age and constituent modeling. Sample Point 3 represents the maximum residence time location, with an approximate water age of 49 to 96 hours. Figures 12 and 13 show the DBP results at the POC and Sample Point 3, indicating that the TTHMs and HAA5 remained at approximately one-third of their respective FDEP limits of Continued on page 56

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


Continued from page 57 80 parts per bil (ppb) and 60 ppb throughout the 90-day study, which is expected for a chloramine disinfection system. These results show that using chlorine dioxide as an oxidant for the Summertree system will not contribute to the formation of DBPs.

Operations Concerns Throughout the 90-day pilot study, the chlorine dioxide dosing pump was not operational on days 18, 32, 36, and 46 due to the clogging of a ball valve. It was determined that the pump was oversized, and it was replaced

Figure 12. Total Trihalomethanes Results

Figure 13. Haloacetic Acids Results

Figure 14. Sampling Extension Total Chlorine Residuals and Flushing Volumes

58 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

with a smaller pump on Day 50. This solved the problem and no further clogging occurred throughout the pilot study.

Conclusion The overall goal of this pilot study was to reduce the need for flushing and maintaining disinfectant residual at the extent of the Summertree system. The results of the study confirm that utilizing chlorine dioxide as an oxidant maintained the chloramine residual throughout the Summertree system. The addition of chlorine dioxide reduced the degradation in total chlorine residuals throughout the system from 43 to 18 percent, displaying its ability to stabilize disinfectant residuals. The concentrations of chlorine dioxide, chlorite, and DBPs all remained compliant with FDEP’s maximum allowed values throughout the 90-day testing period. Monthly flushing was reduced by 96 percent with the introduction of chlorine dioxide dosing. The UIF purchases water from Pasco County at a rate of $3.69 per 1,000 gals. From January 2018 to January 2019, the estimated volume of potable water lost due to flushing was 17,134,294 gal, costing UIF approximately $63,218. The anticipated annual flushing volume based on the 90-day pilot study results is 251,600 gal, with an anticipated cost of $929. Implementing the utilization of chlorine dioxide permanently will pay for itself after 19 months of operation and result in an annual savings of $45,490. The chlorine dioxide dosing proved to be highly effective at maintaining residual, while saving potable water and reducing costs due to flushing. Based on these favorable results, permanent installation of the chlorine dioxide dosing system was recommended at Summertree. To further optimize the system, the sampling was extended for an additional 90 days and was completed on April 16, 2021. This additional testing showed the effect of chlorine dioxide with a wider variation of residuals at the POC. Figure 14 shows the results of the additional testing. Following the successful testing, a preliminary design report and permit application were submitted to FDEP for the permanent installation of the chlorine dioxide dosing system, and the system was certified in July 2021. The sizing and installation of the necessary equipment were completed as part of the pilot study and the same equipment and site plan were used for permanent installation, with the addition of a HydroAct Chlorine Dioxide Analyzer to automatically monitor chlorine dioxide and chlorite at the POC. The online analyzer reduced the time spent by operators

collecting grab samples and allows for safe and continuous monitoring at the POC.

Recommendations To continue improving the UIF system, it’s recommended that chlorine dioxide be dosed intermittently to optimize dosage and operational costs. Dosing may also be optimized based on the time of year to accommodate the seasonal population. Before installing a permanent chlorine dioxide dosing system for other utilities, it’s imperative to completely understand the process before investigating its use. The following recommendations are based on lessons learned from the Summertree pilot study: S Chlorine dioxide is proven to be an effective tool to maintain residuals in distribution systems suffering from high water age and inconsistent influent residuals, but it’s still recommended to perform field and laboratory testing to verify the compatibility with the system’s water. A full pilotscale study is recommended prior to the

installation of a permanent chlorine dioxide dosing system to understand how chlorine dioxide interacts with the system’s specific water quality. The pilot study can also serve to optimize the dosing of chlorine dioxide to decrease operational costs. Chlorite, chlorine dioxide’s nonorganic byproduct, should be considered and kept below EPA’s MCL of 1 mg/L. S As chlorine dioxide has not been used extensively in potable water applications, it’s important to gain understanding and consensus from state and local regulators. Effective communication during all steps of the pilot study process is crucial and will help further the science of chlorine dioxide treatment. S The Summertree pilot utilized a twocomponent powder chlorine dioxide generation system, but other systems, such as generators, can produce chlorine dioxide based on demand. Powder generation was feasible for Summertree, which is a small distribution system, because a large amount of powder was not required, and batches did not have to be mixed often. Larger systems may desire a chlorine dioxide generation

method that is more robust or automated. Other considerations, such as chemical safety, goal usage of chlorine dioxide, operator training, and redundancy needs, should also be understood when choosing a chlorine dioxide generation system. S Prompt and direct public communication is recommended before implementing chlorine dioxide in a treatment process. It’s important to emphasize the benefits of chlorine dioxide to customers.

Resources imley-Horn and Associates Inc., 2017. K “Summertree Water Distribution System Analysis.” [2] Gates, Don, et al., 2011. “State of the Science of Chlorine Dioxide in Drinking Water.” Water Research Foundation. [3] Holden, Glenn W., 2017. “Chlorine Dioxide Preoxidation for DBP Reduction.” Journal American Water Works Association, vol. 109, pp. 36–43.doi:10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0089. S [1]

NEWS BEAT Continued from page 35 advocacy, and the exchange of knowledge. Headquartered in Kansas City, Mo., it has an office in Washington, D.C., and 63 chapters and 97 branches throughout North America.


The City of Delray Beach was awarded the 2021 Sustainable Practices Recognition Award from the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA) in recognition of its use of pervious pavements in the Osceola Park Neighborhood Project. The award is presented to the organization that demonstrates leadership by implementing sustainable and resilient design and construction practices that consider societal, environmental, and economic factors. The award was formally presented to Mayor Shelly Petrolia by Amy Wedel, director of concrete pavements of the Florida Chapter of ACPA. Terrence Moore, city manager, said, “We recognized the need for vision and long-term consideration, while addressing the needs of our community. By employing

the latest technological innovations and proven best practices, we will reduce stormwater runoff and flooding for decades to come.” Pervious pavement provides multiple benefits to the city and its residents by reducing localized flooding events, protecting water quality, and recharging the local aquifer. The use of pervious concrete allows for the intake of water into the concrete, which acts as a retention area that helps reduce runoff. As the water enters through the open cells of the pavement, aerobic bacteria help to break down harmful pollutants and chemicals. The Osceola Park Neighborhood Improvement project provides multiple benefits to the community, including the permeable pavement for alleys, bioswales in parkways, and other ways to treat stormwater runoff. To learn more about the project, visit OsceolaParkProject.com.


The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) has released a national report, “The Clean Water Act at 50: Promises Half Kept

at the Half-Century Mark,” which examines water pollution data in all 50 states on the 50th anniversary of the federal Clean Water Act. The report concludes that 50 percent of 1.4 million river and stream miles nationally, which have been studied in recent years, are so polluted they are classified as “impaired” (despite the Clean Water Act’s promise of making all waterways “fishable and swimmable” by 1983), using the most recent state water quality reports from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report highlights Florida as ranking first in the United States for total acres of lakes classified as impaired for swimming and aquatic life (873,340 acres), and second for total lake acres listed as impaired for any use (935,808 acres). The report includes detailed maps and charts, with the most recent available water pollution impairment data for the U.S. For copies of the report and accompanying spreadsheet, contact Ari Phillips, senior writer and editor at EIP, at aphillips@environmentalintegrity.org. Continued on page 63

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Water Quality: Drinking Water, Not Just Treatment Patrick “Murf ” Murphy

President, FWPCOA


bviously, water quality is important to all of us, whether it’s the wastewater plant effluent; the stormwater that needs to be collected and treated; or the potable water that we produce, treat, and distribute. All of these need to meet state and federal regulations. Water quality is the general term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the water supply. A domestic water supply is considered to be of good quality when it’s free of disease-causing organisms

and toxic chemicals, attractive in taste and appearance, the chemical composition is such that it can be distributed without undue corrosive or scale-forming effects on the water system, and it satisfies customers. The primary responsibility of the treatment plant is to produce safe and palatable water, and the technologies are out there to make all source waters potable and perfect for our customers, but the story does not end at the entry point to the distribution system. No matter how good your treatment is, if the distribution system is not being maintained, then the customers will assume that the water is not being properly treated. So, instead of talking about treatment technologies, which are proven and effective, I want to talk about water complaints (what we call water quality concerns; our customers aren’t complainers), because dealing with them is dealing with water quality!

Customer Chemistry Customer chemistry can transform into something more important than water chemistry, but not knowing about your water before responding to a customer’s concern can be a fatal mistake! One might have the best customer relation skills in the world, but misquoting information about your water treatment and/ or the distribution system could convince the customer that the entire water utility has no concept of what it’s doing. A customer service employee should have the skills to interact professionally with the public. Being “Sherlock Holmes” is not necessarily needed for every complaint, but what is needed is listening and showing customers that you really care about the problem by letting them know that you are knowledgeable and in control of the water situation, that you are going to thoroughly investigate the problem, and that you are going to help them understand what they (and you) can do to solve the problem or what to do until it’s resolved. You may not have the ultimate skills of Sherlock Holmes, but customers need to know that you are their “water investigator.”

Customer Complaints

50 percent of the softeners visited during water complaints look like this—or worse.

Horsehair worms are 1/25 to 1/16 inches wide and can be 4 to 14 inches long. They are deadly to insects, but don’t harm humans, animals, or plants.

Horsehair worm tracks from the first water complaint.

60 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

If the complaint comes in by phone, some preliminary questions can aid the investigator in the determination of the problem, and sometimes the problem can be resolved right there on the phone! Create a form that includes the questions that should be asked of the customer at first contact, and if you’re not the person that call should have gone to, don’t take notes and email the correct person later; it’s more beneficial to the customer and the investigator to just take a few minutes to get them to the person that has a form, and will be dispatching someone right then. Create a form to track customer complaints, which can be as simple as an Excel form or as complex as a map identifying the locations throughout the service area. The investigator needs to follow some basic guidelines: S D o not argue with the customer. S A lways be friendly and courteous. S A ssure the customer that reporting the problem was the correct thing to do. S L isten carefully and calmly to the customer’s description of the problem.

S D on’t use technical language when discussing the problem. S B e honest; if an immediate answer is not available, let the customer know that. S A ssure the customer the problem was or will be resolved. You may know that the water that was produced is of good quality, but keep an open mind and actually listen to the customer; they may not know technical terms, but may give some clue that will help in the investigation. Make observations and ask questions, such as: S Is there a water softener (and does the customer know what that is)? S H as new plumbing been installed? S A re there point-of-use devices attached to the sinks? S W hen was the last time the hot water tank was flushed?

The second water complaint. The geographic information system had inaccurate information; the stars indicate previous water complaints.

Oddly enough, a lot of customers don’t realize that almost every operation and maintenance manual for water heaters suggests at least annual flushing, and some suggest a flushing twice a year.

Water Maps/Geographic Information Systems Water maps of your distribution system are a critical component in responding to line breaks, but they can also be a life saver in addressing water complaints as well! Relying on a 45-year employee that has red-lined paper water maps that he has been editing since his date of hire to make copies for his distribution crew is outdated and unproductive. If there is any size to your system, field edits don’t get to everyone, which hinders emergency operations, planning, engineering, and locates—and eventually, executive leadership. A geographic information system (GIS) requires accurate information; having water line sizes and connections, valves, and hydrants all identified in a computer system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, and manage the data will increase efficiency in every area. If you can provide tablets for your operators so that they can access the GIS in the field, this will help in every situation; they even have phone apps for this now, so don’t send your people out blind. If they aren’t given that capability, and the only application can be viewed from the office, encourage the water complaint investigator to review the distribution system piping maps of the immediate area prior to making the complaint visit; making a screen shot and printing it will be helpful. Some of the helpful things to look for are: S Is the customer on a dead-end line? S W hat is the location of blow-offs? S A re the lines looped?

Field verification helped solve the concern.

S Locate the valves. You may need to verify that the valves are open or need to flush directionally. S Locate hydrants. You may need to confirm that the hydrants aren’t just fire lines; will you be able to flush them without damage to the property or causing safety concerns?

Flushing: Where and Why Most water providers conduct a systematic and controlled flushing program to remove sediments and stale water and to help maintain chlorine residuals throughout the system. Flushing improves the overall quality of water in the distribution system and assists in overall system maintenance. Unidirectional flushing is a routine process of cleaning the piping of the water distribution system by working in one direction

and one segment at a time, and cutting off other flows, which allows for scouring velocities of 5 to 10 feet per second or more. This is simply flushing water from a clean source through a “dirty” pipe and then out! Conventional flushing will only provide 1 to 3 feet per second, so increased velocities are going to do a better job of scouring out sediment, biofilm, corrosion products, and turberculation. Deadend water mains conveying finished drinking water shall be flushed quarterly or in accordance with a written flushing program established by the supplier of water; additionally, dead-end or other water mains conveying finished water shall be flushed as necessary whenever legitimate water quality complaints are received. The Florida Administrative Code (FAC), 62-555-350 (there is also FAC, 62-555.350[12] Continued from page 62

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


This lil’ angel defused an angry customer.

Continued from page 61 c), ends with “. . .all suppliers of water shall keep records documenting that their isolation valves are being exercised, and their water mains conveying finished drinking water are being flushed, in accordance with subsection 62-555.350(2).” Since all of your lines can’t be 6-inch lines, and smaller lines won’t support the function of a hydrant, we end up with blow-offs (1 to 2 inches) sticking up in a customer’s yard. At the end of a cul-de-sac, even if there is a hydrant, there is no sure guarantee that flushing it will take care of some of the customers on that line when it has a tear-drop loop (i.e., the 6 inches run almost to the end of the cul-de-sac, but then they reduce to 2 inches to angle around and “loop” it back to the 6 inches). I hate this kind of design, as it usually doesn’t have enough valving to reverse flows through the flushing point. Sometimes the customer’s meters might be the only way to facilitate a directional flush. As for the customers, they are not left out of the flushing equation; whether it was due to typical maintenance for the water softener, water heater, or inline filters, or just not ever cleaning the aerators/strainers on their taps inside their homes, once they’ve got good, clean water in the main, they need to draw that chlorine residual through their service line and throughout their house. There is so much more to talk about concerning customer water quality complaints. You should have a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and field observations and know where developers and underground contractors are working (and potentially operating your valves, changing flow directions, and stirring things up) to determine if the customer has reclaimed water, etc. Since I was speaking about customer’s internal spigots, aerators, and strainers, it’s a pretty good lead into some of the more memorable water complaints that I’ve had to take.

My wife was mad that I didn’t bring him home.

Water Complaint No. 1 A complaint comes in from a husband at work who called the utility billing department to talk to an operator. The water complaint operator responds in a timely manner. The wife, however, is at home and also calls the utility. She is beside herself and explains to the operator, with complete disgust, that she has a sickening feeling and a complete lack of faith in the water. She then says that this issue better get resolved today, as her husband is going to make heads roll if it isn’t! A utility employee goes to the residence, takes a residual reading at the outside spigot, and brings back to the utility a small plastic cup of water taken from the bathroom spigot. He pours it into a clean beaker and informs me that, as the resident claimed, there are worms in the water. I tag the GIS first, finding that the resident’s location is directly off a long 12-inch water main through one of the largest communities, and the homeowner is listed as the current “city manager.” I asked the operator to spot-check residuals on intersecting streets upstream and downstream of the customer complaint, while I checked the hydrant directly in front of the resident and the outside spigot. On speaking with the wife of the city manager, I found that the worms in the water were isolated to only the master bathroom, and observed worm goop on the surface of the spigot, dripping down into a sink. I asked the customer if I could remove the strainer while she observed so that I could show her something; she agreed, and I was able to show her that the goop was only on the outside of the strainer. Then I did my white towel trick that I use for water heater customers; there were no worms, but some flecks of metal and minerals from the heater that showed it also needed flushing. When they ask a question, customers don’t want to hear “I don’t know” or “I wouldn’t drink

62 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

that water.” They also don’t want to hear that they have worms crawling around in their house looking for water. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow (literally!), and in this case, it would have been yucky, too. It turns out that, to make the bathroom look like a garden, the customer placed many live plants there. She would set them outside periodically for water and sun and bring them back in later to decorate around the sink and bathtub area (which was quite large and very beautiful); this allowed for horsehair worms to hitch a ride into the house. This internal parasite of insects grows and develops to the point where the infected insect gets thirsty and seeks out water; then the worm bursts out and continues its life cycle, leaving its dead ride behind. And though the customers were incredulous at first, and it took a couple of followup visits and a detailed letter about horsehair worms (also known as Gordian worms) and suggestions on how to avoid them in the house, in the end, it turned out well and no heads rolled!

Water Complaint No. 2 This customer called for the third time, very irate and very threatening, allegedly knowing the mayor and all of the commissioners, and says he is the best friend of the police chief ’s brother (the chief was later to become the new city manager). He further states that if this complaint didn’t get resolved “it was going to be splashed on the 6 o’clock news and the city was going to pay dearly.” Operators are unsung heroes for another reason than just staying out of the limelight and doing their jobs to make clean water for drinking and keeping lumpy water off the streets; they are normally very shy and try to avoid conflict. So, when a customer is waving an axe, looking for a head to lop off, you can’t

really expect them to be excited about going on that type of complaint visit. A quick look at the GIS revealed that there shouldn’t be a problem in that area, as the customer was on a 6-inch looped water main around the five blocks in his area. As I parked in front of the resident’s house, he was waiting in the doorway, repeatedly bumping his belly on the screen door, making it open and slam shut—he was loaded for bear! As I approached the door, I said, “Good morning, I’m Murphy; I can’t fix broken hearts or cracked butts, but I’m going to be here as long as it takes to fix your water.” And then, out of the blue, a morning dove landed on my head! That seemed to neutralize his anger. He said, “okay,” shut the door, and went around to look out of the window as I started checking his water at the front spigot. I’m sure he didn’t want to see what I was doing, and I was just was trying to figure out how I rigged a bird to land on my head. I contacted an operator to come help check valves in the area and get him to take a photo of the bird and me, since all I had were a couple of selfies. This customer had a real issue; the outside spigot was odorous and foul-tasting (the customer reported it had a metal taste),

pointing to it not being an internal customer problem. We exercised and verified valves in that five-block quadrant, to find that the GIS was inaccurate, and the customer was on a single 2-inch line teed off of the 6’s and running the length of the five blocks. By unidirectionally flushing from the beginning of the 2-inch pipe through the customers pulled meter, we were able to clear that line and provide good, clean water for the resident. We had the distribution crew later install a blow-off at the corner near the resident so that he wouldn’t be bothered with pulling his meter again. His system was flushed quarterly, and for over 10 years now, the customer has never called back. This also helped with other customers on that line that we found had called in with concerns over the years.

Follow Up With Customers Following up with the customer can seem to be like re-opening a can of worms, but it shows the customers that you care, it shows your fellow operators that you care, and it shows your supervisors that you care. We are guardians of water—we must care!

Besides that, sometimes you get to have feedback that is entertaining. After I sent an operator to follow up on a call I made, the customer was still happy with his water, but enjoyed telling the story that I was drinking water out of his hose and was curious if the “goat salesman” was still working at the utility or not. Complaints can be frustrating, but are a huge component of water quality. As for the morning dove, it stayed with me through the entire water complaint, sometimes in the middle of my back when bent over digging out a valve, and when I knocked on the customer’s door to ask him to flush his internal lines to pull in the good water, he asked, “How’d you do that?” I started explaining about the lines, the valves we checked, and the flushing. He said, “No, I mean the bird.” It really didn’t seem that strange to me until just before leaving. I tried to get the bird to jump off on a crepe myrtle in his front yard, leaning into and pulling branches around for it to climb onto. I noticed a couple sitting in their truck nearby watching this exhibition, laughing away at the display. So be it—one happy customer and two laughing. I killed three stones with one bird, so it was a good day! Remember—let’s keep that water clean! S

NEWS BEAT Continued from page 59


The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is reviewing the latest proposal for restoring the natural flow of water to the Everglades. For years a number of restoration projects have been underway to the north and east of Lake Okeechobee and Everglades National Park, and now the SFWMD governing board is taking a look at the Western Everglades Restoration Project. Jennifer Leeds, bureau chief for restoration and planning at SFWMD recently made a presentation to the board. “This is a project that focuses on undoing the damaging effects from some of the central and south Florida canals,” said Leeds. The goal is to restore the water flow and water levels to the Big Cypress National Preserve and the Western Everglades Ecosystem.” The bulk of the planning calls for backfilling existing canals and razing the old Tamiami Trail. “We’re looking at things like the removal of the Tamiami Trail and allowing that water to flow south,” said Leeds. “Think of it as a giant redistribution project. It doesn’t have

storage features, but as we backfill some of these canals we’re redistributing the water to go into ecosystem areas where that water used to historically flow.” Leeds emphasized that no water would be diverted from either the C-139 Basin or from Lake Okeechobee, and flooding should not be a concern. “We’re dealing with existing basin waters; we’re not bringing any water in from Lake Okeechobee, so there is no connection to the lake. We’ve heard from some stakeholders that are concerned that this project is going to cause flooding in these areas, but it’s not. We’re talking inches and not feet, but those inches are spread out over a very large area.” If the Western Everglades Restoration Project plan is approved by the governing board it will be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for approval in August.


The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) has approved a plan to begin constructing a water pump station between Penney Farms and Camp Blanding off State Road 16 in Clay County. While the

primary goal of the project is to increase recharge to the Upper Floridan aquifer, it will also improve water levels in Brooklyn and Geneva lakes. “The Black Creek project is a result of years of collaboration among the district, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, local governments, utilities, and other interested stakeholders, like the Save Our Lake Organization,” said Mike Register, SJRWMD executive director. “The benefits of this project are far reaching and speak directly to the district’s mission of ensuring adequate water supply for future generations in Florida.” The plan calls for water from Black Creek to be pumped through a 17-mile pipeline, which will eventually discharge into a passive treatment system aimed at removing color and minor nutrients. The water will then flow into Alligator Creek and Lake Brooklyn. Final recharge to the aquifer will occur through the lake bottom. Depending on the water level in Black Creek, up to 10 million gallons of water per day can be diverted. This will depend on a sufficient flow of water to protect the natural resources within Black Creek. Continued on page 69

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



YSI Ammonium and Nitrate Sensors for C1D2-Rated Areas The VARiON® Plus 700 IQ H is YSI’s new Class I, Division 2-rated sensor for measuring ammonium and nitrate in hazardous locations. The VARiON is an online ion selective electrode (ISE) probe and works directly with IQ SensorNet for process monitoring and control. The IQ SensorNet is the only networked water quality monitoring system available that can measure ammonium and nitrate in C1D2-rated areas. The VARiON is certified for use in CID2 areas and conforms with National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA) standard 820, groups A, B, C, D, and T6, to reduce the potential of fire or explosion in hazardous locations in wastewater treatment facilities. The sensor is reliable and a safer option for measuring nitrate and ammonium in aeration basins that are not preceded by a primary settling tank. The VARiON provides accurate, reliable data and the reference system is stable over long periods, measuring ammonium, nitrate, and a compensation electrode (potassium or chloride) simultaneously. Individually user-replaceable

electrodes have a typical lifetime of 18 to 24 months and a one-year warranty, minimizing maintenance efforts and ownership costs. The VARiON is compatible with IQ SensorNet, YSI’s network of online controllers, and sensors designed for process monitoring and control. The IQ SensorNet can now measure pH, oxidation reduction potential (ORP), ammonium, nitrate, potassium, chloride, dissolved oxygen (FDO H), total suspended solids (TSS [ViSolid H]), and temperature in CID2 hazardous locations. The IQ SensorNet continuously monitors water quality throughout the wastewater treatment process, increasing operational efficiency, lowering operating costs, and improving performance. q

Technology Spotlight is a paid feature sponsored by the advertisement on the facing page. The Journal and its publisher do not endorse any product that appears in this column. If you would like to have your technology featured, contact Mike Delaney at 352-241-6006 or at mike@fwrj.com.

64 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

FWRJ READER PROFILE (24V, 240V, 480V) and the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, ensuring the efficient and safe mechanical operation of machinery, assisting in the installation of new equipment, and or repairing lift stations.

Mauricio A. Linarte City of Margate

Work title and years of service. I’ve been working in the wastewater industry for close to 16 years now (in August 2022) for the same organization. My current job title is utility mechanic I/electrician for the City of Margate. Before I got into this industry, I started working at the age of 13 doing electrical wiring in new residential homes. I would help my dad (Nazario M. Linarte) whenever I was out of school, on weekends, holidays, and summer vacations, and any other time that was helpful to him. Working since that age made me appreciate the hard work both of my parents did to support me. What does your job entail? My current job title is utility mechanic I, and I'm in charge of the daily and proper operation of all 54 lift stations around the city. Also, I’m responsible for the maintenance and repair of the water and wastewater lines, plants, pumps, and equipment as needed throughout the collection and distribution system. I troubleshoot the electrical systems

What education and training have you had? After I graduated from high school, I wanted to continue to excel in my education and start college, but my parents did not have the resources for me to enroll. So, I started to work for an electrical contractor to allow me to attend college and be able to pay for my education. My boss at that time, Bob Ally, at Electrical Machinery Enterprises (EME) in Tampa, knew that I wanted a higher education to better myself and I wanted to keep going to school, so he offered me the chance to enroll with the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) and sponsored me throughout the four years of the electrical apprenticeship program. The ABC is a national construction industry trade association representing more than 21,000 members, recognized by the Department of Education and the state of Florida. While working with this electrical contractor I became interested in knowing what the purpose of a water and wastewater treatment plant was, and since I was working on the new construction of one of them for the City of Miramar, my curiosity grew to know the process. During that time, I would ask city personnel how to become part of the operation or become an employee for that specific treatment plant, but there were no jobs at that time. Years passed and my notion to learn grew even more, and I focused on the electrical trade as my future career. I obtained my electrician journeyman license with Broward County, and

On the job.

66 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

In nature.

while working for the City of Margate I also worked hard to obtain my master electrician license. I would like to especially give thanks to Phil Esposito, a master electrician at Margate, for helping me and making this possible. Finally, in 2016 I was able to enroll in Broward College and I restarted my pursuit of higher education. I obtained three business certificates, which included business specialist, business operations, and business management, and my associate in science degree in business administration. I would like to give special thanks to Robert (Bob) Loftus for pushing me to go to college and making me understand that it would help me in the utility industry. Currently, I’m working toward my bachelor’s degree in business administration in management, and at the same time, I’m trying to acquire more knowledge from FWPCOA by attending its online courses and absorbing as much as I can from the short school class instructors, especially Rick Rominoff. What do you like best about your job? The best part of what I like about my job is the crew that I have the privilege to work with and the variety of the many coworkers in services, plant mechanics, water and wastewater operations, and the laboratory; all of them are exceptional personnel. The other part I like is the challenge of any problematic situation that arises in the lift stations and knowing that we are taking care of public health and safety. What professional organizations do you belong to? As of now I belong to FWPCOA and that’s because I am concentrating so much on my career and finishing college. I would like to be more involved with other organizations and help others to become members as well.

Bonding time.

Maury, Andy, and Tommy.

Out with family and friends.

At the beach.

How have the organizations helped your career? As of now, FWPCOA has helped me obtain more knowledge in the field of maintenance, and other courses I have taken online as well. Another helpful resource I have is from Sacramento State University; I did my wastewater operator course there and soon I will be taking the state exam to have my wastewater license under my belt. What do you like best about the industry? I would have to say that I like the fact that this industry looks out for the environment we all live in, and the well-being of everyone’s health. In this field, there’s lots of new technology that is constantly getting better by the day and new instruments that help us operate efficiently, such as lift stations, and in wastewater and water plants. Many

Another night out.

gadgets are very important components of the industry. I would like to give special thanks to Mr. David Lampton and Ms. Renee Moticker. Mr. Lampton was the one who invited me to one of the meetings at least six years ago; if it wasn’t for him, I wouldn’t be involved in FWPCOA. Ms. Moticker helped me to become more interested in the organization, introducing me to lots of important people, and having the patience of showing me the ins and outs of what I’m supposed to do as the new director of Region VII. Even though, with COVID-19, many events were canceled or postponed, I will try my best to be more involved in this new journey. What do you do when you’re not working? When I’m not working, I dedicate lots of time to my schoolwork; having a full-time job and school is not an easy task. As of now,

the only volunteering activities I do are with FWPCOA; I barely have time to do anything else. I like to travel, and meet new people and see new places. I also enjoy working on my cars and motorcycle, helping my parents, and most of all, my three kids. I love to spend quality time with family at get-togethers, which was difficult during this pandemic. First, I want to thank God for giving me the opportunity to be able to write these humble words. Second, I want to thank Mr. Patrick Murphy for selecting me to be featured in this profile. Third, I want to give special thanks to my parents, Nazario M. Linarte and Francisca R. Linarte, for their constant love and support. Lastly, Maury, Andy, and Tommy Linarte are my three treasures that I admire and am most proud of! S

Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022


CLASSIFIEDS CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING RATES - Classified ads are $20 per line for a 60 character line (including spaces and punctuation), $60 minimum. The price includes publication in both the magazine and our Web site. Short positions wanted ads are run one time for no charge and are subject to editing. ads@fwrj.com

POSITIONS AVAILABLE CITY OF WINTER GARDEN – POSITIONS AVAILABLE The City of Winter Garden is currently accepting applications for the following positions: EXPERIENCED & TRAINEES/LABORERS • Collection Field Tech – I, II, & III • Distribution Field Tech – I, II, & III • Public Service Worker II – Stormwater • Superintendent – Collections, Wastewater, & Stormwater • Wastewater Plant Operator – Class C

Please visit our website at www.cwgdn.com for complete job descriptions and to apply. Applications may be submitted online, in person or faxed to 407-877-2795.

UTILITY DESIGN ENGINEER Assists in directing the operations of Water and Sewer Department as it relates to engineering and regulatory work; and performs related duties as assigned. Requires a Bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering or closely related field and 4 years related experience. Possession of an active Engineer In Training (EIT) certification is required. APPLY: Online at www.covb.org and review complete job description. City of Vero Beach, FL 772 978-4900 EOE/DFWP

The Department of Environmental & Engineering Services (DEES) is currently accepting job applications at: https://www.margatefl.com/207/Job-Opportunities

Water Treatment Plant Operators

The Water Treatment Plant at Village of Wellington is currently accepting applications for a full-time Water Operator. Apply online. Job postings and application are available on our website: https://wellingtonfl.munisselfservice.com/ employees/EmploymentOpportunities/JobDetail. aspx?req=20&sreq=5&form=WTO3&desc=OPERATOR III, WATER TREATMENT PLANT We are located in Palm Beach County, Florida. The Village of Wellington offers great benefits. For further information, call Human Resources at (561) 753-2585.

Coral Springs Improvement District Wastewater Plant A Operator Applicants must have a valid Class C Wastewater Treatment license or greater. Operates sewage treatment, sludge processing, and disposal equipment in a wastewater (sewage) treatment plant to control flow and processing of sewage. This employee is responsible for keeping within permit discharge limits and routinely monitors the flow of wastewater and chemical levels. Salary range for this position if $47,800 - $74,880. Salary to commensurate relative to years of experience in this position. Excellent compensation including defined benefit and matching 457 pension plan. Applications may be obtained by visiting our website at www.csidfl.org/resources/employment.html and fax resume to 954-753-6328, attention Jan Zilmer, Director of Human Resources.

68 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

Engineering Support Services Manager/Engineering: $81,353.07 - $130,164.91/annually Field Service and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Administrator $76,030.91 - $121,649.46/annually Project Manager: $70,835.55 - $113,336.89/annually Public Utilities Asset Manager: $81,353.07 - $130,164.91/annually Public Utilities Manager (Wastewater Treatment Plant): $81,353.07 - $130,164.91/annually Utilities Instrumentation and Control Systems Specialist: $56,114.71 - $85,294.61/annually For More Info and to Apply go to: http://agency.governmentjobs.com/hollywoodfl/default.cfm EOE M/F/D/V

NEWS BEAT City of Titusville - Multiple Positions Available

Water Reclamation Superintendent, Plant Operator Trainee, Utility Asset Program Manager, Meter Technician, Maintenance Mechanic. Apply at www.titusville.com

Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator “C” Salary Range: $52,645.98 - $84,011.20

The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority’s WASTEWATER DIVISION IS GROWING, and we need (2) WWTP Operators with a Florida “C” license or higher. You will perform skilled/ technical work involving the operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment plant. This requires technical knowledge and independent judgment to make treatment process adjustments and perform maintenance on plant equipment, machinery, and related control apparatus in accordance with established standards a nd procedures. Benefit package is extremely competitive! Location: Duck Key, FL. Must complete on-line application at www.fkaa.com EEO, VPE, ADA

Continued from page 63 Funding for the project is provided in the St. Johns River and Keystone Heights Lake Region Projects legislative appropriations and totals more than $48 million, of which $43.4 million is put aside to the Black Creek project. Clay County Utility Authority, Gainesville Regional Utilities, St. Johns County Utilities, and JEA contributed an additional $19.2 million.


The City of Tampa is launching a major project to repair dozens of miles of underground pipe and roadways in four neighborhoods. The city is targeting aging underground pipes in Forest Hills, East Tampa, MacFarlane Park, and Virginia Park in a project that will span three and a half years and cost the city $200 million. “It will help with water pressure and water quality. We will be reducing water main breaks and reducing the number of cave-ins on sanitary sewer sites,” said Brad Baird, infrastructure administrator for the City of Tampa. The project will have three planned phases: • Phase 1 includes the repair and relining of around 27 miles of underground pipes. • Phase 2 will target the removal and replacement of at least 18 miles of pipes. • Phase 3 will address roadway and driving surface improvements in all four neighborhoods. S

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

Water Plant Operator Full-time 40 hours per week, Day shift with one weekend day, ability to work flexible schedule & holidays as necessary. Performs work involving operation and maintenance of small water plant. Operator must possess a “C” License from State of Florida or equivalent and a minimum of two years of experience, lime softening preferred. Clean Criminal Background. Salary 52,000 per year. Email resume to: crystalm@miccosukeetribe.com or fax (305) 894- 2350. Work Location is 20 Miles west of Krome Ave on Tamiami Trail, Miami


The FWPCOA Job Placement Committee Can Help! Contact Joan E. Stokes at 407-293-9465 or fax 407-293-9943 for more information. Florida Water Resources Journal • August 2022



Test Yourself Answer Key From page 18 January 2016

Editorial Calendar January............... Wastewater Treatment February............. Water Supply; Alternative Sources March.................. Energy Efficiency; Environmental Stewardship April .................... Conservation and Reuse May .................... Operations and Utilities Management June .................... Biosolids Management and Bioenergy Production July ..................... Stormwater Management; Emerging Technologies; Florida Water Resources Conference Review August................ Disinfection; Water Quality September.......... Emerging Issues; Water Resources Management October............... New Facilities, Expansions, and Upgrades November........... Water Treatment December........... Distribution and Collection Technical articles are usually scheduled several months in advance and are due 60 days before 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 days before the issue month (for example, September 1 for the October issue). For further information on submittal requirements, guidelines for writers, advertising rates 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.

Display Advertiser Index Blue Planet Environmental Systems ������������������������������������� 67 CEU Challenge ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 53 Data Flow ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 47 Florida Water Resources Conference ������������������������������������ 19 FSAWWA Conference ���������������������������������������������������������38-44 FWPCOA Training �������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 Gerber Pumps ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 Heyward �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Hudson Pump �������������������������������������������������������������������������� 27 Hydro International �������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 InfoSence ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 65 Jones Edmunds ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 Lakeside ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 7 PolyProcessing ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 17 UF TREEO Center �������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 US Submergent ������������������������������������������������������������������������ 37 Xylem ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 68

70 August 2022 • Florida Water Resources Journal

1. A ) per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Per EPA’s PFAS website, under EPA’s Current Understanding, “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of manufactured chemicals that have been used in industry and consumer products since the 1940s because of their useful properties. There are thousands of different PFAS, some of which have been more widely used and studied than others.”

2. B ) perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).

Per EPA’s PFAS website, under EPA’s Current Understanding, “Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), for example, are two of the most widely used and studied chemicals in the PFAS group.”

3. D ) is not expected to have negative health effects over a certain period of exposure.

Per EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories Webinar, “The numeric health advisory level shows how much of a chemical or contaminant is not expected to have negative health effects over a certain period of exposure. A lifetime health advisory (including these four) protects all Americans, including sensitive populations and life stages, from adverse health effects resulting from exposure throughout their lives.”

4. D) 29

Per EPA’s website on the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR5) under Monitoring Scope, “PWSs will collect samples for 29 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and lithium.”

5. C ) 0.02 ppt.

Per EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories Webinar, under Summary of Four PFAS Health Advisories, “Chemical – PFOA – Health Advisory Level – 0.004 ppt (Interim) Chemical – PFOS – Health Advisory Level – 0.02 ppt (Interim).”

6. C ) 10 ppt

Per EPA’s PFAS Health Advisories Webinar, under Summary of Four PFAS Health Advisories, “Chemical – GenX Chemicals – Health Advisory Level – 10 ppt (Final) “Chemical – PFBS – Health Advisory Level – 2,000 ppt (Final).”

7. C ) Fall of 2023

Per EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, under the Office of Water section, “In March 2021, EPA published the Fourth Regulatory Determinations, including a final determination to regulate perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in drinking water. . . EPA expects to issue a proposed regulation in fall 2022 (before the agency’s statutory deadline of March 2023). The agency anticipates issuing a final regulation in fall 2023 after considering public comments on the proposal.”

8. D ) PFBS and GenX chemicals

Per EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, under the Office of Water section, subsection, “Publish health advisories for GenX and PFBS expected spring 2022. . . EPA will publish health advisories for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) and GenX chemicals based on final toxicity assessments.”

9. D ) Facilities where PFAS is expected or suspected to be in wastewater or stormwater discharges

Per EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, under the Office of Water section, subsection, “Leverage NPDES permitting to reduce PFAS discharges to waterways. . . EPA will issue new guidance recommending that stateissued permits that do not already include monitoring requirements for PFAS use EPA’s recently published analytical method 1633, which covers 40 unique PFAS, at facilities where PFAS is expected or suspected to be present in wastewater and stormwater discharges.”

10. B) A risk assessment

Per EPA’s PFAS Strategic Roadmap, under the Office of Water section, subsection “Finalize risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids expected winter 2024. . . A risk assessment is key to determining the potential harm associated with human exposure to chemicals. EPA will complete the risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids by winter 2024. The risk assessment will serve as the basis for determining whether regulation of PFOA and PFOS in biosolids is appropriate.”