Engineers' Society of Western Pennsylvania


337 Fourth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Phone: (412) 261-0710 Email: Get Directions

Monday, November 5

Technical Sessions – 8:00-11:00 A.M.

Cooling Water Chemistry Innovations Support Environmental Needs: New Green Chemicals, New Non-P Treatment, and Innovative Yellow Metal Treatment Technology in Contaminated Water Reuse

IWC Rep: Michele Funk, Bechtel Corporation, Reston, VA
Session Chair: Charles Kuhfeldt, CauseWay Water Consulting and Services, LLC, Taylor Lake Village, TX
Discussion Leader: Chris Baron, ChemTreat, Newark, DE

Room: Salt River 1

Three presentations aid the sustainability of water use, water reuse and protection of natural resources through chemical innovation. Research continues toward the availability of naturally occurring antiscalant molecules. The first paper examines the newest developments in green (natural) antiscalants including plant extracts, biological molecules and modified natural industrial by-products. Strategies to discover these new green inhibitors, the methods to quantify their effectiveness and potential uses are discussed. In some cooling water chemistry applications interest in the removal of phosphate corrosion inhibitors is driven by discharge restrictions or concerns, as well as the potential of higher cycles and enhanced system protection through the elimination of calcium phosphate precipitation threats. The second paper introduces a new non-P corrosion inhibitor, comparing its performance in challenging applications, including sea water, to many inhibitors currently in use. The third presentation examines the problem of contaminated reuse water, microbiological control, and yellow metal corrosion control in a corrosive environment including the complication of mixed chlorine species and ammonia. Driven by a manufacturing facility cooling water application with a highly contaminated reuse water makeup source, laboratory potentiometry studies of yellow metal corrosion protection from azoles including combinations of azoles, contaminated reuse water, chlorine, monochloramine, and ammonia were used to determine the effective treatment choice.

IWC 18-01: State of Art of Natural Inhibitors of Calcium Carbonate Scaling: Last Developments
Olivier Horner and Hélène Cheap-Charpentier, EPF, EPF – Graduate School of Engineering, Sceaux, France; Jean Ledion, AMVALOR, Paris, France; Hubert Perrot, LISE – CNRS/Sorbonne University, Paris, France

The formation of calcium carbonate in water is a major concern in some industrial processes. It can cause technical problems such as reduction of heat transfer efficiency in cooling systems and obstruction of pipes. The non-productive expenses related to scaling were estimated at 1.5 billion Euros per year in France, 0.8 billion $US in Great Britain, 3 billion $US in Japan and 9 billion $ in the USA. A common method for controlling scale deposition is the use of chemicals which act as antiscalants. In this respect, phosphorous and nitrogen compounds have been fruitfully used against scale formation. However, these inorganic chemicals are involved as nutrients in eutrophication process, and may lead to the massive development of biological species and to the death of aquatic organisms. Nowadays, discharges of chemicals which modify biological cycles are strictly controlled by legislation. It is therefore of prime importance for industry to find alternative solutions. In the fifties, some pioneers showed that the rates of nucleation and crystal growth of a form of scale was strongly reduced by addition of small amounts of natural organic molecules such as gelatin. This last decade, several new scale inhibitors such as plant extracts (Punica granutum hull and leaf extract, Aloe vera etc.), biological molecules (cysteine-rich Mdm2 peptide etc.) or modified natural by-products from industrial process (abandoned corn stalks, collagens from leather production etc.) that are more ecological compared with conventional inhibitors have been reported in the literature. Some of them have been successfully tested in industrial conditions (oil field etc.).This paper will provide the very last developments in the field of green inhibitors. The three main strategies to get new green inhibitors will be also detailed. Methods are now available, which allow to accurately quantify the effectiveness of an antiscalant, in order to select potential interesting products. Green inhibitors obtained from natural products, especially by exploring the international pharmacopoeia, is clearly a growing field. They could be advantageously used in situation where the use of chemicals would be limited by environmental regulations and/or difficulties of application. Moreover, such molecules could have possible effects on biofouling and corrosion. They might be used in various domains such as energy, water and food industry.

Discusser: David Fulmer, Athlon, A Halliburton Service, Houston, TX

IWC 18-02: New No P Scale Inhibitor for Inhibiting Scale under Highly Demanding Conditions Such as Sea Water cooling and Thermal Desalination
Jasbir Gill, Ph.D. and Matt Chudomel, Ph.D., Nalco Water, Naperville, IL; Santanu Banerjee, Ph.D., Nalco Water India Limited, Pune, Maharashtra, India; Sairam Sudhakaran,, Nalco Champion MEA, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Demand for non-P scale and corrosion inhibitors has necessitated a move from phosphonates to polymers for scale inhibition. This in conjunction with the use of impaired water such as seawater for cooling has significantly raised the performance bar as compared to phosphonates, polyacrylic acid and polymaleic type of scale inhibitors. This paper presents unique new composition of the new inhibitor that out performs most of inhibitors currently available to the water treaters. The data presented in the paper compares its performance to the phosphonates and other polymers in the cooling water system where the seawater is used as make up water. The study uses synthetic sea water as well as the actual Red Sea water in both laboratory and pilot cooling tower settings. The new inhibitor allows increase cycles of concentration in the cooling tower.

Discusser: Michael Blumle, Ph.D., Solenis LLC, Wilmington, DE

IWC 18-03: Corrosion Inhibition with Azoles in a Cooling Water System with Chloramine Contamination
Maria Nydia Lynch, Ph.D., Solenis, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Jo Anna Ordonez, Solenis, LLC, Kyle TX

A manufacturing facility opted to reuse contaminated water for their cooling systems, which presented challenges in maintaining effective yellow metal corrosion rates with conventional azole treatments. Laboratory potentiometry studies determined the corrosion rate of yellow metals via the evaluation of various azoles in the presence of free chlorine, monochloramine, and ammonia. Halogen resistant azole outperformed other azoles by maintaining the corrosion rate at less than 0.3 mpy at half-dose when compared to other azoles.
Laboratory potentiometry studies were performed to determine the corrosion rate of yellow metal in the contaminated water and the effect of that contamination towards azole corrosion inhibition performance. This study focused on the evaluation of corrosion inhibition by various species of azoles in a cooling water system with chloramine contamination. Evaluation included the review of the effect of chlorine or nitrogen containing chemicals, including the effect of free chlorine, monochloramines, and ammonia, towards yellow metal corrosion when various azoles are used. Field verification of findings were performed to optimize azole application for optimal corrosion inhibition under the adverse conditions. Yellow metal corrosion rates were maintained below 0.3 mpy while decreasing product consumption by half when compared with the other azole combinations analyzed during this study.

Discusser: Prasad Kalakodimi, Ph.D., ChemTreat, Glen Allen, VA

IWC 18-Reserve: Getting to the Source of Cooling Water Treatment
Krystal Perez, P.E. , Jacobs, Bellevue, WA; Thomas Higgins, Jacobs, Jacksonville, FL; Jim Lozier, Jacobs, Phoenix, AZ; Mary McCloud, Jacobs, Fort Lauderdale, FL; Ken Martins, Jacobs, Santa Ana, CA

Consider Attending: W-1, W-2, W-5, W-8, W-10, W-12, W-18, W-19, W-20

Water Projects: Delivering a Success

IWC Rep: Bradley Wolf, P.E., Berkeley Research Group, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA
Session Chair: Derek Henderson, Duke Energy, Raleigh, NC
Discussion Leader: Mike Kochevar, OLI Systems, Inc., Cedar Knolls, NJ

Room: Salt River 2

When implementing a water or wastewater treatment project, there are quite a few challenges that arise from design through construction. These challenges can pertain to design, schedule, cost, etc. In this session, we will review these project challenges and provide options and case studies on how to address them so that a successful project can occur.

IWC 18-04: Project Considerations for Successful Execution of Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Joseph Guida and Americus Mitchell, Fluor Corp, Sugar Land, TX

A myriad of important decisions and considerations are required before embarking on a water or wastewater treatment project. These decisions are different than those associated with structural or architectural projects due to the variable constituents in water, the regulations associated with discharge from plants, and the various technologies available. Understanding what decisions are required and being able to set the right direction early will ensure success, on time completion, and avoidance of costly changes down the road. This paper provides a framework to address the decisions and operational considerations that need to be established early to build a successful project along with insight to schedule variability, quality, and cost.
Discussion topics include:
Data requirements and technology selection
How well is the influent stream characterized and what are the treated water requirements? What data is needed to establish a valid design basis and who will collect the data and perform lab or bench testing if required? How long will it take? What considerations guide the selection of a treatment technology and why?
Type of industry and the required design standards
In general, industries that work with more hazardous materials will have more demanding design standards. How does an Owner select whether to use a plant standard or vendor standard, and how does this affect the installation in the field?
Vendor Scope vs Customer Scope (What’s the best split?)
Is it better to give the vendor the total scope of the treatment unit including foundations, pipe racks, piping, cabling, etc. for the complete battery limits? Or is it better to just have the vendor provide their equipment with balance of plant “by others”? This paper provides a comparison of the benefits and risks associated with making this decision.
Construction Philosophy
Is it best to have a time and materials or lump sum contract? What is the impact of labor, union vs non-union? What impact will the project location have and what risks will there be?
Third Party Delivery Contracts
Should a third party design, build, own, operate, and maintain (DBOOM) the plant or some combination thereof? How will financial factors, contract structure, guarantees, liabilities, construction costs, labor, etc. affect this decision? With a build, own, transfer (BOT) type contract, how can the owner insure that the third party will maintain the asset to maximize value to the owner upon transfer?
Modularization Concept
Modularization can substantially lower construction costs by fabricating complete treatment units on large modules in a location with more favorable material and labor costs. When does this make sense?
Other Considerations
Other considerations include permit constraints, startup and commissioning support, performance testing requirements, and guarantees.

Discusser: John Van Gehuchten, P.E., McKim & Creed, Sewickley, PA

IWC 18-05: Utilizing Progressive Design-Build to Efficiently Complete Projects in the Upstream Oil & Gas Sector
Russell Huffmyer, McKim & Creed, Sewickley, PA

The upstream O&G sector utilizes a significant amount of water to drill and develop their wells and generates a significant amount of brine wastewater. In some industries infrastructure projects, such as water & wastewater pipelines and facilities, are developed utilizing the traditional design-bid-build project delivery model. The Design-Bid-Build concept, by its nature, results in extended delivery schedules and higher costs because of its linear progress and losing the opportunity for the constructors, and equipment suppliers to provide input into the design. In contrast, recent projects have shown that the design-build delivery method allows for the engineer to work closely with the Owner from early in the project to develop expectations and clearly define successful project outcomes, which in turn provides a higher probability of achieving successful project execution. From a pursuit perspective, this delivery method is not easily achieved, as the typical Owner in Upstream Oil & Gas operations have not been exposed to the design-build concept, thus creating a significant up-hill challenge to achieve an understanding and acceptance of this delivery method. This paper will explore the methodologies to achieve a trusting relationship with the Owner in developing a project strategy to meet their operational needs, educating the Owner and other stakeholders on the benefits of the design-build delivery method, developing the phased project approach to achieve expedited project outcomes, and delivering a commissioned project that has surpassed the hurdles of the traditional project delivery methods. To accomplish this, the paper will evaluate two case studies, which consist of a produced water gathering, distribution, & disposal project in the Haynesville Shale Play of Louisiana and a freshwater intake, pump station, and pipeline from the Ohio River in the Marcellus/Utica Shale Play of southwestern Pennsylvania.

Discusser: Darrell Fackrell, Bowen Engineering Corporation, Glen Burnie, MD

IWC 18-06: With the Chemistry Set, What’s Next? A Case Study to Deliver a Fast Tracked EPC Industrial Wastewater Project
Michael Soller, P.E., CPC, Josh Thomas, P.E., and Ben Klick, E.I., Bowen Engineering Corporation, Indianapolis, IN

The key to complete a water or wastewater project is to understand the influent and effluent chemistry and agree on the treatment process flow sheet. Significant time is sometimes required to achieve stakeholder agreement on an optimized treatment scheme which can ultimately delay the start of detailed design and construction in the field. These delays can increase the design cost, and the construction complexity and cost due to overall schedule compression because the project end date does not change. For industrial wastewater projects it is common that the design time to confirm the treatment processes and finish the balance of plant design can equal or exceed the expected construction time. This occurs despite a substantial majority of the cost and risk is related to the procurement and construction of the project. This paper provides a case study of an industrial wastewater project at a gas fired power plant which had significant design delays due to incomplete water chemistry, or incomplete design information prior to and during detailed design. The case study includes a comparison between the initial and the actual implementation time for the detailed design and construction. It identifies the reasons the detailed design was delayed and the impact to the initial project schedule. It also describes the methods used to complete the design in phases to achieve the earliest start of field operations. The case study provides the methods used to estimate the increased construction cost and time impact which may have occurred due to delayed detailed design efforts, and the change in direction as a result of having such data. This study also describes the use of design phase gates and 3D BIM technology to focus the design and modular construction efforts to achieve the largest benefit for the project. The phase gate approach describes the scope verification process used to measure intermediate design results, assure design compliance and mitigate scope creep and design entropy. This discrete process provided real time data during design which was carried over for use during the field craft production planning. The study concludes with the recommendations for several optimization milestones that could be used by Owners and EPC contractors to evaluate the impact of extended design time versus the time required to build the project in the field.

Discusser: Ron Ruocco, P.E., Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc., Charlotte, NC

Consider Attending: W-1, W-2, W-5, W-10

Reverse Osmosis: The Application of a Very Important Tool

IWC Rep: Dennis McBride, Burns & McDonnell, Kansas City, MO
Session Chair: Steve McSherry, Wigen Water Technologies, Chaska, MN
Discussion Leader: David Weakley, GAI Consultants, Inc., Homestead, PA

Room: Salt River 7

Reverse osmosis technology is a versatile tool in the world of water treatment. It is a pre-treatment technology when used on high purity water treatment applications; a primary technology for general manufacturing applications and a post-treatment technology in waste water re-use applications. This session will examine the practical application of the technology with papers discussing membrane selection, predictive modeling software and a case study with 4 years of operating data on a waste water re-use and ZLD application.

IWC 18-07: Reverse Osmosis vs Nanofiltration: Using Membrane Selectivity for Process Advantage
John Peichel, SUEZ Water Technologies & Solutions, Minnetonka, MN

Membrane Technology has significantly improved our ability to handle significant water chemistry challenges. Often times, reverse osmosis and nanofiltration are evaluated during lab screening and/or pilot testing to determine actual separation ability, pressure required and application robustness. As we apply these technologies to higher and higher salinities, organic concentrations and complex solution chemistries, conventional prediction tools are limited in their ability to direct our application of these membrane technologies. Often, these technologies are selected based on simple grouping of monovalent vs divalent or large vs small organics. As concentrations push higher and solutions contain complex solutes, simple rules of thumb no longer apply. This paper will explore the important factors that should be considered when selecting reverse osmosis or nanofiltration membranes for process applications focused on key water quality factors, membrane separation principles and examples to illustrate fundamental principles. The discussion will include both lessons learned and considerations for future work to highlight the unique advantages these membrane technologies possess when we leverage their strengths.

Discusser: Holly Churman, P.E., GHD, Houston, TX

IWC 18-08: The Practical Application of Ion Association-Speciation Models to Mineral Scale Formation and Control in High Ionic Strength Membrane Systems
Robert J. Ferguson, French Creek Software, Inc., Valley Forge, PA; Kaylie L. Young, Ph.D., and William Glover, Ph.D., Dow Oil, Gas & Mining R&D, Houston, TX

Traditional water chemistry simulation software is not up to the rigors of high ionic strength, high recovery, and water reuse membrane systems. They are definitely not capable of adequately modeling cascade systems. The simple indices used for predicting scale formation, and as driving forces for dosage optimization, do not simulate high ionic strength activity coefficients and near as well as far effects. The simple models fail to account for speciation and the ion association of even such standard (yet critical) pairs such as CaSO4o aqueous.
Traditional scale inhibitor models do not account for inhibitor dissociation and the active form of the molecules. They also tend to lack the sophistication of models used in other applications which necessitate an induction time extension approach. Without adequate speciation models, inhibitor solubility can not be adequately taken into account, or insoluble forms controlled predictably.
This paper discusses the practical application of advanced physical chemistry techniques commonly employed in cooling water and oil field chemistry, to membrane systems.
The techniques are discussed and applied to:
• Predicting scale formation;
• Identifying the upper driving force limit for inhibitors and blends;
• Developing inhibitor models for minimum effective dosage; and
• Developing models for preventing failure due to inhibitor solubility.
The methods discussed have been validated in field applications.

Discusser: Rasika Nimkar, OLI Systems, Inc., Cedar Knolls, NJ

IWC 18-09: A Case Study of Industrial Water Reuse and ZLD – 4 Years of Operation and Lessons Learned
Ed Greenwood, P.Eng., BCEE and Bill Malyk, P.Eng., BCEE, Wood plc, Cambridge, ON, Canada

One global food processor has risen to the challenge of water scarcity at one of its production facilities in India. Prior to 2013, the facility was able to draw all the water it needed from a well. However, droughts have reduced groundwater resources and the demand for the facility’s products has grown. The food processor approached Wood (formally Amec Foster Wheeler) to help them with a major expansion that would triple production capacity. Since additional withdrawals from the aquifer were not permitted, a new Water Reclamation Plant was needed.
Water reuse at a food processing facility was rare; however, it had been done before. In this case, the bigger challenge was to satisfy the facility’s expanded requirements for process water with limited groundwater resources. Water recovery rates needed to be as high as possible: higher than what had been achieved before. As well, production would depend on the product water from the new Wastewater Reclamation Plant so the equipment had to be very reliable. After the expansion, wastewater treatment upsets (biological, clarification, membrane fouling, etc.) could not impact the quality or quantity of process water available for production.
Since start-up in early 2014 the new Water Reclamation Plant has exceeded expectations; treated water quality has been excellent and the RO has consistently achieved over 87% recovery.
In 2015 the facility’s production targets grew again requiring even more process water. As well, the facility requested a permanent, sustainable solution for brine disposal. A Scavenger Reverse Osmosis system was designed, installed and commissioned to minimize brine disposal requirements and boost water recovery rates over 93%. As well, a Multiple Effect Evaporator and Crystallizer system was designed, installed and commissioned to treat the remaining concentrated RO reject solution and meet the site’s needs for Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). The new Scavenger RO and ZLD systems were commissioned in 2016 to enable the Food Processor to control of their water balance ensuring the facility’s future in a region of severe water scarcity. 4 Years of operating data and lessons will be presented in this paper.

Discusser: Kurt Blohm, Veolia Water Technologies, Moon Township, PA


Consider Attending: W-1, W-2, W-3, W-5, W-10, W-12, W-15


Nitty Gritty Details of FGD Wastewater Treatment

IWC Rep: Patricia M. Scroggin, P.E., Burns & McDonnell, Chicago, IL
Session Chair: Michael Preston, Black & Veatch, Overland Park, KS
Discussion Leader: Thomas Higgins, P.E., Ph.D., Jacobs, St. Augustine, FL

Room: Salt River 8

The ability to predict FGD wastewater quality based on coal power plant inputs has been a type of Holy Grail since the ELG rules have been considered. Our first paper will look at the results of modelling studies attempting to predict FGD wastewater quality and the fate of particular constituents as a function of fuel and other plant inputs. Our final two papers discuss some unanticipated issues and challenges that have arisen with common FGD wastewater treatment processes as they attempt to deal with very concentrated wastewater and meet extremely low discharge requirements.

IWC 18-10: Plant-Scale Mass Balance to Determine the Effect of Flue Gas Additives on Trace Metals in FGD Wastewater and Solids
Jonathan Allen and Christopher Ferens-Foulet, Allen Analytics LLC, Tucson, AZ; Chethan Acharya, Southern Company Services, Birmingham, AL

Coal-fired power plants burn coals of variable composition and commonly operate at a range of loads. These variable operations mean that the efficacy of treatment options cannot be unambiguously determined from changes in concentration; i.e. the effect of flue gas additives cannot be distinguished from changes in coal composition on the basis of wastewater concentration, especially for trace metals. Evaluation of treatment efficacy is further complicated in the case of species like selenium (Se) and mercury (Hg) which partition among gas, particulate, and aqueous phases. Flue gas composition was measured at multiple locations. Samples of coal, ESP ash, and baghouse ash were collected throughout the study and analyzed for a large number of analytes. Samples of FGD feed water, FGD slurry, and FGD wastewater were also collected throughout the study and analyzed for the same suite of analytes. We first constructed plant-scale mass balances on ash and FGD water using process data. The accuracy of these were confirmed using concentration profiles of “inert” species; lead (Pb) for ash and chloride (Cl) for FGD water. We then constructed plant-scale mass balances for trace metals using the ash and FGD water mass balances, as well as sample analyses.

Discusser: Nelson Fonseca, SUEZ Water Technologies & Solutions, Oakville, ON, Canada

IWC 18-11: Investigation of Constituent Volatility In Thermal Treatment of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater
Jeffery Preece and Trent Rogers, Electric Power Research Institute, Charlotte, NC; Anthony (A.J.) Gerbino, Ph.D., OLI Systems, Inc., Cedar Knolls, NJ

There is limited publicly available information that provides details on transfer mechanisms and volatility of certain species during evaporative treatment of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. Understanding these mechanisms will assist in developing strategies that minimize or mitigate the need for constituent-specific treatment of distillate produced by thermal evaporation. This approach could lead to a reduction of overall cost in producing high purity distillate by avoiding post-treatment for certain constituents of interest. This study analyzes the chemical properties of various FGD wastewater sources as they undergo evaporative treatment simulations in OLI Systems software. Results from the software models are compared to laboratory and pilot data and carryover mechanisms are explored.
Laboratory and pilot testing of thermal evaporation with FGD wastewater were conducted to study constituent carryover (e.g., mercury, boron, and iodide) from the mother liquor stream to the distillate stream. Validation of testing results suggest mechanical mechanisms of carryover for certain species is not the main contributor, as the use of techniques preventing droplet carryover were deployed. The data therefore suggest the primary mechanism of transfer is motivated by chemical interactions and volatility which are not well understood. The economics of separating salts and other constituents from water are variable but thermal evaporation approaches typically come at a high cost due to pre-treatment requirements, energy demand, use of specialty materials, and other factors. There is an opportunity to reduce overall cost of treatment by understanding chemical mechanisms and identifying holistic solutions that manage constituents based on economical treatment strategies.

Discusser: Krystal Perez, Jacobs, Bellevue, WA

IWC 18-12: Unforeseen Consequences of Cycling-Up Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Scrubber Water
Frank Sassaman, Jr. and Kylie Henline, Evoqua Water Technologies, Warrendale, PA; Charles McCloskey, Evoqua Water Technologies, Schaumburg, IL

Some unintended consequences of cycling up FGD scrubber wastewater are highlighted in this paper including creating a waste stream that becomes more difficult to treat and more difficult to analyze. The paper presents data showing increasingly imprecise analysis of selenium and arsenic that is proportional to the TDS. It also shows how concentration of very difficult to treat organic arsenic compounds can result in non-compliance with 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG).

In laboratory tests, a sample of FGD blowdown containing 20 g/L of TDS was gradually concentrated using reverse osmosis to TDS concentrations of 20, 30, 35, 50, and 70 g/L. There are currently two primary technologies for removing selenium, arsenic, and mercury from FGD blowdown; zero valent iron (ZVI) and biological. Our tests focused on ZVI since biological treatment is generally limited to waters having TDS levels of less than 35 g/L.

Treatment became increasingly difficult as the TDS approached 50 g/L. The sample that was used for testing contained approximately 3 µg/L of total arsenic, below the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG). Analysis showed that the arsenic was present in the organic form. In general, organic arsenic is virtually untreatable with either biological or ZVI technologies. When the sample was concentrated by a factor of 3.5 (from 20 g/L to 70 g/L TDS) the arsenic concentrated up to 10.5 µg/L (exceeding the current ELG and being untreatable in the organic form).

In addition to being difficult to treat, analysis for selenium and arsenic became increasingly difficult as TDS concentrations reached and exceeded 35 g/L. It is believed this is due to the high salt content. Data for selenium showed that at TDS concentrations of 50 g/L, analysis of identical samples using the same analytical method differed by up to 83%. Also, as the sample was concentrated, the analytical results for arsenic concentrated at a faster rate than did the theoretical TDS increase. At 70 g/L TDS, analysis showed as much as 63% more arsenic than should have been present. Overall, the data in this study indicates that cycling-up FGD scrubber water may make reliable analysis of key parameters such as arsenic, selenium, and heavy metals extremely difficult.

The paper will also present results obtained when samples were speciated for selenium and arsenic and when identical samples were split among three different analytical labs, with each lab using the same analytical method.

Discusser: William Kennedy, P.E., Duke Energy, Charlotte, NC


Consider Attending: W-1, W-2, W-4, W-5, W-10, W-12


Keynote Session – 11:15 A.M.

Session Chair: Patricia M. Scroggin, P.E., Burns & McDonnell, Chicago, IL

The IWC Keynote Session is the official start to the 2018 conference. In addition to the presentation of the annual awards, including the IWC Award of Merit, and the Paul Cohen Award. We are pleased to have Joel Beauvais, partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins and a member of the Environment, Land & Resources Department.

Following the conclusion of the Keynote Session, enjoy lunch strolling thru the IWC Exhibit Hall and visit with the many exhibitors to extend the opportunity to learn and network!


The Annual Awards are presented to celebrate the following achievements in the water treatment industry. Awards are presented in the following three categories:

Annual Merit Award

Each year, the International Water Conference presents the Annual Merit Award to honor outstanding individuals in the field of industrial water technology. This year’s Merit Award Winner is Peter Meyers. Mr. Meyers currently works for ResinTech, Inc. and is a frequent presenter at the IWC, and participates on the IWC Advisory Council.

Paul Cohen Award

As a memorial, o Paul Cohen and his contributions to the power generation industry, the IWC is proud to recognize the authors of the most precise and innovative presentation in the field of power systems water technology that was presented at the 78th Annual IWC. This year, we honor Akash Trivedi for his presentation of IWC 17-11: Case Study: On-Line Chloride and Sulfate Measurement by Microfluidic Capillary Electrophoresis.

First Time Presenter and Overall Best Paper Award

These awards are to be presented annually to an IWC presenting author (or authors) who best exemplifies the goal of clearly communicating new information, or a new understanding about a significant aspect of water use or water chemistry, or best enhances the knowledge that enables effective utilization of water in industry or another use that benefits humanity. To that end, the IWC is pleased to announce the winners of the 2017 awards. The First Time Presenter Award Winner is Chad Roby from Jacobs for the presentation of IWC 17-59: Closing the Bottom Ash Loop – Pilot Testing Treatment and Reuse for FGD Makeup. The Best Overall Paper Award Winner is Dan Sampson from HDR, Inc. for paper IWC 17-63: A Rock and a Hard Place – Managing use of Ammonia-laden Recycled Water.

Joseph A. Levendusky Scholarship


IWC Travel Scholarship

The IWC, McKim & Creed, and Dewberry Engineers donated $500 and a complimentary registration to four students. These students demonstrated interest and commitment to seek a career in the field of water technology. We are proud to present the following with the 2018 IWC Travel Scholarship:

Joshua Benjamin, University of South Florida

Nader Rezari, University of South Florida

Stephen LaBonia, University of Florida


Keynote Presentation

Mr. Beauvais is a partner in the Environment, Land and Resources Department of Latham & Watkins LLP.  He rejoined Latham in 2017 after serving for six years at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Most recently, he served as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water where he led the agency’s National Water Program, which administers the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act.  In this role, Mr. Beauvais led the development and implementation of national regulations and policies, oversight of state water programs, and the implementation of national programs to support water infrastructure financing.

Mr. Beauvais previously served as Associate Administrator for Policy at EPA, where he played a key role in the development of major regulations addressing climate, air quality, water quality, chemical safety, solid waste management, and other issues.  In this position, he was a principal advisor to the EPA Administrator on regulatory policy, oversaw EPA’s work on economic analysis, and led the agency’s engagement with the White House Office of Management and Budget on regulatory issues.  Prior to this, he served as Associate Assistant  Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation and as Special Counsel to the Office of the Administrator.

Before joining the EPA, Mr. Beauvais worked in the US House of Representatives as counsel for the Committee on Energy and Commerce and majority counsel for the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he helped develop legislation and advised on energy, climate, and air quality issues.