1. (1) Pilot testing is required for all ATWF projects.

2. (2) Approval of the pilot testing plan of study shall be obtained before the pilot testing program commences. The request for the pilot testing plan of study approval shall, at a minimum, describe and establish the monitoring and reporting requirements for the pilot testing program. Applicable portions of the detailed plan of study shall be signed and sealed by a professional engineer or professional geologist registered in the State of Florida. The ensuing plan of study shall be approved in writing by the Department and shall be binding upon the Department and the applicant. During the course of the study, the plan of study may be amended by written agreement between the Department and the applicant. The applicant shall coordinate with the Department during the study and shall present the study results to the Department. Failure to comply with the plan of study may result in the Department’s rejection of some or all of the data.

   1. (a) Within 30 days of receipt of a pilot testing plan of study, the Department shall request additional information if the plan of study is not complete. The Department’s request for additional information shall specify a time period for the applicant’s submittal of the requested information, which shall not be less than 45 days from the applicant’s receipt of the Department’s request. Within 90 days of receipt of a complete pilot testing plan of study, the Department shall either approve, deny, or approve the pilot testing plan of study with conditions. The Department’s determination shall be based solely on its evaluation of the requirements in subsections (3) through (11) below.
   2. (b) Within 21 days of receipt of notice of agency action on the pilot testing plan of study, an applicant may file a petition in accordance with subsections 62-110.106(2) and (3), F.A.C., concerning the Department’s approval, denial, or approval of the pilot testing plan of study with conditions. The Department’s decision shall be agency action, reviewable in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S.

3. (3) The plan of study shall:

   1. (a) Address the requirements of this rule, as well as the following:
   2. (b) Include a schedule, with interim milestones, for the completion of the pilot study;
   3. (c) Include the results of the Source Water Evaluation;
   4. (d) Identify and establish treatment and disinfection processes;
   5. (e) Identify proposed treatment processes to meet reclaimed water limitations;
   6. (f) Identify and evaluate emerging constituents and surrogate parameters in the reclaimed water and removal by the proposed treatment process based on the results of the Source Water Evaluation, and proposed TBTRs;
   7. (g) Identify and evaluate reducing target pathogens and surrogate parameters from the treatment processes;
   8. (h) Identify mechanism of pathogen removal by treatment processes;
   9. (i) Evaluate how the treatment processes will achieve primary and secondary drinking water standards;
   10. (j) Identify and evaluate challenges related to treatment processes;
   11. (k) Identify operational monitoring parameters used to measure the performance throughout the treatment processes;
   12. (l) Identify critical control points for improved process control and system reliability;
   13. (m) Evaluate and estimate cost of the operation and maintenance and conceptual site plan; and
   14. (n) The plan of study shall describe the monitoring and reporting requirements for the pilot testing program.

4. (4) Pilot testing shall be performed using reclaimed water. The pilot testing program shall:

   1. (a) Meet the requirements of Rules 62-565.500, .510, .520, and .530, F.A.C.;
   2. (b) Ensure that all sampling results are at or below the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and within the allowable residual disinfectant levels in accordance with Rule 62-550.310, F.A.C.;
   3. (c) Meet the treatment technique requirements established in Rules 62-565.500 and .530, F.A.C.;
   4. (d) Evaluate the suitability of the reclaimed water for potable reuse and identify critical control points for improved process control and treatment reliability, based on the requirements of this chapter; and
   5. (e) Provide an affirmative demonstration that the finished drinking water will be of sufficient quality to protect public health and environmental quality and that the proposed treatment and disinfection processes in the potable reuse system are capable of meeting the treatment and disinfection requirements in Chapters 62-550, 62-555, 62-565, 62-600, and 62-610, F.A.C. For direct and indirect potable reuse systems, an evaluation of enteric viruses, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia lamblia is required in order to provide reasonable assurance the potable reuse system is capable of producing a reclaimed water that meets the requirements of Rule 62-565.530, F.A.C.
   6. (f) Include an evaluation of constituents in the influent that may be difficult to remove or are precursors to disinfection byproduct formation. Constituents evaluated must include those believed present that are listed in 40 CFR Part 122, Appendix D, (adopted and incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-620.100(3)(b), F.A.C., effective October 8, 2021).
   7. (g) Include a determination of the mutagenicity of the reclaimed water, as determined by the results of a biological risk assessment approved by the Department.
   8. (h) Include a comparison of the quality of water produced in the pilot study to other sources of drinking water currently used in the area.
5. (5) The pilot testing program shall accumulate a minimum of twelve months of data for the final treatment design.

6. (6) Upon request by the applicant, and subsequent approval by the Department, the requirements of a pilot testing program shall be altered as follows:

   1. (a) A reduction in the duration or scope of the pilot testing program if the following conditions are met:

      1. The applicant provides a detailed plan of study for the Department’s review and obtains approval before initiating the pilot testing program.

      2. Applicable portions of the detailed plan of study are signed and sealed by a professional engineer or professional geologist registered in the State of Florida, where required by Chapter 471 or 492, F.S.

      3. The detailed plan of study provides reasonable assurance that a shorter duration study or reduced scope of study will be sufficient to demonstrate the ability of the proposed treatment processes to meet the requirements of this chapter, and to demonstrate the public health and environmental safety of the advanced treated water to be produced. Results of previous pilot testing programs, use of commercially proven technologies, available research and guidance, and operating experience at similar water reclamation and reuse projects may be used as part of the demonstration.

   2. (b) Upon request by the applicant, and subsequent approval by the Department, an elimination of the requirement to conduct a pilot testing program shall be authorized if the following conditions are met:

      1. The applicant provides a detailed source water characterization demonstrating that there are no constituents in the source water that will interfere with or pass through the selected treatment technology used in a comparable potable reuse system that has been piloted or put into commercial operation.

      2. Applicable portions of the detailed plan of study are signed and sealed by a professional engineer or professional geologist registered in the State of Florida, where required by Chapter 471 or 492, F.S.

      3. The applicant provides reasonable assurance to demonstrate the ability of the proposed treatment processes to meet the requirements in this chapter, and to demonstrate the public health and environmental safety of the advanced treated water to be produced. Results of previous pilot testing programs, use of commercially proven technologies, available research and guidance and operating experience at similar projects may be used as part of the demonstration.

7. (7) For advanced treatment of water using microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and an oxidation treatment process, the applicant shall:

   1. (a) Select for use a reverse osmosis membrane such that:

      1. Each membrane element used in the project has achieved a minimum rejection of sodium chloride of no less than 99.0 percent and an average rejection of sodium chloride of no less than 99.2 percent, as demonstrated through Method A of ASTM International’s method D4194-03 (2014), (adopted and incorporated by reference in paragraph 62-565.300(1)(d), F.A.C., effective February 26, 2025); and

      2. The membrane produces a permeate with no more than five percent of the sample results having TOC concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/L, as verified through monitoring no less frequent than weekly.

   2. (b) For the reverse osmosis treatment process, provide reasonable assurance that on-going performance monitoring (e.g., conductivity or TOC) will detect whether the integrity of the treatment process has been compromised. The pilot testing proposal shall include at least one form of continuous monitoring, as well as the associated surrogate and/or operational parameter limits and alarm settings that detect when the integrity of the treatment process has been compromised.

   3. (c) Provide reasonable assurance that a sufficient oxidation process has been designed for implementation. To demonstrate this, the applicant shall:

      1. Select a total of at least nine indicator compounds based on the Source Water Evaluation, with at least one from each of the functional groups in sub-subparagraphs a. through k. below.

      a. Hydroxy Aromatic

      b. Amino/Acylamino Aromatic

      c. Nonaromatic with carbon double bonds

      d. Deprotonated Amine

      e. Alkoxy Polyaromatic

      f. Alkoxy Aromatic

      g. Alkyl Aromatic

      h. Perfluoroalkyl with Sulfonate

      i. Perfluoroalkyl with Carboxylate

      j. Saturated Aliphatic

      k. Nitro Aromatic

      2. Utilize an oxidation process that achieves optimal removal of the indicator compounds selected in subparagraph 1. such that removal is no less than:

      a. 0.5-log (69 percent) for each indicator compound representing the functional groups in sub-subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.i., and

      b. 0.3-log (50 percent) for each indicator compound representing the functional groups in sub-subparagraphs 1.j. and 1.k.

      3. Establish at least one surrogate or operational parameter that reflects the removal of at least six of the nine indicator compounds selected pursuant to subparagraph 1. such that:

      a. at least one of the six indicator compounds represents at least one functional group in sub-subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.g.,

      b. at least one of the six indicator compounds represents at least one functional group in sub-subparagraphs 1.h. or 1.i.,

      c. at least one of the six indicator compounds represents at least one functional group in sub-subparagraphs 1.j. or 1.k.,

      d. at least one surrogate or operational parameter is capable of being monitored continuously, recorded, and have associated alarms, and

      e. a surrogate or operational parameter, including the parameter in paragraph (7)(c) of this rule, is identified that indicates when the process may no longer meet the criteria established in subparagraph (7)(c)2. of this rule.

      4. Conduct testing that includes confirmation of the findings of the occurrence study in subparagraph (7)(c)1. and provides evidence that the requirements of subparagraphs (7)(c)2. and 3. of this rule can be met with a full-scale, oxidation process. The testing shall include challenge or spiking tests conducted to determine the removal differential under normal operating conditions utilizing, at minimum, the nine indicator compounds identified in subparagraph (7)(c)1. of this rule. The applicant shall submit a testing protocol, as part of the plan of study in accordance with subsection (3) as well as the subsequent results, to the Department for review and approval.

   4. (d) In lieu of demonstrating that a sufficient oxidation process has been designed for implementation pursuant to subsection (c), an applicant may conduct testing demonstrating that the oxidation process will provide no less than 0.5-log (69 percent) reduction of 1,4-dioxane and a 1.2-log (94 percent) reduction of HYPERLINK "https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a3cfa76feec42241JmltdHM9MTcxNzAyNzIwMCZpZ3VpZD0yMWQ5MDE5My02Y2M4LTY0OTUtM2M2NS0xMzQzNmQxZTY1ZGImaW5zaWQ9NTIzMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=21d90193-6cc8-6495-3c65-13436d1e65db&psq=NDMA&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvTi1OaXRyb3NvZGltZXRoeWxhbWluZQ&ntb=1" \h
      N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) and that the oxidation process will meet the Florida Department of Health (DOH) Health Advisory Level (HAL) for 1, 4-dioxane of 0.35 ug/L, as established in the DOH Fact Sheet effective November 2016, (HYPERLINK "http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-17741"http://www.flrules.org/Gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-17741), hereby adopted and incorporated by reference). A copy of this publication may be obtained by contacting the Department’s Source and Drinking Water Program, Mail Station 3540, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.

      1. An applicant shall submit a testing protocol in accordance with subsection 62-565.560(3), F.A.C., as well as the subsequent results, to the Department for review and approval. The testing shall include challenge or spiking tests, using 1,4-dioxane and NDMA, to demonstrate the proposed oxidation process will achieve the minimum 0.5-log and 1.2-log reductions and the HAL for 1, 4-dioxane under the proposed oxidation process's normal full-scale operating conditions.

      2. An applicant shall establish surrogate and/or operational parameters that reflect whether the minimum 0.5-log 1,4-dioxane and 1.2-log NDMA reduction design criteria and HAL for 1, 4-dioxane are being met. At least one surrogate or operational parameter shall be capable of being monitored continuously, recorded, and have associated alarms that indicate when the process is not operating as designed.

   5. (e) During the full-scale operation of the oxidation process designed pursuant to subsection 62-565.560(7)(c) or (d), F.A.C., an applicant shall continuously monitor the surrogate and/or operational parameters established pursuant to sub-subparagraph 62-565.560(7)(c)3.d or subparagraph 62-565.560(7)(d)2, F.A.C., as applicable. An applicant shall implement, in full-scale operation, the oxidation process as designed pursuant to subsection 62-565.560(7)(c) or (d), F.A.C.

8. (8) For advanced treatment of water using ozonation immediately followed by biologically activated carbon (ozone/BAC), the applicant shall:

   1. (a) Affirmatively demonstrate that the ozone/BAC treatment process meets the requirements in Chapters 62-550, 62-555, and 62-565, F.A.C.;

   2. (b) Select an ozonation treatment process:

      1. With a design O3:TOC greater than or equal to 1.5;

      2. That can achieve a minimum operational O3:TOC greater than or equal to 0.8;

      3. That can maintain an ozone residual of no less than 0.05 mg/L at the beginning of the ozone contactor; and

      4. That can maintain a bromate level that meets the requirements in Chapters 62-550 and 62-555, F.A.C.

   3. (c) Provide reasonable assurance that the treatment process has been designed for removing a broad range of known and unknown constituents. To demonstrate this, the applicant shall:

      1. Develop a candidate list of indicator compound screening from the Source Water Evaluation that accounts for expected chemical emissions from local industry and research efforts characterizing source water. Indicator compounds shall be selected based on the following:

      a. The indicator compound shall have a median concentration at least five times greater than its MDL to demonstrate a high percentage of removal;

      b. The indicator shall have a detection frequency greater than 80 percent in the source water to ensure that its absence reflects treatment efficacy rather than a random or seasonal occurrence in the source water;

      c. Sufficiently precise and sensitive analytical methods for the indicator compound shall be selected based on EPA approved test methods. If EPA test methods are not available, the permittee may propose for Department approval analytical methods based on previous pilot testing programs, use of commercially proven technologies, available research and guidance and operating experience at similar projects;

      d. The indicator compound shall be removable by the process(es) it is intended to monitor;

      e. The indicator compound shall be moderately removable by the targeted process, such that 75 percent removal is feasible only when the process is functioning as designed;

      f. There shall be at least one indicator compound that specifically monitors each chemical treatment barrier. There shall also be at least one indicator compound that is partially removed by each treatment barrier, but only removed to a target of at least 75 percent if all treatment barriers are functioning as intended; and

      g. Testing shall include a recommendation of indicator compounds for each facility on a case-by-case basis for the Department’s approval.

      2. Establish surrogate or operational parameters for the treatment process that reflects whether the minimum removal efficiencies are maintained to meet the requirements in Chapters 62-550, 62-555, 62-565, and 62-610, F.A.C.; and

      3. Establish at least one surrogate or operational parameter for each unit process capable of being monitored continuously, recorded, and have associated alarms that indicate when the process is not operating as designed.

9. (9) The Department shall approve an alternative treatment process other than that specified in subsections 62-565.560(7) and (8), F.A.C., if all of the following conditions are met:

   1. (a) The applicant affirmatively demonstrates that the alternative treatment process meets the requirements in Chapters 62-550, 62-555, 62-565, and 62-610, F.A.C.;

   2. (b) The applicant affirmatively demonstrates that sufficient advanced treatment processes have been designed for removing a broad range of known and unknown constituents. To demonstrate this, the applicant shall develop a candidate list of indicator compound screening from the Source Water Evaluation that accounts for expected chemical emissions from local industry and research efforts characterizing source water. Indicator compounds shall be based on:

      1. The indicator compound shall have a median concentration at least five times greater than its MDL to demonstrate a high percentage of removal.

      2. The indicator compound shall have a detection frequency greater than 80 percent in the source water to ensure that its absence reflects treatment efficacy rather than a random or seasonal occurrence in the source water

      3. Sufficiently precise and sensitive analytical methods for the compound shall be selected based on EPA approved methods, previous pilot testing programs, use of commercially proven technologies, available research and guidance and operating experience at similar projects.

      4. The indicator compound shall be removable by the process(es) it is intended to monitor.

      5. The indicator compound shall be moderately removable by the targeted process, such that 75 percent removal is feasible only when the process is functioning as designed.

      6. There shall be at least one indicator compound that specifically monitors each chemical treatment barrier. There shall also be at least one system indicator compound that is partially removed by each treatment barrier, but only removed to a target of at least 75 percent if all treatment barriers are functioning as intended.

      7. Testing shall include a recommendation of indicator compounds for each facility on a case-by-case basis for the Department’s approval.

   3. (c) The applicant shall establish surrogate and/or operational parameters for the alternative treatment process that reflect whether the minimum removal efficiencies are maintained to meet the requirements in Chapters 62-550, 62-555, and 62-565, F.A.C.; and
   4. (d) At least one surrogate or operational parameter for each unit process is capable of being monitored continuously, recorded, and have associated alarms that indicate when the process is not operating as designed during full-scale operation.
10. (10) Results of previous pilot testing programs, use of commercially proven technologies, available research and guidance and operating experience at similar projects may be used as part of the demonstration for this rule.
11. (11) The applicant shall evaluate alternate methods for treating, controlling, or managing potential chemical peaks (rapid, short-lived increases in concentration) for chemical constituents that have the potential to pass through an advanced treatment water facility.
12. (12) The pilot testing reports shall be submitted electronically to the Department at the Division of Water Resource Management, Source and Drinking Water Program at DWRM_POTABLEREUSE@FloridaDEP.gov. The Department reserves the right to request hard copies of the report or portions of the report.

Rulemaking Authority 403.861(9), 403.064(17) FS. Law Implemented 403.852(12), 403.861(7), 403.853(6), 403.861(17), 403.064(17) FS. History – New 2-26-25.