August 2000
NSF 00/02/EPADW395
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Physical Removal of Microbiological,
Participate and Organic Contaminants
in Drinking Water
ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed®
ZW-500 Ultrafiltration Membrane
System
Escondido, California
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
&EFW U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
ET
LAM r\
V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
ENHANCED COAGULATION MEMBRANE FILTRATION
USED IN PACKAGED DRINKING WATER TREATMENT
PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL,
PARTICULATE AND ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN
DRINKING WATER IN ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA
ENHANCED COAGULATION ZEEWEED® ZW-500
ULTRAFILTRATION SYSTEM
ZENON ENVIRONMENTAL, INCORPORATED
3239 DUNDAS STREET WEST PHONE:
OAKVILLE, ONTARIO L6M 4B2 FAX:
CANADA
http:\\www.zen onenv.com
gbest@zenonenv.com
(905) 465 3030
(905) 465 3050
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through
performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further
environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on
technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of
environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Package Drinking Water Treatment
Systems (PDWTS) pilot, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. The PDWTS pilot recently evaluated the
00/02/EPADW395
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
August 2000
-------
the performance of an enhanced coagulation membrane filtration system used in package drinking water
treatment system applications. This verification statement provides a summary of the test results for the
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® ZW-500 Ultrafiltration (UF) System. Montgomery Watson,
an NSF-qualified field testing organization (FTO), performed the verification testing.
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF System was conducted over
two test periods. The first test period, from March 22, 1999 to April 19, 1999 represented winter/spring
conditions. The second test period, from September 22, 1999 to October 29, 1999 represented summer/fall
conditions. The test system consists of an enhanced coagulation unit followed by a submerged
ultrafiltration membrane unit. Verification testing was conducted at manufacturer specified operating
conditions. Alum was added to the enhanced coagulation unit at a dose of 30 mg/L along with acid to
produce a coagulation pH of 6.2. The membrane unit was operated at a constant flux of 37 gfd (62 L/hr-
m2), with air flow of 15 scfm (420 1pm) and an overall feedwater recovery of 95 percent. The combined
enhanced coagulation and membrane unit achieved significant removal of organic material, in addition to
microbial and particulate contaminants (presented later). Chemical cleaning of the treatment equipment
was conducted as part of the verification testing.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF System combines enhanced coagulation, for removal
of organic material, with ultrafiltration, for removal of microbial and particulate contaminants. Enhanced
coagulation relies on addition of coagulant and acid to natural waters along with mixing to promote
destabilization, charge neutralization and agglomeration of particles and organic colloidal material. This
results in the adsorption of organic material to floe particles. These particles are then removed by
membrane filtration. The ability of the ZeeWeed® OCP UF membrane to operate in a high-solids
environment further enhances the removal of organic material by combining the effects of coagulation,
coprecipitation and adsorption. The ZeeWeed® UF membrane removes particles by physical sieving.
Particulate material larger than the pore size of the membrane (0.03 urn nominal, 0.1 urn absolute) are
removed.
The ZENON Enhanced Coagulation unit consists of chemical feed systems for coagulant and acid, a static
mixer, and a serpentine flocculation tank using air diffusers to provide mixing energy. The effluent from
the enhanced coagulation unit serves as the feed water to the membrane unit. The ZeeWeed® OCP UF
membrane is a submerged hollow-fiber membrane that utilizes a vacuum of 1 to 12 psi (0.07 to 0.83 bar)
to draw product water through the membrane. The approximately 4,700 fibers have a combined surface
area of 463 ft2 (43 m2). The 5.4 ft (2.7 m) long fibers are connected to top and bottom headers and
submerged in a 200 gallon process tank. The top and bottom headers are connected to the filtrate vacuum
pump. A blower supplies air to a diffuser at the base of the process tank to continuously agitate the fibers
and remove accumulated solids. A bleed pump continuously wastes process tank contents to drain,
limiting the buildup of solids in the process tank. The bleed flow rate and net permeate flow rate
determine overall system feedwater recovery. The system includes a clean-in-place (CIP) tank where
filtrate is stored for backpulsing the membrane. During backpulsing, at regular intervals of from 10 to 20
minutes, the flow through the membrane is reversed for 10 to 15 seconds to remove solids accumulated on
the membrane surface. The system included a diaphragm pump for adding chlorine, in the form of sodium
hypochlorite, to the backpulse water. Both the enhanced coagulation and membrane units are skid
mounted and can be moved by forklift and transported by truck.
00/02/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2000
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The verification test site was the City of San Diego's Aqua 2000 Research Center at 14103 Highland
Valley Road in Escondido, California. The Research Center includes office and lab trailers, a covered
concrete test pad and a dedicated operations staff with substantial membrane experience. The source
water for testing was Lake Skinner water via the San Diego Aqueduct. Lake Skinner water consists of
Colorado River water and State Project water, which are two of the major raw drinking water supplies in
Southern California.
Methods and Procedures
Turbidity, pH, chlorine and temperature analyses were conducted onsite daily using desk top units. All
other water quality samples were sent to the City of San Diego Laboratory for analysis. These included
alkalinity, total and calcium hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), total
organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nanometers
(UV254), aluminum, color, total coliform and heterotrophic plate count (HPC). All samples were analyzed
according to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th Ed. (APHA, et.
al., 1992) and/or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA, 1979). Online Hach 1900
WPC particle counters and 1720D turbidimeters continuously monitored these parameters in both the raw
water and membrane system filtrate. The particle counters were set up to enumerate particle counts in
the following size ranges: 2-3 urn, 3-5 urn, 5-15 urn, and > 15 urn. SDS DBP formation tests were
conducted during each test period. For this testing, the uniform formation conditions of the EPA
Information Collection Rule were followed. DBP analyses were conducted according to EPA Method
502.2 for trihalomethanes and EPA Method 552.2 for haloacetic acids.
Virus seedings, using MS2 virus, were conducted after membrane cleaning, at system startup with
enhanced coagulation. The first seeding was conducted approximately three hours after system startup
and the second was conducted less than one hour after system startup. During each seeding,
approximately 2 x 1013 virus were added directly to the process tank after the completion of a backpulse.
The system was then allowed to operate for one 10-minute filtration cycle to allow for mixing and
equilibration. Sampling was initiated after completion of the next backpulse, with three process tank and
three filtrate samples being collected in each of the next two filtration cycles. Samples were analyzed
within 24 hours according to EPA ICR Method for Coliphage Assay (Sobsey, et al. 1990).
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
The flow rate of raw water to the enhanced coagulation unit was controlled manually using a valve and
rotameter. Coagulant feed to the system was manually set using a diaphragm pump. The coagulation pH
was automatically maintained with a Prominent pH controller. A stand-pipe within the flocculation tank
maintained water level in the tank. The flow to the flocculation tank was automatically switched on and
off by process tank level control signals received from the membrane unit to maintain adequate water
levels in the process tank. Feed-on and feed-off signals generated by the control logic of the process tank
level controlled the influent valve to the enhanced coagulation unit. Water entering the flocculation tank
flowed through four serpentine chambers, then overflowed the standpipe in the last chamber and flowed
under gravity into the top of the process tank. Air from the membrane unit blower was diverted to
diffusers in the base of each of the four serpentine chambers to accomplish mixing. The air flow rate to
each chamber was individually adjustable using a valve and rotameter.
00/02/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2000
VS-iii
-------
The enhanced coagulation unit was operated with a raw water flow of 14 gpm (52 1pm) in the first test
period and 16 gpm (61 1pm) in the second. The coagulant, coagulant dose and coagulation pH were
established by the manufacturer. Alum was used as a coagulant at 30 mg/L with acid added to produce a
coagulation pH of 6.2. Enhanced coagulation chemical tanks had to be refilled approximately every two
days.
The ZeeWeed® UF membrane system required manual adjustments to the filtrate flow control valve to
maintain a constant flux as the membrane fouled. The bleed waste pump required manual adjustment to
maintain a constant bleed waste flow from the process tank. In addition, the chlorine dosing pump
required initial manual adjustment to achieve the proper backpulse chlorine dose. Beyond this, the system
was automated. Programmable logic controllers automatically opened the appropriate valves to initiate
filtration and backpulse based on the settings of two timers mounted on the front panel of the membrane
unit. Control signals were automatically sent to a feed valve to maintain the proper water level in the
process tank. The manufacturer established membrane system operating conditions. The unit was
operated at a constant flux of 37 gfd (62 1/hr-m2) with a bleed waste flow of 0.62 gpm (2.4 1pm). A
backpulse volume of 4.2 gallon (16 liter), backpulse duration of 15 seconds and backpulse frequency of
every 10 minutes, resulted in overall system recovery of 95 percent. Air flow to the process tank was
maintained at 15 scfm (420 1pm). Flows, pressures and temperatures were recorded twice daily.
At the above operating conditions, the enhanced coagulation UF system was able to operate for
approximately 25 days during Test Period 1 before chemical cleaning was required. During Test Period 2,
however, shorter filtration cycles of 9 to 12 days were observed. A total of four chemical cleanings were
conducted over the course of ETV testing. To determine the effectiveness of the chemical cleanings in
restoring membrane productivity, recovery of specific flux and loss of original specific flux were calculated
for each cleaning. Recovery of specific flux ranged from 54 to 69 percent, while loss of original specific
flux ranged from 11 to 17 percent.
Air pressure-hold tests were conducted by pressurizing the permeate side of the membrane and observing
pressure decay over a 10 minute period. These tests were conducted at the beginning and end of each
test period. The results showed minimal pressure decay (<0.5 psi every 5 minutes), indicating no loss of
membrane integrity during the course of testing.
Particle Removal Results
Filtrate turbidity of the enhanced coagulation UF system was 0.05 NTU or less 95 percent of the time
during both test periods. The test system removed greater than 3 logs of both Cryptospordium-sized (3-5
um) particles and Giardia-sized (5-15 um) particles, 95 percent of the time. Four hour average raw water
and filtrate particle levels and daily average particle removal in these size ranges for Test Periods 1 and 2
are presented in the following table:
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF System Particle Concentrations and Particle Removals for Test
Periods 1/2
3-5 um Particles
5-15 um Particles
Average
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Minimum
Maximum
Raw Water
(#/mL)
2400/2400
750/540
2300-2500/
2300-2500
640/450
5200/3800
Filtrate
(#/mL)
0.16/0.28
0.25/0.48
0.12-0.20/
0.20-0.36
0.049/0.06
2.1/4.9
Log
Removal
4.3/4.0
0.31/0.43
4.2-4.2/
3.9-4.1
3.6/3.2
4.7/4.6
Raw Water
(#/mL)
1500/1300
730/370
1400-1600/
1200/1400
290/390
3900/2400
Filtrate
(#/mL)
0.13/0.29
0.13/0.29
0.80-0.12/
0.13-0.23
0.05/0.05
1.1/3.0
Log
Removal
4.2/4.0
0.30/0.41
4.1-4.3/
3.9-4.1
3.5/3.1
4.6/4.6
00/02/EPADW395
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2000
VS-iv
-------
Microbial Removal Results
Total Coliforms were analyzed on a weekly basis during both ETV test periods. Raw water total
coliforms averaged 15 and 5 MPN/lOOmL during Test Periods 1 and 2, respectively. No total coliform
were detected in the filtrate of the UF system during both Test Periods. HPC averaged 120 and 600
cfu/mL in the raw water for Test Periods 1 and 2. Filtrate levels of HPC averaged 1 and 4 cfu/mL. Two
microbial seedings with MS2 virus were conducted on the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
system. Both seedings were conducted after a membrane cleaning and shortly after system startup with
enhanced coagulation. The first seeding was conducted three hours after system startup. Feed
concentrations of MS2 ranged from 3.5xl08 to 5.9xl08 pfu/mL, filtrate concentrations ranged from 5.5 to 5.8. The second
seeding with MS2 virus was conducted less than one hour after system startup with enhanced coagulation.
For this seeding, feed concentrations ranged from 2.4xl08 to 4.6xl08 pfu/mL, filtrate concentrations
ranged from S.lxlO6 to 4.7xl06 pfu/mL. Log removals of MS2 virus for the second seeding ranged from
1.7 to 2.1.
Organics Removal Results
The enhanced coagulation membrane system achieved significant removal of naturally occurring organics.
Dissolved organic carbon was reduced on average during Test Periods 1 and 2 from 2.2 and 2.7 mg/L in
the raw water to 1.7 and 2.2 mg/L in the filtrate, respectively. This represents a 23 percent DOC
reduction in each test period. UV254 was reduced on average during Test Periods 1 and 2 from 0.070
and 0.078 /cm in the raw water to 0.048 and 0.043 /cm in the filtrate, respectively. This represents
reductions in UV254 of 31 and 44 percent in Test Periods 1 and 2, respectively. SDS DBP formation
tests were conducted during each test period. Total trihalomethane concentration was reduced during
Test Periods 1 and 2 from 73 and 69 ug/L in raw water to 43 and 46 ug/L in the filtrate, respectively. This
represents a 41 and 34 percent TTHM reduction in Test Periods 1 and 2, respectively. HAA5
concentration was reduced during Test Periods 1 and 2 from 23 and 26 ug/L in raw water to 10 and 14
ug/L in the filtrate. This represents a 56 and 48 percent HAA5 reduction in Test Periods 1 and 2,
respectively. The system also removed 76 percent of color from the source water during Test Period 2.
Operation and Maintenance Results
After system startup, routine operation of the system involved occasional adjustment of filtrate flow rate to
maintain constant flux, and daily verification and adjustment of bleed waste flow and chemical feed flows.
The system experienced one failure of the pH controller, which caused it to run without acid addition for
three days during Test Period 1. The system experienced three high level alarms in the process tank
during the first period which caused the system to shut down overnight. During the first test period, the
membrane unit spent approximately 10 percent of filtration time in permeate-recycle mode because of
problems with the process tank level-control logic. This was resolved in Test Period 2 by reprogramming
the level control logic. Operation of the membrane unit consumed 0.05 gal (0.20 L) of 10% sodium
hypochlorite per day to chlorinate backpulse water. Operation of the enhanced coagulation unit consumed
0.89 gal (3.4 L) of 48% alum stock per day on average and 0.6 gal (2.4 L) of 40% Sulfuric Acid. During
the average cleaning, 2 gal (7.8 L) of household bleach (5.25% NaOCl) were used and 8.8 Ib (4.0 kg) of
citric acid. The manufacturer included an Operations and Maintenance manual with their system. The
manual would be improved with better organization and better use of tables and graphics.
00/02/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2000
VS-v
-------
Original Signed by Original Signed by
E. Timothy Oppelt 8/21/00 Tom Bruursema 8/25/00
E. Timothy Oppelt Date Tom Bruursema Date
Director General Manager
National Risk Management Research Laboratory Environmental and Research Services
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report is not a NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of ihe ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Physical Removal
of Microbiological and Paniculate Contaminants, dated April 20, 1998 and revised
May 14, 1999, the Verification Statement, and the Verification Report (NSF Report
#00/02/EPADW395) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
1. Drinking Water Systems ETV Pilot Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
00/02/EPADW395 The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2000
VS-vi
-------
August 2000
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Physical Removal of Microbiological and Particulate Contaminants in
Drinking Water
ZENON (ZeeWeed®) Enhanced Coagulation Membrane
Escondido, California
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by:
Samer Adham, Ph.D.
&
Karl Gramith
Montgomery Watson
Pasadena, CA 91101
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development has
financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement No.
CR 824815. This verification effort was supported by Package Drinking Water Treatment Systems Pilot
operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. This document has been
peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public release.
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test performed for
the NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by
Montgomery Watson, in cooperation with ZENON Membrane Systems. The test was conducted in
1999 at the Aqua 2000 Research Center in San Diego, California.
Throughout its history, the EPA has evaluated the effectiveness of innovative technologies to protect
human health and the environment. The ETV Program has been instituted to verify the performance of
innovative technical solutions to environmental pollution or human health threats. ETV was created to
substantially accelerate the entrance of new environmental technologies into the domestic and
international marketplace. Verifiable, high quality data on the performance of new technologies are
made available to regulators, developers, consulting engineers, and those in the public health and
environmental protection industries. This encourages more rapid availability of approaches to better
protect the environment.
The EPA has partnered with NSF, an independent, not-for-profit testing and certification organization
dedicated to public health, safety and protection of the environment, to verify performance of small
package drinking water systems that serve small communities under the Package Drinking Water
Treatment Systems (PDWTS) ETV Pilot Project. A goal of verification testing is to enhance and
facilitate the acceptance of small package drinking water treatment equipment by state drinking water
regulatory officials and consulting engineers while reducing the need for testing of equipment at each
location where the equipment's use is contemplated. NSF will meet this goal by working with
manufacturers and NSF-qualified Field Testing Organizations (FTO) to conduct verification testing
under the approved protocols.
The ETV PDWTS is being conducted by NSF with participation of manufacturers, under the
sponsorship of the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. It is important to note that
verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by
EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by
these organizations for those conditions tested by the FTO.
111
-------
Table of Contents
Section Page
Verification Statement VS-1
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abbreviations and Acronyms viii
Acknowledgements ix
Chapter 1 -Introduction 1
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Project Participants 1
1.3 Definition of Roles and Responsibilities of Project Participants 1
1.3.1 Field Testing Organization Responsibilities 1
1.3.2 Manufacturer Responsibilities 2
1.3.3 Operator and Test Site Staff Responsibilities 2
1.3.4 Water Quality Analyst Responsibilities 2
1.3.5 NSF Responsibilities 3
1.3.6 EPA Responsibilities 3
Chapter 2 - Equipment Description and Operating Processes 4
2.1 Description of the Treatment Train and Unit Processes 5
2.2 Description of Physical Construction/Components of the Equipment 6
Chapter 3 - Materials and Methods 7
3.1 Testing Site Name and Location 7
3.1.1 Site Background Information 7
3.1.2 Test Site Description 7
3.2 Source/Feed Water Quality 8
3.3 Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan 9
3.3.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery 9
3.3.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency 9
3.3.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality 10
3.3.4 Task 4: Reporting of Membrane Pore Size 11
iv
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
3.3.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing 12
3.3.6 Task 6: Data Management 12
3.3.7 Task?: Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13
3.3.8 Task 8: Microbial Removal (Optional) 16
3.3.9 Task 9: UltrafiltrationEnhanced Coagulation 17
3.4 Calculation ofMembrane Operating Parameters 18
3.4.1 Filtrate Flux 18
3.4.2 Specific Flux 18
3.4.3 Transmembrane Pressure 18
3.4.4 Temperature Adjustment for Flux Calculation 19
3.4.5 Feedwater System Recovery 19
3.4.6 Rejection 19
3.5 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 19
3.5.1 Precision 19
3.5.2 Relative Percent Deviation 20
3.5.3 Accuracy 20
3.5.4 Statistical Uncertainty 20
3.6 Testing Schedule 21
Chapter 4 - Results and Discussion 22
4.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery 22
4.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency 23
4.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality 23
4.3.1 Turbidity, Particle Concentration and Particle Removal 24
4.3.2 Indigenous Bacteria Removal 24
4.3.3 Other Water Quality Parameters 25
4.4 Task 4: Reporting Membrane Pore Size 25
4.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing 25
4.6 Task 6: Data Management 26
4.6.1 Data Recording 26
4.6.2 Data Entry, Validation, and Reduction 26
4.7 Task 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 26
4.7.1 Data Correctness 26
4.7.2 Statistical Uncertainty 27
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Section Page
4.7.3 Completeness 27
4.7.4 Accuracy 27
4.7.5 Precision and Relative Percent Deviation 27
4.8Task8:McrobialRemoval 28
4.9 Task 9: Ultrafiltration Enhanced Coagulation 28
4.10 Additional ETV Program Requirements 28
4.10.1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual 28
4.10.2 System Efficiency and Chemical Consumption 29
4.10.3 Equipment Deficiencies Experienced During the ETV Program 29
4.10.4 Audit Reports 31
Chapter 5 - References 32
Tables
Table 2-1. Characteristics of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane 34
Table 3-1. Water quality analytical methods 35
Table 4-1. ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system operating
conditions 35
Table 4-2. ZENON enhanced coagulation operating conditions during ETV testing 36
Table 4-3. Evaluation of cleaning efficiency for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane 36
Table 4-4. Onsite lab water quality analyses for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system 37
Table 4-5. Summary of online turbidity and particle count data for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 38
Table 4-6. Summary of the microbial water quality analyses for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 39
Table 4-7. Summary of general water quality analyses for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation
ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 40
Table 4-8. Comparison of calculated and measured total suspended solids for ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 42
Table 4-9. Feed and permeate concentrations of MS2 virus for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 43
Table 4-10. Effect of enhanced coagulation on organics removal 44
Table 4-11. Review of manufacturer's operations and maintenance manual for the ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 45
Table 4-12. Efficiency of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane
system 47
Table 4-13. Chemical consumption for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system 48
VI
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Figures
Figure 1-1. Organizational chart showing lines of communication 49
Figure 2-1. Photograph of the ETV test unit 49
Figure 2-2. Spatial requirements for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF unit 50
Figure 2-3. Schematic diagram of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane
process 51
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Aqua 2000 Research Center test site 51
Figure 3-2. Lake Skinner raw water quality 52
Figure 3-3. Lake Skinner raw water quality 53
Figure 3-4. Response of online particle counters to Duke Monosphere Solution 54
Figure 3-5. Membrane verification testing schedule 55
Figure 4-1. Transmembrane pressure and temperature profiles for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 56
Figure 4-2. Operational flux and specific membrane flux profiles for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 57
Figure 4-3. Clean water flux profile during membrane chemical cleanings - Test Period 1 58
Figure 4-4. Clean water flux profile during membrane chemical cleanings - Test Period 2 59
Figure 4-5. Turbidity profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system permeate - Test Period 1 61
Figure 4-6. Turbidity profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system permeate - Test Period 2 61
Figure 4-7. Particle counts profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation permeate -
Test Period 1 62
Figure 4-8. Particle counts profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation permeate -
Test Period 2 63
Figure 4-9. Particle removal for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation membrane permeate - Test
Period 1 64
Figure 4-10. Particle removal for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation membrane permeate - Test
Period 2 65
Figure 4-11. Probability plots of filtrate turbidity and log removal of particles for the ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system 66
Figure 4-12. Air pressure hold test results for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system 67
Figure 4-13. Log removal of seeded MS2 virus by ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system 68
Appendices
Appendix A - Additional Documents and Data Analyses
Appendix B - Raw Data Sheets
Appendix C - Hardcopy Electronic Data
Vll
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
°C
cfu
CIP
cf
CP
cm
CRW
d
DBF
DOC
EPA
ETV
FOD
ft2
FTO
gfd
gpm
HAAS
HPC
hr
ICR
inHg
Jt
Jtm
kg
L
m2
m3/d
mgd
mg/L
min
Celsius degrees
Colony forming unit(s)
Clean in place
Feed concentration
Permeate concentration
Centimeter
Colorado River water
Day(s)
Disinfection by-product
Dissolved organic carbon
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Technology
Verification
Field Operations Document
Square foot (feet)
Field Testing Organization
Gallon(s) per day per square
foot of membrane area
Gallon(s) per minute
Sum of five measured
haloacetic acids
Heterotrophic plate count
Hour(s)
Information Collection Rule
Inch(es) of Mercury
Initial specifictransmembrane flux
Final specific transmembrane flux
Specific flux
Initial specific transmembrane flux
at t=0 of membrane operation
Filtrate flux
Transmembrane flux
Kilogram(s)
Liter(s)
Square meter(s)
Cubic meter(s) per day
Million gallons per day
Milligram(s) per liter
Minute(s)
mL Milliliter(s)
MPN Most probable number
NIST National Institute of Standards
and Technology
NSF NSF International (formerly known as
the National Sanitation Foundation)
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit(s)
O&M Operations and Maintenance
P; Pressure at inlet of membrane module
P0 Pressure at outlet of membrane module
Pp Filtrate pressure
Ptm Transmembrane pressure
PC Personal computer
PDWTS Package Drinking Water
Treatment System
PLC Programmable Logic Controller
ppm Parts per million
psi Pound(s) per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
Qf Feed flow
Qp Process flow
Qr Recycle flow
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
S Membrane surface area
SDS Simulated distribution system
scfm Standard cubic feet per minute
sec Second(s)
SPW State Proj ect water
T Temperature
TC Total coliform
TOC Total organic carbon
TDS Total dissolved solids
TSS Total suspended solids
TTFDVI Total trihalomethanes
urn Micron(s)
UF Ultrafiltration
UFC Uniform formation conditions
UV254 Ultraviolet light absorbance
at 254 nanometer
Vlll
-------
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the EPA, for sponsoring the ETV program and providing partial funding
for the study. In particular, the authors would like to thank Jeffrey Q. Adams, project officer with the
EPA, for his continuous support throughout the project.
The authors would also like to thank NSF, for administrating the ETV program. The time and
continuous guidance provided by the following NSF personnel is gratefully acknowledged: Bruce
Bartley, Carol Becker, and Kristie Wilhelm.
The time and outstanding efforts provided by the manager of Aqua 2000 Research Center, Paul
Gagliardo with the City of San Diego is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank
Jeff Williams from the Aqua 2000 Center operation team for his assistance in operating the membrane
system. The authors would also like to thank Dana Chapin from the City of San Diego Water
Laboratory for facilitating most of the water quality analyses in the study. In addition, the authors would
like to thank Yildiz Chambers from the City of San Diego Marine Microbiology Laboratory for co-
ordinating the microbial analyses in the study.
The author would also like to acknowledge the manufacturer of the equipment employed during the
ETV program (ZENON Membrane Systems, Ontario, Canada) for their continuous assistance
throughout the ETV test operation periods and for providing partial funding to the project. In particular,
the authors would like to thank Diana Mourato, Graham Best, and Doreen Benson from ZENON for
their continuous support.
The contributions of the following co-workers from Montgomery Watson are gratefully acknowledged
by the authors: Anthony Huang, Rion Merlo, Lina Boulos, Jennifer Wolfson, Natalie Flores, and Rene
Lucero.
IX
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the ETV Program to facilitate the
deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and
dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by
substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies.
ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology
performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups
which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by
developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory
testing (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All
evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of
known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) in cooperation with the EPA operates the Package Drinking Water Treatment
Systems (PDWTS) program, one of 12 technology areas under ETV. This PDWTS program evaluated
the performance the ZENON ZeeWeed® Enhanced Coagulation System, ultrafiltration (UF) system
used in package drinking water treatment system applications.
This report provides the ETV results for the ZENON ZeeWeed® Enhanced Coagulation System.
1.2 Project Participants
Figure 1-1 is an organization chart showing the project participants and the lines of communication
established for the ETV. The Field Testing Organization (FTO) was Montgomery Watson, an NSF-
qualified FTO, which provided the overall management of the ETV through the project manager and
project engineer. The ultrafiltration membrane manufacturer for the ETV was ZENON Membrane
Systems. The operations management and staff were from the test site at the City of San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater Department, Aqua 2000 Research Center in Escondido, California. Water
quality analyses were provided by the City of San Diego laboratory, a State-certified laboratory. Data
management and final report preparation were performed by the FTO, Montgomery Watson.
1.3 Definition of Roles and Responsibilities of Project Participants
1.3.1 Field Testing Organization Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the FTO, Montgomery Watson, were to:
-------
• Provide the overall management of the ETV through the project manager and the project engineers.
• Provide all needed logistical support, the project communication network, and all scheduling and
coordination of the activities of all participants.
• Manage, evaluate, interpret and report on data generated in the ETV.
• Evaluate the performance of the ultrafiltration enhanced coagulation membrane technology
according to the Field Operating Document (FOD) and the testing, operations, quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC), data management and safety protocols contained therein.
• Provide all quality control (QC) information in the ETV report.
• Provide all data generated during the ETV in hard copy and electronic form in a common
spreadsheet or database format.
1.3.2 Manufacturer Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the ultrafiltration membrane manufacturer, ZENON Membrane Systems,
were to:
• Provide complete, field-ready equipment for the ETV at the testing site.
• Provide logistical and technical support as required throughout the ETV.
• Provide partial funding for the project.
• Attend project meetings as necessary.
1.3.3 Operator and Test Site Staff Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the operations and test site staff from the City of San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Department were to:
• Provide set-up, shake-down, operations, maintenance and on-site analytical services according to
the FOD and the testing, operations, QA/QC, data management and safety protocols.
• Provide the necessary and appropriate space for the equipment to be tested in the ETV.
• Provide all necessary electrical power, feedwater and other utilities as required for the ETV.
• Provide all necessary drains to the test site.
1.3.4 Water Quality Analyst Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the water quality analytical staff from the City of San Diego Laboratory
were to:
• Provide all off-site water quality analyses prescribed in the FOD according to the QA/QC
protocols contained therein.
• Provide reports with the analytical results to the data manager.
• Provide detailed information on the analytical procedures implemented.
-------
1.3.5 NSF Responsibilities
NSF was responsible for administration of the testing program. Specific responsibilities of the NSF
were to:
• Develop test protocols and qualify FTOs.
• Review and approve FODs.
• Conduct inspections and make recommendations based on inspections.
• Conduct financial administration of the project.
• Review all project reports and deliverables.
1.3.6 EPA Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of EPA were to:
• Initiate the ETV program.
• Provide significant project funding.
• Review final reports.
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
The equipment tested in this ETV is the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF package system.
This system consists of two main components: an enhanced coagulation unit, where raw water is dosed
with coagulant and acid, and a ZeeWeed® package membrane unit. The enhanced coagulation unit
includes feed pumps for dosing acid and coagulant, followed by static mixers, and a serpentine
flocculation tank. The effluent from the enhanced coagulation unit serves as the feedwater to the process
tank of the ZeeWeed® package membrane unit. The ZeeWeed® package membrane unit consists of one
ZeeWeed® ZW-500 UF module immersed in a process tank, along with associated pumps and blowers.
OCP is the manufacturer's designation for their drinking water membrane. For the remainder of this
report, the 500 square foot OCP ultrafiltration drinking water module will be referred to as the
ZeeWeed® UF module. These ultrafilters typically remove paniculate material, including protozoa and
bacteria.
The ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system including enhanced coagulation and
flocculation process for removal of organics and color was employed throughout the ETV testing
presented in this report.
Table 2-1 provides the specification of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membranes.
The information in Table 2-1 is taken from a letter supplied by the manufacturer (see Appendix A). The
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membranes are outside/in hollow fibers. The immersion
of the membrane allows for operation of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation system under a slight
vacuum, instead of under pressure. The vacuum pressure is on the order of 1 to 12 psi (0.07 to 0.83
bar). The membrane surface chemistry is neutral and hydrophilic.
A photograph of the ETV test unit is included as Figure 2-1. The photograph shows the ZeeWeed® UF
test unit (on the left) along with a second unit, which is the flocculation tank. The ZENON ZeeWeed® UF
unit is skid-mounted with dimensions 66 inches (168 cm) long by 36 inches (92 cm) wide by 87 inches
(221 cm) high (Figure 2-2). The flocculation tank is used for enhanced coagulation applications, as
described below. The flocculation tank is 48 inches (122 cm) long by 32 inches (80 cm) wide. The
spatial requirements of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF unit are presented graphically
in Figure 2-2.
A schematic diagram of the ZeeWeed® process is shown in Figure 2-3. The membrane module is
immersed in the process tank. The ZeeWeed® system is represented by the half black and half white
rectangle in the process tank, denoting the feedwater side and the filtrate side of the membrane. The
pretreated water from the flocculation basin enters the tank and is pulled by the vacuum pump through the
membrane. A blower provides a constant supply of air for agitating the water and solids at the membrane
surface. The resulting scouring action mitigates the build-up of solids on the membrane surface. Waste
sludge is continuously bled at a low flow rate from the process tank for disposal.
-------
Ultrafiltration enhanced coagulation is achieved by allowing a solids slurry to develop in the process tank.
By coagulating the organic molecules in a high solids environment, benefits can be achieved from the
mechanisms of coagulation, co-precipitation, adsorption and nucleation resulting in the effective removal of
organic materials using relatively low coagulant doses, since the coagulated floe only needs to exceed the
membrane pore size (0.030 microns). Alum at a dose of 30 mg/L was the coagulant used during the ETV
testing. The coagulation pH was adjusted to 6.2 by addition of sulfuric acid.
2.1 Description of the Treatment Train and Unit Processes
The ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system tested included the following components:
• Pre-treatment chemical feed systems (acid and coagulant)
• Static mixer
• Serpentine flocculation chamber with air diffusers for mixing
• ZeeWeed® UF module (in a process tank)
• Air blower
• "CIP" (clean-in-place) tank
• Permeate pump
• Sodium hypochlorite dosing system
• Bleed waste pump and disposal line
The enhanced coagulation system consists of the pre-treatment chemical feed tanks and dosing pumps,
the static mixer and the flocculation tank. Enhanced coagulation relies on addition of coagulant and acid
to natural waters along with mixing to promote destabilization, charge neutralization and agglomeration of
particles and organic colloidal material. This results in the adsorption of organic material to floe particles.
These particles are then removed by filtration. The system uses the capability of the ZeeWeed®
membrane to operate in a high-solids environment. A high solids concentration is developed in the
process tank for adsorption and removal of organic carbon.
The ZeeWeed® membrane module was described above. The air blower provides a constant supply of
air to promote scouring of solid material from the outside surface of the membrane. The scouring action
alleviates solids accumulation on the membrane by moving the solids back into the bulk water of the
process tank. During the ETV testing, the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system was
operated at a constant flux, with monitoring of the transmembrane vacuum pressure increase necessary to
maintain the target flux over time.
The CIP tank is used for backpulsing of the membranes. In the backpulse mode, the direction of flow
through the membranes is reversed. Filtrate water from the CIP tank is pumped from the clean water side
of the membrane back to the feedwater side in order to clean away material accumulated on the
membrane surface. The backpulse process is controlled by a programmable logic controller (PLC),
which closes and opens appropriate valves to reverse the direction of flow through the membrane. A
typical operating scenario for the backpulse system might involve backpulsing for 15 seconds every 10
minutes. When the backpulse is complete, the CIP tank is first refilled with filtrate before the membrane
-------
system starts producing filtrate through the product water line, thus ensuring a sufficient supply of filtrate
water for the next backpulsing cycle.
During backpulsing, solids removed from the membrane surface are washed back into the bulk water of
the process tank. Sludge is bled continuously from the process tank at a constant rate, which controls the
overall system water recovery.
2.2 Description of Physical Construction/Components of the Equipment
The enhanced coagulation ZeeWeed® unit was constructed to allow for quick equipment modifications,
depending on the site specifications and also allows the addition of ancillary equipment. The unit is
constructed of corrosion-resistant materials, including PVC, polyethylene, polypropylene and stainless
steel. The main components of the system are:
• 200 gallon (757 L) polypropylene ZeeWeed® process tank
• 20 gallon (76 L) polypropylene clean-in-place tank
• Becker DT 3.4, 1.7 Hp, carbon vane blower
• Service Filtration, GNOK Series self-priming pump
• Goulds NPE, 1 Hp, centrifugal pump
The ancillary equipment includes:
• Prominent g/4a 1601 NP1 metering pumps
• Masterflex peristaltic bleed pump
The test system has a total weight in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds (682 to 909 kg). For shipping
purposes, the system is crated and can be moved with a forklift.
-------
Chapter 3
Materials and Methods
3.1 Testing Site Name and Location
The test site selected for the ETV program is the City of San Diego's Aqua 2000 Research Center at
14103 Highland Valley Road in Escondido, California.
3.1.1 Site Background Information
The Aqua 2000 Research Center was established in 1995 to conduct most of the research work related
to the water repurification project of the City of San Diego. The Center has dedicated full time
operators with substantial experience in operating membrane systems. This site is also connected to
San Diego County Water Authority's Aqueduct System. Sufficient influent water supply, electrical
power, and proper drainage lines were provided to the ETV test system treatment train.
3.1.2 Test Site Description
Figure 3-1 is a schematic diagram of the test site and the location of the membrane pilot unit. Below is a
list of the facilities and equipment that were available at the test site.
Structural
• 5,000 square foot concrete pad.
• Semi-permanent shading to protect from sunlight.
• Potable water connections.
• San Diego County Water Authority's Aqueduct System connections.
• Drainage system connected to a wastewater plant.
• Chemical containment area.
• Sufficient lighting for 24-hour operation.
• Full electrical supply.
• Chemical safety shower and eyewash.
• An operations trailer with conference room, offices, and computers.
• A laboratory trailer for on-site water quality analyses.
Instrumentation/Equipment
On-Site Laboratory
• DR 4000 Spectrophotometer by Hach.
• Ratio/non-ratio 2100N Turbidimeter by Hach.
• pH/Temperature meter by Fisher (No. 13-635-BAA).
• Portable conductivity meter by Fisher (No. 09-327-1).
• Two TOC Analyzers (Sievers Model No. 800).
-------
Concrete Pad
• Feed, permeate, backwash, and waste storage tanks.
• Chemical Cleaning Skid with hot water supply.
• Chemical Feed Systems.
• Micro 2000 On-line Chlorine Analyzer.
• Five 1720C On-line Hach Turbidimeters.
Raw Water Intake
The raw water was delivered to the test site through schedule 80 PVC pipe. The San Diego Aqueduct
connection was approximately one mile away from the test site. The available water flow rate was 150
gpm.
Collection of Raw Water
The raw water was directed to a covered tank with an overflow system. The feedwater pipe of the test
unit was connected to the covered raw water tank.
Handling of Treated Water and Residuals
The Aqua 2000 research center has a drainage system that connects to a wastewater treatment plant.
All of the treated water, backwash water, and any chemicals used were directed to waste.
3.2 Source/Feed Water Quality
The source of feedwater for the ETV testing is San Diego Aqueduct Water. The aqueduct is supplied
primarily from Lake Skinner which receives Colorado River Water (CRW) from the West Portal of the
San Jacinto Tunnel, and State Project Water (SPW) from Lake Silverwood. A typical blending ratio of
these two waters in Lake Skinner is 70 percent CRW and 30 percent SPW. The lower total dissolved
solids (TDS) SPW is added to maintain the TDS of Lake Skinner at approximately 500 mg/L or less
(depending on availability of SPW). The aqueduct water is characterized by relatively high levels of
total dissolved solids, hardness and alkalinity, with moderate levels of organic material and relatively low
turbidity.
Figure 3-2 illustrates Lake Skinner water quality for the period of November 1997 through November
1998, which is typical for this source water. The stable quality of the water is apparent in all parameters
illustrated in the figure. Hardness ranged from 200 through 298 mg/L as CaCOs, alkalinity ranged from
108 to 130 mg/L as CaCO3 and calcium ranged from 47 to 75 mg/L. The hardness levels are quite
high, with relatively high alkalinity as well. TDS ranged from 429 to 610 mg/L, indicating the relatively
high level of salinity in this source water. pH ranged from 8.26 to 8.45 during the year.
Figure 3-3 illustrates turbidity, temperature and total organic carbon (TOC) for Lake Skinner water.
Turbidity was relatively low with a range of 1.10 to 3.50 NTU. Lake Skinner exhibits relatively warm
temperatures throughout the year, typical of many water supplies in the southwestern and southeastern
United States. The temperature range was 13 to 27°C. Annual low temperatures on the order of
-------
10°C are typical of this supply. The levels of organic material, as quantified by TOC, are moderate in
this supply. The TOC range was 2.33 to 2.94 mg/L.
3.3 Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan
This section describes the tasks completed for the ETV. The test equipment was operated 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, with operations staff on-site Monday through Friday for one 8-hour shift each
day. Tasks that were performed by the operations and engineering staff are listed below:
Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery
Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency
Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality
Task 4: Reporting of Membrane Pore Size
Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing
Task 6: Data Management
Task?: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Task 8: Microbial Removal (optional)
Task 9: Ultrafiltration Enhanced Coagulation
An overview of each task is provided below.
3.3.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery
The objective of this task is to evaluate the membrane operational performance. Membrane
productivity was evaluated relative to feedwater and pretreated water quality. The rates of
transmembrane pressure increase and/or specific flux decline were used, in part, to evaluate operation
of the membrane equipment under the operating conditions being verified and under the raw and
pretreated water quality conditions present during the testing period.
Work Plan
After set-up and shakedown of the membrane equipment, membrane operation was established at the
flux condition being verified in this ETV. Testing took place over two 30-day test periods. When
substantial specific flux decline occurred before the end of the 30-day test period, chemical cleaning
was performed and (if necessary) adjustments to the operational strategy were made. Measurement of
the membrane feedwater (i.e., pretreated water from the flocculation tank) flow, filtrate flow, and
system pressures and temperatures were collected at a minimum of twice a day.
3.3.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency
An important aspect of membrane operation is the restoration of membrane productivity after specific
flux decline has occurred. The objective of this task is to evaluate the effectiveness of chemical cleaning
for restoring finished water productivity to the membrane system. The recovery of specific flux and the
fraction of original specific flux lost were determined after each chemical cleaning.
-------
Work Plan
The membrane was operated at the flux condition being verified in this ETV until such time as the
termination criteria were reached. The two criteria for cleaning of the membrane were: 1) reaching the
maximum transmembrane vacuum pressure operational limit of the membrane, or, 2) completing the 30-
day test period. The membrane was chemically cleaned when either of these termination criteria were
reached. Chemical cleaning was performed in accordance to the manufacturer procedure (see
Appendix A). For the feedwater utilized in this ETV, the manufacturer recommended their typical
chemical cleaning procedure which requires soaking the membrane modules for 4 - 6 hours in sequence
using the following two solutions:
1. Approximately 300-500 mg/L sodium hypochlorite solution
2. 5-10 g/L of ZENON's MC-1 cleaner (a citric acid based cleaner)
A flux-vacuum profile was developed at each stage of the chemical cleaning procedure (i.e, before
cleaning, after first chemical solution, after second chemical solution). The slope of the flux-vacuum
profile represents the specific flux of the membrane at each cleaning stage and was used to calculate the
cleaning efficiency indicators. Two primary indicators of cleaning efficiency and restoration of
membrane productivity were examined in this ETV:
1. The immediate recovery of membrane productivity, as expressed by the ratio between the final
specific flux value of the current filtration run (Jsf) and the initial specific flux (Js;) measured for the
subsequent filtration run:
Recovery of Specific Flux = 100 x [1 - (Jsf + Js; )]
where: Jsf = specific flux (gfd/psi, L^hr-rrfybar) at end
of current run (final)
Is; = specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(hr-m2ybar) at
beginning of subsequent run (initial)
2. The loss of specific flux capabilities is expressed by the ratio between the initial specific flux for any
given filtration run (Js;) and the specific flux (Js;0) at time zero, as measured at the initiation of the
first filtration run in a series:
Loss of Original Specific Flux = 100 x [1 - (Jsf -=- Js;0)]
where: Jsio= specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(hr-nfybar) at
time t = 0 of membrane testing
3.3.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality
The objective of this task is to evaluate the quality of water produced by the UF enhanced coagulation
membrane system. Many of the water quality parameters described in this task were measured on-site.
10
-------
Analysis of the remaining water quality parameters was performed by the City of San Diego
Laboratory, a State-certified analytical laboratory.
Work Plan
The parameters monitored during this ETV and the methods used for their measurement are listed in
Table 3-1. Finished water quality was evaluated relative to feedwater and pretreated water quality and
operational conditions, using the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF test unit as a UF-
enhanced coagulation process.
Simulated Distribution System (SDS) Test Protocol
The SDS DBF test simulates full-scale disinfection by spiking a water sample with a disinfectant and
holding the spiked sample in the dark at a designated temperature and contact time. For this testing, the
uniform formation conditions (UFC) specified by the Information Collection Rule (ICR) were used, as
follows:
• Incubation period: 24+1 hours
• Incubation temperature: 20+1°C
• Buffered pH of 8.0 ±0.2
• 24-hour free chlorine residual: 1.0 + 0.4 mg/L
For each SDS sample, three incubation bottles were set up. At the end of the incubation period, each
sample was analyzed for the final disinfectant residual and the sample with the residual closest to the 1.0
+ 0.4 mg/L range was used for the specified DBF analyses, total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and the sum
of 5 measured haloacetic acids (HAAS). The four trihalomethanes comprising TTHM are chloroform,
bromoform, dibromochloromethane and bromodichloromethane. The five haloacetic acids included in
HAAS are monobromoacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, dichloroacetic acid and
trichloroacetic acid. A sixth haloacetic acid, bromochloroacetic acid, was also reported, but this DBF
is not included in the calculation of the regulated parameter HAAS.
One liter, amber glass bottles with Teflon lined caps were used to store the SDS samples during
incubation. These bottles were stored in a temperature-controlled incubator at the specified
temperature. All glassware used for preparation of the SDS samples and reagents were chlorine
demand free.
3.3.4 Task 4: Reporting of Membrane Pore Size
Membranes for particle and microbial removal do not have a single pore size, but rather have a
distribution of pore sizes. Membrane rejection capabilities are limited by the maximum membrane pore
size.
11
-------
Work Plan
The manufacturer was asked to supply the 90 percent and the maximum pore size of the membranes
being tested in the ETV. The manufacturer was also asked to identify the general method used in
determining the pore size values.
3.3.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing
A critical aspect of any membrane process is the ability to verify that the process is producing a
specified water quality on a continual basis. For example, it is important to know whether the
membrane is providing a constant barrier to microbial contaminants. The objective of this task is to
evaluate one or more integrity monitoring methods for the membrane system.
Work Plan
The selected methods for monitoring of membrane integrity of the Manufacturer's UF system during this
study are described below:
Air Pressure-Hold Test
The air pressure-hold test is one of the direct methods for evaluation of membrane integrity. This test
can be conducted on several membrane modules simultaneously; thus, it can test the integrity of a full
rack of membrane modules used for full-scale systems. The test is conducted by pressurizing the
permeate side of the membrane lumen after which the pressure is held and the decay rate is monitored
over time. Minimal loss of the held pressure (generally less than 1 psi every 5 minutes) at the filtrate side
indicates a passed test, while a significant decrease of the held pressure indicates a failed test.
Particle Counting
On-line particle counting in the size ranges of 2-3 um, 3- 5 um, 5-15 um, >15 um was used in this ETV
as an indirect method of monitoring membrane integrity.
Turbidity Monitoring
On-line turbidity monitoring was also used in this ETV as an indirect method of monitoring membrane
integrity.
3.3.6 Task 6: Data Management
The objective of this task is to establish the protocol for management of all data produced in the ETV
and for data transmission between the FTO and the NSF.
Work Plan
According to EPA/NSF ETV protocols, a data acquisition system was used for automatic entry of on-
line testing data into computer databases. Specific parcels of the computer databases for operational
and water quality parameters were then downloaded for importation into Excel as a comma delimited
file. These specific database parcels were identified based on discrete time spans and monitoring
parameters. In spreadsheet form, data were manipulated into a convenient framework to allow analysis
12
-------
of membrane equipment operation. For those parameters not recorded by the data acquisition system,
field-testing operators recorded data and calculations by hand in laboratory notebooks. Daily
measurements were recorded on specially-prepared data log sheets as appropriate.
The database for the project was set up in the form of custom-designed spreadsheets. The
spreadsheets were capable of storing and manipulating each monitored water quality and operational
parameter from each task, each sampling location, and each sampling time. Data from the log sheets
were entered into the appropriate spreadsheet. Following data entry, the spreadsheet was printed out
and the print-out was checked against the handwritten data sheet. Any corrections were noted on the
hard-copies and corrected on the screen, and then a corrected version of the spreadsheet was printed
out. Each step of the verification process was initialed by the field testing operator or engineer
performing the entry or verification step.
Data from the outside laboratory were received and reviewed by the field testing operator. Data from
the onsite lab and City of San Diego Microbiology lab were entered into the data spreadsheets,
corrected, and verified in the same manner as the field data. Data from the City of San Diego Water
Quality lab were received both electronically and in hardcopy printouts generated from the electronic
data.
3.3.7 Task 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
An important aspect of verification testing is the protocol developed for quality assurance and quality
control. The objective of this task is to assure the high quality of all measurements of operational and
water quality parameters during the ETV.
Work Plan
Equipment flow rates and associated signals were documented and recorded on a routine basis. A
routine daily walk-through during testing was performed to verify that each piece of equipment or
instrumentation is operating properly. On-line monitoring equipment, such as flow meters, were
checked to confirm that the read-out matches the actual measurement (i.e., flow rate) and that the signal
being recorded is correct. Below is a list of the verifications conducted:
Monitoring Equipment
System Pressure Gauges
Pressure and vacuum gauges supplied with the membrane systems tested were verified against grade 3 A
certified pressure and vacuum gauges purchased at the start of NSF testing. The certified pressure and
vacuum gauges were manufactured by Ashcroft and have an accuracy of 0.25% over their range (0-30
psi pressure, 0-30 in Hg vacuum). Where possible, system gauges were removed and tested over the
expected range of operating pressures against the verification gauge, using a portable hand pump. The
vacuum gauge for the ZENON system had an error well less than 5 percent.
13
-------
System Flow Rates
Membrane and enhanced coagulation system flow rates were verified volumetrically on a monthly basis
near the beginning and end of each test period. System flows were diverted to a 55 gallon graduated
tank for approximately 2 minutes. The measured flow rate was compared with flows indicated on
rotameters. Measured and indicated flow rates agreed to within 5 percent for the ZENON permeate
rotameter and enhanced coagulation feed rotameter. The ZENON feed totalizer read approximately 8
percent lower than actual measured volume. Calculations made using this parameter were corrected for
this error.
Analytical Methods
PH
An Accumet Research Model AR15 laboratory pH meter was used to conduct routine pH readings at
the test facility. Daily calibration of the pH meter using pH 4, 7 and 10 buffers was performed. The
slope obtained after calibration was recorded. The temperature of the sample when reading sample pH
was also recorded.
Temperature
Accuracy of the feed water inline thermometer was verified against an National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) certified thermometer on 4/14, 6/16 and 12/12/99. Comparisons were made
at three temperatures covering the range of anticipated raw water temperatures. In all cases, the raw
water thermometer compared to within 1 percent of the NIST certified thermometer.
Turbidity
On-line turbidimeters were used for measurement of turbidity in the raw and filtrate waters, and a
bench-top turbidimeter was used for measurement of the feed (pretreated) water and backwash waste
water.
On-line Turbidimeters: Hach 1720D online turbidimeters were used during testing to acquire raw and
filtrate turbidities at 1-minute intervals. The following procedures were followed to ensure the integrity
and accuracy of these data:
• a primary calibration of the on-line turbidimeters was performed near the beginning of the test
periods.
• Aquaview + data acquisition software was used to acquire and store turbidity data. Data were
stored to the computer database each minute. After initial primary calibration of the turbidimeters,
zero, mid-level and full-strength signals (4, 12 and 20 mA) were output from each turbidimeter to
the data acquisition software. The signals received by the data acquisition software from all 4 on-
line turbidimeters had less than one percent error over their range of output (0, 1 and 2 NTU for
permeate, and 0, 10 and 20 NTU for feed) as stored in the Aquaview database.
• the manufacturer's specified acceptable flow range for these turbidimeters is 250 to 750 mL/min.
The flow range initially targeted during testing was 500 mL/min +/- 100 mL/min. On-line
turbidimeter flows were verified manually with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch daily.
14
-------
• turbidimeter bodies were drained and sensor optics cleaned approximately every week on an as
needed basis.
• on-line turbidities were compared to desktop turbidities when turbidity samples were collected.
Comparative calibrations of the raw water on-line turbidimeter against the Hach 2100N desktop
turbidimeter were conducted on as needed basis during the course of the testing when the difference
between online and desktop turbidity readings were greater than 10 percent.
• Approximately 50 ppm free chlorine solution was pumped through turbidity sample lines as needed
to clean potential buildup from these lines.
Bench-top Turbidimeters: A Hach 2100N desktop turbidimeter was used to perform onsite turbidity
analyses of raw water, backwash and permeate samples. Readings were recorded in non-ratio
operating mode. The following quality assurance and quality control procedures were followed to
ensure the integrity and accuracy of onsite laboratory turbidity data:
Primary calibration of turbidimeter according to manufacturer's specification was conducted on a
weekly basis. Secondary standard calibration verification was performed on a daily basis. Three
secondary standards (approx. 0.8 NTU, 1.8 NTU and 20 NTU) were recorded after primary
calibration and on a daily basis for the remaining 6 days until the next primary calibration. Proficiency
samples with a known turbidity of 0.8 NTU were purchased from a commercial supplier. Turbidity
proficiency samples were prepared and analyzed every two weeks.
Particle Counting
Hach 1900 WPC light blocking particle counters were used to monitor particles in raw and filtrate
waters. These counters enumerate particles in the range 2 to 800 microns.
The particle counters were factory calibrated. Factory calibrations took place from late September,
1998 to October, 1998. The manufacturer recommends factory calibration on a yearly basis. The
following procedures were followed to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the on-line particle data
collected:
• the Aquaview software was configured to store particle counts in the following size ranges: 2-3 um,
3-5 um, 5-15 um and >15 um.
• To demonstrate the comparative response of the particle counters, NIST traceable monospheres
were purchased from Duke Scientific in the following sizes: 2 um, 4 um, 10 um and 20 um. Duke
monospheres were added to constantly stirred DI water and pumped to one of the constant head
flow controllers using a peristaltic pump. The flow from this controller was then directed to each of
the particle counters for approximately 10 minutes. The same solution was used for each particle
counter (raw water and ZENON filtrate).
The precise concentration of each monosphere was not known, but based on Duke Scientific estimates
the following concentration range of each monosphere was targeted in the test solution:
• 2um 1,000 - 10,000/mL
15
-------
• 4 urn 100-1,000/mL
• 10 urn 10-100/mL
• 20 urn 1 - 10/mL
A typical response of the particle counters to this monosphere solution near both test periods is
presented in Figure 3-4. The particle counter response of the raw and ZENON filtrate particle counters
were within 35 percent in all size ranges. The figures show a good comparative response of the particle
counters to the same monosphere solution.
• flows through the particle counters were maintained at 200+/- 10 mL/min with constant head
devices. Flows were verified on a daily basis with a graduated cylinder and stop watch. Flows
were observed to be extremely consistent (typically within 2 mL/min of the target flow rate).
• 50 ppm free chlorine was run through particle counters for on an as needed basis to remove
potential buildup.
Chemical and Microbial Water Quality Parameters
The analytical work for the study was performed by the City of San Diego Laboratory, which is a State
of California certified water laboratory. All water samples were collected in appropriate containers
(containing preservatives as applicable) prepared by the City of San Diego laboratory. Samples for
analysis of Total Coliforms (TC) and Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) analysis were collected in
bottles supplied by the City of San Diego laboratory and transported with an internal cooler temperature
of approximately 2 to 8°C to the analytical laboratory. All samples were preserved, stored, shipped and
analyzed in accordance with appropriate procedures and holding times. All reported results had
acceptable QA and met USEPA QC guidelines, which was confirmed by letters from the City of San
Diego Laboratory (Appendix A).
3.3.8 Task 8: Microbial Removal (Optional)
The objective of this task is to evaluate microbial removal capabilities by seeding the membrane system
with selected virus. Removal capabilities were evaluated under the worst case scenario for the
membrane system operation (in this case, directly after chemical cleaning of the membrane modules).
Work Plan
The seeding experiments were performed at the test site and the samples collected during the seeding
experiments were submitted to the City of San Diego Marine Microbiology Lab, a State-certified
laboratory, for analysis of the seeded microorganisms.
Organisms for Seeding Experiments
The organism selected for seeding experiments is MS2 bacterial virus. MS2 virus is not a human
pathogen; however, this organism is similar in size (0.025 microns), shape (icosahedron) and nucleic
acid (RNA) to polio virus and hepatitis. Since MS2 is not a human pathogen, live MS2 virus was used
in the seeding experiments. Organism stocks received from the suppliers were stored refrigerated at
4°C in the dark until use in the seeding experiments.
16
-------
Microbial Seeding Protocols
MS2 virus was added directly to the process tank at the completion of a backpulse. The membrane
system was operated for one service cycle to stabilize the organism concentration in the membrane
system, after which sampling was initiated. The microorganism concentration in the process tank was
sufficient to demonstrate a minimum of 4 logs of removal of the seeded organism.
During the MS2 seeding experiment, three samples from the bleed waste (process tank waste) and
three samples from the filtrate water were collected during the second and third service cycles after the
initiation of seeding. The first filtrate sample during each filtration cycle was collected within the first
minute of filtration after completion of backpulse. The last filtrate sample during each filtration cycle was
collected within 3 minutes of the end of the cycle. Each sample was collected in sterile 250-mL bottles,
was stored at 1°C and processed within 24 hours.
The MS2 seeding experiments were conducted during the second period of NSF testing. The
experiments were conducted under the operating conditions in which the microorganisms would most
likely penetrate the membrane; when the membrane is clean, and at a high flux rate (Jacangelo et al.
1995, Montgomery Watson, 1997 and 1999). Therefore, the membrane was cleaned immediately
prior to MS2 seeding.
3.3.9 Task 9: Ultrafiltration Enhanced Coagulation
The ZENON membrane tested in this ETV has an enhanced coagulation system upstream of the
membrane module. While not a necessary part of the membrane system for removal of particulate
material and microbial contaminants, the enhanced coagulation system can provide removal of organic
material not otherwise achievable with UF, allowing effective treatment of a wider range of source
waters, including organic-laden surface waters. The objective of this task is to evaluate the efficiency of
UF enhanced coagulation for removal of organic material.
Work Plan
Operating conditions for the chemical pretreatment system were determined based on existing full-scale
water treatment facilities treating the same source water, as well as the Manufacturer's experience in
optimum pretreatment conditions for the ZeeWeed® system. Pretreatment system operating conditions
determined included coagulant chemical and dose, coagulation pH and flocculation mixing energy.
Membrane operating conditions to be used in conjunction with the pretreated water were also
determined based on the Manufacturer's experience in optimum operation of the ZeeWeed® system.
Membrane system operating conditions determined in conjunction with pretreatment included membrane
flux, backpulse frequency, backpulse duration, backpulse pressure, bleed waste flow rate and air flow
rate.
Evaluation criteria for Task 9 are the removal of organic material as characterized by UV254, TOC,
DOC, color and SDS DBFs, as well as the impact of chemical pretreatment on other water quality
17
-------
parameters such as filtrate pH, alkalinity and aluminum or iron concentrations. The DBFs of concern
are TTHMs and HAAS.
3.4 Calculation of Membrane Operating Parameters
3.4.1 Filtrate Flux
The average filtrate flux is the flow of product water divided by the surface area of the membrane.
Filtrate flux is calculated according to the following formula:
Jt = QP - S
where Jt = filtrate flux at time t (gfd, L^hr-rn2))
Qp = filtrate flow (gpd, L/h)
S = membrane surface area (ft2, m2)
Flux is expressed only as gfd and L^hr-m2) in accordance with EPA/NSF ETV protocol.
3.4.2 Specific Flux
The term specific flux is used to refer to filtrate flux that has been normalized for the transmembrane
pressure. The equation used for calculation of specific flux is:
Jtm ~~ Jt ~^~ "to
where Jtm = specific flux at time t
(gfd/psi, L/(hr-m2ybar)
Jt = filtrate flux at time t (gfd, L^hr-m2))
Ptm = transmembrane pressure (psi, bar)
3.4.3 Transmembrane Pressure
The average transmembrane pressure is calculated as follows:
Ptm = [(Pi + Po) - 2] - Pp
where Ptm = transmembrane pressure (psi, bar)
P; = pressure at the inlet of the membrane
module (psi, bar)
P0 = pressure at the outlet of the membrane
module (psi, bar)
Pp = filtrate pressure (psi, bar)
18
-------
3.4.4 Temperature Adjustment for Flux Calculation
Temperature corrections to 20°C for transmembrane flux were made to account for the variation of
water viscosity with temperature. The following equation was employed:
Jtm (at 20°C) = [Qp x e(-a°239 *(T'20)) ] •*• S
where Jtm = instantaneous flux (gfd, L^hr-m2))
Qp = filtrate flow (gpd, L/hr)
T = temperature, (°F, °C)
S = membrane surface area (ft2, m2)
3.4.5 Feedwater System Recovery
The recovery of filtrate from feedwater is the ratio of filtrate flow to feedwater flow:
% System Recovery = 100 x (Qp/Qf)
where Qp = filtrate flow (gpd, L/hr)
Qf = feed flow to the membrane (gpd, L/hr)
3.4.6 Rejection
The rejection of contaminants by membrane process was calculated as follows:
R = (l -CP/CF)xlOO
where: R = Rejection, %
Cp = Permeate water concentration, (mg/L)
CF = Feed water concentration, (mg/L)
3.5 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
3.5.1 Precision
As specified in Standard Methods (Method 1030 C), precision is specified by the standard deviation of
the results of replicate analyses. An example of replicate analyses in this ETV is the biweekly analysis of
turbidity proficiency samples. The overall precision of a study includes the random errors involved in
sampling as well as the errors in sample preparation and analysis.
n
Precision = Standard Deviation = V[Z ("/• - ~)2 -=- (n - 1)]
7=1
19
-------
where: x = sample mean
X* = i th data point in the data set
n = number of data points in the data set
3. 5. 2 Relative Percent Deviation
For this ETV, duplicate samples were analyzed to determine the overall precision of an analysis using
relative percent deviation. An example of duplicate sampling in this ETV is the daily duplicate analysis
of turbidity samples using the bench-top turbidimeter.
Relative Percent Deviation = 100 x [(xi - x2) + x ]
where x = sample mean
xi = first data point of the set of two duplicate
data points
x2 = second data point of the set of two
duplicate data points
3.5.3 Accuracy
Accuracy is quantified as the percent recovery of a parameter in a sample to which a known quantity of
that parameter was added. An example of an accuracy determination in this ETV is the analysis of a
turbidity proficiency sample and comparison of the measured turbidity to the known level of turbidity in
the sample.
Accuracy = Percent Recovery = 100 x [Xmeasured + Xknown]
where X^o™ = known concentration of
measured parameter
Xmeasured = measured concentration of
parameter
3.5.4 Statistical Uncertainty
For the water quality parameters monitored, 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated. The
following equation was used for confidence interval calculation:
Confidence Interval = ~± [^.ij . (0/2) x (SA/n)]
where: ~~ = sample mean
S = sample standard deviation
n = number of independent measurements
included in the data set
t = Student' s t di stribution value with n- 1
20
-------
degrees of freedom
a = significance level, defined for 95 percent
confidence as: 1 - 0.95 = 0.05
According to the 95 percent confidence interval approach, the a term is defined to have the value of
0.05, thus simplifying the equation for the 95 percent confidence interval in the following manner:
95 Percent Confidence Interval = x ± [1^-1,0.975 x (S/Vn)]
3.6 Testing Schedule
The ETV schedule is illustrated in Figure 3-5. The testing program took place starting in November
1998, and finishing by the end of October 1999. Test Period 1 represented the winter/spring seasons
and Test Period 2 represented the summer/autumn seasons.
21
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
This chapter presents the data obtained under each task of the ETV program of the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system.
4.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery
The operating conditions for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane system and
the enhanced coagulation unit are provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, respectively. The manufacturer
established ETV test operating conditions. The operating conditions verified in both testing periods
were primarily the same. In summary, the enhanced coagulation membrane system ran at a target flux of
37 gfd (62 L/hr-m2), a back pulse frequency of every 10 minutes, a back pulse duration of 15 sec, air
flow of 15 scfm (420 1pm) and an overall water recovery of 95 percent. The enhanced coagulation
conditions included alum as a coagulant at a dose of 30 mg/L, and a target coagulation pH of 6.2 via
acid addition.
Figure 4-1 (A and B) provides the membrane vacuum pressure and temperature profiles for Test
Periods 1 and 2. For Test Period 1, the clean membrane vacuum pressure began at approximately 2.5
psi and increased to 9 psi (maximum limit) over 24 days. The membrane was then chemically cleaned
to a vacuum pressure of 2.5 psi. There was a two-day period starting March 29, 1999 when the pH
control system was off due to a control signal failure. The system fouled more rapidly over this period
and initially, after the pH control was repaired. The system was allowed to run and eventually
recovered on April 4, 1999. For Test Period 2, the filtration runs were relatively shorter, where the
clean membrane vacuum pressure began also at approximately 2.5 psi but more rapidly increased to 9
psi over 9 to 12 days operational period. The higher suspended solids in the process tank (see Task 3)
may be a factor in the shorter runs observed during Test Period 2. In addition, during Test Period 1 the
membranes were new which may also have resulted in better performance (i.e. longer operational runs)
as compared to Test Period 2 where the membranes were fouled and subjected to chemical cleaning
episode(s).
Figure 4-2 (A and B) provides the membrane flux and specific flux data profiles for Test Periods 1 and
2. The target flux for both testing periods was 37 gfd. For Test Period 1 (winter/spring), the average
temperature adjusted membrane flux was approximately 40 gfd at 20° C. Due to the relatively higher
water temperatures during Test Period 2 (summer/autumn), a lower average temperature adjusted
membrane flux of 32 gfd at 20°C was calculated. The temperature adjusted specific flux decreased
from 13.5 gfd/psi at 20°C to 4 gfd/psi at 20°C over 25 days during Test Period 1. A similar decrease
in the temperature adjusted specific flux was observed in Test Period 2 but over a shorter period (9-12
days).
The same data in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 are also provided in Appendix A of this report, but with metric
units.
22
-------
4.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency
Chemical cleanings were performed when the membrane fouled (vacuum pressure > 9 psi) or the end of
a test period had been reached. The manufacturer's cleaning procedure was a two step process.
Initially the process tank was drained and refilled with tap water. A flux-vacuum profile was performed
on the membrane before cleaning. After this, sodium hypochlorite was added to the process tank and
CIP tank to produce a free chlorine residual of approximately 300-500 mg/L. The contents of the CIP
tank were manually backpulsed through the membrane and then the system was run in permeate recycle
mode (permeate flow redirected back to the process tank) for a period of 30 minutes with a permeate
flow of 10 gpm and the blower on. After this the unit was shut down and allowed to soak in the
cleaning solution for a period of several hours. This solution was then drained from the process tank,
the tank was refilled with tap water and a flux-vacuum profile after the first cleaning step was
conducted. The same procedure was repeated with a 5-10 g/L citric acid solution. After this, the
process tank was drained of the cleaning solution, refilled with tap water, and a final, clean-membrane,
flux-vacuum profile was performed.
The flux-vacuum profiles of the membrane system at different stages of the chemical cleaning procedure
for Test Periods 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 4-3 and 4-4, respectively. The slope of the flux-vacuum
profile represents the specific flux of the membrane at each cleaning stage and was used to calculate the
cleaning efficiency indicators. These are listed in Table 4-3. The recovery of specific flux for each
cleaning was in the range of 55 to 70 percent. The higher recovery numbers were a result of the lower
specific flux values before cleaning. Overall, the specific flux recovery values were similar, indicating
reproducible and efficient chemical cleaning events.
New membranes are generally expected to have a noticeable loss of the original specific flux values after
the first operation cycle. After that, a much lower irreversible fouling rate is usually observed (if any) as
the membrane gets conditioned to the water chemistry. This was evident in the data presented in Table
4-3, where the maximum loss of original specific flux was observed after the first chemical cleaning after
which no loss was observed. In fact, some of the original specific flux lost in Test Period 1
(winter/spring) was also recovered in Test Period 2 (summer/autumn), possibly due to the higher
temperatures of the solution used for chemical cleaning. Since no consistent trend was observed for the
loss of the original specific flux data, the usable membrane life can not be estimated. It should be noted,
however, that ZENON Membrane Systems typically provide a 5-yr warrantee on their ZeeWeed® UF
membrane modules.
The same data in Figures 4-3 and 4-4 are also provided in Appendix A of this report, but with metric
units.
4.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality
Several water quality parameters were monitored during the testing period. Below is a summary of the
water quality data.
23
-------
4.3.1 Turbidity, Particle Concentration and Particle Removal
Figures 4-5 and 4-6 present the on-line turbidity profile across the enhanced coagulation membrane
system during Test Period 1 and 2, respectively. Turbidity was also monitored using an onsite desktop
turbidimeter, also shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6 and summarized in Table 4-4. For both testing
periods, the raw water turbidity was in the range of 1-2 NTU, which increased after coagulant addition
up to the 2-8 NTU range. The turbidity of the bleed stream, which represents the turbidity of the
process tank where the membranes are immersed, reached up to 100 NTU, while the permeate
turbidity was typically below 0.1 NTU.
Figures 4-7 and 4-8 present the particle count profile (2-3 um, 3-5 um, and 5-15 um, >15 um)
collected during Test Period 1 and 2, respectively. The data presented represent 4-hour average values
of data collected at one minute intervals. For both testing periods, the feed particle concentration of the
Cryptosporidium-sized particles (3-5 um) and Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um) was in the range of
1,000 to 10,000 particle/mL, while the permeate concentration was typically in the range of 0.1 to 1
particle/mL. Gaps in the permeate particle data for Test Period 2 are due to chemical cleaning
shutdown periods.
Figures 4-9 and 4-10 present the log removal of particles (2-3 um, 3-5 um, and 5-15 um, >15 um)
based on raw and permeate particle count data collected during Test Period 1 and 2, respectively.
Data presented on this plot represent 1-day average values of data collected at one minute intervals.
Overall, 3.5 to 5.0 logs removal was consistently achieved for the Cryptosporidium-sized particles (3-
5 um) and Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um). The online turbidity and particle count data are
summarized in Table 4-5.
To assist in assessing test system performance, Figure 4-11 presents the probability plots of the
membrane system permeate turbidity and particle removal data for the Cryptosporidium-sized particles
(3-5 um) and Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um). The figure shows that the permeate turbidity was
0.05 NTU or less 95 percent of times and that removal of particles (3-5 um and 5-15 um) was greater
than 3 logs 95 percent of times.
4.3.2 Indigenous Bacteria Removal
The removal of naturally occurring bacteria was also monitored during the ETV study (see Table 4-6).
The influent total coliform bacteria ranged from <2 to 50 MPN/100 mL during Test Period 1 and from
<2 to 8 MPN/100 mL during Test Period 2. Total coliform bacteria were not detected in the permeate
of the enhanced coagulation membrane system during both testing periods. HPC bacteria were also
reduced significantly by membrane filtration. However, very low levels (1-4 cfu/mL) were enumerated
in the permeate during both testing periods. Previous studies (Jacangelo et al, 1995) have
demonstrated that HPC bacteria can be introduced on the permeate side of the membrane rather than
by penetration through it. The above data demonstrate the effectiveness of the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system for removal of indigenous bacteria.
24
-------
4.3.3 Other Water Quality Parameters
Table 4-7 presents the concentration of several other water quality parameters across the ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system for Test Periods 1 and 2. The alkalinity of the water was
reduced in the permeate as a result of coagulant addition to the membrane system. As expected, no
change was observed in the total dissolved solids, total hardness, and calcium hardness of the water
across the membrane system. Aluminum concentration in the permeate was approximately doubled (up
to 100 ug/L) due to alum addition, but it is still below the California maximum contaminant standard of
primary contaminants of 1000 ug/L. The enhanced coagulation process resulted in a reduction in
organic material in the permeate. In both test periods, permeate concentrations of total organic carbon,
dissolved organic carbon and UV-254 were all significantly lower than raw water concentrations. The
removal of these parameters by the enhanced coagulation test unit will be presented in the discussion of
Task 9 - Ultrafiltration Enhanced Coagulation.
The total suspended solids (TSS) in the bleed waste reached as high as 330 mg/L (during Test Period
2), while the permeate TSS remained consistently below the detection limit (1 mg/L). As was noted
earlier, the TSS of the pretreated water (membrane feed water) and bleed waste (process tank
contents) during Test Period 2 was higher than in Test Period 1, possibly due to higher water
temperatures resulting in more floe formation. This may have been a factor in the shorter filtration runs
experienced in Test Period 2.
Table 4-8 presents the mass balance conducted on total suspended solids across the enhanced
coagulation membrane system. Two of the calculated results in each test period showed a relatively
good correlation between calculated and measured waste stream TSS.
4.4 Task 4: Reporting Membrane Pore Size
A request was submitted to the membrane Manufacturer to provide the 90 percent and maximum pore
size of the membrane being verified. ZENON Membrane Systems responded that the ZeeWeed® UF
membrane has 90 percent pore size of 0.03 um and an absolute pore size of 0.1 um.
ZENON determines the pore size distribution using flow porometry in accordance with ASTM-F316
"Standard Test Methods for Pore Size Characteristics of Membrane Filters by Bubble Point and Mean
Flow Pore Test."
The above information are taken from a letter supplied by the manufacturer which is included in
Appendix A of this report. This is provided for informational purposes only and the results were not
verified during the ETV testing.
4.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing
Figure 4-12 shows the results of the air pressure-hold tests conducted on the UF membrane at the
beginning and end of both testing periods. If any of the membrane fibers were compromised, one
25
-------
would expect significant loss of held pressure (>1 psi every 5 minutes) across the membrane element.
Since no significant change in the held pressure (<0.5 psi every 5 minutes) was observed during both
testing periods, it would be reasonable to assume that the membrane module was uncompromised
during both testing periods. The above is also confirmed with the turbidity profiles shown in Figures 4-5
and 4-6 and the particle count profiles shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8. The particle concentrations in the
permeate would be expected to noticeably increase if the membrane module were compromised
(Adham et. al, 1995, Montgomery Watson, 1999).
4.6 Task 6: Data Management
4.6.1 Data Recording
Data were recorded manually on operational and water quality data sheets prepared specifically for the
study. In addition, other data and observations such as the system calibration results were recorded
manually on laboratory and QC notebooks. Data from the particle counters and turbidimeters were
also recorded via data acquisition systems. All of the raw data sheets are included in Appendix B of
this report.
4.6.2 Data Entry, Validation, and Reduction
Data were first entered from raw data sheets into similarly designed data entry forms in a spreadsheet.
Following data entry, the spreadsheet was printed and checked against handwritten datasheets. All
corrections were noted on the electronic hard copies and then corrected on the screen. The hardcopy
of the electronic data are included in Appendix C of this report.
4.7 Task 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
The objective of this task is to assure the high quality and integrity of all measurements of operational
and water quality parameters during the ETV program. Below is a summary of the analyses conducted
to ensure the correctness of the data.
4.7.1 Data Correctness
Data correctness refers to data quality, for which there are five indicators:
• Representativeness
• Statistical Uncertainty
• Completeness
• Accuracy
• Precision
26
-------
Calculation of the above data quality indicators were outlined in the Materials and Methods section. All
water quality samples were collected according to the sampling procedures specified by the NSF
protocols, which ensured the representativeness of the samples. Below is a summary of the calculated
indicators.
4.7.2 Statistical Uncertainty
Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated for the water quality parameters of the
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system. These include turbidity, particle
concentrations, particle removal, and indigenous bacteria. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were
presented in summary tables in the discussion of Task 3 - Finished Water Quality.
4.7.3 Completeness
Data completeness refers to the amount of data collected during the ETV study as compared to the
amount of data that were proposed in the FOD. Calculation of data completeness was made for onsite
water quality measurements, laboratory water quality measurements, and operational data recording.
These calculations are presented in Appendix A of this report. Nearly all parameters were 100 percent
complete. Overall, the database of laboratory water quality data and operational readings was more
than 85 percent complete, which met the objective of the ETV program.
4.7.4 Accuracy
Accuracy is quantified as the percent recovery of a parameter in a sample to which a known quantity of
that parameter was added. An example of an accuracy determination in this ETV is the analysis of a
turbidity proficiency sample and comparison of the measured turbidity to the known level of turbidity in
the sample. Calculations of data accuracy were made to ensure the accuracy of the onsite desktop
turbidimeter used in the study. All calculations were within 10 percent of the proficiency sample values.
Comparative calibrations of online turbidimeters with the desktop turbidimeters were performed as
corrective actions as needed. All accuracy calculations are presented in Appendix A.
4.7.5 Precision and Relative Percent Deviation
Duplicate water quality samples were analyzed to determine the consistency of sampling and analysis
using relative percent deviation. Based on these calculations, five results from the City of San Diego
Laboratory were excluded from the final dataset. The excluded results were three aluminum duplicate
samples, one dissolved organic carbon duplicate sample, and one total suspended solids duplicate
sample. Relative percent deviation calculations were also performed on online and desktop turbidity
measurements. Calculations of relative percent deviation are included in Appendix A of this report.
27
-------
4.8 Task 8: Microbial Removal
To demonstrate microbial removal by the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system, two
seeding experiments with MS2 bacterial virus were conducted during Test Period 2. The two seeding
experiments were conducted immediately after a membrane cleaning which simulate worst case
conditions for virus removal (Jacangelo et al. 1995, Montgomery Watson, 1997 and 1999). The virus
were added directly to the process tank immediately after completion of a backwash and with coagulant
addition to the system. One seeding was conducted three hours after system initiation with coagulant
addition after a chemical cleaning and the second seeding was conducted less than an hour subsequent
to system initiation with coagulant addition after a chemical cleaning. Paired samples from the feed and
filtrate were taken at the beginning, middle and end of the second and third filtration cycles after seeding
the virus resulting in six samples per seeding experiment.
The feed and filtrate concentrations and log removal of virus during this seeding are presented in Table
4-9 and Figure 4-13. The membrane demonstrated approximately 2 log virus rejection within less than
an hour of operation after chemical cleaning and more than 5 logs within 3 hours of operation after
chemical cleaning. The higher virus log removal observed after three hours of operation may be due to
the higher solids in the process tank where the membrane is immersed. This creates a dynamic cake
layer on the membrane surface, enhancing virus rejection. In addition, the virus may absorb directly on
the coagulation floes, which are subsequently rejected by the membrane. The above data demonstrate
the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system is likely capable of achieving a 2 log
removal of virus under worst-case scenario.
4.9 Task 9: Ultrafiltration Enhanced Coagulation
The impact of enhanced coagulation on organics removal by the membrane system is presented in Table
4-10. The removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) across the enhanced coagulation membrane
system was 23 percent in both testing periods. This removal is mainly due to the addition of 30 mg/L
alum to the membrane system since no DOC removal (0 percent) was achieved when the membrane
system was operated without coagulant addition using the same source water (Montgomery Watson,
1999). Removal of color by the system was 76 percent.
The removal of the SDS disinfection by products (DBFs) was also evaluated during the study. Overall,
34-41 percent removal of Total TFDVIs and 48 - 56 percent removal of HAAS were observed across
the enhanced coagulation membrane system. This level of removal is significant as it may help in meeting
Stages I and H of the EPA DBF Rule.
4.10 Additional ETV Program Requirements
4.10.1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
The O&M manual for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system supplied by the
manufacturer was reviewed during the ETV testing program. The review comments for the O&M
28
-------
manual are presented in Table 4-11. Overall, the review found the O&M manual includes most of the
critical information for process operation. The manual is short and straightforward. The manual would
be improved with the addition of more tables, charts, and schematics of the process components and
better organization. Also, a separate O&M manual for the enhanced coagulation system should be
provided. Finally, the O&M manual includes a useful "calculation section" which provides examples of
calculating common process evaluation parameters.
4.10.2 System Efficiency and Chemical Consumption
The efficiency of the small-scale ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system was calculated
based on the electrical usage and water production of the system. The data are presented in Table 4-
12. Overall, an efficiency of only 1.1 percent was calculated for the system which is typical of many
small-scale low pressure membrane systems.
The chemical consumption of the system was also estimated based on the operating criteria used during
the ETV program. Table 4-13 provides a summary of the chemical consumption of the small-scale
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF system.
4.10.3 Equipment Deficiencies Experienced During the ETV Program
Test Period 1
Enhanced Coagulation System
A failure occurred in the electrical control line from the enhanced coagulation system pH probe to the
pH control acid dosing pump during Test Period 1. There was an approximate two-day period when
the system was running without pH adjustment. When the electrical control line failed, the pH control
logic read a high pH value. This put the acid dosing pump into continuous output and produced pH in
the process tank as low as 2 before the acid dosing pump was manually stopped. After installing a new
cable, the transmembrane pressure of the system increased to fouled levels. The system was allowed to
run to determine if it would recover. Within 4 days the transmembrane pressure had recovered
significantly and the test unit continued to run for 10 days before fouling. There was no membrane
damage or loss of integrity from the exposure of the membrane to low pH caused by the acid controller
failure.
ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF Membrane System
At the beginning of the first testing period, the unit shut down two to three times due to the high level of
water in the process tank when the system went into backpulse. The water volume added during
backpulse was sufficient to put the system into high level alarm. After shutdown, the suction through the
permeate tubing was sufficient to drain the process tank to a level below the top of the membrane,
exposing them to air and putting the system into low level alarm. Since this occurred overnight, when
temperatures were low, no damage was sustained by the membrane due to exposure to air. This
problem was solved by decreasing the backpulse volume. After that, the system ran reliably without
going into high level alarm of the process tank.
29
-------
Another problem identified with the ETV test units had to do with controlling the water level in the
process tank. The membrane system sensitivity to feed level was due to the fact that when the system
signaled the feed valve to open after the water level in the process tank was getting low, the feed valve
to the enhanced coagulation system was opened. There was an approximate delay of three to four
seconds before the flow from the enhanced coagulation tank reached the membrane system process
tank. Likewise, when the system signaled the feed valve to close because process tank water level had
reached an adequate level, the flow from the enhanced coagulation system to the process tank did not
stop completely for three to four seconds.
A consequence of the delayed response to feed flow signals was the fact that the system spent
approximately 10 to 15 percent of each filtration cycle in permeate recycle. Permeate recycle occurred
when the system sensed a low process tank level and signaled feed flow to the process tank. Since this
feed demand was not met soon enough, the system would close the permeate to waste valve and open
the permeate recycle valve, directing permeate back to the process tank. Based on flow totalizer and
hour meter readings, it was determined the system was in permeate recycle approximately 10 percent of
the time.
This deficiency was resolved before the start of Test Period 2 by reprogramming the level control chip.
The chip was reprogrammed so feed-on was signaled at a higher tank level and feed-off was signaled at
a lower tank level. During Test Period 2 the system was not observed to switch to permeate recycle
mode during normal operation.
Finally, on March 31, 1999, the chemical used to chlorinate backwash water in the clean-in-place tank
was changed from calcium hypochlorite to sodium hypochlorite. This was done because of concerns
over possible fouling due to calcium in the backwash water, and to more accurately control the
backwash chlorine dose with liquid hypochlorite and a positive-displacement dosing pump.
Online Turbidimeters
At the start of Test Period 1, the flow rate to the Hach 1720D online turbidimeters was maintained at
500 mL per minute as per the manufacturers recommendation. During the course of testing, on
approximately 4 readings from March 22 to 25, 1999, the online-filtrate turbidity values were up to 50
percent higher than samples of filtrate analyzed on the desktop turbi dimeter. Representatives from Hach
were contacted. Cleanings and calibration checks were performed on all turbidimeters, but the online
units still read significantly higher. The flowrate to the online turbidimeter was decreased in a stepwise
fashion. When the flow was reduced to approximately 225 mL/min, the turbidity readings on the online
filtrate turbidimeter stabilized at the expected levels. The Hach representative speculated that the
problem was due to inadequate degassing in the 1720D online turbidimeter. The degassing capability
was improved by reducing the flow rate through the instrument. Based on the Hach representative's
recommendation, flow rates were decreased to approximately 200 mL/min on all online turbidimeters
after March 26, 1999. It is possible that as the weather warms, this degassing problem also may affect
the performance of online particle counters.
30
-------
Test Period 2
ZENONEnhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF'Membrane System
During Test Period 2, at fouled membrane conditions, it was observed that the CIP tank would not refill
after backpulse. After a number of backpulses the remaining filtrate in the CIP tank would be
consumed, and the system was then unable to perform effective backpulses. This condition occurred at
operating vacuum pressure levels between 8 and 10 psi (0.55 to 0.69 bar), when the membrane was
fouled. Another important factor was water temperature. This condition had not developed during
colder weather testing of Test Period 1, but was encountered during the warm water conditions of Test
Period 2. Also, because of the relatively high water temperatures and high operating vacuums,
significant amounts of air were noted in the filtrate water passing through the filtrate rotameter.
This condition was observed twice during Test Period 2. The first instance occurred on October 4,
1999 and the second on October 18, 1999. In both cases, the problem was resolved by chemically
cleaning the membrane module.
A chronological listing of all problems experienced with the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed®
UF system during the ETV Program and their associated corrective actions is provided in Appendix A
of this report.
4.10.4 Audit Reports
NSF International performed a virus seeding inspection of the Montgomery Watson ETV program at
Aqua 2000 Research Center. Tina Beaugrand of NSF performed the virus seeding inspection on
September 22, 1999. No deficiencies in the virus seeding were noted during the inspection. A copy of
the audit report is included in Appendix A of this report.
31
-------
Chapter 5
References
Adham, S.S., J.G. Jacangelo, and J-M. Lame (1995). Low pressure membranes: assessing integrity,
JournalAWWA, 87(3)62-75.
APHA, AWWA and WPCF (1992). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 18th ed. Washington, D.C. APHA.
Jacangelo, J.G., S.S. Adham, and J-M. Lame (1995). Mechanism of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and
MS2 virus removal by MF and UF, Journal AWWA, 87(9)107-121.
Montgomery Watson (1997), Membrane Prequalification Pilot Study. Final Report prepared for the
City of San Diego, October 1997.
Montgomery Watson (1999), California Department of Health Services Certification Testing for
ZENON (ZeeWeed®) membrane. Final Report prepared for ZENON Membrane Systems, July
1999.
Sobsey, M.D., Schwab, K.J., and Handzel, T.R. (1982) A simple membrane filter method to
concentrate and enumerate male-specific RNA coliphages. Jour AWWA, (9):52-59.
32
-------
Tables and Figures
33
-------
Table 2-1. Characteristics of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane.
Units
Value
Commercial designation
Approximate size of element (L x W x H)
Active membrane area (outside)
Number of fibers
Inside diameter of fiber
Outside diameter of fiber
Approximate length of fiber
Flow direction
Nominal molecular weight cutoff
Absolute molecular weight cutoff
Nominal membrane pore size
Absolute membrane pore size
Membrane material/construction
Membrane surface characteristics
Membrane charge
Design operating pressure
Design flux at design pressure
Standard testing pH
Standard testing temperature
Acceptable range of operating pH values
Maximum permissable turbidity
Chlorine/oxidant tolerance
ft,(m)
ft2, (m2)
mm
mm
ft,(m)
Daltons
Daltons
um
um
psi, (bar)
gfd, (L/(h-m2))
Oi— /o/-^\
F, ( C)
NTU
mg/L
ZeeWeed®-500 OCR UF
6.6 x 2.5 x 0.65, (2.0 x 0.75 x 0.30)
463 (43)
-4700
0.75
1.95
5.4, (1.7)
Outside-ln
-100,000
-120,000
0.035
0.10
Proprietary Polymer
Hydrophilic
Neutral
-1.0 to-12.0, (-0.07 to-0.83)
30 to 100, (51 to 170)
7.0
77, (25)
5.0-9.0 (cleaning range 2.0-10.5)
>1000
>1000
34
-------
Table 3-1. Water quality analytical methods.
Parameter
Facility
Standard Method
General Water Quality
PH
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Aluminum or Iron
Particle Characterization
Turbidity (Bench-Top)
Turbidity (On-Line)
Particle Counts (On-Line)
Organic Material Characterization
TOC and DOC
UV Absorbance at 254 nm
Color
Total Trihalomethanes
Haloacetic Acids
Microbiological Analyses
Total Coliform
HPC Bacteria
MS2 Virus
On-Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
On-Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
On-Site
On-Site
On-Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
4500H+
2320 B
2340 C
3500Ca D
2550 B
2540 D
2540 C
EPA200.8 or 3500-FeC
21306
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
531 OB
591 OB
2120C
EPA Method 502.2
EPA Method 552.2
9221 B
9215 B
EPA ICR Method for Coliphage
Assay
Table 4-1. ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system operating
conditions.
Parameter
Unit
Test Period
Run
1
1-1
1
1-2
2
2-1
2
2-2
2
2-3
Start Date & Time
End Date &Time
Run Length
Run Terminating Condition
Filtrate Flow
Flux
Air Flow
Backpulse Frequency
Backpulse Duration
Backpulse Volume
Backpulse Chlorine
Bleed Waste Flow
Volume Reduction
days-hrs
gpm (Ipm)
gfd (L/hm2)
scfm (Ipm)
min
sec
gal (liter)
mg/L
3/22/99 11:00
4/15/997:10
23 days 20 hrs
Fouled
14(51)
37 (62)
15 (420)
10
15
4.2(16)
8.0 avg
gpm (Ipm) 0.62 (2.4)
% 95%
4/16/9915:18
4/19/9910:25
2 days 19 hrs
Time
14(51)
37 (62)
15(420)
10
15
4.2(16)
8.5 avg
0.62 (2.4)
95%
9/22/9910:30
10/4/9912:50
12 days 2 hrs
Fouled
14(51)
37 (62)
15 (420)
10
15
4.2(16)
8.5 avg
0.67(2.6)
95%
10/6/9913:50
10/18/9910:47
11 days 21 hrs
Fouled
14(51)
37 (62)
15(420)
10
15
4.2(16)
8.5 avg
0.67 (2.6)
95%
10/20/9914:55
10/29/9913:05
8 days 22 hrs
Fouled
14(51)
37 (62)
15 (420)
10
15
4.2(16)
8.5 avg
0.67(2.6)
95%
35
-------
Table 4-2. ZENON enhanced coagulation operating conditions during ETV testing.
Parameter
Unit
Test Period
Start Date
End Date
Coagulant
Coagulant Dose
Acid
Target pH
Process Water Flow
Baffle 1 Air Flow
Baffle 2 Air Flow
Baffle 3 Air Flow
Baffle 4 Air Flow
mg/L
gpm (Ipm)
scfh (Iph)
scfh (Iph)
scfh (Iph)
scfh (Iph)
1
3/22/99 11:00
4/19/99 10:25
Alum
30
40% H2SO4
6.2
14 (52)
2.0 (57)
2.0 (57)
3.0 (85)
3.0 (85)
2
9/22/99 10:30
10/29/9913:05
Alum
30
40%-50% H2SO4
6.2
16(61)
2.0(57)
4.0(110)m
3.0(85)
3.0(85)
Air flow to baffle 2 increased during Test Period 2 to compensate for leak at baffle end.
Table 4-3. Evaluation of cleaning efficiency for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed*
UF membrane.
Clean
Number
Start
1-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
Clean
Date
3/22/99
4/15/99
10/5/99
10/19/99
11/1/99
Specific Flux
@20°C
Before Clean
Jsf
gfd/psi
Cl/hr-m -bar)
—
5.1 (130)
4.0 (98)
3.4 (85)
5.0 (120)
Specific Flux
@20°C
After Clean
Jsi
gfd/psi
Cl/hr-m -bar)
13(330)
1 1 (270)
1 1 (270)
1 1 (280)
12(290)
Recovery of
Specific Flux
100(1 -Jsf /Jsi)
%
—
54
64
69
58
Loss of Original
Specific Flux
100(1 -(Jsi /Jsio))
%
—
17
16
15
11
36
-------
Table 4-4. Onsite lab water quality analyses for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed*
UF membrane system.
Parameter
Unit
Count Median
Range
95 Percent
Standard Confidence
Average Deviation Interval
TEST
PERIOD 1
Raw Water
pH
Desktop Turbidity
Temperature
NTU
degC
28
52
52
8.3
1.2
16
8.1 -
0.8-
11 -
8.7
1.7
28
8.3
1.2
17
0.17
0.24
3.7
8.2
1.1
16
-8.4
-1.3
-18
Pretreated Water
PH
Desktop Turbidity
NTU
49
49
6.3
3.6
5.0-
1.1 -
7.5
7.8
6.4
3.7
0.39
1.5
6.3
3.3
-6.5
-4.1
Permeate
Bleed
TEST
Desktop Turbidity
Waste
Desktop Turbidity
PERIOD 2
NTU
NTU
26
49
0.050
69
0.050-0.10
7.9-
130
0.050
68
0.0098
28
0.050
60
- 0.050
-76
Raw Water
PH
Desktop Turbidity
Temperature
NTU
degC
23
46
46
8.1
1.8
25
8.0-
1.3-
18-
8.3
2.5
39
8.1
1.7
27
0.077
0.34
5.3
8.1
1.6
25
-8.1
-1.8
-29
Pretreated Water
PH
Desktop Turbidity
NTU
46
26
6.2
4.0
4.9-
2.6-
6.5
5.5
6.1
3.9
0.27
0.78
6.0
3.6
-6.2
-4.2
Permeate
Desktop Turbidity NTU
Bleed Waste
Desktop Turbidity
NTU
22
45
0.050 0.050-0.10 0.050
72
14-120
71
0.011 0.050 - 0.050
22
65-77
37
-------
Table 4-5. Summary of online turbidity and particle count data for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
Parameter
Unit Count Median Range Average
Standard
Deviation
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
TEST PERIOD 1
Raw Water
Turbidity
NTU
170
1.2
0.85-5.8
1.4
0.51
Turbidity
NTU
230
1.7
1.2-3.1
1.8
0.33
Permeate
Turbidity
> 2 urn Particles
2-3 urn Particles
3-5 urn Particles
5-15 urn Particles
>15 urn Particles
Log Removal 2-3 urn Particles
Log Removal 3-5 urn Particles
Log Removal 5-15 urn Particles
Log Removal >15 urn Particles
1.3-1.5
Permeate
Log
Log
Log
Log
> 2 urn Particles
2-3 urn Particles
3-5 urn Particles
5-15 urn Particles
>15 urn Particles
Turbidity
> 2 urn Particles
2-3 urn Particles
3-5 urn Particles
5-15 urn Particles
>15 urn Particles
Removal 2-3 urn Particles
Removal 3-5 urn Particles
Removal 5-15 urn Particles
Removal >15 urn Particles
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
NTU
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
167
167
167
167
167
161
161
161
161
161
161
29
29
29
29
7500
3700
2400
1400
63
0.050
0.32
0.17
0.11
0.072
0.048
4.2
4.2
4.3
3.1
2200-
16000
1200-6500
640-
290-
11 -
0.010
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
5200
3900
210
-0.15
-6.7
-3.4
-2.1
-1.1
-0.13
3.5 - 4.9
3.6 - 4.7
3.5 - 4.6
2.6 - 3.5
7500
3600
2400
1500
71
0.05
0.53
0.31
0.16
0.100
0.050
4.2
4.3
4.2
3.1
2300
860
750
730
47
0.022
0.87
0.49
0.25
0.13
0.0088
0.39
0.31
0.30
0.29
7200-
3500-
2300-
1400-
64-
0.050 -
0.40-
0.23-
0.12-
0.080 -
0.049 -
4.1 -
4.2-
4.1 -
3.0-
7800
3700
2500
1600
78
0.050
0.66
0.39
0.20
0.12
0.051
4.3
4.4
4.3
3.2
TEST PERIOD 2
Raw Water
1.8-1.8
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
NTU
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
192
192
192
192
192
217
150
150
150
150
150
33
33
33
33
7700
4000
2400
1200
41
0.050
0.58
0.27
0.14
0.091
0.042
4.1
4.2
4.1
2.9
2000-12000
740 - 5700
450 - 3800
390 - 2400
4.9 - 200
0.050 - 0.050
0.17-16
0.11 -8.3
0.059 - 4.9
0.046 - 3.0
0.041 - 0.41
2.3 - 4.9
3.2 - 4.6
3.1 - 4.6
2.2 - 3.3
7800
4100
2400
1300
45
0.050
1.00
0.51
0.28
0.18
0.078
3.8
4.0
4.0
2.9
1500
710
540
370
21
0.00
1.6
0.80
0.48
0.29
0.079
0.55
0.43
0.41
0.28
7600 - 8000
4000 - 4200
2300 - 2500
1200-1400
42-48
undefined
0.74 - 1 .3
0.38 - 0.64
0.20 - 0.36
0.13-0.23
0.065 - 0.091
3.6 - 4.0
3.9-4.1
3.9-4.1
2.8 - 3.0
38
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of the microbial water quality analyses for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
Parameter
Standard Confidence
Unit Count Median Range Average Deviation Interval
TEST PERIOD 1
Raw Water
Total Coliforms
HPC
MPN/100mL 4
cfu/m L 4
4.5 <2-50 15
120 14-240 120
23
93
0-38
29-210
Permeate
Total Coliforms
HPC
MPN/100mL 4
cfu/m L 4
<2 <2-<2
1 <1 -1
<2
0.00
0.00
undefined
undefined
Bleed Waste
Total Coliforms
MPN/100mL
<2 - 170
120
93
29-210
TEST PERIOD 2
Raw Water
Total Coliforms
HPC
MPN/100mL
cfu/m L
4 <2 - 8 5
230 26-2100 600
2.5 2.6 - 7.4
980 0-1600
Permeate
Total Coliforms
HPC
Bleed Waste
Total Coliforms
MPN/100mL
cfu/m L
MPN/100mL
<2
2.5
<2-<2
<1 -4
<2
3
111 <2-240 100
0.00 undefined
1.3 1.7-4.3
130
0-230
39
-------
Table 4-7. Summary of general water quality analyses for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation
ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
Parameter
TEST PERIOD 1
Raw Water
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
UV-254
Aluminum
Iron
P retreated Water
Total Suspended Solids
Aluminum
Iron
Color
Permeate
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
UV-254
Bleed Waste
Total Suspended Solids
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
ug/L
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
ug/L
PCCU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
mg/L
Count
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
8
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
7
4
Median
120
240
150
5.0
490
2.5
2.1
0.070
28
55
9.3
2100
60
9.5
38
240
150
<1.0
510
1.9
1.6
0.048
120
Range
100-
200-
120-
1.9-
410-
2.3-
2.1 -
0.057 -
22-
50-
4.6-
390-
50-
8.0-
34-
200-
120-
<1.0-
440-
1.7-
1.5-
0.043 -
49-
130
280
220
9.5
600
2.9
2.5
0.089
52
58
-11
2200
73
-13
46
280
200
<1.0
630
2.2
2.0
0.077
190
Average
120
240
160
5.4
500
2.5
2.2
0.073
32
54
8.6
1600
61
10
39
240
150
<1.0
520
2.0
1.7
0.052
120
Standard
Deviation
12
42
48
3.6
75
0.30
0.26
0.011
14
3.9
2.8
1000
12
2.2
5.7
40
43
0.00
81
0.21
0.29
0.012
79
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
110
190
110
1.9
430
2.2
1.9
0.065
18
50
5.9
470-
47
7.8
33
190
100
-130
-290
-210
-8.9
-570
-2.8
-2.5
- 0.081
-46
-58
-11
•2700
-75
-12
-45
-290
-200
undefined
440
1.8
1.4
0.043
43-
-600
-2.2
-2.0
-0.061
•200
40
-------
Table 4-7. Continued.
Parameter
TEST PERIOD 2
Raw Water
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
UV-254
Aluminum
P retreated Water
Total Suspended Solids
Aluminum
Color
Permeate
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon
UV-254
Aluminum
Bleed Waste
Total Suspended Solids
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
ug/L
mg/L
ug/L
PCCU
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
ug/L
mq/L
Count
4
2
2
5
5
5
4
7
3
5
5
5
4
2
2
4
5
5
5
8
3
5
Median
110
230
140
5.0
460
2.6
2.7
0.078
38
16
3500
16
33
230
170
<1.0
480
2.5
2.1
0.043
100
240
Range
110-
220-
140-
1.9-
450-
2.3-
2.5-
0.070 -
18-
14-
2000-
4.0-
27-
220-
150-
<1.0-
480-
1.8-
1.7-
0.038 -
67-
150-
110
230
140
50
490
3.2
3.0
0.097
53
25
6800
19
35
240
180
<1.0
510
2.8
3.0
0.049
110
330
Average
110
230
140
21
460
2.7
2.7
0.081
36
17
4100
13
32
230
170
<1.0
490
2.4
2.2
0.043
92
240
Standard
Deviation
1.7
2.8
1.4
24
17
0.34
0.25
0.011
18
4.5
1900
6.9
3.2
11
21
0.00
14
0.36
0.55
0.0044
21
67
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
110-
230-
140-
-0.037
450-
2.4-
2.5-
0.073 -
16-
13-
2400-
7.0-
29-
210-
140-
110
230
140
-42
470
3.0
2.9
0.089
56
21
5800
19
35
250
200
undefined
480-
2.1 -
1.7-
0.040 -
500
2.7
2.7
0.046
68 - 1 20
180-
300
41
-------
Table 4-8. Comparison of calculated and measured total suspended solids for ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
Net
Date P retreated
Flow
(qpm)
TEST PERIOD 1
3/23/99
4/1/99
4/6/99
4/15/99
TEST PERIOD 2
9/27/99
10/11/99
10/18/99
10/25/99
10/27/99
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
Bleed
Flow
(mL/min)
2300
2200
2300
2300
2600
2600
2500
2600
2600
Volume
Reduction
(%)
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Measured
P retreated
TSS
(mq/L)
4.6
11
9.2
9.5
14
15
16
25
16
Measured
Bleed
TSS
(mq/L)
58
190
49
190
150
250
230
330
240
Calculated
Bleed
TSS
(mq/L)
90
230
180
190
270
280
310
480
300
Note: Pretreated flow based on corrected feed flow totalizer readings and hour meter readings
for Test Period 1. Pretreated Flow based on net permeate flow plus bleed flow for Test Period 2.
42
-------
Table 4-9. Feed and permeate concentrations of MS2 virus for the ZENON Enhanced
Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
Seed ing #1
Seeding date: 9/22/99
Specific flux at 20°C = 13.0 gfd/psi (259 L/hr-m2-bar)
Time from system startup = 3 hr
Feed concentration Permeate concentration Log removal
(pfu/100mL) (pfu/100mL)
3.7E+8
5.9E+8
4.2E+8
4.7E+8
4.5E+8
3.5E+8
<1.0E+3
1.0E+3
<1.0E+3
<1.0E+3
<1.0E+3
<1.0E+3
>5.6
5.8
>5.6
>5.7
>5.7
>5.5
Seeding #2
Seeding date: 10/20/99
Specific flux at 20°C = 13.7 gfd/psi (271 L/hr-m2-bar)
Time from system startup < 1 hr
Feed concentration Permeate concentration Log removal
(pfu/100mL) (pfu/100mL)
4.1E+8 3.7E+6 2.0
2.9E+8 4.7E+6 1.8
4.6E+8 4.0E+6 2.1
4.0E+8 3.8E+6 2.0
2.4E+8 4.3E+6 1.7
2.4E+8 3.1E+6 1.9
43
-------
Table 4-10. Effect of enhanced coagulation on organics removal.
Parameter
Unit
Raw
Water
Permeate
Percent
Reduction
TEST PERIOD 1
Organic Material
SDS DBP
TOO N
DOC[1]
UV254[1]
Color™
Bromoform
Dibromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Total THMs
Monobromoacetic Acid
Dibromoacetic Acid
Monochloroacetic Acid
Dichloroacetic Acid
Trichloroacetic Acid
Bromochloroacetic Acid
HAAS1?1
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
PCCU
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
2.5
2.1
0.07
7.0
0.7
28.1
12
32.6
73.4
<0.1
2.82
<0.3
11.5
8.92
7.47
23.2
1.9
1.6
0.05
1.81
16.2
11.8
13.3
43.1
<0.1
2.83
<0.3
5.05
2.26
4.5
10.1
23
23
31
41
56
TEST PERIOD 2
pH[1]
Alkalinity111
Aluminum'11
mg/L
ug/L
8.1
110
44
6.2
33
100
23
70
-130
Organic Material
SDS DBP
TOC^
DOC[1]
UV254[1]
Color111
Bromoform
Dibromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Total THMs
Monobromoacetic Acid
Dibromoacetic Acid
Monochloroacetic Acid
Dichloroacetic Acid
Trichloroacetic Acid
Bromochloroacetic Acid
HAAS121
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
PCCU
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
ug/L
2.6
2.7
0.08
8.5
1.18
22
13.1
32.3
68.6
<0.5
3.25
<1.0
12.6
10.5
7.99
26.4
2.5
2.1
0.04
2.0
2.49
15.3
12.6
15.1
45.5
<0.5
3.68
<1.0
6.26
3.74
5.96
13.7
4.9
23
44
76
34
48
median value
Bromochloroacetic Acid not included in calculation of HAAS.
44
-------
Table 4-11. Review of manufacturer's operations and maintenance manual for the ZENON
Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane system.
O & M Manual Section
Grade*
Comment
ENHANCED COAGULATION UNIT
ZEEWEED ULTRAFILTRATION
MEMBRANE SYSTEM
General Description - Introduction
Equipment List
Power and Water Requirements
Operations
Startup
Filtration
Backpulse (backwash)
Cleaning
Integrity Testing
Flocculation tank volume included in
introductory description of main
components, but operation and
maintenance for enhanced coagulation
system not included in manual beyond this
Includes a good description of operating
modes, a list of major components and
ancillary equipment, power and water
requirements
Included in Introduction, but should be
organized into a table
Included in Introduction, but should be
organized into a table
• Good discussion, includes sections on
installation, initial bubble test and initial
operation
• Different filtration modes discussed early in
document and then a more detailed
discussion in the "Control Narrative
Operations" section
• A good discussion included in an
introductory narrative at beginning of the
operations section. Also included in
discussion of cleaning operation and
membrane conditioning
• A good discussion of cleaning steps and
methods
• The cleaning procedure described is not
exactly the one used during NSF testing
• Bubble test description included in
Equipment Startup section, but this
information along with a discussion of air
pressure-hold test and particle counting
should be included in a separate section on
integrity testing
* Grade of"+" indicates acceptable level of detail and presentation, grade of "-" indicates the manual would
benefit from improvement in this area.
45
-------
Table 4-11. Continued
O & M Manual Section
Grade*
Comment
Shutdown and Storage
Operational Limits
Maintenance
Alarms
Troubleshooting
Ancillary Equipment Information
Drawings and Schematics
Use of Tables
• Includes a description of long term
membrane storage and preservation with a
glycerine and water solution, but does not
include short term storage and shutdown
recommended procedures
• Operational limits for backwash pressure
and water temperature included in text, but
this information should be summarized in a
table for all significant limitations
• Should include a discussion of permeate
recycle mode. Methods for quantifying the
effect on volume reduction, including short-
term and long-term adjustments required to
compensate for this condition or correct it
• Includes maintenance requirements for
membrane, permeate pump and blower
• Includes a description of alarm conditions
and what they are designed to protect
• Includes alarm control table which shows
effect of various alarms on system pumps
and valves
• Manual includes a table of common
problems, possible causes and solutions
• Included as an appendix. The appendix
states ancillary equipment manufacturers
information sheets are available by request.
Phone number included
• Includes valve chart which shows settings
of all valves in each operating mode
P&ID schematic included but at 8.5 x
inch is too small to be readable
11
Manual should use schematics to more
clearly present settings for manual valves,
etc. during the various operation modes
Manual should include more tables to more
clearly organize and present information
* Grade of"+" indicates acceptable level of detail and presentation, grade of "-" indicates the manual would
benefit from improvement in this area.
46
-------
Table 4-11. Continued
O & M Manual Section
Grade*
Comment
OVERALL COMMENT
All the most important information is
included in the manual. The manual is
short and to the point.
The manual could be improved with better
organization and more extensive use of
tables and schematics.
A separate O&M manual for the enhanced
coagulation system should be included
Manual includes a useful "Calculation
Section" which describes and gives
examples of calculating common
parameters such as net permeate rate and
volume reduction
* Grade of"+" indicates acceptable level of detail and presentation, grade of "-" indicates the manual would
benefit from improvement in this area.
Table 4-12. Efficiency of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF membrane
system.
Parameter Unit Value
ELECTRICAL USE
Voltage
Permeate Pump Current
Blower Current
Permeate Pump Power
Blower Power
Volt - single phase
Amp
Amp
Watt
Watt
240
2.8
10
670
2400
Total Electrical Power Consumption
Watt
3100
WATER PRODUCTION
Vacuum
Flow Rate
Power
in Hg.
Pa
gpm
m3/s
12
3.9E+04
14
8.5E-04
Watt
33
EFFICIENCY
1.1%
47
-------
Table 4-13. Chemical consumption for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed® UF
membrane system.
Unit Value
Backwash Chlorine*
Average Chlorine Dose
Stock Chlorine Concentration
Average Backpulse Volume
Stock Volume per Backpulse
Backpulse Per Day
Stock Chlorine Use Per Day
Enhanced Coagulation Alumf
Alum Stock Used
Alum Stock Concentration
Feedwater Treated
Days of Operation
Calculated Alum Dose
Alum Stock Use Per Day
Enhanced Coagulation Acid*
Undiluted 40% H2SO4 Used
Feedwater Treated
Days of Operation
Average Enh. Coagulation pH
Acid Stock Use Per Day
Cleaning Chemicals
Household Bleach (NaOCI 5.25%) Use Per Cleaning
Citric Acid Use Per Cleaning
mg/L 8.5
% 10
L 16
ml_ 1.4
# 140
Gal(L) 0.05(0.20)
Gal(L) 8.1(31)
mg/mL 640
Gal 170,000
9.1
mg/L 30
Gal(L) 0.89(3.4)
Gal(L) 5.6(22)
Gal(L) 170,000(644,000)
9.1
6.2
Gal(L) 0.63(2.4)
Gal(L) 2.0(7.8)
Ib (kg) 8.8(4.0)
* Based on average chlorine dose per backpulse
f Based on Test Period 2 alum feed tank use and feed totalizer readings, 9/22 to 10/1/99
t Based on Test Period acid feed tank use and feed totalizer readings, 9/22 to 10/1/99
48
-------
Proiect Manager
Samer Adham, Ph. D
Montgomery Watson
Proiect Engineer
Karl Gramith
Montgomery Watson
Manufacturer
Representative
Diana Mourato , Ph . D
Graham Best
ZENON
Environmental
Water Quality
Analysis
John Chaffin
City of San Diego
Operations Manager
Data Manager
Karl Gramith
Montgomery Watson
Paul Gagliardo, P.E
City of San Diego
Data Entry
Anthony Huang
Montgomery Watson
Operations Staff
Jeff Williams
City of San Diego
Figure 1-1. Organizational chart showing lines of communication.
Figure 2-1. Photograph of the ETV test unit.
49
-------
PLAN VIEW
MEMBRANE UNIT
Control
Panel
2Q. 5 in. -
Process LO
Tank G
-36.0 in.-
ENHANCED COAGULATION UNIT
c
p
C\i
CO
Effluent
Influent
-48.0 in.-
SIDE VIEW
MEMBRANE UNIT
p
r^
oo
-36.0 in.-
CIP
Tank
Process
Tank
-48.0 in.
ENHANCED COAGULATION UNIT
Figure 2-2. Spatial requirements for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF unit.
50
-------
Flocculation
Tank
Static Mixer
< Acid
< Coagulant
Raw
Water
Permeate
Waste Sludge
Blower
Figure 2-3. Schematic diagram of the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF membrane process.
Conference Room & Offices
Figure not drawn to scale.
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Aqua 2000 Research Center test site.
51
-------
350
w
S."
S 0>
= E —
ra i «"
jc o o
< =! O
- O) re
w E O
It
300
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
0
Hardness, Alkalinity and Calcium
Hardness
Nov-97
Alkalinity
•4-
Calcium
Jan-98
May-98
Month
Jul-98
Sep-9
Nov-98
700
500 •
_J
|* 400 •
^ 300 •
200 •
100 •
0 •
Nov-97
1 1
Jan-98
Total Dissolved Solids
' "^^ ^ ^ ^
\, ^ ' ^^
Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98
Month
8.50
8.45 -
8.40
8.35 -
8.30 -
8.25 -
8.20 -
8.15
Nov-97
PH
Jan-98
Mar-98
May-98
Month
Jul-9
Sep-98 Nov-9
Figure 3-2. Lake Skinner raw water quality.
52
-------
O
Sf
s.
01
Q.
Ol
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50 -
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Nov-97
30
25 -
20 •
15
10
5 -
0
Nov-97
Turbidity
Mar-98 May-98
Month
Jul-9
Sep-9
Nov-98
Temperature
Mar-98
May-98
Month
Jul-9
Sep-9
Nov-98
B)
g
TOC
3.00 •
2 50 •
2.00 -
1.50 -
1.00 •
0.50 -
• -• * — • • • H^_^
* 1 « I "*
Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98
Month
Figure 3-3. Lake Skinner raw water quality.
53
-------
Particles / mL
— B— Filtrate — 1 — Raw
-innnn
1000 -
100 -
10 -
-1
^ — n n — D D — D D D — D D * * * * * /v » * * *
2-3 um Particles
11/19/9912:57 11/19/9913:26
Time
Particles / mL
— B— Filtrate — 1 — Raw
-I nnnn
1000 -
100 -
10 -
1 .
3-5 um Particles
11/19/9912:57 11/19/9913:26
Time
_i
in
0)
o
t
ns
Q_
— B— Filtrate — I — Raw
IUUUU
1000 -
100 -
10 -
1 .
5-15 um Particles
11/19/9912:57 11/19/9913:26
Time
Particles / mL
— B— Filtrate — I — Raw
1UUUU
1000 -
100 -
10 -
1
>15 um Particles
J30DC1J3J3Q J JLDID
11/19/9912:57 11/19/9913:26
Time
Figure 3-4. Response of online particle counters to Duke Monosphere Solution.
54
-------
Task 2: Cleaning Efficiency
Task 3: Finished Water Quality
Task4: Reporting of Membrane
Pore Size
Task 5: Membrane Integrity
Task 6: Data Management
Task 7: QA/QC
Task 8: Microbial Remov
Task 9: U Itraf i Itration Enhanced
Coagulation
California DHS Certification Tests
Figure 3-5. Membrane verification testing schedule.
55
-------
• Before Backpulse
-After Backpulse
-Temperature
a.
oT
3
to
to
0)
Q.
E
3
3
U
5
Q.
oT
3
to
to
0)
Q.
I
3
15
14-
13
12
11 -
10 -
9-
8
7
6-
5
4
3
2
1 -
0
03/20/99
0 hrs
15
14
13
12 -
11
10-
9
8
7-
6
5
4 -
3
2 -
1
0
09/20/99
0 hrs
Chemical
cleaning
03/27/99
168 hrs
04/03/99
336 hrs
04/10/99
504 hrs
04/17/99
672 hrs
Time
A - Test Period 1.
• Before Backpulse
•After Backpulse
-Temperature
Chemical Cleanings
30
v 25
-• 20
-• 15
-- 10 *•
09/27/99
168 hrs
10/04/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
504 hrs
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/01/99
1008 hrs
o
HI
Q.
HI
-. -5
-• -10
-• -15
-20
40
-• 35
-• 30
-• 25
-• 20
O
-• 15 °
0)
-'. -5
-• -10
-: -15
-20
B - Test Period 2.
Figure 4-1. Transmembrane pressure and temperature profiles for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation
ZeeWeed® UF membrane system.
56
-------
•Flux@20C-
-Specific Flux@20C before backpulse
-Specific Flux@20C after backpulse
60
50
40
u>
6
30
20
10
Chemical
cleaning
20
••15 .-
o
CM
10 ©
HI
Q.
•• 5
03/20/99
0 hrs
03/27/99
168 hrs
04/03/99
336 hrs
Time
04/10/99
504 hrs
04/17/99
672 hrs
A - Test Period 1.
•Flux@20C-
-Specific Flux@20C before backpulse —A—Specific Flux@20C after backpulse
60
50
40
u>
6
20
10
Chemical Cleanings
20
-•15 -
•• 10
HI
Q.
-• 5
09/20/99
0 hrs
09/27/99
168 hrs
10/04/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
504 hrs
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/01/99
1008 hrs
B - Test Period 2.
Figure 4-2. Operational flux and specific membrane flux profiles for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation
ZeeWeed® UF membrane system.
57
-------
S
5
o
x
3
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Start of ETV Test Period 1
y=13.25x + 6.15
456
Vacuum (psi)
10
A - Clean membrane: start of Test Period 1.
70
60
50
S
•2 40
30
20
10
After Chemical 2
Citric Acid
y=10.97x + 5.39
After Chemical 1
NaOCI
y=7.07x + 12.04
Before Cleaning
y = 5.11x+2.41
456
Vacuum (psi)
10
B - Test Period 1: cleaning 1-1 (4/16/99).
Figure 4-3. Clean water flux profile during membrane chemical cleanings - Test Period 1.
58
-------
70
60
50
2
•2 40
o
30
20
10
After Chemical 2
Citric Acid
y = 10.16x +5.37
After Chemical 1
NaOCI
y = 9.49x + 5.94
Before Cleaning
y = 6.79x + 3.89
234567
Vacuum (psi)
A - Clean membrane: start of Test Period 2.
10
70
60
50
2
•2 40
O
x 30
3
20
10
After Chemical 2
Citric Acid
y=11.1x + 2.19
After Chemical 1
NaOCI
y= 10.1x+ 3.82
Before Cleaning
y = 4.00x + 2.57
456
Vacuum (psi)
10
B - Test Period 2: cleaning 2-1 (10/05/99).
Figure 4-4. Clean water flux profile during membrane chemical cleanings - Test Period 2.
59
-------
70
60
50
S
•2 40
o
30
20
10
After Chemical 2
Citric Acid
y = 11.2x +
2.81
0 I
0123
After Chemical 1
NaOCI
y = 8.64x + 3.92
Before Cleaning
y = 3.44x + 2.82
456789
Vacuum (psi)
10
C - Test Period 2: Cleaning 2-2 (10/19/99)
70
60
50
S
•2 40
O
30
20
10
After Chemical 2
Citric Acid
y = 11.8x + 2.90
After Chemical 1
NaOCI
y = 9.04x + 4.92
Before Cleaning
y = 4.96x - 0.53
0 1
3456789 10
Vacuum (psi)
Figure 4-4. Continued
D - Test Period 2: Cleaning 2-3 (11/01/99)
60
-------
1000 5
100
10
£ 1
0.1
0.01
0.001
RawOnlineTurbidity Zenon Permeate Online Turbidity I Raw Desktop Turbidity
A Pretreated Desktop Turbidity X Permeate Desktop Turbidity D Bleed Waste Desktop Turbidity
a
A A
XXX XXX XSXi >
nTr/rmr
XXX X X
Note: Online values averaged over 4 hour period
3/22/99
0 hrs
3/29/99
168 hrs
4/5/99
336 hrs
Time
4/12/99
504 hrs
4/19/99
672 hrs
Figure 4-5. Turbidity profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation Zee Weed* UF membrane
system permeate - Test Period 1.
Raw Online Turbidity
Pretreated Desktop Turbidity
X Permeate Desktop Turbidity
O Raw Desktop Turbidity
D Bleed Waste Desktop Turbidity
1000
100
i- 1
0.1
&
-D
P~
n
-X-X X X X X X
-X X X X X X X XX XXX XX
Note: Online values averaged over 4 hour period
-+-
-+-
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99 1 0/4/99
168 hrs 336 hrs
10/11/99 10/18/99 10/25/99 11/1/99
504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs
Time
Figure 4-6. Turbidity profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation Zee Weed* UF membrane
system permeate - Test Period 2.
61
-------
^ 10000
a 1000
+•• 1 nn
o 10
0 1
0 '
o n 1
m n m
Q_
0 001
— n — Raw Water Particles — O— Zenon Permeate Particles
2-3 um Particles
\ 1 II llA A ,1
Q»Zj& ^^HZ^^SM^IU^ Wfi/^Ql I A"XH *•»
^jfcpY? $|P^n^ffi|5S_???_SllK Hri|Mlu^^_ ^^huftffti HI iH.Jf*PH 15 um Particles
^P^" lB
-------
E
a
o
o
o
r
s.
100000
10000
1000
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
• Raw Water Part\c\es
-Zenon Permeate Part\c\es
9/20/99
0 hrs
2-3 um Particles
9/27/99
168 hrs
10/4/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
100000
3 10000
| 1000
~ 100
3
o
o
o
r
re
Q.
0.001
9/20/99
0 hrs
• Raw Water Particles
Zenon Permeate Particles
9/27/99
168 hrs
10/4/99
336 hrs
1 0/11 /99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
1 0/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
100000
IT 10000
E
5
c
3
O
O
.2!
o
r
1000 JHHlPlIIIIiail!^^
100
0.001
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99
168 hrs
10/4/99
336 hrs
1 0/11 /99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99
168 hrs
10/4/99
336 hrs
1 0/11 /99
Time
Note: Online values averaged over 4-hour period
Gaps in data due to chemical cleaning shutdown periods
10/18/99
672 hrs
1 0/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
Figure 4-8. Particle counts profile for raw water and ZENON Enhanced Coagulation permeate - Test
Period 2.
63
-------
ra
o
01
d
?
v
o
r
ra
a.
D-n-a .n-rL
3/20/99
0 hrs
3/27/99
168 hrs
n-n-a
4/3/99
336 hrs
Time
4/10/99
504 hrs
2-3 um Particles
4/17/99
672 hrs
4/24/99
840 hrs
ra
o
01
d
O)
o
^t
o
r
ra
a.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3/20/99
0 hrs
3/27/99
168 hrs
4/3/99
336 hrs
Time
4/10/99
504 hrs
3-5 um Particles
4/17/99
672 hrs
4/24/99
840 hrs
ra
o
ai
d
O)
o
.2
o
r
ra
a.
c; .
2_
5-15 um Particles
P-o-o^-o^ Q P-ttU^^a-a^a-tt
o
3/20/99 3/27/99 4/3/99 4/10/99 4/17/99 4/24/99
0 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs Time 504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs
ra
g
01
d
O)
o
4>
O
r
ra
a.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3/20/99
0 hrs
a^Q-n-TK^
3/27/99
168 hrs
4/3/99
336 hrs
Time
4/10/99
504 hrs
> 15 um Particles
4/17/99
672 hrs
4/24/99
840 hrs
Note: Online values averaged over 1-day period.
Figure 4-9. Particle removal for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation membrane permeate - Test Period 1.
64
-------
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99
168hrs
1 0/4/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
ra
o
01
£
O)
o
r
ra
a.
c .
Q .
3-5 um Particles
\ JD-DO-a-O-n m-, n-DOOcfD-q P4"^ ^u
^ r/ b V: ^ *
9/20/99 9/27/99 10/4/99 10/11/99 10/18/99 10/25/99 11/1/99
0 hrs 168 hrs 336 hrs Time 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs
ra
o
01
m
O)
o
o 2
1 1
Q.
0
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99
168 hrs
5-15 um Particles
\
10/4/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
ra
o
01
m
O)
o
^;
o
r
ra
a.
9/20/99
0 hrs
9/27/99
168 hrs
> 15 um Particles
1 0/4/99
336 hrs
10/11/99
Time
10/18/99
672 hrs
Note: Online values averaged over 1-day period
Gaps in data due to cleaning shutdown periods
^
10/25/99
840 hrs
11/1/99
1008 hrs
Figure 4-10. Particle removal for ZENON Enhanced Coagulation membrane permeate - Test Period 2.
65
-------
Filtrate Turbidity
+J
^
3
^
+j
U.
"o
'•E
ra
Q.
in
fO
1
o
i
0)
o
|o
ra
Q.
E
3
m
in
1
o
i
0)
o
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
.C
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
.C
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
1 .1 1 ^TIO 20 30 50 70 80 90 95
Percent Less Than
Removal
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
99 99.9 99.99
of 3-5um Particles
I I
.^/Oi-O— 0 0
ri ri ri • ^r<*
-------
•New Membrane
1.2
•End of Test Period
0.8
o
S: 0.6
Q.
0.4
0.2
Po = 4 psi
Test Period 1
01234
567
Time, minutes
9 10 11 12
1.2
•Start of Test Period A During Test Period —0—End of Test Period
o
S: 0.6
Q_
0.4
0.2
P0 = 4 psi
01234567
Time, minutes
9 10 11 12
Figure 4-12. Air pressure hold test results for the ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF
membrane system.
67
-------
Seeding 1
Seeding date: 9/22/99
Specific flux at 20°C = 13 gfd/psi (259 L/hr-m2-bar)
Time from system startup = 3 hr
Seeding 1
Seeding 2
Seeding date: 10/20/99
Specific flux at 20°C = 13.7 gfd/psi (271 L/hr-m2-bar)
Time from system startup = < 1 hr
Seeding 2
Figure 4-13. Log removal of seeded MS2 virus by ZENON Enhanced Coagulation ZeeWeed* UF
membrane system.
68
------- |