June 2003
NSF 03/07/EPADWCTR
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Physical Removal of Microbiological &
Participate Contaminants in Drinking
Water
US Filter 3M10C Microfiltration
Membrane System
Chula Vista, California
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
V>EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
AM /\
v
V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: MEMBRANE FILTRATION USED IN DRINKING WATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS
APPLICATION: PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF MICROBIOLOGICAL &
PARTICULATE CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER
TECHNOLOGY NAME: US FILTER 3M10C MICROFILTRATION MEMBRANE
SYSTEM
TEST LOCATION: CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
COMPANY: US FILTER
ADDRESS: 600 ARRASMITH TRAIL PHONE: (515)232-4121
AMES, IOWA 50010 FAX: (515) 232-2571
WEB SITE: http://www.USFilter.com
EMAIL: GallagherP@usfilter.com
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports 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, stakeholder groups
(consisting 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 Drinking Water Systems (DWS)
Center, one of seven ETV Centers. The DWS Center recently evaluated the performance of a membrane
system used in drinking water treatment system applications. This verification statement provides a
summary of the test results for the US Filter 3M10C Microfiltration (MF) Membrane System. MWH, an
NSF-qualified field testing organization (FTO), performed the verification testing. NSF provided
technical and quality assurance oversight of the verification testing described in this ETV report,
including an audit of nearly 100% of the data.
03/07/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement June 2003
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
Verification testing of the US Filter 3M10C membrane system was conducted over a 44-day test period at
the Aqua 2000 Research Center in Chula Vista, California. The test period extended from July 24, 2002
to September 5, 2002. The source water was a blend of Colorado River and State Project Water.
Verification testing was conducted at manufacturer-specified operating conditions. The membrane unit
was operated in dead-end mode at a constant flux of 24 gfd (41 L/hr-m2) with feedwater recovery of 91
percent. The membrane showed some fouling at the end of the test period. The manufacturer-
recommended cleaning procedure was effective in recovering membrane productivity. Additional data
was added to this report from previous California Department of Health Services (CDHS) testing
(conducted independently from ETV testing) on the system to supplement particle removal data. Raw
water particle counts differed between the ETV testing period and the CDHS testing period; the average
for the 3-5 micron size range during the ETV testing was 1,100 particles/mL and the average for the 2-5
micron size range during the CDHS testing was 2,000 particles/mL. The average raw water count for the
5-15 micron size range for the ETV testing was 950 particles/mL whereas during the CDHS testing it was
810 particles/mL. During the ETV testing, the membrane system achieved particle removals in the range
2.3 log to 3.5 log with an average of 3.1 log for the 3-5 micron size range, and particle removal in the
range 2.7 log to 3.6 log with an average of 3.1 log for the 5-15 micron size range. For the CDHS testing,
particle removals observed were in the range 2.6 log to 4.7 log with an average of 3.8 log for the 2-5
micron size range and particle removal in the range 2.6 log to 4.3 log with an average of 3.9 log for the 5-
15 micron size range.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The equipment tested in this ETV is the US Filter 3M10C Microfiltration Membrane System. The
3M10C package plant contains 3 pressure vessels with one membrane module per pressure vessel. Each
stainless steel pressure vessel is 4.5 inches (llcm) in diameter and approximately 55 inches (140 cm)
long. The top and bottom of the pressure vessels are attached to headers that distribute feed water to the
pressure vessels and collect permeate. The skid-mounted unit includes all major equipment elements and
controls with the exception of an air compressor that was used to operate pneumatic valves and supply the
pressurized air used during backwash. The footprint of the unit is approximately 57 inches (145 cm) long
by 39 inches (99 cm) wide. The height of the unit, including the 5 inch (13 cm) base is approximately 87
inches (221 cm). The unit is skid mounted and can be moved with a forklift and transported by truck.
The US Filter 3M10C unit has an Allen Bradley programmable logic controller (PLC). The PLC controls
the opening and closing of pneumatic valves and the operation of pumps required for filtration and
backwash. The backwash frequency and the length of time the system spends in each backwash phase are
set by entering values into the appropriate screen on the PLC. A constant filtrate flow during filtration
cannot be maintained by the PLC so the flow had to be manually adjusted by manipulating the filtrate
valve. The 3M10C MF unit has digital flow, pressure and temperature measurement, and a data logger to
acquire operating information digitally.
The US Filter 3M10C unit has two alternating operating modes known as filtration and backwash. When
in the filtration mode, feed water is pumped from the feed tank to both the top and bottom of the modules.
The pressurized feed water is directed around a central permeate tube in the module end-caps to the
outside surface of the hollow fibers. Permeate passes through the pores of the membrane to the inside of
the hollow fibers and is collected from both ends of the module through a central permeate tube in the
module end-caps. The package plant operates in dead-end mode only, with no recirculation flow on the
feed side of the membrane. During backwash, the feed pump shuts down and valves are repositioned. An
air compressor pressurizes both the feed and permeate side of the membrane to approximately 90 psi.
The pressure is then released from the feed side of the membrane, dislodging the cake layer from the
03/07/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement June 2003
VS-ii
-------
membrane surface. Feed water is then pumped from the bottom of the module to flush the dislodged
debris. This is followed by a final rewetting phase where both sides of the membrane are again
pressurized to approximately 90 psi to force water into the membrane pores before resuming the next
filtration cycle. The backwash phase lasts approximately two minutes. The long-term operation of the
US Filter MF unit frequently results in the accumulation of materials on the membrane surface, which are
not effectively removed by backwash. This is called membrane fouling and is observed as a gradual
increase in the pressure required to force water through the membrane pores. Once a critical upper
pressure has been reached, normal operation is discontinued and the membrane undergoes chemical
cleaning. Chemical cleaning typically involves the use of acid solutions to restore efficient operation of
the membrane.
The pressure vessel of the US Filter 3M10C unit contains three model M10C polypropylene membrane
modules. The manufacturer estimates that these 4.7 inch (12 cm) diameter by 45.5 inch (1.157 m) length
modules each contain approximately 20,000 fibers. The 3M10C module is a hollow fiber configuration,
manufactured from polypropylene, with a nominal pore size of 0.20 microns. At this pore size, the
membrane is expected to remove particulates, including protozoa and bacteria.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The verification test site was the City of San Diego's Aqua 2000 Research Center at 1500 Wueste Road in
Chula Vista, 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
the San Diego Aqueduct pipeline. This 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 daily at the test site according to
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Ed. (APHA, et. al., 1998).
Standard Methods, 20th Ed. (APHA, 1998) and Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(EPA, 1979) were used for analyses conducted at The City of San Diego Laboratory. These included
alkalinity, total and calcium hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS), total
organic carbon (TOC), ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nanometers (UV254), total coliform, and
heterotrophic plate count (HPC). Total and calcium hardness analyses were conducted every other week.
All other analyses were conducted weekly. 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
um, 3-5 um, 5-7 um, 7-10 um, 10-15 um and > 15 um. Data from the online particle counters and
turbidimeters were stored at one-minute intervals on a computer.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
Verification testing was conducted at the manufacturer-specified operating conditions. The membrane
unit was operated at a constant flux of 24 gfd (41 L/hr-m2) with feedwater recovery of 91 percent.
Permeate flow rate was set by entering the target flow in a screen on the PLC. Backwash frequency was
every 22 minutes. Backwash volume averaged 41 gallons (155 liters). The system was operated during
the test period with moderate fouling throughout the testing period until it reached the end of the testing
period. The temperature adjusted specific flux decreased from 3 to 1.6 gfd/psi at 20°C (75 to 38 L/hr-m2-
bar at 20°C) over the 44 days of the test period.
03/07/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement June 2003
VS-iii
-------
Membrane cleaning was performed according to the manufacturer-recommended procedure. A citric acid
solution (2 percent) followed by a high pH cleaning solution was prepared in the feed storage tank and
recirculated through the feed side of the membrane. The 2 percent citric acid cleaning solution was
prepared by dissolving 8 pounds (17 kg) of citric acid in the feed tank. The pH of this solution was in the
range 2 to 2.5. The citric acid solution was recirculated through the feed side of the membrane for 120
minutes at a flow of 32 gpm (121 L/min) with a feed pressure of approximately 9 psi. After discarding
the cleaning solution and rinsing the system with feed water, the same cleaning procedure was followed
using a high pH cleaning solution. The high pH cleaning solution was made by adding 1 gallon (3.7
liters) of Memclean EAX2 to the feed tank. The pH of this solution was in the range of 12-13. The
manufacturer-recommended cleaning procedure was effective in recovering specific flux. The recovery
of specific flux for the cleanings at the end of the test period was 100 percent indicating no irreversible
fouling.
No incident of broken fibers occurred during the test period. Air pressure-hold tests were manually
conducted two times during the test period. These tests indicate that the fibers were intact during the
testing period with a pressure loss of less than 1.5 psi per minute. In addition, automatic air pressure hold
tests were performed by the system every 24 hours during the testing. Automatic air pressure-hold tests
were conducted by selecting the integrity test from the appropriate PLC screen. The air pressure-hold test
on the US Filter system was conducted by pressurizing the feed side of the membrane. If any of the
membrane fibers were compromised, one would expect significant loss of held pressure (>1.5 psi every
minute) across the membrane element. The air pressure-hold test results show that there were no
compromises in membrane integrity during the test period. The automated pressure-hold test performed
every 24 hours was set to shut the system down when pressure decays were greater than 1.5 psi/min.
There was no shut down of the system because of unacceptable automated pressure-hold results during
the test period.
Source Water
The source water for the ETV testing consisted of a blend of Colorado River and State Project Water
delivered to the test site via the San Diego Aqueduct. The source water had the following average water
quality during the test period: TDS 521 mg/L, total hardness 253 mg/L, alkalinity 125 mg/L, TOC 2.6
mg/L, pH 8.3, temperature 27 °C and turbidity 0.75 NTU.
Particle Removal
Total suspended solids in the filtrate were removed to below the detection limit for the analysis for all
samples analyzed (<1 mg/L to <10 mg/L). Filtrate turbidity was 0.1 NTU or less 95 percent of the time.
The system achieved particle removals of up to 3.5 logs for Cryptosporidium-sized (3-5 um) particles and
particle removals of up to 3.6 logs for Giardia-sized (5-15 um) particles. The range of log removals was
2.3 log to 3.5 log and the average was 3.1 log for the 3-5 micron particles, while the range was 2.7 log to
3.6 log and the average 3.1 log for the 5-15 micron particles. Four hour average raw water and filtrate
particle levels and daily average particle removal in these size ranges for the test period are presented in
the following table:
03/07/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement June 2003
VS-iv
-------
US Filter 3M10C MF System Particle Counts and Particle Removals for ETV Test Period
3-5 um Particles 5-15 um Particles
Average
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Minimum
Maximum
Raw Water
(#/mL)
1100
450
1000-1200
290
2300
Filtrate
(#/mL)
1.2
1.7
0.98-1.4
0.23
13
Log
Removal
3.1
0.29
3.0-3.2
2.3
3.5
Raw Water
(#/mL)
950
630
870-1000
190
3800
Filtrate
(#/mL)
0.86
0.97
0.73-0.99
0.23
6.1
Log
Removal
3.1
0.27
3.0-3.2
2.7
3.6
ETV-Reviewed Supplemental Particle Count Data
Additional particle removal data has been included in the testing report from previous California
Department of Health Services (CDHS) testing. This particle removal data was collected during CDHS
testing at the A. H. Bridge Plant, in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, owned by Cucamonga County Water
District (CCWD) on two days (5/17/2001 and 5/18/2001) (Adham, 2001). This testing was done to
obtain CDHS approval process for the same US Filter 3M10C system that was tested during this ETV.
Hence, this data is directly applicable even though this data was collected independently from the ETV
testing. The system was operated at a flux of 50 gfd and transmembrane pressures ranging from 20 to 23
psi during the period of CDHS particle data collection. The 3M10C MF system achieved log removals of
2.6 log to 4.7 log with an average of 3.8 log for the 2-5 micron particles and a range of 2.6 log to 4.3 log
and an average of 3.9 log for the 5-15 micron particles during the CDHS testing. Summary statistics for
particles in the raw water, particles in the membrane filtrate and log removal of particles, based on data
collected at the one-minute sampling interval over the 24-hour collection period, are presented in the
following table:
US Filter 3M10C MF System Particle Counts and Particle Removals for CDHS Testing
2-5 um Particles 5-15 um Particles
Raw Water Permeate Log Raw Water Permeate Log
(#/mL) (#/mL) Removal (#/mL) (#/mL) Removal
Average
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Minimum
Maximum
2000
90
2000 - 2000
1700
2200
0.68
0.84
0.64 - 0.72
0.046
1.8
3.8
0.55
3.8-3.8
2.6
4.7
810
56
810-810
650
950
0.19
0.24
0.18-0.20
0.046
1.8
3.9
0.43
3.9-3.9
2.6
4.3
All CDHS testing data was reviewed according to the ETV Drinking Water Systems Quality Management
Plan and ETV Program Policies. Although the calibration of the particle counters and the verification of
calibration for the CDHS testing were outside of the time frame recommended in the ETV Technology-
Specific Test Plan (11 months vs. within two months and five months vs. immediately before testing,
respectively), both the raw and permeate particle counters gave comparable responses to the same
microsphere solution (Figure 3-5); therefore, log removals should be comparable. Also, the particle
counters were made by the same manufacturer and were the same model. The calibration did occur
within the one-year time frame recommended by the particle counter manufacturer.
Microbial Removal
Total Coliforms and HPC were analyzed on a weekly basis during both ETV test periods. Raw water
total coliforms averaged 560 MPN/100 mL during the test periods. Total coliforms were not detected in
03/07/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement June 2003
VS-v
-------
the filtrate. HPC averaged 2000 cfu/mL in the raw water while filtrate levels of HPC averaged 140
cfu/mL.
Operation and Maintenance Results
Operation was initiated by entering target filtrate flow rate, backwash frequency and time of each
backwash phase in the appropriate PLC screen. Backwash flow rate was adjusted manually using a valve.
As the membrane system fouled, the permeate valve was manually readjusted to maintain a constant
permeate flow rate.
No chemicals were consumed during routine operation of the system. During atypical chemical cleaning,
8 pounds (17 kg) of citric acid and 1.0 gallon (3.7 liter) of high pH cleaning solution (Memclean EAX2)
were consumed. The manufacturer supplied an Operations and Maintenance Manual that was helpful in
explaining the setup, operation and maintenance of the ETV test system.
Original Signed by
Hugh W. McKinnon
06/12/03
Original Signed by
Gordon Bellen
06/17/03
Hugh W. McKinnon Date
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Gordon Bellen
Vice President
Federal Programs
NSF International
Date
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 the 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
#03/07/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are
available from NSF upon request.)
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv/dws/dws reports.html (electronic copy)
3. EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
03/07/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement
VS-vi
June 2003
-------
June 2003
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Physical Removal of Microbiological & Particulate Contaminants
in Drinking Water
US Filter 3M10C Microfiltration Membrane System
Chula Vista, California
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by:
Samer Adham, Ph.D.
&
Manish Kumar
MWH
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. R-82833301. This verification effort was supported by Drinking
Water Systems Center 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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Hugh W. McKinnon, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Table of Contents
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abbreviations and Acronyms ix
Acknowledgements x
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 2
1.3.1 Field Testing Organization Responsibilities 2
1.3.2 Manufacturer Responsibilities 2
1.3.3 City of San Diego Responsibilities 2
1.3.4 NSF Responsibilities 3
1.3.5 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 7
Chapters -Materials and Methods 8
3.1 Testing Site Name and Location 8
3.1.1 Site Background Information 8
3.1.2 Test Site Description 8
3.2 Source/Raw Water Quality 9
3.3 Environmental Technology Verification Testing Plan 10
3.3.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery 10
3.3.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency 10
3.3.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality 11
3.3.4 Task 4: Reporting of Membrane Pore Size 12
3.3.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing 12
3.3.6 Task 6: Data Management 12
IV
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
3.3.7 Task 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control 13
3.4 Calculation of Membrane Operating Parameters 16
3.4.1 Permeate Flux 16
3.4.2 Specific Flux 17
3.4.3 Transmembrane Pressure 17
3.4.4 Temperature Adjustment for Flux Calculation 17
3.4.5 Feedwater System Recovery 18
3.4.6 Rejection 18
3.5 Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 18
3.5.1 Precision 18
3.5.2 Relative Percent Deviation 18
3.5.3 Accuracy 19
3.5.4 Statistical Uncertainty 19
3.6 Testing Schedule 19
Chapter 4 - Results and Discussion 20
4.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery 20
4.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency 20
4.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality 21
4.3.1 Turbidity, Particle Concentration and Particle Removal 21
4.3.1.1 ETV-Reviewed Supplemental Particle Counting Data 22
4.3.2 Indigenous Bacteria Removal 22
4.3.3 Other Water Quality Parameters 23
4.4 Task 4: Reporting Membrane Pore Size 23
4.5 Task 5: Membrane Integrity Testing 23
4.6 Task 6: Data Management 24
4.6.1 Data Recording 24
4.6.2 Data Entry, Validation, and Reduction 24
4.7 Task 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 24
4.7.1 Data Correctness 24
4.7.2 Statistical Uncertainty 24
4.7.3 Completeness 25
4.7.4 Accuracy 25
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
4.7.5 Precision and Relative Percent Deviation 25
4.8 Additional ETV Program Requirements 25
4.8.1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual 25
4.8.2 System Efficiency and Chemical Consumption 25
4.8.3 Equipment Deficiencies Experienced During the ETV Program 26
Chapter 5 - References 27
Tables and Figures 29
Appendix A - Additional Documents and Data Analyses
Appendix B - Supporting Data and Information from California Department of Health Services
(CDHS) Testing
Appendix C - Raw Data Sheets
Appendix D - Hardcopy Electronic Data
VI
-------
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Characteristics of the US Filter MF M IOC Microfiltration Membrane 30
Table 3-1. Water Quality Analytical Methods 31
Table 4-1. US Filter MF Membrane System Operating Conditions 31
Table 4-2. Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency for US Filter MF Membrane 32
Table 4-3. Onsite Lab Water Quality Analyses for US Filter MF Membrane System 32
Table 4-4. Summary of Online Particle and Turbidity Data for US Filter MF Membrane
System 33
Table 4-5. Summary of Online Particle Data in Cryptosporidium (2-5um) and Giardia (5-15um)
Size Ranges for US Filter Membrane System During CDHS Testing at Rancho
Cucamonga, California (May 17-18,2001) 33
Table 4-6. Summary of Lab Water Quality Analyses for the US Filter MF Membrane System. .34
Table 4-7. Review of Manufacturer's Operations and Maintenance Manual for the US Filter MF
Membrane System 35
Table 4-8. Efficiency of the US Filter MF Membrane System 37
Table 4-9. Chemical Consumption for the US Filter MF Membrane System 37
Vll
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Organizational Chart Showing Lines of Communication 38
Figure 2-1. Photograph of ETV Test Unit 38
Figure 2-2. Spatial Requirements for the US Filter MF Unit 39
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram of the US Filter 3M10C Membrane Process 40
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Aqua 2000 Research Center Test Site 40
Figure 3-2. Lake Skinner Raw Water Quality 41
Figure 3-3. Lake Skinner Raw Water Quality 42
Figure 3-4. Response of Online Particle Counters to Duke Monosphere Solution 43
Figure 3-5. Response of Online Particle Counters to Duke Monosphere Solution During CDHS
Testing atRancho Cucamonga, California 44
Figure 3-6. Membrane Verification Testing Schedule 45
Figure 4-1. Operational Data for the US Filter MF Membrane System 46
Figure 4-2. Clean Water Flux Profile During Membrane Chemical Cleaning 47
Figure 4-3. Turbidity Profile for Raw Water and US Filter MF Membrane System 48
Figure 4-4. Particle Counts for Raw Water and US Filter Permeate 49
Figure 4-5. Particle Removal for US Filter MF Membrane System 51
Figure 4-6. Probability Plots of Permeate Turbidity and Log Removal of Particles for the US
Filter MF Membrane System 53
Figure 4-7. Particle Counts for Raw Water and US Filter Permeate in Cryptosporidium (2-5um)
and Giardia (5-1 Sum) Size Ranges During CDHS Testing of US Filter Membrane
System (May 17-18, 2001) 54
Figure 4-8. Removal of Cryptosporidium-sized (2-5um) and Giardia-sized (5-1 Sum) Particles by
US Filter MF Membrane System During CDHS Testing at Rancho Cucamonga,
California (May 17-18,2001) 55
Figure 4-9. Probability Plot of Log Removal of Particles in Cryptosporidium (2-5um) and
Giardia (5-1 Sum) Size Ranges for the US Filter MF Membrane System During CDHS
Testing atRancho Cucamonga, California (May 17-18, 2001) 56
Figure 4-10. Air Pressure Hold Test Data 56
Vlll
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
C Celsius degrees
CDHS California Department of Health
Services
cfu Colony forming unit(s)
CIP Clean in place
Cf Feed concentration
Cp Permeate concentration
cm Centimeter
CRW Colorado River water
d Day(s)
DI Deionized
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
DWS Drinking Water
System
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV Environmental Technology
Verification
FOD Field Operations Document
ft2 Square foot (feet)
FTO Field Testing Organization
gfd Gallon(s) per day per square
foot of membrane area
gpd gallon per day
gpm Gallon(s) per minute
HPC Heterotrophic plate count
hr Hour(s)
ICR Information Collection Rule
in Hg Inch(es) of Mercury
JSi Initial specific
transmembrane flux
Jsf Final specific
transmembrane flux
Js Specific flux
Js;o Initial specific
transmembrane flux
at t=0 of membrane
operation
Jt Permeate flux
Jtm Transmembrane flux
kg Kilogram(s)
L Liter(s)
m2 Square meter(s)
m3/d Cubic meter(s) per day
MF Microfiltration
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/L Milligram(s) per liter
min Minute(s)
mL Milliliter(s)
MPN Most probable number
NIST National Institute of Standards and
Technology
NSF NSF International
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 Permeate pressure
Ptm Transmembrane pressure
PC Personal computer
PLC Programmable logic
Controller
ppm Parts per million
psi Pound(s) per square inch
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
Qf Feed flow
Qp Permeate flow
Qr Recycle flow
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
S Membrane surface area
scfm Standard cubic feet per
minute
slpm Standard liter per minute
sec Second(s)
SPW State Proj ect Water
T Temperature
TC Total coliform bacteria
TOC Total organic carbon
TDS Total dissolved solids
TSS Total suspended solids
um Micron(s)
UV254Ultraviolet light absorbance
at 254 nanometer
IX
-------
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the EPA, for sponsoring the ETV program. 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 and Carol Becker.
The time and outstanding efforts provided by the manager of Aqua 2000 Research Center, Bill
Pearce with the City of San Diego is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to
thank Dana Chapin and Susan Brannian from the City of San Diego Water Laboratory for
facilitating the water quality analyses in the study.
The author would also like to acknowledge the manufacturer of the equipment employed during
the ETV program (US Filter, Warrendale, PA) 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 Paul Gallagher and Lisa Thayer from US Filter for their continuous
support.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following co-workers from MWH:
Karl Gramith, Natalie Flores and Rene Lucero.
-------
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; stakeholder
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 entered into an agreement on October 1, 2000 with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to form a Drinking Water Systems Center dedicated to technology
verifications. With assistance through an EPA grant, NSF manages an Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) Center that provides independent performance evaluations of
drinking water technologies. This DWS program evaluated the performance of the US Filter
3M10C microfiltration (MF) system used in package drinking water treatment system
applications.
This report provides the ETV results for the US Filter 3M10C membrane 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 MWH, a
NSF-qualified FTO, which provided the overall management, operations, data management and
report preparation for the ETV. The microfiltration membrane manufacturer for the ETV was
US Filter. The City of San Diego provided the test site and conducted water quality analyses
through their State-certified Water Quality laboratory.
-------
1.3 Definition of Roles and Responsibilities of Project Participants
1.3.1 Field Testing Organization Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the FTO, MWH, 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.
Provide operations staff.
Manage, evaluate, interpret and report on data generated in the ETV.
Evaluate the performance of the microfiltration membrane technology according to the
Product Specific Test Plan (PSTP) and the testing, operations, quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC), data management and safety protocols contained therein.
Provide all quality control (QC) information.
Provide all data generated during the ETV in hard copy and electronic form in a common
spreadsheet or database format.
Prepare the ETV report.
1.3.2 Manufacturer Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the microfiltration membrane manufacturer, US Filter, 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 funding for the project.
Attend project meetings as necessary.
1.3.3 City of San Diego Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of the City staff were to:
Provide set-up according to the PSTP 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.
Provide all off-site water quality analyses prescribed in the PSTP according to the QA/QC
protocols contained therein.
Provide laboratory reports with the analytical results to the data manager.
Provide detailed information on the analytical procedures implemented.
-------
1.3.4 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 PSTPs.
Conduct inspections and make recommendations based on inspections.
Conduct financial administration of the project.
Review all project reports and deliverables.
1.3.5 EPA Responsibilities
The specific responsibilities of EPA were to:
Initiate the ETV program.
Review final reports.
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description and Operating Processes
The equipment tested in this ETV is the US Filter 3M10C Package Microfiltration Membrane
System. With a nominal pore size of 0.2 micron, the 3M10C membranes are designed to remove
particulate material, including protozoa and bacteria. The 3M10C package plant contains 3
pressure vessels with one membrane module per pressure vessel. Each stainless steel pressure
vessel is 4.5 inches (11cm) in diameter and approximately 55 inches (140 cm) long. The top and
bottom of the pressure vessels are attached to headers that distribute feed water to the pressure
vessels and collect permeate.
A photograph of the US Filter pressure-driven package plant is shown in Figure 2-1. The
photograph shows the wiring cabinet and control panel (upper left), feed pump (lower left), feed
water storage tank and three stainless steel pressure vessels with upper and lower headers. The
skid mounted unit includes all major equipment elements and controls with the exception of an
air compressor that was used to operate pneumatic valves and supply the pressurized air used
during backwash. The spatial requirements and locations of major system components and
instruments on the US Filter MF unit are shown in Figure 2-2. The footprint of the unit is
approximately 57 inches (145 cm) long by 39 inches (99 cm) wide. The height of the unit,
including the 5 inch (13 cm) base is approximately 87 inches (221 cm). The unit is skid mounted
and can be moved with a forklift and transported by truck.
The test unit has two phases of operation: filtration and backwash. In the filtration phase, feed
water is pumped from the feed tank to both the top and bottom of the modules. The pressurized
feed water is directed around a central permeate tube in the module end-caps to the outside
surface of the hollow fibers. Permeate passes through the pores of the membrane to the inside of
the hollow fibers and is collected from both ends of the module through a central permeate tube
in the module end-caps. The package plant operates in dead-end mode only, with no
recirculation flow on the feed side of the membrane. During backwash, the feed pump shuts
down and valves are repositioned. An air compressor pressurizes both the feed and permeate
side of the membrane to approximately 90 psi. The pressure is then released from the feed side
of the membrane, dislodging the cake layer from the membrane surface. Feed water is then
pumped from the bottom of the module to flush the dislodged debris. This is followed by a final
rewetting phase where both sides of the membrane are again pressurized to approximately 90 psi
to force water into the membrane pores before resuming the next filtration cycle. The backwash
phase lasts approximately two minutes.
The long-term operation of the US Filter MF unit frequently results in the accumulation of
materials on the membrane surface, which are not effectively removed by backwash. This is
called membrane fouling and is observed as a gradual increase in the pressure required to force
water through the membrane pores. Once a critical upper pressure has been reached, normal
operation is discontinued and the membrane undergoes chemical cleaning. Chemical cleaning
typically involves the use of acid solutions to restore efficient operation of the membrane.
The US Filter MF unit uses three model M10C polypropylene membrane modules. Table 2-1
provides the specification of membranes used in the US Filter MF membrane system. The
-------
information in Table 2-1 is taken from a letter supplied by the system manufacturer, US Filter
(see Appendix A). The M10C module is a hollow-fiber, outside-in configuration membrane with
nominal pore size of 0.2 micron. At this pore size, the membrane is expected to remove
particulate material, including protozoa and bacteria.
2.1 Description of the Treatment Train and Unit Processes
Figure 2-3 presents a schematic diagram of the US Filter MF system. The test system has two
alternating operation modes: filtration and backwash.
The operation of the MF membrane system is summarized in the following steps:
1. During the filtration phase of operation, the feed pump draws water from the feed tank and
directs it to the upper and lower header assemblies. The feed tank is filled from a pressurized
influent pipe through an automatically controlled level switch. The feed pump provides the
pressure needed to filter the water through the membranes. The pump operates at a constant
rotational speed, drawing feed water from the bottom of the feed tank and directing it to the
upper and lower membrane header assemblies and through these assemblies to the outside
surface of the membrane fibers. The transmembrane pressure, and thus the flow rate through
the membranes, is varied by manually adjusting a valve on the permeate side of the system.
2. The pressure forces water through the pores of the membrane to the inside of the fibers. The
permeate water flows both up and down the inside of the fibers to an isolated portion of the
upper and lower membrane headers where it is collected and routed to the permeate piping.
The length of the filtration phase of operation is primarily dependent on the source water
quality and permeate flow rate. After completion of the filtration phase, the system suspends
normal operation and begins the backwash phase.
3. Backwash is initiated automatically based on a timer. The objective of the backwash is to
remove solids and organics that have accumulated on the feed side (outside) of the membrane
surface during filtration. A PLC automatically operates the pumps and valves required to
accomplish the backwash.
There are six distinct portions of the backwash. They are:
drain membrane lumens,
feed side fast flush with air and feed water to feed side,
pressurize feed and permeate side to 90 psi,
air backwash (release pressure on feed side)
feed side flush with feed water (sweep)
rewet membrane by pressuring both sides to 90 psi.
4. Backwash wastewater was directed to drain during ETV testing. At the completion of
backwash, the PLC readjusts the appropriate valves and restarts the system in filtration mode.
After extended periods of operation, typically on the order of weeks to months, the pressure
required to force water through the membrane pores increases because some of the materials that
accumulate on the membrane surface and within the pores are not effectively removed by
backwash. This process is called membrane fouling. Once the system reaches a critical
-------
pressure, the system is shut down and a chemical cleaning is performed to restore membrane
efficiency. The US Filter ETV test system was considered fouled when the transmembrane
pressure reached 29 psi (2.0 bar) at the operating flow rate. Cleaning the US Filter unit is
accomplished by the recirculation of a citric acid solution with pH between 2.0 and 2.5 for
approximately 120 minutes. When in cleaning mode, the system automatically shuts off the flow
of feed water to the feed tank. The cleaning solution is prepared in the feed tank using either
clean water supplied from outside the system (tap water or low TDS water) or cleaning water
prepared by the system by recirculating filtered feed water to the feed tank for 10 minutes. The
operator adds chemicals to the feed tank and recirculation of the cleaning solution begins (the
feed water is shut off at this time). The cleaning solution can optionally be heated to 32 °C to
assist cleaning. Once the recirculation phase of cleaning has completed, the unit stops. At this
point, the operator can request an extended soak period or direct cleaning chemicals to waste
(with neutralization, if required). After completing chemical cleaning, the system automatically
performs a number of backwashes to rinse the membrane. The system then shuts down and must
be restarted manually before returning to regular filtration and backwash cycles.
The system also includes the following minor operating modes as described below:
1. Re wet. A rewet step can be performed manually from the control panel when the
system is shut down. This would typically be performed if there were a concern that
the membrane pores are not properly wetted.
2. Drain down. A drain down step can be performed manually from the control panel to
remove water from the feed and permeate side of the membrane. In addition, the feed
tank is drained to the low level switch.
3. Sonic test. A sonic test can be performed manually from the control panel to check
for air leaks through compromised fibers. During this test, water is drained from the
fiber lumens and the permeate side is pressurized to approximately 15 psi (1.0 bar)
with compressed air. The operator listens for leaks through the stainless steel
pressure vessel wall.
4. Sonic reset. This option is selected from the control panel after the completion of a
sonic test to return the system to normal operation.
5. Pressure decay. Pressure decay tests can be operated manually from the control panel
and automatically based on a timer. The system can be set to give a warning alarm at
a pressure decay greater than 1.5 psi/min (0.10 bar/min) and shut down the system on
a pressure decay test greater than 2.0 psi/min (0.14 bar/min). The initial pressure
must be between 10 psi (0.69 bar) and 17 psi (1.2 bar). The pressure decay test, like
the sonic test, is performed to check the integrity of the membrane fibers. During the
test, the membrane lumens are drained and pressurized to approximately 15 psi (1.0
bar). The system is allowed to stabilize for two minutes and the pressure decay is
recorded over the next two minutes. The pressure decay per minute is reported on the
PLC screen. A pressure decay of less than 1.5 psi/min is considered acceptable and
indicates the membrane integrity is not compromised.
Filtration, in the US Filter MF unit, is accomplished with three US Filter Model M10C MF
membrane modules. Each module is cylindrical in shape with a diameter of 4.7 inches (12 cm)
and a length of 46 inches (117 cm) and the manufacturer estimates that each module contains
-------
approximately 20,000 hollow fibers that are potted at both the top and bottom of the module.
The length of each hollow fiber is 38.1 inches (97 cm) and each fiber has an inside diameter of
approximately 0.25 mm and an outside diameter of approximately 0.55 mm. The flow direction
is from the outside of the fibers to the inside of the fibers, thus the active surface area of each
o o
module is approximately 361 ft (33.5 m ). The membranes have a nominal pore size of 0.2
micron and are made of polypropylene, which is hydrophobic. The maximum transmembrane
pressure is 29 psi (2.0 bar). The membranes can be operated over a wide range of pH, and at
temperatures up to approximately 38°C. The polypropylene membrane material is not chlorine
tolerant.
2.2 Description of Physical Construction/Components of the Equipment
The US Filter MF unit is skid-mounted with a footprint of approximately 57 inches (145 cm)
long by 39 inches (99 cm) wide. The height of the unit, including the 5 inch (13 cm) base is
approximately 87 inches (221 cm). The unit is skid mounted and can be moved with a forklift
and transported by truck. The US Filter MF unit is self-contained, requiring only connections to
feedwater, backwash tank, drain and electrical. The electrical requirements of the system are
230 or 480 volt three-phase, 60 Hz power.
The major components of the US Filter ETV test unit included:
Three 361 ft2 (33.5 m2) US Filter M10C polypropylene MF modules 4.7 inches (12cm)
diameter by 45.5 inch (116 cm) length, housed in stainless steel pressure vessels
PLC-based control system with data storage
Feed pump
Manually operated permeate flow control valve
Feed storage/cleaning tank
Air compressor
Pneumatic valves
Rotary electronic feed and permeate flow meters
Analog feed and permeate pressure gauges
Electronic feed and permeate pressure sensors
Digital feed thermometer.
-------
Chapter 3
Materials and Methods
3.1 Testing Site Name and Location
The test site selected for the ETV program was the City of San Diego's Aqua 2000 Research
Center at 1500 Wueste Road in Chula Vista, California.
Additional particle removal data has been included in the testing report from previous California
Department of Health Services (CDHS) testing. This particle removal data was collected during
CDHS testing at the A. H. Bridge Plant, in Rancho Cucamonga, CA, owned by Cucamonga
County Water District, during two days between 5/17/2001 and 5/18/2001 (Adham, 2001). The
testing was done as a part of the CDHS approval process for operating the US Filter 3M10C
system at full-scale water treatment facilities in the State of California. The 3M10C package
plant that was tested during CDHS testing is the same model tested during this ETV. The CDHS
testing was conducted independently of the ETV testing, although the same FTO collected the
data for the CDHS testing and the ETV testing and the data were reviewed by the ETV DWS
Center in accordance with the ETV QMP and ETV Program Policies.
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 repurifi cation project of the City of San Diego. The Center has dedicated full
time operators with substantial experience in operating membrane systems. The site has access
to both Otay Lake raw water and the San Diego County Water Authority's Aqueduct System raw
water. 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 US Filter MF unit.
Below is a list of the facilities and equipment that were available at the test site.
Structural
5,000 square foot asphalt pad.
Shading to protect from sunlight.
Potable water connections.
San Diego County Water Authority's Aqueduct System connections.
Drainage sump connected to the full-scale plant washwater basin.
Chemical containment area.
Full electrical supply.
Chemical safety shower and eyewash.
An operations trailer with office space, laboratory space for onsite water quality analyses and
computers.
-------
On-Site Laboratory
DR 4000 Spectrophotometer by Hach
Ratio/non-ratio 21OON Turbidimeter by Hach
pH/Temperature meter by Accumet Research (AR-15)
Portable conductivity meter by Fisher (No. 09-327-1)
Asphalt Test Pad
Raw water and cleaning chemical waste storage tanks.
Chemical feed systems.
Two 1720D on-line Hach turbidimeters
Two 1900WPC on-line Hach particle counters
Raw Water Intake
The raw water was delivered to the test site from the San Diego County Water Authority
aqueduct pipeline.
Handling of Treated Water and Residuals
The Aqua 2000 Research Center has a drainage system that connects to the Otay Filtration Plants
washwater basin, which is ultimately returned to Otay Lake. Treated water and backwash water
used during testing were directed to the washwater basin. Cleaning chemical wastes were stored
in a separate waste storage tank and trucked off site for proper disposal.
3.2 Source/Raw Water Quality
The source of feedwater for the ETV testing is San Diego Aqueduct Water. The aqueduct is
supplied primarily from Lake Skinner that 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 Figure 3-2. Hardness ranged from 200 to 298 mg/L as
CaCOs, alkalinity ranged from 108 to 130 mg/L as CaCCb and calcium ranged from 47 to 75
mg/L as Ca (118 to 188 mg/L as CaCOs). 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 TOC for Lake Skinner water. Turbidity was
relatively low with a range of 1.10 to 3.50 nephelometric turbidity units (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 (excluding
holidays) 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 7: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
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 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 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 a single test period of
more than 30 days. Substantial specific flux decline did not occur before the end of the test
period. Chemical cleaning was performed at the end of the testing period. Measurement of the
membrane system flows, 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.
10
-------
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 pressure operational limit of the membrane (TMP > 29
psi), or, 2) completing the 30-day test period. The membrane was chemically cleaned when
either of these termination criteria was 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 using a citric acid
cleaning solution.
The first cleaning step uses a two percent citric acid solution in raw water, with pH in the range
2.0 to 2.5. This is followed by a high pH cleaning step using caustic solution in feedwater, with
pH in the range 12 to 13. On the recommendation of US Filter, a proprietary high pH cleaning
agent, Memclean EAX2, manufactured by US Filter, was used instead of caustic.
To determine cleaning efficiency, flux-pressure profiles were developed at each stage of the
chemical cleaning procedure (i.e., before cleaning and after chemical solution). The slope of the
flux-pressure 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 (Is;)
measured for the subsequent filtration run:
Recovery of Specific Flux = 100 x [1 - (Jsf-=- Js;)]
where: Jsf = specific flux (gallon/ft2/day (gfd)/psi, L/(hr-m2^ar) at end of current run
(final)
Js; = specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(hr-m )/bar) 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)]
r\
where: Js;0 = specific flux (gfd/psi, L/(hr-m )/bar) 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 ETV test system.
Many of the water quality parameters described in this task were measured on-site. Analyses of
the remaining water quality parameters were performed by the City of San Diego Laboratory, a
State-certified analytical laboratory.
11
-------
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 quality and
operational conditions.
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.
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 MF system
during this study are described below:
Air Pressure-Hold Test
The air pressure-hold test, also called the pressure-decay 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 after
which the pressure is held and the decay rate is monitored over time. Minimal loss of the held
pressure (less than 1.5 psi per minute) at the permeate 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 microns (um), 3- 5 um, 5-7 um, 7-10 um, 10-
15 um and >15 um was 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.
12
-------
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
online particle and turbidity were then downloaded for importing 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 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 printout 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 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 pressures were documented and recorded on a routine basis. A routine
daily walk-through during testing was performed each morning to verify that each piece of
equipment or instrumentation was operating properly. On-line monitoring equipment, such as
flow meters, were checked to confirm that the read-out matches the actual measurement and that
the signal being recorded was 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 3A certified pressure or vacuum gauges purchased at the start of ETV 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). The US Filter system feed and permeate pressure
gauges were consistently accurate to within five percent or less.
13
-------
System Flow Rates
Membrane system flow rates were verified volumetrically on a monthly basis near the beginning
and end of the test period. System flows were diverted to a 55 gallon graduated tank for
approximately two minutes. The measured flow rate was compared with flows indicated on the
PLC LCD screen. Measured and indicated flows agreed to within three percent for the permeate
rotary flow meter.
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 raw water inline thermometer was verified against a National Institute for
Standards and Technology (NIST)-certified thermometer on July 24, 2002 and September 5,
2002. Comparisons were made at three temperatures covering the range of anticipated raw water
temperatures. In all cases, the raw water thermometer compared to within + 0.2°C of the NIST-
certified thermometer.
Turbidity
On-line turbidimeters were used for measurement of turbidity in the raw and permeate waters,
and a bench-top turbidimeter was used for measurement of the feedwater and backwash
wastewater.
On-line Turbidimeters: Hach 1720D on-line turbidimeters were used during testing to acquire
raw and permeate turbidities at one-minute intervals. The following procedures were followed to
ensure the integrity and accuracy of these data:
A primary calibration of the on-line turbidimeters (using formazin primary standards) 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 four 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 200 to 750
mL/min. The flow range targeted during testing was 200 mL/min +/- 10 mL/min for
feedwater and 200 mL/min +/- 10 mL/min for permeate. On-line turbidimeter flows were
verified manually with a graduated cylinder and stopwatch daily.
Turbidimeter bodies were drained and sensor optics cleaned 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
14
-------
2100N desktop turbidimeter were conducted on an as-needed basis during the course of the
testing when the difference between on-line and desktop turbidity readings were greater than
approximately 10 percent.
Approximately 50 parts per million (ppm) free chlorine solution was pumped through
turbidity sample lines as needed to clean potential buildup from these lines.
Desktop 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. Five
secondary standards (stray light, 0-2 NTU, 0-20 NTU, 0-200 NTU, and 200-4000 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 1.40 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
permeate waters. These counters enumerate particles in the range 2 to 800 microns.
The particle counters were factory calibrated. Factory calibrations took place on June 04, 2002.
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:
Aquaview software was configured to store particle counts in the following size ranges: 2-3
um, 3-5um, 5-7um, 7-10um, 10-15um and>15um.
To demonstrate the comparative response of the particle counters, NIST traceable
monospheres were purchased from Duke Scientific in the following sizes: 2um, 4um, lOum
and 20um. Duke monospheres were added to constantly stirred deionized (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 permeate).
The precise concentration of each monosphere was not known, but based on Duke Scientific
estimates the following approximate concentration of each monosphere was present in the test
solution:
2um 1,000 - 10,000/mL
4um 100 - 1,000/mL
lOum 10 - 100/mL
20um 1 - 10/mL
15
-------
A typical response of the particle counters to this monosphere solution near the test period is
presented in Figure 3-4. The figures show a good comparative response between the raw water
and permeate 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 stopwatch. Flows
were observed to be extremely consistent (typically within 2 mL/min of the target flow rate).
Free chlorine solutions of approximately 50 mg/L were run through particle counters on an as-
needed basis to remove potential buildup.
ETV-Reviewed Supplemental Particle Counting Data: Documentation of the calibration of the
CDHS particle counters on June 22, 2000 (10 months before CDHS testing) has been provided in
Appendix B. Figure 3-5 presents the particle counter verification plot for US Filter 3M10C
membrane system approval testing conducted for the CDHS on December 11, 2000. This plot
shows a good comparative response between raw water and permeate particle counters during
CDHS calibration verification. Comparison of Figures 3-4 and 3-5 shows a comparable response
during both ETV testing and CDHS testing. Although the calibration of the particle counters and
the verification of calibration for the CDHS testing were outside of the time frame recommended
in the ETV Technology-Specific Test Plan (11 months vs. within two months and five months
vs. immediately before testing, respectively), both the raw and permeate particle counters gave
comparable responses to the same microsphere solution (Figure 3-5); therefore, log removals
should be comparable. Also, the particle counters were made by the same manufacturer and
were same model and the calibration did occur within the one year time frame recommended by
the particle counter manufacturer.
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 method-specific QC guidelines,
which was confirmed by letters from the City of San Diego Water Quality and Marine
Microbiology Laboratories (Appendix A).
3.4 Calculation of Membrane Operating Parameters
3.4.1 Permeate Flux
The average permeate flux is the flow of permeate water divided by the surface area of the
membrane. Permeate flux is calculated according to the following formula:
r\
where: Jt = permeate flux at time t (gfd, L/(hr-m ))
16
-------
Qp = permeate flow (gallon per day (gpd), L/hr)
S = membrane surface area (ft2, m2)
9 _
Flux is expressed only as gfd and L/(hr-m ) in accordance with EPA/NSF ETV protocol.
3.4.2 Specific Flux
The term specific flux is used to refer to permeate flux that has been normalized for the
transmembrane pressure. The equation used for calculation of specific flux is:
Jtm = Jt ~=~ Ptm
where: Jta = specific flux at time t (gfd/psi, L/(hr-m2)/bar)
Jt = permeate flux at time t (gfd, L/(hr-m2))
Ptm = transmembrane pressure (psi, bar)
3. 4. 3 Transmembrane Pressure
The average transmembrane pressure for membrane systems is in general calculated as follows:
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 = permeate pressure (psi, bar)
In the case of the US Filter 3M10C system, the inlet pressure is the same as the outlet pressure
(P; = P0), so the above equation can be modified to:
tm
p. p
"i "p
where: Ptm = transmembrane pressure (psi, bar)
P; = pressure at the inlet of the membrane module (psi, bar)
Pp = permeate pressure (psi, bar)
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:
r\
where: Jt = instantaneous flux (gfd, L/(hr-m ))
Qp = permeate flow (gpd, L/hr)
T = temperature (°F, °C)
S = membrane surface area (ft2, m2)
17
-------
3. 4. 5 Feedwater System Recovery
The recovery of permeate from feedwater is the ratio of permeate flow to feedwater flow:
% System Recovery = 100 x (Qp/Qf)
where: Qp = permeate 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:
CD
R = (1--^)
CF
where: R = Rejection (%)
Cp = Permeate water concentration (mg/L)
Cp = Raw 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 (Xz - x)2 ^ (n - 1)]
7=1
where: x = sample mean
Xz = rth 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
18
-------
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: Xkn0wn = known concentration of measured parameter
= 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 = x± [tn-i,i -(0/2) x (S/Vn)]
where: x = sample mean
S = sample standard deviation
n = number of independent measurements included in the data set
t = Student' st distribution value with n-1 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 + [tn-i,o.975 x (S/Vn)]
3.6 Testing Schedule
The ETV schedule is illustrated in Figure 3-6. The testing program took place starting in July
2002 and was completed by early September 2002.
19
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
This chapter presents the data obtained under each task of the ETV program of the US Filter MF
system.
4.1 Task 1: Characterization of Membrane Flux and Recovery
The operating conditions for the US Filter MF membrane system are provided in Table 4-1. The
manufacturer established the operating parameters for the ETV testing. The membrane system
ran at a target flux of 24 gfd (41 L/hr-m ). Filtration cycle length was 22 minutes followed by a
180 second backwash. Feed water consumed during backwash was 40.8 gallons (154 liters).
The feed water recovery was 91 percent during the testing period.
Figure 4-1 provides the membrane transmembrane pressure and temperature profiles for the test
period. Operational readings were taken approximately five minutes before and after backwash.
These are displayed on the figures as pairs of data points at nearly the same point in time. The
data point taken before backwash has the higher transmembrane pressure value. During the test
period, the clean membrane transmembrane pressure began at approximately 7 psi. The
transmembrane pressure stabilized at 7 to 10 psi for approximately 4 weeks and then fouled more
rapidly over the remainder of the filter run, reaching a final transmembrane pressure of
approximately 14 psi.
Figure 4-1 also provides the membrane flux and specific flux profiles for the test period. The
target flux during the test period was 24 gfd (41 L/hr-m ). The average temperature adjusted
9
membrane flux was 21 gfd at 20°C (35 L/hr-m at 20°C). The temperature adjusted specific flux
decreased from 3 to 1.6 gfd/psi at 20°C (75 to 38 L/hr-m2-bar at 20°C) over the 44 days of the
test period. The gap in operational data between August 16, 2002 and August 20, 2002 was due
to failure of a solenoid controlling the air to one of the pneumatic valves. The test unit was not
operational over this period. The same data in Figure 4-1 is also provided in Appendix A of this
report, but with metric units.
For the particle data collection for the CDHS approval testing of the US Filter MF membrane on
May 17 and 18, 2001 (independently from ETV testing), the system was operated at a flux of 50
gfd with transmembrane pressures ranging from 20.5 to 23 psi. Water temperature ranged from
10 to 13 degrees centigrade.
4.2 Task 2: Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency
Chemical cleanings were performed when the membrane fouled (transmembrane pressure of 29
psi [2 bar]), or the end of a test period was reached. During the test period the transmembrane
pressure did not reach 29 psi so a cleaning was necessary only at the end of the test period. The
manufacturer's cleaning procedure was a two-step process. A citric acid cleaning solution was
used first, followed by a high pH cleaning solution. The 2 percent citric acid cleaning solution
was prepared by dissolving 8 pounds (17 kg) of citric acid to the feed tank. The pH of this
solution was in the range 2 to 2.5. The citric acid solution was recirculated through the feed side
20
-------
of the membrane for 120 minutes at a flow of 32 gpm (121 L/min) with a feed pressure of
approximately 9 psi. After discarding the cleaning solution and rinsing the system with feed
water, the same cleaning procedure was followed using a high pH cleaning solution. The high
pH cleaning solution was made by adding 1 gallon (3.7 liters) of Memclean EAX2 to the feed
tank. The pH of this solution was in the range of 12-13.
The flux-pressure profiles of the membrane system before and after the chemical cleaning
procedure are shown in Figure 4-2. The slope of the flux-pressure profile represents the specific
flux of the membrane before and after each cleaning stage and was used to calculate the cleaning
efficiency indicators. These are listed in Table 4-2. The recovery of specific flux for the
cleanings at the end of the test period was 100 percent indicating no irreversible fouling.
The same data in Figure 4-2 is also provided in Appendix A of this report, but with metric units.
In addition, the manufacturer's detailed cleaning procedure is included in Appendix A.
4.3 Task 3: Evaluation of Finished Water Quality
Several water quality parameters were monitored during testing. Below is a summary of the
water quality data.
4.3.1 Turbidity, Particle Concentration and Particle Removal
Figures 4-3 presents the on-line turbidity profile for the US Filter MF membrane system during
the test period. The figure shows online turbidity for raw and permeate water and desktop
turbidity for raw water, permeate and backwash waste. The desktop turbidity data are
summarized in Table 4-3 and the online turbidity data are summarized in Table 4-4. For the
testing period, the raw water turbidity was in the range of 0.70-0.80 NTU. The turbidity of the
backwash wastewater averaged 7.3 NTU. The permeate turbidity was typically below 0.1 NTU.
Figures 4-4 presents the particle count profile (2-3 um, 3-5 um, 5-7um, 7-10 um, 10-15 um and
>15 um) collected during the test period. The data presented represent 4-hour average values of
data collected at one-minute intervals. The online particle count data are summarized in Table 4-
4. For the testing period, the feed particle concentration of the Cryptosporidium-sized particles
(3-5 um) was typically in the range of 1,000-1,200 particle/mL while the combined Giardia-
sized particles (5-7um, 7-10 um and 10-15 um) was in the range 900 to 1,000 particle/mL. The
permeate concentration in these size ranges was typically in the range of 0.4 to 1.0 particle/mL.
The gap in the particle data near August 16, 2002 was due to failure of a solenoid controlling the
air to one of the pneumatic valves. The test unit was not operational over this period.
Figure 4-5 presents the log removal of particles (2-3 um, 3-5 um, 5-7 um, 7-10 um, 10-15 um,
and >15 um) based on raw and permeate particle count data collected during the test period.
Data presented on this plot represent one-day average values of data collected at one-minute
intervals. Removal ranged from 2.3 to 3.5 logs with an average of 3.1 logs for the
Cryptosporidium-sized particles (3-5 um) and from 2.7 to 3.6 logs with an average of 3.1 logs for
the Giardia-sized particles (5-7 um, 7-10 um and 10-15 um). The online particle removal data
are summarized in Table 4-4.
21
-------
To assist in assessing test system performance, Figure 4-6 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) during the test period. The figure
shows that the permeate turbidity was 0.1 NTU or below 95 percent of times and that removal of
particles (3-5 um and 5-15 um) was greater than 2.5 logs 95 percent of times.
4.3.1.1 ETV-Reviewed Supplemental Particle Counting Data. Figure 4-7 presents the
particle count profile (2-5 um and 5-15 um) for the US Filter MF system during CDHS
membrane approval testing of the 3M10C system conducted at the A. H. Bridge Plant in Rancho
Cucamonga, California on May 17 and 18, 2001 (independently from ETV testing). The figure
shows feed particle concentration of the Cryptosporidium-sized particles (2-5 um) were typically
in the range of 1,000-1,200 particle/mL while the Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um) were in the
range 900 to 1,000 particle/mL. The permeate concentration in these size ranges was typically in
the range of 0.46 to 1.0 particle/mL. The online particle count data are summarized in Table 4-5.
Although the calibration of the particle counters and the verification of calibration for the CDHS
testing were outside of the time frame recommended in the ETV Technology-Specific Test Plan
(11 months vs. within two months and five months vs. immediately before testing, respectively),
both the raw and permeate particle counters gave comparable responses to the same microsphere
solution (Figure 3-5); therefore, log removals should be comparable. Also, the particle counters
were made by the same manufacturer and were same model and the calibration did occur within
the one year time frame recommended by the particle counter manufacturer.
Figure 4-8 presents the log removal of particles (2-5 um, 5-15 um) based on raw and permeate
particle count data collected during CDHS testing at Rancho Cucamonga, California
(independently from ETV testing). Data presented on this plot represent values of data collected
at one-minute intervals. Removals ranged from 2.6 to 4.7 logs with an average of 3.8 log for the
Cryptosporidium-sized particles (2-5 um) and from 2.2 to 4.3 logs with an average of 3.9 log for
the Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um). The online particle removal data are summarized in Table
4-5.
Figure 4-9 presents the probability plots of the membrane system particle removal for the
Cryptosporidium-sized particles (2-5 um) and Giardia-sized particles (5-15 um) during CDHS
testing at Rancho Cucamonga, California (independently from ETV testing). The plot shows
that particle removals in these size ranges were greater than 2.9 logs, for 2-5 um particles, and
3.1 logs, for 5-15 um particles, 95 percent of times. The plot also shows that particle removals in
this low particle count feed water were greater than 4.0 logs approximately 40 percent of times
for Cryptosporidium-sized particles and removals were greater than 4.0 logs approximately 50
percent of times for Giardia-sized particles.
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 580 to 1200 most probable number
(MPN)/100 mL. Total coliform bacteria were not detected in the permeate of the US Filter MF
membrane system during the test period. This represents a log removal ranging from greater
than 1 log to greater than 3.2 log. HPC bacteria were reduced by the filtration process. HPC
bacteria in the raw water ranged from 12 to 2000 colony forming units (cfu)/mL while HPC
22
-------
bacteria in the US Filter MF permeate ranged from 1 to 430 cfu/mL. This represents a log
removal ranging from 0.4 log to 3 log. 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.
4.3.3 Other Water Quality Parameters
Table 4-6 presents the results of water quality parameters across the US Filter MF system. As
expected, no change was observed in the alkalinity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, and
calcium hardness of the water across the membrane system. Also, reduction in dissolved organic
material in the permeate was not observed as expected, as MF does not remove dissolved
constituents.
The total suspended solids (TSS) in the backwash waste reached as high as 41 mg/L, while the
permeate TSS remained consistently below the detection limit (1 mg/L).
A mass balance could not be conducted on total suspended solids across the membrane system
because the feed TSS measurements were consistently below the detection limit of 1.0 mg/L.
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. In their response letter, US Filter indicated that they
used a porometer (designed by US Filter) for pore size distribution measurement. They also
indicated that this instrument is of a proprietary design and is used in a manner conforming
generally to ASTM F-316 Standard Test Methods for Pore Size Characteristics of Membrane
Filters by Bubble Point and Mean Flow Pore Test and that the pore size distribution data has
been correlated with microbial removal performance. On this basis they report the maximum
pore size of the membrane at 0.45 micron and the 90 percent pore size at 0.20 micron.
The above information is taken from a letter supplied by the US Filter, 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 4-10 shows the results of the air pressure-hold tests conducted on the MF membrane
during the test period. The air pressure-hold test on the US Filter system was conducted by
pressurizing the feed side of the membrane. If any of the membrane fibers were compromised,
one would expect significant loss of held pressure (>1.5 psi every minute) across the membrane
element. The air pressure-hold test results show that there were no compromises in membrane
integrity during the test period. The US Filter membrane system includes an automated
pressure-hold test. The automated pressure-hold test was performed every 24 hours and was set
to shut the system down when pressure decays were greater than 1.5 psi/min. There was no shut
down of the system because of unacceptable automated pressure-hold results during the test
period.
23
-------
Permeate particle counts would be expected to noticeably increase if the membrane modules
were compromised (Adham et. al., 1995). During testing of the US Filter MF system, this could
not be verified as there was no fiber breakage.
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 online particle counters and
turbidimeters were also recorded every minute by a computerized data acquisition system. All of
the raw data sheets are included in Appendix C 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 D 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
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 EPA/NSF ETV 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
US Filter MF system for which eight or more samples were analyzed. These include turbidity,
particle count and particle removal. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were presented in
summary tables in the discussion of Task 3 - Finished Water Quality.
24
-------
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. All the data sets
were 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. Calculation of data accuracy was made to ensure the
accuracy of the onsite desktop turbidimeter used in the study. Accuracy ranged from 97 to 108
percent of the proficiency sample known values. Comparative calibration of online
turbidimeters with the desktop turbidimeters was performed as corrective action 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. Calculations of relative percent deviation (RPD) for
duplicate samples are included in Appendix A of this report. Ideally, the RPDs should be less
than 10% for all samples. During testing, the relative percent deviation for analyses not near the
lower detection limit were within 15 percent for onsite analyses, within 59 percent for water
quality analyses, and within 75 percent for microbial analyses. Relative percent deviation
calculations for online and desktop turbidimeter results were also conducted. These observed
relative percent deviation ranges are acceptable. Appendix A has explanations from the City of
San Diego Lab regarding the relatively high RPDs observed for total coliform and HPC
measurements.
4.8 Additional ETV Program Requirements
4.8.1 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual
The O&M Manual for the US Filter MF system supplied by the manufacturer was reviewed
during the ETV testing program. The review comments for the O&M manual are presented in
Table 4-7. The review found the O&M manual to be a useful resource. The manual makes good
use of tables and graphics to organize and clarify the presentation of material. The manual
would benefit from less emphasis on technical detail and a more general description of process
objectives.
4.8.2 System Efficiency and Chemical Consumption
The efficiency of the small-scale US Filter MF system was calculated based on the electrical
usage and water production of the system. The data are presented in Table 4-8. Overall, an
efficiency of only 3 percent was calculated for the system. This system efficiency is in the range
of many small-scale low pressure membrane systems.
25
-------
The chemical consumption of the system was also estimated based on the operating criteria used
during the ETV program. Table 4-9 provides a summary of the chemical consumption of the US
Filter MF system.
4.8.3 Equipment Deficiencies Experienced During the ETV Program
The equipment deficiencies experienced during the testing are listed in Table A-8 in Appendix A
and summarized below.
US Filter MF Membrane System
At the beginning of the shakedown period for the testing it was observed that one of the lower
membrane header end plates was leaking because of a crack on the endplate. This endplate was
replaced before the start of the testing period. At this time it was also noted that the temperature
probe was corroded and was not operational. This part was replaced also.
During the testing on August 16, 2002 the solenoid controlling automatic valve, AV2, failed.
The solenoid started leaking air and caused the valve to remain open. The system was shutdown
and the solenoid was replaced on August 22, 2002.
Online Turbidimeters and Particle Counters
The turbidimeters and particle counters operated reliably during the testing and only routine
maintenance activities were required. The particle counters had to be cleaned during the testing
because high permeate particle counts were observed. Also the dessicant pack in the feed
particle counter was replaced when the low DC light came on.
26
-------
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 (1998). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, D.C. APHA.
Adham, S.S., and Gramith, K., (2001). Montgomery Watson, "Removal of Seeded Giardia and
Cryptosporidium by US Filter Polypropylene Membrane". CDHS report, June 2001
EPA (1979). Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA 600/4-79-020.
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.
27
-------
28
-------
Tables and Figures
29
-------
Table 2-1. Characteristics of the US Filter MF M10C Microfiltration Membrane.
Units
Value
Membrane Manufacturer
Membrane Model
Commercial Designation
Available Operating Modes
Approximate Size of Membrane Module
Active Membrane Area
Number of Fibers per Module
Number of Modules (Operational)
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
Membrane Material/Construction
Membrane Surface Characteristics
Membrane Charge
Design Operating Pressure
Design Flux at Design Pressure
Maximum Transmembrane Pressure
Standard Testing pH
Standard Testing Temperarture
Acceptable Range of Operating pH Values
Maximum Permissible Turbidity
Chlorine/Oxidant Tolerance
in (m)
ft2 (m2)
mm
mm
in (m)
Daltons
Daltons
micron
psi (bar)
gfd (l/hr-sq m)
psi (bar)
degF (degC)
NTU
US Filter Memcor Products
M10C
M10C
Continuous Microfiltration (CMF)
45.5 (1.157) long x 4.7 (0.119) dia
360.7(33.52)
20,000
3
0.25
0.55
38.1(0.970)
Out - in
N/A
N/A
0.20
Polypropylene
Hydrophobic
Slightly negative at neutral pH
22(1.5)
25 gfd typical (42.5)
29 (2.0)
6.8
68(20)
2-13
500
No oxidants
30
-------
Table 3-1. Water Quality Analytical Methods.
Parameter Facility
Particle Characterization
Turbidity (Bench-Top) On-Site
Turbidity (On-Line) On-Site
Particle Counts (On-Line) On-Site
Organic Material Characterization
TOC and DOC Laboratory
UV Absorbance at 254 nm Laboratory
Microbiological Analyses
Total Coliform Laboratory
HPC Bacteria Laboratory
Standard Method
General Water Quality
pH
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
On-Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
Laboratory
On-Site
Laboratory
Laboratory
4500H+
2320 B
2340 C
3500CaD
2550 B
2540 D
2540 C
2130 B
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
5310B
5910 B
9223 B
9215 B
Table 4-1. US Filter MF Membrane System Operating Conditions.
Parameter Unit
Test Period
Run
Start Date & Time
End Date & Time
Run Length
Run Terminating Condition
Filter Cycle Length
Feed Flow
Filtrate Flow
Operating Flux
Backwash Settings
Backwash Cycle Length
Backwash Filtrate Consumed
Fast Flush Feedwater Consumed
days - hrs
min
gpm (Ipm)
gpm (Ipm)
gfd (L/hr-m2)
sec
gal (liter)
gal (liter)
1
R-01
7/24/200210:59
9/5/2002 14:29
43 days - 4 hrs
Time
22
18.3(69.3)
18.3(69.3)
24 (41)
180
0(0)
40.8(154.4)
Feed Water Recovery
91
31
-------
Table 4-2. Evaluation of Cleaning Efficiency for US Filter MF Membrane.
Clean
Number
Start
Test Run
Clean
Date
7/23/02
9/6/02
Specific Flux
@20degC
Before Clean
Jsf
gfd/psi
(l/hr-m2-bar)
1.7(42)
Specific Flux
@20degC
After Clean
Jsi
gfd/psi
(l/hr-m2-bar)
3.2(79)
3.2 (79)
Loss of Original
Specific Flux
100(1 -Jsf/Jsio)
%
47
Recovery of
Specific Flux
100(1 -(Jsi /Jsio))
%
100
Table 4-3. Onsite Lab Water Quality Analyses for US Filter MF Membrane System.
Parameter
Unit Count Median
95 Percent
Standard Confidence
Range Average Deviation Interval
Raw Water
PH
Desktop Turbidity
Temperature
Filtrate
Desktop Turbidity
Backwash Waste
Turbidity
NTU
degC
28
56
56
NTU 56
NTU 56
8.3
0.70
26.5
0.05
6.4
8.1-8.4 8.3
0.35-1.3 0.75
25.3 - 28.0 26.7
0.05-0.10 0.05
2.1 -20
7.2
0.080
0.27
0.780
0.01
4.0
8.2-8.3
0.65 - 0.80
26.5 - 26.9
0.05 - 0.05
6.2- 8.3
32
-------
Table 4-4. Summary of Online Particle and Turbidity Data for US Filter MF Membrane System.
Parameter
Unit
Count Median Range Average
Standard
Deviation
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
Raw Water
Filtrate
Turbidity
> 2 urn Particles
2-3 urn Particles
3-5 urn Particles
5-15 urn Particles
5-7 um Particles
7-10 um Particles
10-15 um Particles
>15 um Particles
Turbidity
ntu
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
#/mL
ntu
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
0.70
3900
1600
1200
990
500
310
150
71
0.30- 1.4
1000-8700
520 - 2800
290 - 2300
190-3800
110-1600
57-1800
29-410
15-220
0.70
3500
1400
1100
950
480
320
150
74
0.05 0.05-0.10 0.05
0.25
1600
560
450
630
280
280
91
46
0.024
0.65 - 0.75
3300
1300
1000
870-
440
280
140
68
-3700
-1500
-1200
1000
-520
-360
-160
-80
0.05-0.05
Log
Log
Log
Log
Log
> 2 um Particles #/mL
2-3 um Particles #/mL
3-5 um Particles #/mL
5-15 um Particles #/mL
5-7 um Particles #/mL
7-10 um Particles #/mL
10-15 um Particles #/mL
>1 5 um Particles #/mL
Removal 2-3 um Particles
Removal 3-5 um Particles
Removal 5-15 um Particles
Removal 5-7 um Particles
Removal 7-10 um Particles
Log Removal 10-15 um Particles
Log
Removal >15 um Particles
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
227
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
1.9
0.80
0.52
0.48
0.21
0.13
0.11
0.090
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
0.87 - 26
0.34-15
0.23-13
0.23-6.1
0.087
0.069
-4.3
-1.4
0.050 - 0.48
0.045 - 0.33
2.5-
2.3-
2.7-
2.6-
2.7-
2.3-
2.2-
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.4
3.2
3.9
1.7
1.2
0.86
0.47
0.
0.
0.
24
15
11
3.0
3
3
3
3
.1
.1
.1
.1
3.0
2
.8
4.6
2.3
1.7
0.97
0.64
0.26
0.097
0.056
0.27
0.29
0.27
0.28
0.26
0.32
0.29
3.3-4.5
1.4-2.0
0.98-1.4
0.73-0.99
0.39
0.21
0.14
0.10
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.7
-0.55
-0.27
-0.16
-0.12
-3.1
-3.2
-3.2
-3.2
-3.2
-3.1
-2.9
Table 4-5. Summary of Online Particle Data in Cryptosporidium (2-5 um) and Giardia (5-15 um)
Size Ranges for US Filter Membrane System During CDHS Testing at Rancho Cucamonga,
California (May 17-18, 2001).
2-5 um particles
Raw Water
(#/mL)
Permeate
(#/mL)
Log
Removal
5-15 um particles
Raw Water
(#/mL)
Permeate
(#/mL)
Log
Removal
Average
Standard Deviation
95% Confidence Interval
Minimum
Maximum
2000 0.68 3.8
90 0.84 0.55
2000 - 2000 0.64 - 0.72 3.8 - 3.8
1700 0.046 2.6
2200 5.1 4.7
810
56
810-810
650
950
0.19
0.24
0.18-0.20
0.046
1.8
3.9
0.43
3.9-3.9
2.6
4.3
33
-------
Table 4-6. Summary of Lab Water Quality Analyses for the US Filter MF Membrane System.
Parameter
Unit
Count Median Range Average
Standard
Deviation
95 Percent
Confidence
Interval
Raw Water
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
TOC
DOC*
UV254*
Total Coliform
HPCE
Filtrate
Alkalinity
Total Hardness
Calcium Hardness
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
TOC
DOC*
UV254*
Total Coliform
HPCE
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/LasCaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
/cm
#/100mL
cfu/mL
5
4
4
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
124
248
157
<10
517
2.6
2.6
0.05
240
1100
122-129
245 - 270
145- 165
<1.0-<10
510-533
2.5-2.7
2.6-3.1
0.05 - 0.06
12-1950
660 - 5700
125
253
156
<10
521
2.6
2.7
0.05
560
2000
mg/LasCaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
/cm
#/100mL
cfu/mL
127
261
160
518
2.6
2.7
0.05
67
124-129
257 - 264
150-180
514-526
2.5-2.6
2.5-2.8
0.04 - 0.06
1 -430
126
261
163
520
2.6
2.7
0.05
140
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Backwash Waste
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 5 7 5-41 15 N/A N/A
Total Coliform #/100mL 5 2400 150-9200 2900 N/A N/A
N/A indicates parameters were not calculated because less than 8 samples were collected during testing period.
* = DOC - No lab fortified blank analyzed on July 24,2002. Full QC not satisfied for DOC on this day.
E = Estimated value - analytical limitations on July 24,2002.
+ = Data outliers for values for samples collected on July 24, 2002.
34
-------
Table 4-7. Review of Manufacturer's Operations and Maintenance Manual for the US Filter MF
Membrane System.
O & M Manual
Grade Comment
Overall Organization
Operations Sections
Maintenance Section
+ The O&M Manual is well organized. The Table of
Contents includes the following main sections:
Overview, Control Systems, Installation and
Commissioning, Operation, General Maintenance, and
Drawings.
The manual also includes the following appendices:
Material Safety Data Sheets, and Glossary of Terms.
The manual will benefit from less emphasis on
technical detail and a more general description of
process objectives.
+ Includes general safety procedures, startup
procedures, description of different operational cycles,
Clean in Place description and shutdown and storage
procedures. These sections describe positions of all
manual valves during system operation. Initial startup
includes section detailing preliminary checks that
should be made before start up.
Shut down procedure sections include normal
shutdown for events such as maintenance or long-term
storage, and emergency shutdown procedures. Also
includes section on long-term shutdown of unit.
The control section also includes sections on alarms,
control logic with tables showing position of all
automatic valves during each phase of filtration and
backwash modes, operator interface section with
detailed descriptions of all screens on the Allen Bradley
PLC.
The operations sections are extremely well organized
and make excellent use of tables and graphics.
+ Includes sections detailing system operations
recommendations, and safety procedures.
Maintenance sections discuss preventative
maintenance and provides a checklist of maintenance
procedures to be performed daily, weekly, monthly,
quarterly, semiannually and annually.
This section has an extensive trouble shooting guide
and instructions on module removal, repair and
replacement.
35
-------
Table 4-7 (contd.). Review of Manufacturer's Operations and Maintenance Manual for the US
Filter MF Membrane System.
O & M Manual
Grade Comment
Troubleshooting
Ancillary Equipment Information
Drawings and Schematics
Use of Tables
OVERALL COMMENT
+ Manual includes a troubleshooting section within the
General Maintenance section. It has a description of all
alarm conditions and tables for each alarm condition
detailing possible causes and solutions.
+ Ancillary equipment is described in the detailed
drawings provided. However, no separate section is
devoted to description of the ancillary equipment.
+ Overall makes good use of drawings and schematics.
Should include process schematics showing water
flow during filtration and backwash.
Includes schematics of the Allen Bradley PanelView
display and all associated screens.
+ Manual makes very good use of tables to organize
and present information.
+ An excellent O&M Manual. It is well organized,
well written, clear and complete. An excellent Table of
Contents makes locating information in the manual a
simple process.
The manual includes good use of graphics to assist
the reader's understanding.
Note: Grade of "+" indicates acceptable level of detail and presentation, grade of "-" indicates the manual would
benefit from improvement in this area.
36
-------
Table 4-8. Efficiency of the US Filter MF Membrane System.
Parameter Unit
Value
ELECTRICAL USE
Voltage
Feed Pump Current
Feed Pump Power
Volt - three phase
Amp
Watt
460
3.1
2500
WATER PRODUCTION
Transmembrane Pressure
Flow Rate
Power
psi
pascal
gpm
m3/s
Watt
8.8
6.1E+04
18.4
1.2E-03
71
EFFICIENCY
3%
Table 4-9. Chemical Consumption for the US Filter MF Membrane System.
Unit
Value
Cleaning Chemicals [1]
Citric Acid 2%
Memclean EAX2
Ib (kg)
gal (L)
8 (3.6)
1 (3.75)
[11 Chemical use per cleaning
37
-------
Project Manager
Samer Adham , Ph.D.
MWH
Project Engineer
Manish Kumar
MWH
Manufacturer
Representative
Paul
Gallagher
US Filter
Test Site Manager
Bill Pearce
City of San Diego
Operations Staff
Manish Kumar
Mark Marion
MWH
Water Quality
Analysis
John Chaffin
City of San Diego
Data Manager
Karl Gramith
MWH
Data Entry
Mark Marion
MWH
Figure 1-1. Organizational Chart Showing Lines of Communication.
Figure 2-1. Photograph of ETV Test Unit.
38
-------
-56.5"-
PLAN VIEW
SIDE VIEW
^8.25'V
Wiring
cz
Fee
Press
j
i
c
f
l
]
;d
5U
k
o
o
Nl
F
re
^ 18.0" >
Raw Feed
Storage
Tank
G/'-N /-
embrane Modul
\-S \^
1
I
0
s
0 ^ a
-^ f Filtrate
Pressure
-39.25"-
Air Compressor
Wir
(
S
(>
Fee
00 IT"
PLC
Screen
n n n n n n
ing Cabinet a
Control Panel
(
F
Pre
~"\
d Pump
Base
nd
3
eed
ssure
i
j
n
N
F
i
I
1
<4
1
n
s
F
I./.D |
4.5"
Module
Membrane
**
in
CM
r\i
00
i '
Figure 2-2. Spatial Requirements for the US Filter MF Unit.
39
-------
Feed
Tank
Feed
Pump
Air
^Compressor/
M10C
Module
Backwash
Waste
Membrane
Filtrate
Figure 2-3. Schematic Diagram of the US Filter 3M10C Membrane Process.
Waste
Sump
Full-Scale Plant Raw
Water Pump Station
Cleaning
Chemical
Waste
Office and
Lab
Trailer
Figure 3-1. Schematic of Aqua 2000 Research Center Test Site.
40
-------
o
o
350
I
to
03
O
300
250
200-1
150
100
50
0
Hardness, Alkalinity and Calcium
Hardness
Alkalinity
Calcium
Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98
May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-98
Month
Total Dissolved Solids
"3)
Q
1
/uu
600
500
400
300
200-
100
0
I "* * * .
^v. ^ ' ^^
Nov-97 Jan-98 Mar-98 May-98 Jul-98 Sep-98 Nov-9l
Month
i.50
i.45
i.40
I.35-
i.30-
i.25-
i.20
i.15
Nov-97
PH
Jan-98
Mar-98
May-98
Month
Figure 3-2. Lake Skinner Raw Water Quality.
Jul-98
Sep-98 Nov-98
41
-------
4.00
3.501
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Turbidity
Nov-97
Jan-98
Mar-98
May-98
Month
Jul-98
Sep-98 Nov-98
o
-------
D Raw water I Filtrate
-innnn
articles / mL
^ c
-^ o c
-> 0 0 C
D O O C
Q_
1
D-D-D-D D-D Q-Q-n ' ' H-0 0 0 0 0 1
2-3 um Particles
7/2/200216:00 7/2/200216:10 7/2/200216:20 7/2/200216:30
D Raw water o Filtrate
10000
p 1000 -
(/)
« 100
o
I 10-
1
3-5 um Particle;
D-D-D-DHIHD-D-D-D hill -b^-O-O-O 1
7/2/200216:00 7/2/200216:10 7/2/200216:20 7/2/200216:30
D Raw w ater i Filtrate
Particles / mL
-^ c
-> 0 C
-^ o o c
-> 0 0 0 C
I 1 1 1 1
5-15 um Particles
D D D D D n D D D j ^ J O O jd ^0" 0 I
7/2/200216:00 7/2/200216:10 7/2/200216:20 7/2/200216:30
10000
-i 1000
«> 100
u
&
1 10
1
7/2/20C
D Raw w ater I Filtrate
>15 um Particles
. . Pr-f>rOrC-HDrQ-O-rDr-Q .o-rO=-=O-=O=-Or£-r$r
-------
o US Filter Filtrate Counter
10000
E 1000 -
c! 100 -
0
1 10 -
Q.
I
n Raw Water Counter
O-O I I I 0-0-OH-OH DHIHIHIHIH3CH>n-n-n
2-3 um Particles
12/11/200012:30 12/11/200012:40
12/11/200012:50 12/11/200013:00
Time
10000 -
E 1000 -
« 100 -
0
ro 10 -
Q_
1
US Filter Filtrate Counter
D Raw Water Counter
3-5 um Particles
00 1 1 rXK> r 1 I QCHHHHXHHHX:
12/11/200012:30 12/11/200012:40
12/11/200012:50 12/11/200013:00
Time
US Filter Filtrate Counter
-innnn
Particles / mL
-> c
->. 0 C
-^ o o c
-> 0 0 0 C
D Raw Water Counter
5-15 um Particles
-0-Ovww^^^
^^^o^o^-o^ DCHHHHXHHHH:
12/11/200012:30 12/11/200012:40
12/11/200012:50 12/11/200013:00
Time
US Filter Filtrate Counter
10000
g1 1000-
o> 100 -
o
ro 10 -
Q.
1
D Raw Water Counter
>15 um Particles
OXM-4-Wy^O^vs
!4^>^H-v
12/11/200012:30 12/11/200012:40
DCIHIHIHIHIHIKIKJQO
12/11/200012:50 12/11/200013:00
Time
Figure 3-5. Response of Online Particle Counters to Duke Monosphere Solution During CDHS
Testing at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
44
-------
Year 2002
Week Beginning Monday
Task 1- Membrane Flux and Recovery
Task 2- Cleaning Efficiency
Task 3- Finished Water Quality
Task 4- Reporting of Membrane Pore Size
Task 5- Membrane Integrity
Task 6- Data Management
Task 7- QA/QC
24-Jul| 31-Jul| 7-Aug| 14-Aug| 21-Aug| 28-Aug| 2-Sep
Figure 3-6. Membrane Verification Testing Schedule.
45
-------
ess
Transmembrane Pressure
20
._ 15
in
Q.
10-
in
5
0
07/22/02
Ohrs
Temperature
/
07/29/02 08/05/02 08/12/02 08/19/02 08/26/02 09/02/02
168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs
Time
40
- 35
- 30
- 25
- 20
-- 15
-- 10
- 0
- -5
-- -10
---15
-^4 -20
09/09/02
1176 hrs
v
Q.
Flux@20C
- Specific Flux@20C
50
S
₯
o
CM
40 -
30
= 20
10
Target Flux = 24 gfd
3
3.5
in
2.5 5-
S
O)
o"
2 >0
CM
1 I
w
- 0.5
0
07/22/02 07/29/02 08/05/02 08/12/02 08/19/02 08/26/02 09/02/02 09/09/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 1176 hrs
Time
Note: Gap in data between 8/16/02 and 8/22/02 due to shutdown
Figure 4-1. Operational Data for the US Filter MF Membrane System.
46
-------
A Clean Membrane: Start of Test Run (7/23/02)
60
50
S
s
S30
20-
10-
Clean membrane:
Start of Test Run
y=3.2x-2.2
4 6 8 10
Trans membrane Pressure (psi)
12
14
50
40 -
1)30
o
o
o
CM
20 -
10 -
D Before Cleaning o After Chemical 1 A After Chemical 2
/After Chemical 2
Memclean
y = 3.2x-4.0
After Chemical 1
Citric Add
y = 1.7x + 0.2
Before Cleaning
y = 1.7x-2.5
5 10 15
Transmembrane Pressure (psi)
20
Figure 4-2. Clean Water Flux Profile During Membrane Chemical Cleaning.
47
-------
1000
100
s
3
0.1
0.01
0.001
Raw Online Turbidity
A Filtrate Desktop Turbidity
Filtrate Online Turbidity O Raw Desktop Turbidity
Backwash Waste Desktop Turbidity
j^^jy^j/^fl\
Note: - Online values averaged over 4 hour period
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02
8/12/02 8/19/02
Time
8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Figure 4-3. Turbidity Profile for Raw Water and US Filter MF Membrane System.
48
-------
100000 ,
10000
1000
£ 100 4
o
o
0)
o
t
ns
a.
0.1 ,
0.01 ,
0.001
7/22/02
Ohrs
100000 ,
10000 -,
1000
100
o
o
_o
o
t
cv
a.
10 ,
0.1 ,
0.01 ,
0.001
7/22/02
Ohrs
100000 ,
10000 -,
J 1000
^- 100 J
o
o
0)
o
10 ,
0.1 ,
0.01 -,
0.001
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
2-3 um Particles
7/29/02
168 hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
3-5 um Particles
7/29/02
168 hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
5-7 um Particles
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs Time 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 1176 hrs
Note: Gap in data between 8/16/02 and 8/22/02 due to shutdown
Figure 4-4. Particle Counts for Raw Water and US Filter Permeate.
49
-------
100000 ,
10000
1000 ,
=- 100 ,
o
o
0)
o
10 ,
0.1 ,
0.01;
0.001
7/22/02
Ohrs
100000 ,
10000 -,
1000 ,
S- 100
o
o
10 ,
1 ,
0.1 :
0.01 ,
0.001
7/22/02
Ohrs
100000 ,
o
o
0)
o
10000 ,
1000 ^
100
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
7-10 um Particles
7/29/02
168hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
10-15 um Particles
7/29/02
168 hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
Raw Water Particles
Filtrate Particles
>15 um Particles
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs Time 672 hrs 840 hrs
Note: Gap in data between 8/16/02 and 8/22/02 due to shutdown
Figure 4-4. (contd)
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
50
-------
ns
| 4
L
o
- 2
o z
t
ns
Q- -i
0
2-3 um Particles
Dd
7/22/02
Ohrs
7/29/02
168hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
ns
| 4
*
O) 3
o
- 2
o ^
t
ns
Q- -i
0
3-5 um Particles
7/22/02
Ohrs
7/29/02
168 hrs
8/5/02
336 hrs
8/12/02
504 hrs
8/19/02
672 hrs
8/26/02
840 hrs
9/2/02
1008 hrs
9/9/02
1176 hrs
va
o
S 3
5
- 2
o z
t
ns
Q- -i
0
5-7 um Particles
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs Time 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 1176 hrs
Note: Gap in data between 8/16/02 and 8/22/02 due to shutdown
Figure 4-5. Particle Removal for US Filter MF Membrane System.
51
-------
Particle Log Removal
5 _
4
2 -
n
7-10 um Particles
&1 ^^^lQV^o^D D D°DQD°fVrcrDQon0o
^°°DD3 °°
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 11 76 hrs
K
Particle Log Removal
5
4
3
-
n _
10-15 um Particles
^DQ°OD-on [W**V
VxK^00000" ^W300 °"
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 11 76 hrs
R
15
15 um Particles
^o*-o
*'/'^Dao^^ v^^
7/22/02 7/29/02 8/5/02 8/12/02 8/19/02 8/26/02 9/2/02 9/9/02
Ohrs 168 hrs 336 hrs 504 hrs Time 672 hrs 840 hrs 1008 hrs 11 76 hrs
Note: Gap in data between 8/16/02 and 8/22/02 due to shutdown
Figure 4-5. (Contd.)
52
-------
Filtrate Turbidity
es Permeate Turbidity, NIL)
o o o
b P Ij. P KJ
n O Ol -> Ol Ni Ol
b. .....
.og Removal 5-1 Sum Particles Log Removal 3-5 urn Partici
o ->. ho co .&. en o> o ->. ho co .&. en <
X i->
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent Less Than
Removal of 3-5um Particles
I ; !!!!!!!!! ! !
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 .1 1 5 10 2030 50 7080 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent Less Than
Removal of 5-1 Sum Particles
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
^axxSSff*^^
<>-<>^^^^^
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent Less Than
Figure 4-6. Probability Plots of Permeate Turbidity and Log Removal of Particles for the US Filter
MF Membrane System.
53
-------
Feed
Filtrate
100000 ,
2-Sum Particles
10000
_, 1000 .~7.T." ........" V."hf.:"/-.-...:....:.
E
In 100
0)
| 10
(Q
°- 1 -
0.1 -.
0.01 -I'''''i'''''i'''''i'''''i'>
5/17/2001 5:00 5/17/2001 11:00 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 23:00 5/18/2001 5:00
Time
Feed Filtrate
100000
10000
5-15um Particles
_1000 -
In 100 4
0)
| 10
ro
°- 1
0.1
0.01
5/17/20015:00 5/17/200111:00 5/17/200117:00 5/17/200123:00 5/18/20015:00
Time
Figure 4-7. Particle Counts for Raw Water and US Filter Permeate in Cryptosporidium (2-5um) and
Giardia (5-15um) Size Ranges During CDHS Testing of US Filter Membrane System (May 17-18,
2001).
54
-------
ro
g
ro
g
7
6
5 4
4
3 -
2 -
1
0
2-Sum Particles
5-1 Sum Particles
5/17/2001 5:00 5/17/2001 11:00 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 23:00 5/18/2001 5:00
Time
7
6
5 4
4
3
2 4
1
0
5/17/2001 5:00 5/17/2001 11:00 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 23:00 5/18/2001 5:00
Time
Figure 4-8. Removal of Cryptosporidium-sized (2-5um) and Giardia-sized (5-15um) Particles by US
Filter MF Membrane System During CDHS Testing at Rancho Cucamonga, California (May 17-18,
2001).
55
-------
w
JD
O
E
ro
o_
ro
o
0
a:
en
o
1 T
D 2-5 um Removal
A 5-15 um Removal
.01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percent Less Than
Figure 4-9. Probability Plot of Log Removal of Particles in Cryptosporidium (2-5um) and Giardia (5-
15um) Size Ranges for the US Filter MF Membrane System During CDHS Testing at Rancho
Cucamonga, California (May 17-18, 2001).
1.2
-9/4/02
-9/5/02
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0
4 6
Time, minutes
10
12
Figure 4-10. Air Pressure Hold Test Data.
56
------- |