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
^°°DD™3 °°



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

-------