solutionsW i n t e r 2 0 1 2

America’s Authority in Membrane Treatment

Improving America’s Waters Through Membrane Filtration and Desalting

P r e t r e a t m e n tPo

st-S

edim

enta

tion

Ultra

filtra

tion

continued on page 4

AbstractUltrafiltration (UF) is a membrane process that separates suspended solids from water streams, similar to conventional media filters; however, unlike media filtration, ultrafiltration is capable of removing colloidal, microbiological and other particles smaller than what conventional filters can remove. UF technology has gained acceptance within the drinking water community for use in treating surface water supplies in the production of drinking water. The University of Central Florida’s Civil, Environmental and Construction Engineering Department (Orlando, FL) conducted a pilot beta-test program to demonstrate the usefulness of UF membrane technology for the treatment of an organic Florida surface water at the Lake Manatee Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Manatee County, Florida. Manatee County owns and operates the Lake Manatee WTP, which relies upon conventional surface water coagulation-sedimentation-filtration and disinfection to produce safe drinking water. As part of the pilot test plan, membrane cleaning requirements were investigated to develop guidelines for chemical cleaning via chemically enhanced backwashes (CEBs). Seasonal variations in water quality necessitated changes in the type and combination of cleaning agents used to maintain membrane performance. Several different chemicals and chemical combinations were needed as the fouling characteristics of the water changed with time. This paper presents a selection of the preliminary results of the beta-test and chemical cleaning evaluations.

IntroductionThe University of Central Florida conducted a beta-test of the Toyobo Durasep UPF0860 hollow fiber ultrafiltration (UF) membrane on a difficult to treat Florida surface water supply. A test plan was developed to demonstrate the usefulness of UF membrane

Post-Sedimentation Ultrafiltration Membrane Performance for a Florida Surface Water SupplyChristopher C. Boyd, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FLSteven J. Duranceau, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

technology for producing drinking water from an organic Florida surface water and to evaluate the performance of the Toyobo UF membrane. As part of the test plan, membrane cleaning requirements were investigated to develop guidelines for chemical cleaning via chemically enhanced backwashes (CEBs). Seasonal variations in water quality necessitated changes in the type and combination of cleaning agents used to maintain membrane performance. Several different chemicals and chemical combinations were needed as the fouling characteristics of the water changed with time. This paper presents a selection of the preliminary results of the beta-test and chemical cleaning evaluations. Pilot scale testing was still ongoing at the time of publication.

In order to beta-test the Toyobo UF membrane, it was necessary to find a suitable site with a reliable and representative Florida surface water supply. Surface water in Florida is known for being low in total hardness, microbially-active, warm and highly organic in nature. These water quality characteristics represent significant daily challenges to conventional treatment plant operations. The Lake Manatee Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in Manatee County, Florida was identified as an ideal location for the beta-test, because it purifies a surface water source with the aforementioned water quality characteristics. The Lake Manatee WTP, which treated an average of 23.35 million gallons per day of surface water in 2009, uses the Lake Manatee Reservoir as its surface water source (Manatee County Utilities Department, 2009).

The Lake Manatee WTP practices surface water purification through a conventional treatment process that includes alum coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. At the head of the treatment works, the utility doses powdered activated carbon (PAC) (as needed) for the removal of taste and odor compounds. Surface water then

President’s Message

PublicATion Schedule

Winter Pretreatment

SpringNew Facilities

SummerWater Quality

FallMembrane Residuals

AMTA Solutions is published quarterly for the members of AMTA. AMTA Solutions is mailed to AMTA members and published on the AMTA website.

P A g e 2

Current Executive CommitteePresidentPeter Waldron

First Vice PresidentMehul Patel, P.E.Orange County Water District

Second Vice PresidentLynne GuliziaToray Membrane USA, Inc.

TreasurerSteve MalloyIrvine Ranch Water District

SecretaryKaren LindseyAvista Technologies, Inc.

Immediate Past PresidentSteve Duranceau, Ph.D., P.E. University of Central Florida

AMTA StaffExecutive DirectorIan C. Watson, P.E.

Administrative DirectorJanet L. Jaworski, CMP

American Membrane Technology Association2409 SE Dixie Hwy.Stuart, FL 34996772-463-0820772-463-0860 (fax)admin@amtaorg.comwww.amtaorg.com

EditorsTom Seacord, P.E. and Winnie Shih, Ph.D., Carollo Engineers, P.C.

Peter M. Waldron

Dear AMTA Members,

Welcome to our Winter 2011/2012 edition

of AMTA’s Solutions newsletter. A Happy and

Prosperous New Year to everyone!

An unexpected winter storm in October in

New england has me looking forward to

our joint Annual Conference with AWWA in

glendale, AZ in late February. The Program

Committee has done an outstanding job

and the technical content is surely not to be

missed. Please make sure you register for

this event as we expect record attendance

at what many people are calling the premiere

membrane conference!

We recently completed two fall workshops

– one in Sacramento, CA and another in

Kansas City, MO. Both were well attended

and very successful. The slate for 2012

Technical Transfer Program is nearly finished

with upcoming workshops in Seattle in May,

Washington D.C. in July, a joint workshop with

SeDA in Key Largo, FL to be held in October

and a joint workshop with SWMOA in Maui, HI

in December.

The Winter edition of Solutions is focused

on Pretreatment. One of the featured

papers was the winner of a Best Paper

at our Miami Beach Conference and

discusses ultrafiltration (UF). The use of a

membrane technology such as MF or UF

as pretreatment ahead of an RO system

is gaining worldwide acceptance. We are

seeing these technologies employed at some

of the largest desalination plants in the

world. Pretreatment is often overlooked

and the results can be devastating to a

membrane system. It remains one of the

most critical aspects in the successful

operation of a plant. As I typically mention,

before designing a new plant, look to other

communities with similar issues and see

how they have solved. In addition, AMTA’s

Conferences and Tech Transfer Workshops

give individuals the chance to talk to other

operators and vendors that may have the

answers one seeks. Networking is a key

benefit of having an organization dedicated

to helping improve water quality issues

around the world.

On behalf of the Board of Directors, thank

you for being part of this truly exceptional

and dynamic organization. We encourage

your participation and feedback to make

this the one organization to turn when

considering a membrane-based solution.

I look forward to seeing you all at an

upcoming event.

Peter M. Waldron

President – American Membrane

Technology Association

Ben’s O&M Tip CornerBy: Ben Mohlenhoff

If you have a tip or a suggestion for a future O&M article, please contact Ben Mohlenhoff (772) 546-6292 bmohlenhoff@aerexindustries.com

It is the writer’s opinion that the correct design and operation of the pretreatment system is probably the most critical factor in the successful operation of any membrane system.

Over the years, I have seen a few facilities that have had the good fortune of having an exceptionally clean raw water source. These facilities require minimal cleanings and their micron filter elements seem to last forever.

Unfortunately most water sources that will become the raw water supply for a membrane system will not be as easy to treat. During the design phase it is critical that we find out as much information as possible about the water source that

we plan to treat. It is important that we take the time to obtain an accurate water analysis of the source water. You can’t design an effective pretreatment system unless you understand what the potential problems will be.

Once we have commissioned the system it is imperative that we continuously monitor the pretreatment system for correct chemical dosages and other mechanical functions. Simple daily observations of tank levels, metering pumps and fittings are an important back-up to the system instrumentation.

If you find yourself working with a system that has an inadequate pretreatment system it should be

addressed immediately. If a membrane system is experiencing operational problems (frequent micron filter changes, membrane cleanings, etc.), don’t be content to repeatedly clean or replace the membrane. Rather, it is more beneficial to look for the real source of the problem. A modification of the pretreatment process may be the answer, and controlling the problem is almost always more cost effective than just dealing with it.

If you have a tip or a suggestion for a future article, please contact Ben Mohlenhoff at (772) 546-6292 or bmohlenhoff@aerexindustries.com.

From the Editors

solut

ions

P A g e 3

By: Tom Seacord, P.E. and Winnie Shih, Ph.D.

SubMiTYouR

ARTicleTodAY!

AMTA Solutions continually

solicits technical articles for

future issues. We are currently

collecting articles in a variety

of water treatment subject

areas such as Pretreatment,

Water Quality, New Facilities and

Membrane Residuals. Contact

AMTA for additional information.

Welcome to the winter edition of AMTA Solutions. This edition focuses on pretreatment and as we know, the selection of pretreatment technology depends on the source water type. In this edition, we have two articles that present the results of UF pretreatment applications on surface water and seawater. Our first article, by Christopher Boyd, won the Best Student Paper Award at the AMTA 2011 Annual Conference. His article will discuss the application of UF on challenging Florida surface water. The second is a technical paper by Craig Bartels from Hydranautics, where he shares the

experience of running a large-scale UF/SWRO integrated membrane plant in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

As we count down the final days of 2011, it is with great pleasure that we look back on the accomplishments and lessons learned over this past year and anticipate what is to come in 2012. We welcome our readers to consider submitting an article to Solutions and make this newsletter everyone’s must-reads in the years to come. Submissions and inquiries can be sent to either (tseacord@carollo.com) or Winnie Shih (wshih@carollo.com). Happy Holidays and Hello 2012!

Pretreatment is the Key to a Successful Membrane System

Post-Sedimentation Ultrafiltration Membrane Performance for a Florida Surface Water Supply continued from page 1

P A g e 4

flows into rapid mix basins where alum and lime are added to facilitate coagulation. Next, a polymer is added during flocculation to promote the formation of a settleable floc. Following sedimentation, water is dosed with additional lime for pH adjustment and a small dose of chlorine before flowing into filter beds to facilitate removal of unsettled particles. Since the Lake Manatee WTP also treats a groundwater supply, filter bed effluent is blended with treated groundwater before final disinfection with chloramines, corrosion prevention, hydrofluosilicic acid addition and distribution.

The UF pilot incorporates one Toyobo Durasep UPF0860 ultrafiltration hollow fiber membrane operated in an inside-out dead-end configuration. Toyobo’s membrane fibers are composed of hydrophilic polyethersulfone (PES) modified using blended polyvinylpyrrolidone chemistry. The UF hollow fiber membrane has an outside fiber diameter on the order of 1.3 mm (0.051 inches) and in inside fiber diameter of 0.8 mm (0.031 inches) with an average pore size diameter of 0.01 µm offering 150,000 dalton cutoff. The feed water for the UF pilot is drawn from sedimentation basin effluent by siphon into a 200 gallon tank that serves as a feed water reservoir for the pilot. The filtrate stream is stored in a 1000 gallon tank for use during backwash cycles. Two parallel wye strainers provide pretreatment of the feed water for removal of large diameter particles and debris.

During normal operation, the UF pilot cycles between forward filtration, backwash and CEB operation modes in a user defined sequence. The pilot actively filters feed water during a forward filtration cycle producing a filtrate stream. Regular backwashes remove matter that has collected on the fiber surface. During backwashes, filtrate water is pumped through the membrane at a flux three times greater than the forward filtration flux. At specified intervals, the pilot will perform a chemically enhanced backwash. During a CEB, a chemical such as sodium

hypochlorite or citric acid is injected into the backwash stream to remove a targeted foulant, allowed to soak on the membrane fibers, and then rinsed prior to the restart of forward filtration.

The pilot test plan required evaluation of UF membrane performance at different flux rates, backwash frequencies and cleaning schedules to determine a suitable operating condition for the consistent production of filtrate with a turbidity below 0.1 NTU. This paper presents selected results from two different flux rates defined as Cases 1 and 2. Case 1 called for a conservative filtration flux of 36.9 gallons/ft2-day (gfd), while Case 2 operated at a moderate flux of 49.2 gallons/ft2-day. Table #1 provides a summary of the operating parameters that define the two Cases in terms of forward filtration and backwash cycles. UF membrane performance was assessed by monitoring trends in specific flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP). The calculation of specific flux was carried out in accordance with guidelines in Water Treatment Principles and Design (MWH, 2005). Flux values were corrected to 20°C using a generic temperature correction factor equation. Prior to graphing, a statistical analysis and hourly averaging of the data was performed to reduce the size of the data set and minimize erroneous instrument readings.

Preliminary Results and DiscussionSuccessful membrane cleaning depends on foulant type, chemical type, contact time, flow rate, chemical concentration and cleaning solution temperature (Zondervan and Roffel, 2007). Common cleaning chemicals include citric acid, sodium

hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide. The selection of cleaning agents is often a trial and error process (Strugholtz et al., 2005). Pilot testing is highly recommended to identify cleaning requirements for UF systems filtering surface waters. A significant amount of research has focused on understanding foulants and fouling mechanisms on membrane surfaces. However, Porcelli and Judd (2010) concluded that an understanding of chemical cleaning is not well developed and that there is significant room for further research in this area.

Quantifying changes in water quality allows for the development of correlations between membrane performance and potential foulants. A typical pilot scale water quality monitoring plan includes the collection of pH, temperature, conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, alkalinity, total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) data. For the treatment of settled surface water, as is the case at the Lake Manatee Water Treatment Plant, seasonal variations in water quality should be taken into account for the development of UF system operating protocols. Depending on the feed water quality being fed to the UF membrane, modifications may need to be made to operational parameters such as the backwash frequency, CEB frequency or CEB chemical.

Variations in surface water quality during pilot testing required frequent changes in CEB protocols to adapt to different fouling scenarios. Sodium hypochlorite, citric acid and sodium hydroxide (caustic) cleaning agents were tested during Cases 1 and 2 of pilot operations. Sodium hydroxide CEBs were successful

Table 1Summary of beta-test operating Parameters for cases 1 and 2

Testing case Process Water Flux (gfd) Water Flow (gpm) duration (min)

case 1 Filtration 36.9 11.0 30.0

Backwash 110.7 33.1 1.0

case 2 Filtration 49.2 14.7 30.0

Backwash 147.6 44.1 1.0

P A g e 5

at maintaining pilot performance in March and April of 2010, whereas citric acid was found to be the most effective cleaning chemical from May through mid-September. A new fouling trend emerged in late September that responded poorly to both citric acid and sodium hypochlorite CEB attempts. In early November, a new cleaning protocol was put in place that called for a citric acid CEB followed by a caustic CEB. The combination of citric acid and caustic CEBs proved successful at maintaining membrane performance through the end of Case 2 testing in late January, 2011.

From March 12th and April 23rd, 2010, the pilot was operated at the Case 1 flux of 36.9 gfd with a once per day sodium hypochlorite CEB. The hypochlorite CEB protocol proved effective at maintaining membrane performance during this period by stabilizing specific flux values around an average of 25.5 gal/ ft2-day -psi. Typical TMP values for UF membranes are between 3 and 15 psi (MWH, 2005). However, average hourly TMP values ranged between approximately 1.3 and 1.8 psi during Case 1 of pilot testing. The low TMP values observed at the Case 1 flux, compared to typical TMP values, represent energy savings during the production of filtered water.

Pilot testing at the Case 2 flux of 49.2 gfd began on April 23rd, 2010. By May, fouling events began to limit UF pilot operations. Significant rises in TMP were observed between May and July that resulted in several pilot shutdowns. Hypochlorite CEBs were not effective at resolving the fouling issues. Visual observation and laboratory analysis of the foulant revealed the presence of calcium carbonate in the feed stream of the UF pilot. Two citric acid chemical cleanings-in-place (CIPs) were conducted during this period in an attempt to maintain operations until a citric acid CEB system could be installed on the pilot. The citric acid CEB system was successfully installed in August and pilot operations resumed on August 6th, 2010 following the second of two citric acid CIPs. Figure 1 presents the

Figure 1uF Pilot Performance chart (Aug.6th –oct. 1st, 2010)

Figure 2 uF Pilot Performance chart (nov. 4th – dec. 8th, 2011)

continued on page 6

Post-Sedimentation Ultrafiltration Membrane Performance for a Florida Surface Water Supply continued from page 1

P A g e 6

performance chart for the UF pilot with citric acid CEB intervals of once per day and once per two days. Stable operation was observed with citric acid CEBs until the latter part of September.

Citric acid CEBs alone proved insufficient to clean the UF fibers in late September. A combination of citric acid and sodium hypochlorite CEBs was attempted in October, but membrane performance did not recover appreciably. In early November, the sodium hypochlorite cleaning solution was phased out in favor of caustic to provide a high pH cleaning environment during chemically enhanced backwash cycles. The caustic CEB step improved pilot performance as evidenced by the stabilization of specific flux trends in December. Figure 2 presents the performance chart for the UF pilot between November 4th and December 8th, 2010. Average hourly TMP values ranged between approximately 1.4 and 3.6 psi with an average feed water temperature of 21.3 °C. A CEB interval of once per 2 days was tested initially, but declines in specific flux prompted a change to a once per day citric acid and caustic CEB sequence.

Observational ConclusionsThe operation of UF systems downstream of conventional coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation basins poses challenges for maintaining membrane performance. The quality of water in contact with the membrane surface is a function of surface water characteristics and the performance of upstream unit operations and processes. Pilot test plans should include an investigation of the cleaning frequency, chemical type(s) and chemical concentration(s) required to maintain stable operation for at least one year. Some municipalities do not require one year of pilot testing to demonstrate the technology (AWWA, 2005). However, at least one year of pilot performance data is recommended on account of the potentially significant impacts of seasonal water quality variations.

In order to optimize UF system performance, cleaning protocols should be adaptable to changing water quality conditions. The CEB chemical or chemical combination that provides effective cleaning in the spring may be ineffective in the summer months. Customizing cleaning protocols for different water quality conditions may limit the unnecessary use of chemicals and improve UF system recovery. Sodium hypochlorite, citric acid and sodium hydroxide CEBs were used during pilot testing at Manatee County’s Lake Manatee WTP between March 12th, 2010 and January 28th, 2011. However, the effective chemical or chemical combination varied seasonally. Additional pilot scale testing is planned to optimize CEB parameters such as chemical injection times, concentrations, soak times and rinse times to improve overall efficiency and recovery.

AcknowledgmentsThe research reported herein was funded by UCF project agreement number 16208085. A special thank you is offered to the Manatee County Utilities Department (17915 Waterline Road, Bradenton, FL 34212), who served as hosts for our testing site. This project would not have been possible without the help of Manatee County Utilities staff, namely Bruce MacLeod, Bill Kuederle, Mark Simpson and others. Thanks are offered to Harn R/O Systems, Inc. (310 Center Court, Venice, FL 34285) for construction and maintenance of the UF pilot skid. The contents of this paper do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the sponsors, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation. The comments and opinions expressed herein may not necessarily reflect the views of the officers, directors, affiliates or agents of the participants of this research project. The assistance and efforts of UCF graduate students Jayapregasham Tharamapalan, Vito Trupiano, Andrea Cumming, Nancy Holt and Yuming Fang are appreciated.

References1. Manatee County Utilities Department.

(2009). 2009 Drinking Water Quality Summary. Manatee County.

2. AWWA. (2005). Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes for Drinking Water Manual of Water Supply Practices M53 (1st ed.).

3. Boyd, C. C., Duranceau, S. J., Harn, J., & Harn, J. (2010). Beta Testing a New Ultrafiltration Membrane for Treatment of Manatee County’s Surface Water Supply. Florida Section AWWA 2010 Fall Conference.

4. MWH. (2005). Water Treatment: Principles and Design (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

5. Porcelli, N., & Judd, S. (2010). Chemical Cleaning of Potable Water Membranes: A Review. Separation and Purification Technology, 71, 137-143.

6. Strugholtz, S., Panglisch, S. S., Lerch, A., Brugger, A., & Gimbel, R. (2005). Evaluation of the Performance of Different Chemicals for Cleaning Capillary Membranes. Desalination, 179, 191-202.

7. Zondervan, E., & Roffel, B. (2007). Evaluation of different cleaning agents used for cleaning ultra filtration membranes fouled by surface water. Journal of Membrane Science, 304, 40-49. n

Christopher C. Boyd, E.I.

Christopher Boyd is a Doctoral student at the University of Central Florida working with Dr. Steven Duranceau. He received his Bachelor’s degree in environmental engineering with honors from the University of Central Florida in 2009 and his Master’s degree in 2011. He is currently involved in ultrafiltration and nanofiltration pilot projects in Florida, as well as an ultrafiltration pilot in California.

P A g e 7

In Memory ofPHILIP “PHIL” MICHAEL NOESubmitted by Bob Oreskovich

November14,2011

Phil passed away on Monday November

14th 2011. He is survived by his wife,

Holly and three children Matthew (20),

Kelsea (16) and Erin (3), along with

his mother, Gloria Noe (FL), sisters

Peggy Deiter (FL), Pam Heil (NY) and Penny Hanson

(FL), and brother Paul (TN). Predeased by his father

Peter and brother Patrick. Phil was a valued employee

of 25 yrs for the Island Water Association as the

Production Manager. He loved the outdoors, which

included boating and hunting. He was a loving and

giving husband, father and friend and will be missed by

all who knew and loved him. A memorial service will be

held on December 10, 2011 -10:30am at Island Park in

Sarasota, FL

Published in The News-Press on November 22, 2011

Bob Oreskovich hired him at Island Water Association

back around 1985 as an operator. He was working as

a sheet metal fabricator at the time. He progressed

over a few years to get his Florida Class “A” water

treatment license and then shortly afterwards to be

the Plant Superintendent and had been for well over

10 years. Phil was recognized by AMTA as the “Robert

O. Vernon” Operator of the Year Award in 2004. He

will be missed by members AMTA and others in the

Membrane Industry! n

P A g e 8 P A g e 9

Ben’s Design Tip CornerBy: Ben Movahed, PE, BCEE

If you have a tip or a suggestion for a future design article, please contact Ben at: Ben Movahed: 301-933-9690 movahed@watek.com

...for wastewater treatment.

www.outokumpu.com/stainless/na

Many of us involved in the membrane industry strongly believe that it is usually not the membranes that fail, it is improper application and/or inadequate pretreatment which causes failures in desalting membranes.

The primary objective of pretreatment is to make the feed water compatible with the desalting membrane. Pretreatment is also required to increase the efficiency and life expectancy of the membrane elements by minimizing fouling, scaling and chemical degradation.

There is not a single solution for an acceptable RO/NF pretreatment system. The solution depends on raw water composition, seasonal and historical water quality changes and the RO/NF system specific design and operational parameters.

Pretreatment for Seawater RO is often more important and critical than for groundwater, because most large seawater plants use open intakes, which possess more pollutants (oil &

grease, algae, phytoplankton), more fluctuations in turbidity, organic matter and biological activities.

In addition to conventional media filtration and dissolved air floatation, various MF/UF pretreatment technologies are now being applied in SWRO applications. This application is anticipated to grow as ceramic membranes and new membrane technologies from developing markets are implemented. The more comprehensive and complex the pretreatment becomes, the more it should be viewed as a separate system and not a side process component. The importance of this system approach and adequate pretreatment needs cannot be over emphasized and should be taken very seriously by design engineers and end users.

For a more comprehensive discussion on pretreatment requirements and guidelines refer to the “Pretreatment for Membrane Processes” fact sheet on the AMTA website. n

Pretreatment is the key to successful membrane plant operation

P A g e 9

P A g e 1 0

AbstractAs more plants are being built for seawatater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination, it is more common to treat difficult feedwaters. Additionally, these SWRO processes have to be more robust to ensure reliable supply of water to these water-short communities. One of the leading concepts in this regard, is the use of ultrafiltration/microfiltration (UF/MF) membranes in the pretreatment scheme. The advantage of this process step is that these membranes act as a fine filter to prevent suspended solids from rapidly fouling the RO membranes and causing them to go off-line more frequently for cleaning. With the use of UF/MF membrane pretreatment, there are new technical issues that must be met to ensure consistent operation. This paper documents one of the first large-scale Integrated Membrane System (IMS) plants that was implemented in 2006, and treats a difficult water source in the Saudi Arabian port of Jeddah.

IntroductionThere is a growing trend to use membrane pretreatment before RO systems (HUMER 2009). This is especially true of SWRO plants that treat difficult surface waters. Previous experience has shown the inadequate media filtration plants can result in RO membrane cleaning frequencies, which are as much as once per month. This cleaning maintenance can reduce the output of the plant, shorten the life of the membrane and increase total

Four Year Operation Experience of a Large-Scale UF/SWRO Integrated Membrane PlantCraig R. Bartels, PhD, Hydranautics, Oceanside CA, USA Roman Boda – Hydranautics, Dubai, UAE Aziz H. Gulamhusein - Kindasa Water Services Co., Jeddah, KSA Ashraf Al-Sheikh Khalil – Kindasa Water Services Co., Jeddah, KSA

water costs. UF and MF membranes have the capability to treat the more difficult waters to remove typical RO foulants such as colloidal material and reduce microbiological contaminants. Although, there have been many pilot studies of this process option, there is little extended operating experience with large, full-scale IMS systems.

One of the first full-scale IMS systems is the Kindasa Phase-B Plant. The experience on a DMF-UF-SWRO-BWRO (brackish water RO) integrated membrane plant is very important to understand and learn for further IMS process optimizations. This plant produces 25,500 m3/d of product water and has been operating on the Red Sea feed water since 2006. The source water is from the berth area of the Jeddah port, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and can be very difficult to treat. At this same site, the Phase-A, SWRO plant with conventional pretreatment has often suffered from high fouling rates. One reason for this is the common occurrence of algal blooms in that region, as well as the particulate and colloidal material often stirred up from the ship traffic in the port.

The Phase-B, DMF-UF-SWRO-BWRO plant utilized a robust process design to ensure a high level availability. Rapid sand filters are used before the UF to remove high turbidity spikes, and allow the UF to run at very high fluxes. During the first few years, the UF operation conditions were modified and optimized. This article will review the changes

that were made and benefits that were realized. Also, this plant was designed with a direct feed of the UF filtrate to the SWRO membranes. This was to ensure that the UF filtrate would not be contaminated by sending the clean water to break storage tank. Various issues have been dealt with to make this successful; these will also be reviewed. UF and RO performance will be reviewed.

Kindasa Process DescriptionKindasa Water Services had a conventional SWRO plant which used only media filtration to pretreat the water for the Phase A SWRO plant. Due to the difficult nature of the feedwater at this site, the Phase A conventional plant experienced periods of excessive fouling. A number of factors caused this water to be difficult:

•The intake was located at the closed end of the port, where the water accumulated significant amounts of debris and the water was commonly anaerobic, making it difficult to coagulate.

•There was much shipping activity near the intake which causes colloidal material to be stirred up, as well as the ships adding additional waste to the water.

•During certain periods of the year, there are extensive algal blooms in the region which gives rise to very high feedwater turbidity.

P A g e 1 0 P A g e 1 1

• Space at the site was limited, so space-intensive pretreatment could not be used.

To deal with these challenges, the design engineers elected to utilize UF membrane pretreatment before the SWRO to ensure high levels of plant on-stream time. The final process design is shown in Figure 1. (Rybar 2008) The seawater is taken at a few meters depth at the berth wall and then goes through a bar and band screen to remove large debris. The intake pump then feeds this water to the pressure filters which have sand and pumice media in them. These operate at 16 to 8.6 gpm/ft2 (21 m/h). The pressurized water then passes through 100 micron strainers to prevent plugging of the UF fibers from mechanical damage by sharp sand or pumice particles which could escape from media filters. The prefiltered seawater then enters UF membranes where it is filtered at approximately 40 psi of applied pressure (3 psi of net driving pressure). There are 8 UF membrane racks, each with 88 HYDRAcap60 polyethersulfone membrane modules. Since the UF membrane only requires about 2-3 psi (0.2 bar) of pressure to maintain the flux, the additional feed pressure is used to pressurize the filtrate to provide necessary NPSH for RO high pressure pumps. The 8 rack UF system is shown in Figure 2.The UF membrane operating conditions are also shown in Table 1. The UF operates at very high fluxes, since the feedwater is prefiltered by the DMF. The fluxes vary between 53 and 62 gfd (90 - 105 lmh). This combined with the long filtration times, typically 60 minutes, results in a very high recovery of 94%.

The RO system comprises a first pass system using SWC3 seawater RO elements in a 2 stage design. Between the two stages, a booster pump increases the pressure to maintain a better flux balance between stages in the SWRO system. The booster pump typically adds about 200 psi (13.8 bar) of pressure. The membrane array is 87 x 60 with 6 elements per vessel. The flow

Figure 1Kindasa Seawater Treatment Process Scheme.

Figure 2

View of the 8 rack UF System

continued on page 12

View of the RO System

P A g e 1 2

Four Year Operation ExperienceContinues from page 11

of the train is 1,780 gpm (404.5 m3/hr) operating at a recovery of 50%. The flux is 7.9 gfd (13.4 lmh), which is rather conservative for membrane pretreated water, but the client wanted a conservative approach to ensure an uninterrupted supply of product. A portion of the permeate (about 80%) is then treated in the second pass BWRO system which uses ESPA2 elements in a 28 x 10 array with 6 elements per vessel. The flux of this pass is 20.2 gfd (34.2 lmh) and the recovery is 90%. Each BWRO train makes 290 m3/hr of permeate. The concentrate from the first pass SWRO is sent to a Calder energy recovery turbine (ERT), to recover the residual energy in this stream. After this, the concentrate can be used to backflush the automatic strainers.

Membrane PerformanceThe system started operation in Fall 2006, and is still operating today with the same set of membranes, although a few have been changed due to some learning experience with the system (BASHA 2010). Typically, the raw water has turbidity in range of 3 NTU to more than 10 NTU and SDI15 up to 6.5. The media filter effectively reduces this suspended material to a much lower values. The typical DMF outlet quality (UF feedwater) has SDI15 ranging from 2.5 to 4 in most cases, although there are short periods where the SDI15 goes to 5 or even as high as 6. Although this is generally in the acceptable range for the RO membranes, it is on the high side. Almost all SDI15 values are below 1, with a typical value of 0.8. This is high quality feedwater to the RO.

Recent RO performance data is shown in Figure 3. The data for 2009 and 2010 shows that the salt passage continues to be very stable at 0.7 for stage 1 and 1.4 for stage 2. The normalized flow is generally between 200 and 300 m3/h.

During this period, the normalized differential pressure ranged between 30-45 psi (2-3 bar), due primarily to biofouling. Steps were taken at the plant

Table 1Kindasa iMS System design Features

Parameter Value

Plant Capacity 6.73 mgd (25,500 m3/d) at 95% availability

Seawater TDS 42,500 mg/l

Seawater Temperature 25 – 35 oC

Media Filtration Velocity 6.6 – 8.6 gpm/ft2 (16 – 21 m/h)

Ultrafiltration Capacity 14.9 mgd (56,500 m3/d)

UF Flux 53-61 gfd (90-104 l/m2/h)

UF Filtration Time 45 – 75 min

UF Recovery 94%

UF Chemical Backwash (Chlorine) every 20 hrs (typical)

RO Capacity 6.7 mgd (25,500 m3/d)

Combined RO recovery 47.9%

SWRO Recovery 50%

SWRO Flux 7.9 gfd (13.4 l/m2/h)

BWRO Recovery 90%

BWRO Flux 20.2 gfd (34.2 l/m2/h)

a) Normalized Salt Passage

b) Normalized Permeate Flow

Figure 3Performance of one train of the SWRo at Kindasa during 2008-2010

P A g e 1 3

to manage this issue. The data shows that the pretreatment has been effective in providing a RO feedwater with low turbidity, however, more attention on biofouling is needed for IMS plants.

The overall performance of the system is shown in Table 2. The plant has consistently met the design water quality and quantity requirements, which reflects well on the fine operation at the plant and the quality design used.

Operation CostsIn addition to the performance of the UF and RO systems, it is also important to evaluate the operating cost of the IMS system. An analysis of the energy consumption of the IMS plant is shown in Table 3. The analysis of the filtration energy consumption (Table 3a), shows that the UF actually uses significantly less energy than the filtration mode of the DMF. However, since the UF is backwashed at high flux and much more frequently than the DMF, the energy consumption of the UF system is higher than the DMF energy consumption. Actually, the UF backwashing takes more specific power than the UF filtration mode. In terms of Total Specific Power (TSP), the UF system consumes about twice the TSP of the DMF system, 0.099 kWh/kgal (0.026 kWhr/m3) versus 0.044 kWh/kgal (0.011 kWh/m3). Based on this analysis, it would be prudent to look at ways to reduce the flux of the backwash system. It is also important to mention that DMF at the Kindasa plant provides only roughing filtration, which allows them to operate with filtration times as long as 336 hours (2 weeks). With fine filtration mode, the DMF would consume much more energy as typical backwash frequency for such operation is 24 – 48 hours.

Table 3b shows that the high pressure pumps consumes nearly 18 kWh/kgal (4.6 kWh/m3) and the booster pump only adds about 3 kWh/kgal (0.77 kWh/m3), while the energy recovery turbine saves 8.7 kWh/kgal(2.3 kWh/m3). This shows that the system is very energy efficient.

Table 2Plant Performance Summary

Parameter Value

Permeate TDS < 250 mg/l

Permeate Chlorides < 150 mg/l

Specific Power Consumption ≤4.6 kWh/m3 of RO permeate

ConclusionsThis article shows that UF system can successfully pretreatment seawater for RO desalination. The UF membranes at the Kindasa site have been operating now almost 5 years. The use of the DMF system allows the UF to run stably at very high flux which was a key factor to keep the initial UF capital cost down, and the DMF helps ensure the system has a high on-stream time. The operating costs of the UF system were quite competitive with the DMF, except for the energy used to backwash the UF. Further work needs to be done to reduce this contribution. Trials at other sites has shown that it is possible to decrease the BW flux and still maintain effective maintenance cleaning of the UF membrane.

Table 3Average Filtration energy consumption

uF bflush uF Racks dMF bW dMF

Feed Flow (Avg) (gpm) 4,400 1,244 4,893 2,244

Feed Pressure (psi) 36.3 3.04* 14.5 4.4*

Pump efficiency (%/100) 0.84 0.86 0.78 0.81

Pump Power (kW) 83.7 1.9 39.9 5.3

Hours of operation (Hours/day) 1.3 24.0 0.08 24.0

Motor efficiency (%/100) 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94

Specific Power (kWh/kgal) 0.071 0.028 0.001 0.042

Total Specific Power (kWh/kgal) 0.099 0.044

* These are not actual feed pressure values, but feed to filtrate differential pressure values (driving pressure)

Table 3bAverage Ro energy consumption

SWRo hPP SWRo bP SWRo eRT bWRo lPP

Feed Flow (Avg) (gpm) 3,568 2,364 1,783 1,418

Feed Pressure (psi) 847 215 998 197

Pump efficiency (%/100) 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8

Pump Power (kW) 1540 293 920 148

Hours of operation (Hours/day) 24 24 24 24

Motor efficiency (%/100) 0.85 0.94 1.00 0.95

Specific Power (kWh/kgal) 17.550 2.962 8.733 2.071

Total Specific Power (kWh/kgal) 11.779 2.0713

The RO system has had fairly stable rejection, and the normalized flow was relatively stable during the five years. The SDI

15 to the RO has been

very low and there is no indication of colloidal fouling of the RO membranes. However, there have been periods of rapid rise of differential pressure, which indicates that there has been issues with biofouling. It is likely that this results from chlorination/dechlorination, which leads to the creation of oxidized, low molecular weight organics that can be easily metabolized by bacteria. This rapid growth of bacteria under these conditions can lead to high rates of biofouling (Saeed 1999). Even though

continued on page 14

National Water Supply Improvement Association January 1977

this is only done intermittently, the rise in dP once it occurs, is difficult to reduce unless aggressive cleaning is done. Careful study is needed to further reduce this type of fouling in IMS plants. Other reports have also documented that biofouling is common in IMS systems (BUSCH 2008). The key to stopping biofouling is always related to controlling the access to assimable carbon food source for the bacteria. Further research and development is needed in this area. n

References1. Huehmer, Robert P. (2009). “MF/UF Pretreatment in

Seawater Desalination: Applications and Trends”, Proceedings of the World Congress of Desalination and Water Reuse, Dubai, UAE.

2. Pearce, Graeme K., Ms Julie Allam, and Amir Basha (2003) “Ultrafiltration Pre-treatment to RO: Trials at Kindasa Water Services, Jeddah,Saudi Arabia”, Proceedings of the World Congress of Desalination and Water Reuse, Bahamas.

3. Basha, K. Syed Amir, Aziz H. Gulamhusein, and Ashraf Al-Sheikh Khalil (2010) “Successful Operation of 56,000 m³/d Seawater UF Pretreatment System”, Proceedings of the SIWW Technical Conference, Singapore.

4. Rybar, Stefan, Aziz H. Gulamhusein, Ashraf S. Al Sheikh Khalil, Ibrahim A. Fatah, and Roman Boda(2008), “IMS SWRO KINDASA – Two Years of Operational Experience”, Proceedings of the EuroMed 2008, Dead Sea, Jordan.

5. Saeed, Mohmed O., A.T. Jamaluddin, I.A. Tisan, D. A. Lawrence, M.M. Al-Amri, and Kamran Chida (1999) “Biofouling in a seawater reverse osmosis plant on the Red Sea coast, Saudi Arabia”, Proceedings of the World Congress of Desalination and Water Reuse, San Diego, CA, USA

6. Busch, Markus, Robert Chu, Udo Kolbe, et.al. “Integrated ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis membrane system for seawater desalination – 1000 days field experience with DOW™ UF and FILMTEC™ technology in the WangTan DaTang power plant”, Proceedings of the EuroMed 2008, Dead Sea, Jordan.

P A g e 1 4

Four Year Operation ExperienceContinues from page 13

Dr. Bartels is the Vice President of Technology at Hydranautics. He has 27 years experience in membrane technology and joined Hydranautics in 2000. He has numerous patents and publications, and has contributed to 2 books on RO/NF technology.

Email: cbartels@hydranautics.com

The historic article for this edition

of solutions was authored by

Dr. O. K. (Kris) Buros, formerly with

CH2MHill in Gainesville. Kris was

very active in this association and

IDA, and was a director of both

organizations. He is now retired.

This article was published in the

NWSIA Journal of January, 1977.

I selected this article because

of a question that was asked

repeatedly at the “New Water, New

Energy” conference in Alamogordo

in December 2011. “How can the

plant produce water if the sun

doesn’t shine, and/or the wind

doesn’t blow?” The question was of

course raised during the discussion

of off the grid brackish water

desalters. This article discusses a

possible solution to this issue.

P A g e 1 5

P A g e 1 6

National Water Supply Improvement Association

P A g e 1 7

P A g e 1 8

National Water Supply Improvement Association

P A g e 1 9

P A g e 2 0

National Water Supply Improvement Association

P A g e 2 0 P A g e 2 1

Don’t put your project at risk. Choose Victaulic.• Inventor of grooved-end technology

• NEW labor-saving products such as the patented QuickVic coupling (www.victaulic.com/quickvic)

• Vertically integrated coupling, fitting and valve manufacturer in the market

• Nearly 500 factory-direct sales engineers globally for support and field training

• 3:1 safety factor

• Full range of products for the water market

• Estimating, pre-planning and project management, jobsite training, software solutions, and construction drawings.

Visit www.victaulic.com/content/watersystemstechnology.htm to learn more about our products.

p i p i n g • s y s t e m • s o l u t i o n s

Christine A. Owen

Legislative Affairs & Regulatory Programs Committee Chair

Regulatory Update

HOT TOPICS

P A g e 2 2

Fracking USEPA announced that the “Underground Injection Control Guidance for Permitting Oil and Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels” is undergoing final revisions and will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. OMB review will likely take any issuance date into 2012. It is anticipated that the guidance will include a definition of “diesel fuel” that includes distillates, a contentious position.

Other entities are stepping into the fray of regulating fracking and natural gas extraction practices. At the federal level, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it is considering its own regulations to ensure adequate safeguards for lands under its management. State and local governments are leading the way in fracking oversight, including aggressive enforcement of existing regulations. New York has proposed stringent controls on hydraulic fracturing to ensure water and other environmental resources are not compromised during the fracking and extraction processes.

The Office of Research and Development has released its draft report “Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming which identifies a clear connection between fracking activities and ground water contamination. The investigation identified synthetic chemicals indicative of fracking activities and gas production in ground water and drinking water wells. The draft report can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf.

NPDES Pesticides General Permit Required With Brief Enforcement DelayDespite calls for additional time, EPA will adhere to an October 31 court-ordered deadline to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit requirement for pesticide activities. The legal obligation to develop the Pesticides General Permit (PGP) is required by a 2009 ruling that the existing exemption that allowed pesticide applications on land adjacent to waters was a violation of the Clean Water Act. However, because the PGP detail was scheduled for release on October 31 (the same date as the legal compliance deadline), compliance enforcement will not begin until January 2012. Fact sheets, forms and a decision tree tool to assist are available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pgp_brieffactsheet.pdf.

EPA Issues Final Retrospective Review PlanEPA has released its “Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations.” The Agency proposed reviews of several drinking water regulations including the Consumer Confidence Reports and the Lead and Copper Rule. A new addition from the draft version of the review plan is the proposed review of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) as part of EPA’s Six-Year Review process. The LT2 review is expected to start early in 2012 with stakeholder meetings to launch the process. The entire report can be viewed at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/environmentalprotectionagencyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf. The recommendations outlined in the plan have the potential to allow flexibility and cost savings in the current economic climate.

USEPA Expecting a Four Percent Budget Cut for FY12The most recent FY12 appropriations package identifies a four percent budget cut for the Agency. Agreement on the final money package is complicated by proposed policy riders that would limit the ability of the Administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit certain mining activities and clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Revised Total Coliform RuleThe Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) continues on track for finalization in 2012. Agency work continues on supporting documents (i.e., Economic Analysis, Cost and Technology Document) which are required prior to final Office of Management and Budget review. The RTCR is modeled an Agreement in Principle developed as part of the Federal Advisory Committee process so little change is expected from the proposed version to the final version of the rule. Development of guidance documents represents the next opportunity for industry input and the timing is expected to accompany the rule finalization.

Chemical Toxicity and Exposure DatabasesTwo databases intended to provide public access to chemical toxicity and exposure have been released by the USEPA. Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCastDB) and ExpoCastDB compile Agency paper documents on more than 25 years of toxicity and exposure data. Users currently can search for information on more than 300 environmental contaminants; 700 more chemicals are expected to be added in 2012. Both databases can be accessed from the EPA ACToR site (http://.actor.epa.gov).

P A g e 2 3

Proposed and Pending Rules.Bisphenol A (BPA)Notice: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)

Proposal: TBD

Description/Status: EPA requested comments to its ANPRM for environmental testing, testing of drinking water and its sources

Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)Notice: National primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) for up to 16 VOCs

Proposal: October 2013

Final: April 2015

Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and developing supporting materials; Agency plans to regulate PCE and TCE as a group with up to 14 other VOC’s

Lead and Copper Rule: Regulatory RevisionsProposal: May 2012

Final: December 2013

Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and developing supporting materials; USEPA SAB DW Committee considering effectiveness of partial lead service line replacement

NPDES Pesticides General PermitProposal: June 4, 2010

Final: October 31, 2011

Description/Status: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a stay of its April 9 deadline for pesticide users to obtain an NPDES permit for aquatic pesticide use until October 3, 2011; beginning January 12, 2012, applications of pesticides that leave a residue which can enter waters of the U. S. will require submission of a Notice of Intent; information is available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pgp_brieffactsheet.pdf

Clean Water Protection RuleProposal: January 2012

Final: To be determined

Description/Status: Codifies ACOE “Draft Guidance on Identifying Water Protected by the Clean Water Act” requirements

PerchlorateNotice: Regulatory determination

Proposal: February 2013

Final: August 2014

Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and developing supporting materials; the Agency issued a supplemental request for comment on August 19; Agency intent is to propose regulation within 2 years

Radon RuleProposal: November 1999

Final: To be determined

Description/Status: Regulatory Agenda identifies the final action for this rule as “to be determined.”

Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR)Proposal: June 17, 2010

Final: November 2012

Description/Status: USEPA in process of developing support documents for final Agency and OMB reviews; final public comments on proposal received in November 2011

Six-Year ReviewNotice: March 29, 2010

Final: To be determined

Description/Status: The final comment period closed in June 2010; additional Agency action depends on regulatory determinations

Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3)Proposal: March 3, 2011

Final: January 2012

Description/Status: Public comments submitted in May 2011 under Agency review n

P A g e 2 4

Ian C. Watson, P.E. Executive Director

Message from the Executive Director

During 2011, AMTA was represented at several activities sponsored by other organizations. The purpose of this is to expose the membership of such organizations to AMTA,

our activities, goals and organization. At some of these, such as the Association of Drinking Water Administrators, and the American Water Summit, we were invited to participate in the program. At others such as the AWWA Annual Conference and the Florida Section AWWA Fall meeting, we exhibited, promoting the upcoming joint AMTA/AWWA Membrane Technology Conference, as well as extolling the benefits of membership in AMTA. At those events where our affiliates are not present, we also provide space for their literature.

The most recent such event was a workshop organized by the US Bureau of Reclamation in Alamogordo, New Mexico. This was held in conjunction with the New Mexico Water Resources Conference, the title of which was “New Water, New Energy”. Included were a number of poster presentations by students primarily from universities in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. As with our own student poster and paper presentations, I was struck by the quality and the originality of their work. I also was surprised to see several posters describing research on electrodialysis and variations thereof.

The workshop was interesting, and I think very worthwhile. We split into break-out groups at the Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility, where several pilots were in testing, and developed ideas for the Bureau to pursue as research topics. The guidance was for small land based brackish water desalination systems powered by renewable energy. There were 8 groups, each of which presented two ideas. The audience then voted for the best idea, which turned out to be research for the design of a photovoltaic/solar collector powered hybrid membrane and thermal system for stand-alone operation.

In thinking about energy, it occurred to me that the whole topic of energy is an interesting one. For example, energy can be transferred into work, and this is something that Janet Jaworski and her staff at TEAM do every day, with great effect. Having seen them at work, expending that energy, I would guess that the energy efficiency in that office is one of the highest known to man! It also occurred to me that you, our membership, expend large amounts of energy pursuing your individual goals. In 2012, I would ask each and every one of you to channel some of that energy to recruit at least one new member each.

Once again, my best wishes for 2012, and don’t forget to come to Glendale Arizona at the end of February. n

Reading this, 2011 will be a memory as we move into 2012. Let me take this opportunity to wish all our members and friends a very productive and prosperous New Year.

P A g e 2 5

Lynne Gulizia Steve Malloy Membership Co-Chairs

Membership Update

Since our last newsletter we have welcomed 25 new members!david berry Doosan Hydro Technology, Inc.daniel boldt Weir Floway, Inc.Kevin burton P.e.Irvine Ranch Water DistrictTy cooper JCI IndustriesJason deal CSM (Woongjin Chemical America)bill ellis Weir Floway, Inc.brian Foster BG Consultants, Inc.leif J. hauge IsobarixMike hicks Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility District

Keith laguaite Astral Products, Inc.Walter lee Weir Floway, Inc.Ron McAlister Worth Hydrochem of Oklahoma, Inc.Rob Mccormic Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility Districtlarry Mcdaniel Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utilitiy Districtduane Miller Consolidated Water SolutionsThaniel e. Monaco BG Consultants, Inc.Richard Mori P.e.Irvine Ranch Water DistrictRobert nolles Cosun Biobased Products

Richard Plitt Weir Floway, Inc.Kimberly Roos Fluidra USAbob Rota National Oilwell VarcoThomas Shain Tesco Controls, Inc.eddie Stewart JCI IndustriesGerald Van engelen Cosun Biobased Productsearl Young Worth Hydrochem of Oklahoma, Inc.

You’ll be reading this article just a few weeks before AMTA’s inaugural Membrane Technology Conference with AWWA. We are hoping to see you all there – at what will be the largest gathering of membrane professionals in the U.S. this decade. This collaboration with AWWA once again brings home the value of membership in this organization. We are working hard to maximize the value of your conference time and dollars. Instead of spending time and money at multiple conferences throughout the year, our efforts allow you to network, learn and see the latest technology all at one time at one venue.

Another membership benefit is our affiliate organizations. SWMOA (Southwest Membrane Operator Association) will be presenting a pre-conference workshop geared to operators. Focus on operator training provides a valuable adjunct to the programs that AMTA provides throughout the year. SEDA (Southeast Desalting Association), SCMA (South Central Membrane Association) and the nascent group forming in the Northwest are also geared to operator training.

As always, we will hold our membership meeting during the annual conference. We want to have the opportunity to thank you for your membership, tell you how the organization is doing, introduce the board and newly elected board members as well as have fun with food, drink and prizes provided! We would also like to hear your ideas of how to improve AMTA. This meeting is for members only, so be sure your membership is up to date and encourage your colleagues to join before they get to Arizona.

Remember, AMTA is the only organization that focuses all our efforts on membrane technology - for water and wastewater applications - and how our industry is changing and growing. We can all benefit by more voices in our organization.

Looking forward to seeing you all in Glendale, Arizona.

Lynne M. Gulizia and Steve Malloy Co-Membership Chairs

P A g e 2 6

Applications are now being accepted for graduate fellowship funding for the 2012/2013 academic year. The deadline for fellowship applications is April 25, 2012.

NWRI will offer the following fellowships to graduate students (Masters or Ph.D.) at U.S. universities conducting research in the areas of water resources, treatment, and policy:

• NWRI-AMTA Fellowships for Membrane Technology (two fellowships of $10,000 a year for 2 years). Research must pertain to the advancement of membrane technologies in the water, wastewater, or water reuse industries. Funding is provided by the American Membrane Technology Association (AMTA).

NWRI-AMTA Fellowships for Membrane Technology

Length of Award: 2 years

Amount of Award: $10,000 a year

Number Awarded: Two fellowships will be awarded in 2012

Partner: American Membrane Technology Association (AMTA) (www.amtaorg.com)

Requirements: Research must pertain to the advancement of membrane technology in the water, wastewater, or water reuse industries. The research must be consistent with AMTA’s vision statement: “Solving water supply and quality issues through the widespread application of membrane technology.” Possible areas of study are:

Innovative membrane treatment technologies

Use of advanced materials

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs)

Membrane fouling/scaling control

Membrane removal efficiency

Membrane pretreatment

Improved feedwater recovery

Reduced energy consumption

• NWRI Fellowships (up to $5,000 a year for 1-2 years). Research must pertain to the following areas of interest in the water and wastewater fields: recycled water, treatment technologies, water and energy nexus, sustainability, exploratory research, desalination, and policy and regulation.

• NWRI-Southern California Salinity Coalition Fellowship (one fellowship of $10,000 a year for 2 years). Research must address the critical need to remove or reduce salts from water supplies and to preserve water resources in Southern California. This fellowship, which is funded by the Southern California Salinity Coalition, is limited to students at Southern California universities/colleges.

Additional information about Fellowships, including application procedures and commonly asked questions, are available at www.nwri-usa.org/fellowship.htm.

NWRI’s Fellowship Program is underwritten by:

• The Joan Irvine Smith & Athalie R. Clarke Foundation.

• NWRI Member Agencies, which include Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Irvine Ranch Water District, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Sanitation District, and West Basin Municipal Water District.

• NWRI Corporate Associates, including Black & Veatch, Carollo, CDM, CH2M Hill, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, ARCADIS Malcolm Pirnie, MWH, and United Water-Suez.

• NWRI Partners, including the American Membrane Technology Association and Southern California Salinity Coalition.

NWRI is grateful for the support provide by these partners.

NWRI Fellowship Application Deadline - April 25, 2012

P R e S S R e l e A S e

The AMTA’s Fall Technology Transfer Workshop entitled: “Membranes: Going to Kansas City – Kansas City

Here We Come” was held October 31st – November 2nd, 2011 at the InterContinental Hotel at the Plaza in downtown Kansas City where the local turnout reached 72 participants. Sessions on Membrane Basics, Chemical Applications and Design and Operational issues were presented to an interested audience in the Center of the USA. We would like to give a special thank you to PALL Water Processing and Garney Construction who were the major sponsors for this workshop along with H20 Innovation and Professional Water Technologies whose contributions were greatly appreciated also. An area new to the likes of AMTA, yet well received amongst a well attended local crowd. Two tours of the WaterOne 31 MGD Wolcott WTP and the City of Olathe water treatment facilities were followed by an extremely enjoyable networking tour of the Boulevard Brewery which was sponsored by Black and Veatch Corporation. Thanks go out to both Staffs of the water treatment facilities for their time and efforts to assist during the Tours in our behalf.

Our second day included discussions on permitting membrane plant issues with representation from the Kansas Department of Health & Environment to case studies of the Clay Center and City of Hutchison, Kansas RO membrane installation facilities. A Session on MBR Energy Consumption, another on Membrane Procurement and Installation/

P A g e 2 6 P A g e 2 7

Membranes: Going to Kansas City – Kansas City Here We Come

W o R k S h o P R e C A P

continued on page 28

Retrofit of Small to Medium Installations was followed by Big City Membrane Performance from Small Plant packages gave a wide retrospect of membrane applications. The sessions ended with presentations on “Things to watch out for” in operating and maintaining membrane facilities as well as a session on Capital and Operating costs of Membrane Applications concluded the two-day event.

All of the session presentations were included on a CD given to each participant. Well received and attended by an interested audience, the Center of the USA may be a return site in the not too distant future. We appreciate the assistance, time and efforts provided by Scott Freeman of Black and Veatch Corporation as our local support, all who participated as session presenters and the generous financial support by our sponsors.

P A g e 2 8

Workshop Recap continued from page 27

City of Olathe

City of Olathe

Brewery Tour

P A g e 2 9

WaterOne

WaterOne

WaterOne

P A g e 3 0

P A g e 3 1

Calendar of Events

contact the following organizations for more information regarding their listed events:AMTA – 772-463-0820, admin@amtaorg.com, www.amtaorg.comAWWA – 303-794-7711, awwamktg@awwa.org, www.awwa.orgCaribDA – 772-781-8507, admin@carbida.com, www.caribda.comIDA – 978-887-0410, paburke@idadesal.org, www.idadesal.orgSCMA – 512-236-8500, info@scmembrane.org, www.scmembrane.orgSeDA – 772-781-7698, admin@southeastdesalting.com, www.southeastdesalting.comSWMOA – 888-463-0830, admin@swmoa.org, www.swmoa.org

newsletter Advertisement is Available.

Janet L. Jaworski American Membrane Technology Association2409 SE Dixie Hwy. • Stuart, FL 34996772-463-0820 • 772-463-0860 (fax)admin@amtaorg.comA form is available on the website at www.amtaorg.com/publications.html

Please Contact AMTA for rates and availability.

2012 eventsJan. 24, 2012 SeDA Workshop, Tampa, FLJan. 30-Feb. 2, 2012 SWMOA Annual Conference, Redondo Beach, CAFeb. 9, 2012 SCMA Workshop, Austin, TXFeb. 27, 2012 SWMOA Pre-Conference Workshop, glendale, AZFeb. 27-Mar. 1, 2012 AWWA/AMTA Membrane Technology Conference & expo, glendale, AZMar. 28, 2012 SeDA Workshop, Barco, NCApr. 24, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, Albuquerque, NMApr. 26, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, erie, COMay 21-23, 2012 AMTA/WeF Joint Technology Transfer Workshop, Seattle, WAJune 17-20, 2012 SeDA Spring Symposium, Bonita Springs, FLJune 19-22, 2012 CaribDA 2012 Conference & expo, ArubaJuly 16-18, 2012 AMTA Technology Transfer Workshop, Fairfax, VAAug. 22-24, 2012 SCMA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TXSept. 25, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, So. San Joaquin, CASept. 25, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, Chino, CAOct. 23-25, 2012 AMTA/SeDA Joint Technology Transfer Workshop, Key Largo, FLDec. 11-13, 2012 AMTA/SWMOA Joint Technology Transfer Workshop, Maui, HI

2013 eventsFeb. 25-28, 2013 AWWA/AMTA Membrane Technology Conference & expo, San Antonio, TX

Non Profit Org.U.S. Postage

P A I DWest Palm Beach, FL

Permit #20852409 Se Dixie Hwy.Stuart, FL 34996