solutionsS p r i n g 2 0 1 2

America’s Authority in Membrane Treatment

Improving America’s Waters Through Membrane Filtration and Desalting

N e w F a c i l i t i e s10

MGD

Mem

bran

e Bi

orea

ctor

continued on page 4

Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) provides potable water, recycled water, and sewer collection and disposal for over 316,000 customers within the City of Irvine and portions of surrounding

cities. Recycled water is produced at their two water recycling plants that treat wastewater to tertiary or advanced levels of treatment. The majority of recycled water is used for landscape irrigation. The Michelson Water Recycling Plant (MWRP) is the larger of the two recycled water plants and treats approximately 18 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD).

IRWD is expanding the recycled water program to reduce dependence on imported water. A key element in this program is expanding the water recycling facilities, and the MWRP Phase 2 Expansion project will expand the plant production to 28 MGD. The expansion utilizes a membrane bioreactor (MBR) facility to provide high quality recycled water capable of meeting California’s Title 22 effluent requirements. The MBR process train will operate at an average flow of 10.6 MGD and peak flow of 11.2 MGD, and will parallel the existing activated sludge process.

Evaluation and Selection of MBR TechnologyProcess alternatives to expand plant capacity were investigated and evaluated during the initial stages of design based on economic and non-economic criteria. Process alternatives included the expansion of the biological and advanced treatment systems.

Irvine Ranch Water District’s Successful Implementation of a 10 MGD Membrane Bioreactor for Water RecyclingAuthors: Steven L. Malloy, P.E., Irvine Ranch Water District Gregorio Estrada, P.E.,HDR Engineering, Inc.

The economic evaluation included the calculation of cumulative capital and operating costs for each alternative over a 20-year life cycle. The non-economic criteria included technical performance, ease of operation and maintenance, ease of integration with existing facilities, complexity of implementation, and environmental impacts.

Since the MBR process combines secondary and advanced treatment into a single process train, a direct comparison and evaluation against biological and advanced treatment options was not practical. Biological and filtration alternatives were first evaluated independently and the most favorable alternatives were combined for evaluation against the MBR alternative. The combined biological and filtration alternatives included expanding the existing activated sludge process with additional aeration basins and secondary clarifiers and expanding the existing filters with additional dual media filters or by converting the filter cells to immersed membrane tanks. The MBR alternative would not modify or expand the existing process and would add the MBR process as a parallel treatment train. Table 1 summarizes the principal advantages and disadvantages identified during the evaluation.

The MBR alternative was recommended for implementation because for a relatively modest increase in the total project cost (approximately 10% higher cost for MBR alternative based on engineer’s estimate during the evaluation), it offered significant non-economic advantages in terms of permit compliance (current and future), reuse program flexibility, and implementation.

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 the Spring 2012 edition of Solutions!

In February, we completed the inaugural Membrane Technology Conference between AMTA and AWWA in Glendale, AZ and, by all accounts, it was viewed as a huge success. For those of you who could not be there, you missed a terrific event. Over 930 attendees came during the week to learn about new trends in membrane technologies as well as to see the latest product developments from suppliers, and of course, network with colleagues in the industry. Several attendees noted the many new faces that have never been to one of our events. In addition, we had increased participation from students and researchers that bodes well for the future of water treatment. I want to again send a special thanks to the program Committee and staff from both organizations for all their efforts in making this event comes to fruition. As we plan for the 2013 Joint Conference in San Antonio next February, there is an undercurrent of excitement that attendance could be over 1,200 and cement this event as the premiere membrane technology conference for anyone who participates in this market.

While work is underway for 2013, we do have a full slate for the remainder of this year. Next up on the AMTA calendar is a Technical Transfer Workshop in Seattle in May in conjunction with the Water environment Federation (WeF) that will focus on low pressure membranes and MBR applications. That will be followed by a workshop in Fairfax, VA in July on instrumentation and controls. In the fall we will hold two additional workshops with regional affiliates – October with SeDA in Key Largo, FL and capping the year with a December workshop with SWMOA in Maui, HI.

The Spring edition of Solutions is focused on New Facilities. One of the featured papers is on a new MBR plant for Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). This is a great example of a municipality that has embraced membrane

technology for multiple applications ranging from drinking water to wastewater reuse. IRWD operates RO, NF and MF facilities and now an MBR plant to meet stringent water quality goals and to create safe, reliable and independent resources for the population they serve.

The second featured article is on the energy perspectives of desalination. There is a public perception that the energy consumption associated with seawater desalination is very high. However, we have seen that work done by the Affordable Desalination Collaboration (ADC) combined energy recovery devices has made seawater desalination cost effective. Apart from the featured story, AMTA has published a white paper on the energy consumption showing that the high energy claims are false and puts it into perspective.

In addition, AMTA’s Conferences and Tech Transfer Workshops give individuals the chance to talk to other operators, end users and vendors that can share their experiences. Networking at these events 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 very much 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 am looking forward to seeing you all at an upcoming workshop or conference.

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

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.

When commissioning a new facility sometimes the most difficult problems may come from an unexpected source. In most instances a great deal of time and effort go into the design of a new facility. Everyone is very concerned that the daily operations will be efficient and that the system is as operator friendly as is reasonably possible.

It has been my experience that how to dispose of the water that is generated during the startup and commissioning phase of a new facility is sometimes not very well planned. The final design will

have 75-85 % of the feed water going to distribution. What do you do when 100% of the incoming water must be sent to waste?

The disposal of this water needs to be discussed and understood by the Owner, Engineer and GC at the very start of the project. It is easy to make incorrect assumptions if everyone is not on the same page. Once the issue is understood it may be easily resolved by adding a few blind flanges at critical locations in the process piping. Installing these connection points during construction

is always easier and less expensive than trying to fit them in after the fact.

With large multi train systems it becomes very difficult to come up with adequate flow paths as the trains transition from test mode to production mode. A few additional points to connect temporary piping can make a big difference in the time required as well as the difficulty of placing the system into operation.

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

What are we going to do with all this water?

Welcome to the spring edition of AMTA Solutions. In this issue, we will focus on New Facilities. Process treatment and energy consumption are two of the many considerations in the design of a treatment facility. We are fortunate in this issue of Solutions to have an article written by Julia Sorensen from Kennedy/Jenks on understanding energy consumption in terms of familiar residential and community uses.

Our second technical article is written by Steve Malloy (IRWD) and Gregorio Estrada (HDR Engineering) on the 10 MGD MBR treatment facility expansion for water recycling at the Michelson Water Recycling Plant (MWRP). In this article Steve and Gregorio shared

the treatment selection process, the pre-purchasing and negotiation with membrane manufacturers and the costs from the facility construction.

AMTA strives to help our members better understand membrane technology to help them achieve success in its application. This publication, our workshops and annual conferences provide a great exchange for our peer experiences. If you are interested in submitting an article this publication, submissions and inquiries can be sent to Winnie Shih (wshih@carollo.com) and Tom Seacord (tseacord@carollo.com) .

Thank you and we look forward to your feedback on this and other issues of Solutions.

p A G e 4

Existing Plant OverviewThe MWRP receives wastewater from two influent sewers, which combine and discharge to the headworks facility, where two in-channel grinders macerate large solids to protect downstream processes. Flow is then distributed to primary sedimentation tanks. Flow equalization takes place downstream of the primary sedimentation tanks and upstream of the activated sludge process. The activated sludge process uses the Modified Ludzak-Ettinger process to achieve nitrification and denitrification. Secondary effluent is then pumped and distributed to dual media (anthracite and sand) filters. Filtered effluent is discharged to the chlorine contact basin for disinfection using sodium hypochlorite prior to distribution.

Phase 2 ExpansionThe MWRP Phase 2 Expansion Project began construction in September 2009 and is scheduled for completion by early 2013. The project will expand nominal capacity from 18 MGD to 28 MGD. The expansion includes approximately 1,900 FT of new influent sewers, a new headworks facility with screening, grit removal, and solids handling equipment, four new rectangular primary sedimentation tanks and associated sludge pumping, expanded flow equalization and distribution facilities, upgrades to the

Irvine Ranch Water District continued from page 1

Table 1Advantages and disadvantages of Final Alternatives

Alternative Advantages disadvantages

1 • Least number of new unit processes (simplest operation)

• Lower construction and operational cost

• More difficult implementation and phasing

• Difficult to phase construction

• Less compatible with potential future treatment requirements

• Footprint requirements may impact other facilities

2 • Best water quality and ability to comply with future regulatory changes (eDCs, THMs, etc.)

• Best ability to accommodate TDS removal

• Smaller footprint

• Higher construction cost

• Operational complexity associated with membrane facility

Note:Alternative 1: expansion of existing biological treatment train and filtersAlternative 2: parallel MBR train

existing activated sludge process, a new high-rate clarifier to polish secondary effluent and treat backwash return flows from the dual media filters, upgrades to the chlorine contact basins, a new membrane bioreactor, and a new UV disinfection facility for MBR permeate. The expansion also includes new support facilities, including a new odor control facility, chemical feed systems, and electrical buildings. Figure 1 is the process flow diagram of MWRP after the Phase 2 Expansion is completed.

Figure 1Michelson Water Recycling Plant Process overview after Phase 2 expansion

Membrane Selection and AgreementIRWD considered three prominent manufacturers of MBR equipment during the preliminary design phase and conducted a detailed evaluation in order to identify the preferred equipment supplier. This evaluation was necessary at the onset of design because each of the manufacturer’s systems is unique with respect to equipment layout, size, configuration, and electrical and control requirements. These vendor-specific criteria need to be identified and agreed to prior to designing the overall site plan and associated interconnections.

IRWD negotiated a pre-purchase agreement with the selected MBR manufacturer, which established a payment plan that covered the manufacturer’s cost to coordinate with the design consultant (HDR Engineering, Inc.) and prepare detailed shop drawings that could be used during the development of the Phase 2 Expansion construction documents. This approach enabled the design consultant to identify and coordinate unique features of the manufacturer’s system including actual structural dimensions and footprint, exact tie-in locations of all process piping, drains, and electrical and

p A G e 5

continued on page 6

control services, and ancillary utility connections such as potable and utility water. The process mechanical drawings and process instrumentation diagrams were developed to clearly delineate the equipment and piping supplied by the manufacturer from the interconnecting piping and components to be supplied by the contractor. The pre-purchase approach also allowed IRWD and its design engineer to work directly with the MBR supplier to provide owner-preferred components within the vendor’s system. Once the overall project was bid, the MBR pre-purchase agreement was assigned to the selected contractor in order to coordinate fabrication, delivery and installation.

Membrane BioreactorThe MBR facility was designed to increase MWRP biological treatment and filtration capacity by 11.2 MGD in the Phase 2 Expansion. The facility was designed to be expandable to 16.5 MGD under a subsequent Phase 3 Expansion. The MBR facility is comprised of the major components described below. Figure 2 is an oblique aerial view of the facility in construction with the process components and flow direction identified.

• Fine screening

• Aeration basins configured for nitrification / denitrification (NDN)

• RAS (mixed liquor) pumping

• WAS and scum pumping

• Membrane tanks

• Permeate pumps

• Blowers for process aeration and membrane scouring

• Chemical feed and storage systems for membrane cleaning

Fine ScreeningPrior to the MBR facility, the wastewater will pass through the Headworks (coarse screening with 3/8-inch openings and grit removal), and the Primary Sedimentation Tanks (settleable and floatable solids removal). Primary effluent will be pumped to the MBR facility from the flow equalization system, which includes the Primary Effluent Pumping Station (PEPS) and the Flow Equalization Basins (FEB). Further screening of this flow is required to protect the membranes and aerators from clogging, and is accomplished with 2 mm screens. The fine screens are band screen style, which consist of a series of perforated panels connected together to form a continuous loop. The loop of panels rotates, transporting the trapped solids to the top of the equipment, where solids are removed using a high-pressure spray system, which discharges into a trough for disposal. The band screens are orientated perpendicular to the wastewater flow path, in a “through-flow” arrangement. The screening capacity was based on meeting the Phase 2 peak flow requirements with one screen out of service. Primary effluent is pumped to the influent channel, which is divided into two parallel screen channels, each containing a band screen with a capacity of 11.5 MGD. Slide gates are installed at the inlet and outlet of each screen channel to allow isolation of equipment. The screened flow is routed to the MBR aeration basins. The removed screenings and spray water are conveyed to the Headworks where they are dewatered and compacted for disposal. A third channel was constructed in anticipation of the Phase 3 expansion, but no equipment was installed.

Biological TreatmentThe MBR aeration basins use a “folded tank” design. The MLSS from the membrane tank is returned to a first-stage deoxygenation zone to reduce the DO level of the water prior to entering the first anoxic zone. The deoxygenation zone is mechanically mixed to keep solids in suspension. A portion of the primary effluent may be introduced to the deoxygenation zone, if desired. The low DO mixed liquor then passes through two anoxic zones in series. Here, the nitrate-rich MLSS and primary effluent are held under anoxic conditions to achieve denitrification. These zones are mechanically mixed to keep solids in suspension.

Denitrified mixed liquor passes over a weir into a long aerobic zone, where BOD oxidation and nitrification occur. Diffused aeration is used to satisfy the oxygen demand. The use of a series of overflow weirs keeps foam and floating material moving toward the end of the aeration basin. The nitrified mixed liquor then enters a RAS (MLSS) pump station, where it is conveyed to the membrane tanks for separation. To meet the target nitrate limit at design flows and loadings, a RAS flow rate of 6Q is required. This results in a 5Q recycle rate to the anoxic zone.

RAS/WAS PumpingMLSS from the aerobic zone flows to the RAS Pumping Station, which lifts the flow to the membrane tanks. The RAS pumps are designed to convey 6Q to the membrane tanks (35 MGD per train). The wetwell is divided into two sections, separated by slide gates. Each section is fitted with three RAS pumps, two in service and one stand by. MLSS is pumped from each wetwell into a 48-inch common header. The header is routed to the membrane tanks. Foam is collected using a rotating pipe skimmer and routed into a foam sump. The foam will be pumped to disposal along with the WAS. Three rotary lobe pumps (1 duty for foam, 1 duty for WAS, and 1 common stand-by) are used for this purpose.

Figure 2

p A G e 6

Irvine Ranch Water District continued from page 5

Membrane TanksThe membrane system includes the membrane tanks, permeate pumps, and membrane scour blowers. There are four membrane tanks for each of the two MBR trains. Three tanks provide sufficient capacity to process the peak flow through the MBR train, allowing a membrane tank to be removed from service for cleaning or maintenance. MLSS is routed to the membrane tanks through a 48-inch header. A 24-inch lateral equipped with a flow meter and control valve directs flow to each membrane tank. Each membrane train is 50 feet long by 11 feet wide and covered with removable grating. Permeate is extracted using centrifugal pumps. One pump will be provided for each membrane tank. Additional centrifugal pumps are used to backpulse the membrane by pumping permeate into the membranes to dislodge accumulated solids.

The membranes require scour aeration to avoid clogging, which is accomplished using coarse bubble diffusers supplied by single-stage centrifugal blowers. All blowers are installed in a sound-insulated building. Occasionally, the membrane cassettes will need chemical cleaning with citric acid and sodium hypochlorite. Two bridge cranes are provided, one on top of the membrane tank to remove the cassettes for cleaning and one in the blower room. A monorail and hoist system is provided in the permeate pump room.

MLSS leaving the membrane tanks is collected in a common channel. The MLSS return can be controlled such that the MBR process operates as a single-sludge system or two parallel, independent activated sludge processes. The first approach is achieved by routing the MLSS from both trains through a common RAS splitter box. The second approach is achieved by closing isolating gates on the common MLSS channel and routing the RAS directly from the MLSS channels to the deoxygenation zones.

Construction Cost SummaryMembrane costs totaled $9 million for 1,080,000 square feet of membrane or 10 MGD flow. Construction cost was extracted from the contractor’s detailed schedule of values in an effort to estimate the portion of overall construction cost that was associated with the MBR facility. The isolated cost was inclusive of the MBR influent piping from the primary effluent pump station, permeate piping to the UV disinfection facility, the MBR structure, associated subgrade preparation, structural piles below the facility, mechanical equipment, piping, valves, gates, and electrical and instrumentation/SCADA. The cost also considered 50 percent of the Central Electrical Building cost, which houses the MCCs and switchgear for the new MBR, as well as the new Headworks and Primary Sedimentation Tanks. This approach determined the capital cost of the 10.6 MGD MBR treatment facility to be approximately $36 million, or $3.60 per gallon. It should be noted that this unit cost is specific to the MBR structure only, and does not account for complete treatment (i.e., treatment processes upstream of the MBR and UV disinfection). Extrapolating the overall construction cost for existing facility improvements and applying that to the 10 MGD MBR train, results in a total treatment unit cost of approximately $5.75 per gallon based on the contractor’s estimate at bid day.

Design ConsiderationsFacility features and considerations have been identified that could be useful to designers of future MBR facilities:

• Significant cost savings can be achieved through material selection. As an example, the process air piping was originally to be stainless steel; the final installation was a combination of carbon steel in buried areas and above the water surface, stainless steel 2 feet above and below the water surface, and PVC below the water surface.

• The membrane tanks require a bridge crane for membrane cassette removal, installation, and chemical cleaning in the Dip Tank. For a nominal increase in cost, the bridge crane can be extended beyond the basins to provide offloading capabilities.

• Blower room louvers can be oversized and designed to be removable to serve as blower removal access openings.

• Instrument air and recycled water connections should be provided at a location where membrane maintenance can be performed. Compressed air is used for testing of the membrane modules and water is needed to keep the membranes wet during maintenance and testing.

ConclusionIn the 1960s, IRWD decided to implement an expensive recycled water program even though at the time discharge to the ocean of partially treated secondary effluent was the normal practice. Today’s era of increasing demand for limited water resources confirms that IRWD’s bold, forward-thinking approach was a wise decision. IRWD’s decision on 2003 to implement a large water recycling plant expansion using MBR technology represents another wise investment in the future. For a reasonable incremental cost over conventional activated sludge and media filtration, IRWD selected adding MBR because it is modern technology that provides excellent effluent water quality should future regulations require side-stream reverse osmosis to reduce emerging contaminants. The high quality MBR effluent will be disinfected with ultraviolet light which will reduce chemical use at the treatment plant.

IRWD’s MBR system will provide benefits to the membrane industry. The design consists of two treatment trains that can be operated as one or as two trains in parallel. One train may be kept as a control while the other train’s treatment and cleaning parameters may be modified in order to learn new ways to optimize the process. By having the conventional activated sludge

p A G e 7

and MBR treatment plants operating in parallel on the same influent, the wastewater treatment operators and equipment maintenance personnel can track and compare the costs of the two technologies. This information can be shared with other agencies considering adding MBR treatment. The design includes redundancy and reliability features as well as space to expand the MBR by adding another 5 MGD of treatment capacity should recycled water demands increase in the future.

The treatment plant expansion project is scheduled to be completed early 2013. At that time the MBR system will be base loaded to treat 10 MGD. This recycled water is actually a new water supply that does not require stressing groundwater basins or importing water from distant surface water supplies. The recycled water produced by the MBR will serve a multitude of uses allowing IRWD to be more “drought proof” and to maintain low water rates. n

Steve Malloy, P.E.: Mr. Malloy is currently a Principal Engineer at the Irvine Ranch Water District in Southern California where he has worked since 1979. He has been involved in planning, financing, design, and construction management of water reclamation plants, membrane treatment plants, water pump stations, tanks and pipelines. He is currently managing construction of a 10 MGD membrane bioreactor to produce recycled water and is

leading the design of a large biosolids digestion and drying project. He has a BS in civil engineering from Cal Poly - Pomona, an MS in environmental engineering from Stanford University, and an engineering management certificate from UC Irvine. He is also on the AMTA Board serving as Treasurer and co-chair of the Membership Committee.

Gregorio Estrada, P.E. Mr. Estrada is a Project Engineer with HDR Engineering in Irvine, CA and is currently the Resident Engineer for the Irvine Ranch Water District, Michelson Water Recycling Plant Phase 2 Expansion Project. He holds a Bachelors of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Stanford University. He has worked as a consultant

in the field of wastewater engineering for 11 years, specializing in the design and optimization of municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, with a focus on advanced treatment and disinfection technologies.

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

Those of us who have been involved in testing and commissioning of new facilities have come across many little things that become critical in performing the required tests and commissioning the new plant.

Startup dates of many new facilities remain the same as originally planned despite delays due to weather, late delivery of long lead equipment, startup crew schedule conflicts, permitting/approval delays, waiting for water quality laboratory results and many other typical delays. So, how does the end date stay the same - by rushing and squeezing the testing and commissioning phase, the most critical phase in new facility acceptance!

The following is a partial checklist for a typical membrane plant startup. I am certain you can add a few more to the list for your special circumstance:

• Have all wires been pulled and control wires been I/O checked and tested?

• Has all the individual equipment, pumps and chemical systems been tested and verified in the PLC?

• Are all piping pressure tested, disinfected and do you have a passing bacti test?

• Is the facility painted, cleaned and all construction debris removed?

• Does the facility have adequate lighting, ventilation and open access for a safe startup?

• Is there clean water, washroom, bathroom, dumpster and other items to keep everything sanitized?

• Has the manufacturer’s representatives been scheduled to be on site at the proper times to assist with the testing?

• Do you have the first batch of chemicals?

• For RO plants, do you have SDI kit and an adequate supply of filter pads?

• For RO plants, do you have the first set and spares of the proper size/type of cartridge filters, springs and O-rings?

• For RO plants, do you have lubricants, O-rings, end connectors, towels, buckets, rope and soccer balls to load the elements?

• Have you checked the inventory to see if the proper amounts of consumables (with some extras) are actually on site?

• Are the operators available to be trained? Remember, this is the best time to give them “hands on” training.

• Are draft O&M manuals and as-built drawings on site?

• Has someone planned waste handling, excess water handling, temporary water/waste disposal?

• Are temporary pipes, valves and tanks/lagoons/storage/disposal facilities available?

• Is the laboratory ready/on call and are preserved bottles and sampling procedures in place?

• Do you have the proper hand held and bench top analyzers (i.e. temperature, pH, conductivity meters, etc.)?

• Are all Log sheets, forms, test protocols, etc. in place?

• Have all impacted agencies (water, sewer, power, gas, roads - if you are putting water on streets, or flushing hydrants) been notified and are they aware of your plans and schedule?

• If new facility is tied to or part of an existing facility, have all possibilities of cross contamination and impacts of water quality and quantity to the old system been considered?

• Are emergency shut downs and switchovers in place?

• Is there a Tag-out, Lock-out procedure in place?

• Has the entire team been briefed on safety and emergency plans?

• Last but not least, do you have enough personnel and are they willing to work long hours!?

• If the answer to any of above items is no, try to correct them quickly and delay a few days if you have to. If the answers to many of the questions (especially critical ones) are no, then convince the team members to postpone the testing. If a facility is not ready to be tested it will take much longer to test, you will not have a comprehensive and meaningful test, and people will get frustrated and start pointing fingers. Often the safety and system integrity are compromised when this happens. Good Luck, Cheers! n

Little things when testing new facilities which become Big deals!

p A G e 9

Affordable Desalination Collaboration (ADC) dissolution and turnover of

assets to AMTABy: Thomas Seacord, P.E.

The Affordable Desalination Collaboration (ADC) was formed by industry leaders in the field of desalination to develop data on costs and energy use using full-scale desalination technology. The impetus for the ADC’s formation was a series of planning studies by agencies in Southern California that quoted costs and energy use data that didn’t recognize the most recent advances in technology that had become commonplace in new desalination plants built and operating internationally. In 2005, the ADC successfully funded, built and operated a seawater desalination demonstration plant in Port Hueneme, California that established an industry low energy use for cold water Pacific Ocean desalination (i.e., 1.59 kWh/m3). Since that time, the ADC has continued to develop data on both brackish water and seawater desalination with the assistance of

the State of California’s Prop 50 program and a grant from the Texas Water Development Board.

As a California non-profit organization, the ADC’s mission was to develop a body of work that could benefit the desalination industry’s and the public’s understanding of costs and energy use in desalination. As the ADC’s testing work has come to a close, the ADC’s Board of Directors wanted to use the ADC’s remaining funds to further this mission. As a result, because AMTA has a similar mission (i.e., to promote, advocate and advance the understanding and application of membrane technology), at the 2012 AWWA/AMTA Joint Conference in Glendale, the ADC presented AMTA with a check for $151,000. The proceeds of this gift will be used by AMTA’s publications committee and also to help fund an annual scholarship. n

p A G e 1 0

IntroductionThe energy requirement of seawater desalination is a key issue faced by water utilities that are evaluating desalination as a source of potable water. To understand the amount of energy required to operate a proposed desalination facility, it may be helpful to consider the facility’s estimated energy use in terms of more familiar residential and community uses. The energy use also can be converted into indirect greenhouse gas emissions to understand the amount of emissions that may need to be offset for a desalination project to meet regulatory and community goals.

This article discusses the Energy Study conducted for the proposed scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project (Project) in Santa Cruz, California. The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (Santa Cruz) and the Soquel Creek Water District (Soquel Creek), partnering together as scwd2, are considering seawater desalination as a supplemental source to their current water supply portfolios. The Energy Study was conducted to ensure that the most advanced and energy-efficient technologies and approaches are identified and incorporated into the proposed Project, as well as to inform the Project’s environmental impact report. The Energy Study quantifies the energy use of the existing Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek water portfolios, estimates the increase in their water supply energy

Perspectives on Desalination Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Julia H. Sorensen, Todd K. Reynolds, Susan O’Hara, and Melanie Mow Schumacher

use due to supplemental desalination, and relates these values to community and household energy uses. In addition, the Energy Study describes potential greenhouse gas reduction projects to reduce the energy and greenhouse gas footprint of the proposed Project.

Project BackgroundSanta Cruz relies primarily on surface water runoff, which is captured in reservoirs and withdrawn through stream diversions, and also has several groundwater wells, which seasonally supply approximately five percent of its water supply. This strong reliance on surface water is the primary threat to the Santa Cruz water system. Even with a strong conservation program and rationing during droughts, supplemental water supplies are needed to meet potable water needs such as public health and safety, and economic stability.

The Soquel Creek obtains all of its water supply from groundwater, so the primary threat to the Soquel Creek water supply is overdrafting of its groundwater aquifers and the potential for seawater intrusion. Although Soquel Creek historically has practiced groundwater management and continually monitors for changes in water quality and groundwater levels, Soquel Creek needs to find a supplemental water supply that will permit it to reduce pumping, allow the groundwater to recover naturally to sustainable levels, and thereby prevent seawater intrusion.

Energy Use of Current scwd2 Water SuppliesThe collection, treatment, and distribution of potable water requires energy. For Santa Cruz, the primary energy requirements include pumping to lift surface water to the water treatment plant, pumping to lift groundwater to the surface, filtration and disinfection processes at the water treatment plant, and distribution pumping. This totals approximately 1 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per one thousand gallons (kgal) of water delivered (1 kWh/kgal).

For Soquel Creek, the primary energy requirements include pumping to lift water from underground up to the surface, treatment (if needed) and disinfection processes at the wells, and distribution pumping. This totals approximately 2 kWh/kgal of water delivered. More energy is required for Soquel Creek than for Santa Cruz because more energy is required to pump water from beneath the ground than to capture surface water.

Desalination Energy RequirementsThe energy required to treat seawater to potable water standards is higher than for surface and groundwater sources. The seawater desalination process withdraws water from the ocean and delivers it to the treatment facility. At the desalination facility, the water first is filtered to

p A G e 1 0 p A G e 1 1

continued on page 12

remove particles and bacteria from the water (similar to the filtration treatment at the Santa Cruz water treatment plant). The filtered seawater is pumped at high pressure through reverse osmosis (RO) membranes, producing a fresh water stream and a stream with concentrated salts. The fresh water is disinfected and treated to minimize corrosion (also similar to the Santa Cruz water treatment plant) and then is pumped into the existing potable water distribution system.

The primary energy requirements for the proposed Project would include pumping to lift seawater from the ocean to the desalination plant, filtration and RO desalination processes, disinfection and corrosion reduction processes, and distribution pumping. Of these energy uses, the seawater RO desalination process makes up the greatest part (approximately 70 percent) of the overall energy requirement. The scwd2 Energy Study estimates that with a modern, high-efficiency design, the proposed Project would use approximately 15 kWh/kgal.

Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek propose to operate the Project to provide water to each agency at different times to meet the different objectives and needs of the two agencies. The amount of energy used would depend on how much water is produced. Table 1 summarizes a range of energy requirements of the proposed Project from half capacity (normal use) to full capacity. At 15 kWh/kgal, desalinated water is approximately seven to ten times the energy of the traditional Santa Cruz area water supply (1 to 2 kWh/kgal). However, because desalinated water would be used only to supplement existing water supplies, the energy required to deliver water would increase by two to three times to 3 and 5 kWh/kgal.

Figure 1desalination Process

Figure 2desalination energy use Relative to other Santa cruz Area demands

p A G e 1 2

Desalination Energy Use in a Community PerspectiveAlthough this energy comparison of traditional water supplies to desalination may be useful to individuals in the water industry, these numbers may not be as informative or easy to understand for the public. Therefore, the study compared traditional water and desalination energy use to various community uses to provide a broader perspective.

Figure 2 shows the average annual energy use of the Project compared to other Santa Cruz-area community energy uses. Comparatively, the proposed Project has relatively small to moderate average annual energy use.

As shown in Table 1, the proposed Project is expected to operate at approximately half capacity a typical year, using approximately 6,800 kWh per year. This amount of energy is equivalent to:

• The annual energy use (electric and gas) for approximately 370 Santa Cruz area households.

• Annual refrigeration energy use for approximately 13 percent of households served by Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek.

• Annual television energy use for approximately 20 percent of Santa Cruz of households served by Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek.

Desalination Energy Use in a Household PerspectiveSince the energy required for potable water collection, treatment, and delivery is associated with a community’s water utility infrastructure, water supply energy typically has not been considered in residential energy consumption surveys. However, the water used by a household does require energy and is worth considering in relation to other household energy uses.

Figure 3Typical Santa cruz Area Residential energy use including Water Supply

The Santa Cruz area is assumed to have a similar residential energy use profile to an average California home, with the exception of air conditioning since Santa Cruz has a cooler coastal climate. The energy associated with air conditioning was removed from typical California residential energy use data developed in the 2005 U.S. Energy Information Administration survey to produce the typical household energy values for this study. As shown in Figure 3, the energy used for water supply collection, treatment and distribution (without desalination) is only a small percentage of overall household energy use – approximately 0.5 percent for Santa Cruz and 0.7 percent for Soquel Creek.

For Santa Cruz, supplemental desalination could account for approximately 15 to 20 percent of the water portfolio in a drought year. This addition would increase the typical Santa Cruz household energy use for water supply from 0.5 percent to 1 percent of overall household energy use. For Soquel Creek, desalination could account for 30 to 40 percent of the water portfolio, which equates to approximately 2.3 percent of overall household energy usage.

On an even smaller scale, the amount of energy required to produce a glass of water that includes supplemental desalination also was compared to household appliance energy use. As shown in Figure 4, a glass of water including supplemental desalination is similar to one minute of internet browsing on a laptop computer but is over 100 times less energy intensive than brewing one cup of coffee or toasting two pieces of bread.

Perspectives on Desalination Greenhouse Gas ReductionIn addition to considering its energy use, the proposed Project has to be expressed in terms of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the California regulatory approval process. Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek also will need to implement agency-specific plans to reduce the carbon footprint of the Project. Therefore, the study converted the energy use of the Project to indirect greenhouse gas emissions and estimated the potential amount of greenhouse gases that scwd2 may need to reduce.

Perspectives on Desalination Energy Usecontinued from page11 Table 1

conceptual Range of energy Requirements of the Project

operating condition half capacity (typical use) Full capacity

Average Flow (mgd) 1.25 (year round) or 2.5 (summer/drought)

2.5

Flow (mgd) 465 930

electrical Demand (MW) 0.8 1.6

energy (MWh/yr) 6,800 13,700

p A G e 1 3

continued on page 14

Figure 4household energy equivalents to Glass of Water

Figure 5Recent PG&e emissions Factors

A facility, such as a power generation site, that burns fossil fuels and directly emits greenhouse gases is considered to produce direct emissions. A facility or site, such as a business or a water treatment plant, that consumes power and purchases electricity is considered to have indirect emissions. Since the Project primarily would be a consumer of electricity, it would be considered an indirect emitter. (The Project’s potential direct emissions would be relatively negligible; therefore, this article only discusses indirect emissions.)

The indirect emissions associated with the Project would be produced by its power supplier, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). PG&E’s energy portfolio emits a varying amount of greenhouse gases for every kWh produced, depending on the mix of renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Each year PG&E publishes a certified emissions factor, which an electricity consumer can use to determine the amount of indirect greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with its electricity use.

As shown in Figure 5, the emissions factor fluctuates annually and often is greater in dry and drought years due to less available hydropower. Over time, PG&E anticipates that its energy portfolio will shift toward more climate neutral and renewable sources, and its emissions factor is estimated to be 290 pounds carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) per megawatt-hour (MWh) by 2020 (Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc, 2010).

For the proposed Project, the actual PG&E emissions factor for each year would be used to determine the indirect greenhouse gas emissions. For projection purposes, the potential Project emissions were calculated using both current emissions factors (to show a worst-case scenario) and the PG&E planning emissions factor. At normal, half capacity operation, the Project’s estimated annual indirect emissions range from approximately 900 to 4,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year.

As previously discussed, Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek each will develop a plan to reduce the impact of the Project. The plans will include identification of a greenhouse gas reduction goal, which will reflect regulatory guidelines, agency priorities, and community goals. Currently, the agencies are considering several options for greenhouse gas reduction goals, including AB 32, no increase, and carbon-free desalination. An AB 32 goal would entail reducing the amount of total water supply emissions, including desalination, to pre-1990 levels, as described in California Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). Although this Project would not have any AB 32 compliance requirements, an AB 32 goal would to encompass the “spirit” of AB 32. A no increase goal would entail reducing the amount of total water supply emissions, including desalination, to a pre-Project level. A carbon-free desalination goal would offset the total

Figure 6Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Amounts for scwd2

Perspectives on Desalination Energy Usecontinued from page11

emissions related to the Project. Based on these various potential goals, the total amount of emissions to offset for this Project is estimated to be between 400 and almost 2,000 MT per year, as shown in Figure 6.

As previously described, the annual greenhouse gas emission reduction amounts would vary based on actual water produced and that year’s PG&E emissions factor. In Figure 6, the worst-case scenario (shown in light blue), in which PG&E’s future emissions factor would remain similar to current factors, would require scwd2 to offset up to 2,000 MT CO

2e. However, the dark blue

portion of the columns represent a more likely scenario in which PG&E decreases its emissions factor through installation of additional renewable energy projects. For planning purposes, scwd2 should consider both scenarios and should have flexibility built into their plans to meet this range.

As part of their respective plans, Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek would use a mix of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas offset projects to reduce the energy use and indirect carbon footprint of the Project and their overall water supplies. scwd2 conducted a multi-step process to identify potential projects and evaluate which ones would be feasible and favorable to implement for this program and in this community. Ultimately, eleven recommended greenhouse gas reduction projects were selected, and this menu of projects will be used to build a portfolio of greenhouse gas reduction projects and programs once the environmental review is finalized and the Project is approved. This diverse, feasible, and flexible group of projects is capable of meeting potential greenhouse gas reduction goals and program objectives.

SummaryThe energy required to treat seawater to potable water standards is higher than for surface and groundwater sources. At 15 kWh/kgal, desalinated water is approximately seven to ten times the energy of the traditional Santa Cruz area water supply (1 to 2 kWh/kgal). However, because desalinated water would be used only to supplement existing water supplies, the energy required to deliver water would increase by two to three times to 3 and 5 kWh/kgal. Water supply energy including supplemental desalination would account for approximately one to three percent of a typical household’s energy use, and the Project’s energy use would be similar to other community energy uses, such as a hospital. Although the addition of supplemental desalination would increase the agencies’ energy requirements and carbon footprints, the scwd2 Energy Study has demonstrated that the energy and indirect emissions for the Project are manageable and has identified a diverse, feasible, and flexible group of projects and programs capable of meeting any of the potential greenhouse gas reduction goals of the Project.

More information on this article can be found on the scwd2desal.org website.

ReferencesCalifornia Energy Commission (2010-a), “Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs, Energy Efficiency Standards for Televisions”, http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/tv_faqs.html.

California Energy Commission (2010-b), “U.S. Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2010”, http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity.html.

California Energy Commission (2011), “Power Plant Fact Sheet”, http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/FACTSHEET_SUMMARY.PDF.

Calpine Corporation (2011), “Power Plants,” http://www.calpine.com/power/plants.asp#183.

City of Santa Cruz (2010), “Draft Climate Action Plan”

Crisp, Gary (2009), “Perth provides world desalination sustainability model”, Desalination and Water Reuse, Volume 19, No. 3.

Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., (2010), “Greenhouse Gas Calculator for the California Electricity Sector, Version 3c, October 2010”, http://www.ethree.com/documents/GHG%20update/GHG%20Calculator%20version%203c_Oct2010.zip.

p A G e 1 4

“Energy Priorities”, Water Desalination Report, June 2008, Volume 44, Issue no. 20, page 2.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (2011), “Energy White Paper – Perspectives on Water Supply Energy Use”, http://scwd2desal.org/documents/WhitePapers_Fact_Sheets/scwd2_EnergyPaper_04_08_11.pdf.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (2011), “Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheet”, http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/shared/environment/calculator/pge_ghg_emission_factor_info_sheet.pdf.

scwd2 (2011), Regional Seawater Desalination Program Website, http://scwd2desal.org/.

The Climate Registry (2011), Public Reports, http://www.theclimateregistry.org/public-reports/.

U.S. Department of Energy (2011), “Estimating Appliance and Home

About the Authors: Julia Sorensen and Todd Reynolds are consulting engineers with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants in San Francisco, California. Susan O’Hara is the scwd2 Energy Coordinator with the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, and Melanie Mow Schumacher is the scwd2 Public Outreach Coordinator with the Soquel Creek Water Department.

Corresponding Email: JuliaSorensen@KennedyJenks.com

Electronic Energy Use”, http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/index.cfm/mytopic=10040.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (1997), “Dollars Saved per Household for a 1° F Lower Thermostat Setting by Division in the West Census Region, 1997”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumptionbriefs/recs/thermostat_settings/table4.pdf.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2003), “Table C14. 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Consumption and Expenditure Tables”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html#consumexpen03.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2005), “Table US14. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey: Household Consumption and Expenditure Tables”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2010), “100 Largest Electric Plants”, http://www.eia.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011), “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle” n

p A G e 1 5

p A G e 1 6

Ian C. Watson, P.E. Executive Director

Message from the Executive Director

Recently I represented AMTA in a workshop titled

“Desal Dialogue”. The purpose of the workshop

and the research program of which it is a

segment is to examine the permitting process for

desalination projects, both brackish and seawater. I consider

this to be an extremely important and timely body of work,

particularly for brackish inland desalters where concentrate

disposal has become the tail that wags the dog.

During the workshop, I reminisced about the early days of

desalting in Florida, in particular the Cape Coral RO plant.

The original concentrate discharge, which I believe is still

in use today, was to a salt water canal. While I was doing

some work there, observations were made by biologists on

the impact of this discharge to the aquatic environment. As

I recall, these observations resulted in the discovery that

marine life, both flora and fauna, was flourishing around the

end of the discharge pipe. There was healthy crustacean

life, which attracted fish species that fed on such creatures,

together with flourishing beds of sea grass and other

salt water plant species. Another presentation that I saw

during the preliminary work on the Tampa Desalter was a

presentation by Mark Hammond of the South West Florida

Water Management District. He had visited several sites

in the Caribbean, and his slides of the end of pipe marine

environment told a similar story.

In spite of evidence to the contrary, our industry is still

fighting the battle to permit concentrate discharges. Part

of the problem I suspect is the classification of desal plant

concentrate as industrial waste. AMTA has over the years

tackled this subject with members of Congress and EPA,

without success. Our position is that while we recognize the

need for permitting the discharge, it would be beneficial

to create a new classification within the NPDES permitting

procedure which would be for desal plant concentrates. At

the workshop, a senior member of USEPA told me in no

uncertain terms that the only way this will happen is through

an act of Congress. EPA has no authority under the current

Clean Water Act to establish such a category without changes

to the Act.

This then should be our goal. I call upon all of you to enter

into a dialogue with your federal elected officials to start

us down this path. I also issue a challenge to AWWA, WEF,

and WateReuse to join forces with AMTA in a concerted

effort to persuade Congress to act in this matter. With the

anticipated growth in both inland and coastal desalters on

the horizon, the time to act is now. I would also urge the

Congress in its deliberations to consider the experience of

other countries, particularly Australia, which has very strict

environmental guidelines, and Spain, which must comply with

the requirements of the European Union.

Finally, back to the workshop. Out of 49 attendees, it was

encouraging to find that 23 were from state or federal

regulatory agencies, including EPA, California, Arizona,

Texas, Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and

Oklahoma. The other 26 included water agencies, including

Sydney, Australia, and Spain, associations such as AMTA, and

the study team.

Finally, recruit a new member! To get this permitting issue

resolved, we need to go to Congress with strength, and

strength in this case is in membership. Let’s get this moving,

and I am confident that we can prevail. n

Karen Lindsey Avista Technologies, Inc. Website Committee Chair

Website Committee Message

p A G e 1 7

“Those who cannot adjust to change will be swept aside by it. Those who recognize change and react accordingly will benefit.”

– Jim Rogers

Has there ever been a more dynamic conduit of change than the worldwide web? Commercial websites have become cyber business cards and it’s hard to deny that visitors form an immediate opinion about your organization in the instant they access your home page. If you have an extraordinary website, then this is good news. But if your site is dated, it may no longer compliment your corporate identity.

We are no different and the AMTA Board agreed that it was time to revise our own website to better reflect our dedication

to innovative membrane technology and enhance communication between members and the industry. So we initiated a complete re-design to allow user friendly access to AMTA’s unique offerings.

By the time you read this, the new site will be launched and we hope you’ll take a moment to log on at www.amtaorg.com. We’ve included a contemporary calendar and agenda detailing upcoming technology workshops and conferences organized by AMTA and its affiliates including SCMA, SWMOA, SEDA and the upcoming NWMOA. Visitors will have ready access to our essential Membrane Technology Fact Sheets and the AMTA LinkedIn® Group. A renewed emphasis will be placed on the Job Opportunities section to connect industry professionals with corporations looking for qualified applicants. AMTA members can view current and archived

Solutions newsletters and will soon have exclusive access to a national listing of membrane water treatment facilities.

We are also working on additional features including an on-line post of our Pioneer Interviews. AMTA has made it a priority to record and archive formal interviews with some of our industry’s most renowned professionals, particularly those who were directly involved in the development of membrane separation technology. We are also reviewing an AMTA link with Facebook© to entice the next generation into careers in water treatment.

AMTA is a dynamic organization and while we are on the forefront of membrane technology, it doesn’t preclude us from recognizing and reacting to change, especially if it adds value for our members. n

p A G e 1 8

Christine A. Owen

Legislative Affairs & Regulatory Programs Committee Chair

Regulatory Update

HOT TOPICSChromium VI Regulation of chromium VI will likely be postponed. The USEPA has announced it will delay the release if its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment for chromium VI until at least 2014. Still to be determined are mode of action health effects, carcinogenicity, and the effect of shifting speciation in distribution and digestive systems. The Agency will wait for the results of additional research including a multimillion dollar peer reviewed study before moving forward. At some point in 2012, the Agency will make a determination to further regulate which may could take the form of separate regulations for chromium VI and Total chromium.

In January 2011, the Agency made recommendations to drinking water utilities for enhanced chromium VI monitoring, encouraging sampling in raw and finished water as well as in distribution systems. The Agency has approved Standard Method 218.7 which incorporates changes that ease cost and sampling burdens.

Water Utility Climate Adaptation GuideAdaptation Strategies Guide for Water Utilities is new guidance created by USEPA for drinking water and wastewater utilities through the Climate Ready Water Utilities initiative. Information on the initiative is available at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/index and the report can be found at http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/upload/epa817k11003.pdf. The guide summarizes basic climate science information and provides real world adaptation case studies. The initiative goal is for water utilities to have a better understanding of what climate change related impacts they could face in their region and the breadth of adapation strategies that can be used to prepare their system for those impacts.

FrackingControversy over the practice of “fracking” continues. In February the USEPA presented a status update via webcast on its ongoing study on potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. The slides are available at www.epa.giv/hfstudy; the next update is scheduled for May or June 2012. Results and information will be posted on the website as available.

AtrazineA new USGS study on atrazine occurrence has been released and is available at: https://www.crops.org/publications/jeq/view/41-2/q11-0200.pdf. The study uses occurrence data and statistical testing to demonstrate that groundwater contamination from atrazine is unlikely to occur at levels of drinking water significance even in agricultural areas.

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.

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR)The Agency has initiated a retrospective review of the CCR Rule using webcasts and online discussion forums. Specific discussion topics have been developed by the Agency; the main focus is how to expand alternative delivery methods for the CCR. In this tight budgetary climate, there is the potential for significant savings if utilities can use electronic delivery of CCR’s. More information is available at http://CCRRetrospectiveReview.ideascale.com.

p A G e 1 9

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: As of October 31, 2011, pesticide users are required to obtain an NPDES permit to apply aquatic pesticides; additional 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; guidance was submitted to OMB in February 2012 for consideration and comment

PerchlorateNotice: Regulatory determination

Proposal: February 2013

Final: August 2014 (statutory deadline); May 2015 if extended

Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and developing supporting materials; Agency intends to establish an SAB committee

Radon RuleProposal: November 1999

Final: To be determined

Description/Status: Agenda continues to identify 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 final support documents for Agency and OMB review; final public comments received in November 2011 under consideration

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: Office of Management and Budget review is underway

Wastewater Pretreatment: Coal Bed Methane and Shale Gas ProductionProposal (coal gas): June 2013

Proposal (shale gas): October 2014

Final: To be determined

Description/Status: The agency intends to develop pretreatment standards for wastewater associated with coal bed methane and shale gas extraction n

p A G e 2 0

Lynne Gulizia Steve Malloy Membership Co-Chairs

Membership Update

Since our last newsletter we have welcomed 48 new members!

ursula Annunziata Genesys International & Genesys North America

c. bruce bartley NSF International

Violeta bolfango de luna City of Chesapeake

Jason boyd Layne Christensen Water Technologies

owen boyd Layne Christensen Water Technologies

howard brogdon Collier County Utilities

Jack bryck P.e., bceeMalcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS

McKinley l. cashwell iiiCity of Chesapeake

luis castilla ACCIONA Agua

Jack ceadel Global Water Intelligence

Matthew d. charles Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS

Steve chesters Genesys International Limited

hyo Soo choi Econity Co., Ltd

Michele christian International Products Corporation

curtis clay CDG Environmental, LLC

Kelly comstock P.e, bceeBrown and Caldwell

Susan l. crawford P.e., bceeCDM Smith Inc.

lisa culbert Layne Christensen Water Technologies

Alan dahlqvist Layne Christensen Water Technologies

Steve diamond P.e.Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS

Melissa Fischer AXEON Water Technologies

Guillermo V. Garcia carrasco OSMO

Tom Giese P.e.Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

Tom Gillogly Carollo Engineers, Inc.

nigel Grace Brown and Caldwell

dean Gregory Ph.d.CDG Environmental, LLC

brian l. hackman P.e., P.h., bceedeb harmon Brown and Caldwell

Andrew harris Siemens Industry, Inc.

Moon Seon Jang Ph.d.Econity Co., Ltd

Paul Jung Econity USA, Inc.

derek Kim Ph.d.Econity USA, Inc.

Jin ho Kim Ph.d.Econity Co., Ltd.

Thomas J. lebeau Ph.d.Siemens Industry, Inc.

Phillip lintereur Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.

nick lucas Siemens Industry, Inc.

Paul Marina CDG Environmental, LLC

Robert Mccandless P.e.Brown and Caldwell

Thomas McGuckin International Products Corporation

david b. Morris CDG Environmental, LLC

Augustin Pavel AXEON Water Technologies

Monica Pazahanick Carollo Engineers, Inc.

Ronald l. Ruocco P.e.Merry n. Shelley Fountain Quail Water Management, LLC

Willie Stuart Myron L Company

Preston Van Meter Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

Jake White Burns & McDonnell, Inc.

Michael c. Whittier Siemens Industry, Inc.

p A G e 2 1

As co-chairs of the AMTA Membership Committee, we want to thank all of you who attended our recent annual membrane conference in Glendale, Arizona. This well attended conference was a first for AMTA as it was conducted jointly with the American Waterworks Association. The benefit to the industry - and to you - is that by attending this one conference you were able to get the best that both associations have to offer regarding use of membranes in water and wastewater treatment.

We hope that you attended some interesting sessions, participated in a morning tour, met new vendors in the exhibit hall, and were able to network with new colleagues in the social events.

Your AMT A membership allows you to enjoy many more benefits throughout the year, including:

• Networking at AMTA events with others that are currently using membrane treatment

• Sharing operating experiences and cost-savings ideas

• Discussing how to meet regulatory requirements

• Attending tours of facilities that are using products you are considering installing

• Comparing membrane products from various manufacturers during exhibitions

• Attending presentations and learning lessons from others’ experiences on membrane projects

• Making a presentation about your latest membrane project

• Meeting university researchers to collaborate with on membrane research projects

• Obtaining CEUs at regional workshops presented by working experts active in the membrane water treatment industry

• Receiving AMTA’s “Solution” magazine published quarterly - focused on membrane topics

• Access to the www.amtaorg.com website members only content

AMTA is made up members from public agencies, design consultants, membrane related equipment manufacturers, educators, and hopefully your colleagues. We hope your impressions of the latest conference and the list of member benefits will encourage you to enlist your colleagues as new members of AMTA. If you have any questions about membership levels, please feel free to contact the AMTA office.

Steve Malloy IRWD

Lynne M. Gulizia Toray Membrane USA, Inc.

p A G e 2 2

p A G e 2 2 p A G e 2 3

Monday, May 21st3:00 - 5:00 Exhibitor Set-Up

3:00 - 5:00 Early Registration

Tuesday, May 22nd7:30 - 8:20 Registration and Continental Breakfast

8:20 - 8:30 Introductions & Opening Remarks

Bob Oreskovich, Workshop Chair

8:30 - 12:00 SESSION 1: Membrane Basics & MBR Applications

Moderator: Tom Seacord, P.E., Carollo Engineers, Inc.

8:30 - 9:15 MBR/MF/UF Membrane Basics & Terminology

Dan Hugaboom, P.E., Carollo Engineers, Inc.

9:15 - 9:45 Pacific Northwest - Regulators’ Perspectives on Permitting Requirements for Membrane Installations

Sam Perry, P.E., WA State Department of Health

9:45 - 10:15 LOTT Clean Water Alliance - Case Study

Ben McConkey, LOTT Clean Water Alliance

10:15 - 10:30 Refreshment Break

10:30 - 11:00 Toray Flat Sheet MBR Case Study

Duncan Millar, P.Eng., Toray Membrane USA, Inc.

11:00 - 11:30 A Re-Evaluation of the Economics of the MBR Process – Has a Tipping Point Been Reached?

Rod Reardon, Jr., P.E., Carollo Engineers, Inc.

11:30 - 12:00 Brightwater Treatment Plant: Design, Construction, and Operational Experiences from the Nation’s Largest MBR

John Komorita, P.E., King County and Robert Bucher, P.E., King County

12:00 - 1:15 Lunch Provided on Bus Ride to Plant

1:15 - 5:00 SESSION 2: Membrane Plant On-Site Facility Tour

Moderators: John Komorita, P.E., King County and Patrick Burke, P.E., CH2M HILL, Incorporated

1:15 - 3:00 Tour of Brightwater MBR Membrane Plant

King County, Brightwater Treatment Plant Staff

3:00 - 4:00 Bus Ride from Plant to Hotel

4:30 - 5:00 Bus Ride from Hotel to Lowell’s Restaurant & Bar at Pike’s Place Downtown

5:00 - 6:45 Fun Networking Activity - Lowell’s Restaurant & Bar

6:45 - 7:15 Bus Ride from Lowell’s Restaurant to Hotel

Wednesday, May 23rd7:30 - 8:30 NWMOA Board Meeting

8:00 - 8:30 Continental Breakfast

8:30 - 12:00 SESSION 3: Drinking Water Membrane Applications

Moderator: Karen Lindsey, Avista Technologies, Inc.

8:30 - 9:15 Considerations for MF/UF Procurement, Design & Operation

YuJung Chang, Ph.D., HDR Engineering, Inc. 9:15 - 9:45 Nanaimo South Fork WTP Procurement & Design Case Study

Michael McWhirter, MWH Americas, Inc.

9:45 - 10:15 Membrane Operational Issues: Clarifier & UF Chemistry

Russell Swerdfeger, Siemens Industry, Inc.

10:15 - 10:30 Refreshment Break

10:30 - 11:00 MF/UF Case Study: Low Pressure Membrane Plant

Conversion to meet LT2 Standards

Tom Kennedy, Olivenhain Municipal Water District

11:00 - 11:30 MBR/MF/UF Technology Status & Trends

Coley Ali, Professional Water Technologies

11:30 - 12:00 Airlift MBR - The Hybrid Membrane Bioreactor

Michael Sparks, BioprocessH2O

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch - Provided

1:00 - 2:40 SESSION 4: Membrane Related Discussion Items

Moderator: YuJung Chang, Ph.D., HDR Engineering, Inc.

1:00 - 1:30 Retrofitting the Arlington Treatment Plant with MBR Technology – Challenges and Results

Tom Giese, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants

1:30 - 2:00 Design and Operation of Membrane Bioreactors for Nutrient Removal and Reuse

Joel Rife, P.E., CDM Smith

2:00 - 2:30 Accelerated Testing Protocols for Membrane Development

Stratton Tragellis and Paul Gallagher, Ph.D., Siemens Industry, Inc.

2:30 - 2:40 Workshop Wrap-Up

Bob Oreskovich, Workshop Chair

3:00 - 9:00 AMTA Board Meeting

PROGAM SCHEDULE

p A G e 2 4

p A G e 2 5

2012 AWWA/AMTA Joint AwardsRandy Truby, Chair of AWWA/AMTA Award Committee,

presented the following awards at the Glendale Conference:

2012 Hall of Fame Awards and Lifetime Honorary Member

2012 Membrane Facility Award 2012 Robert O. Vernon “Operator of the Year” Award

2012 Best Paper Award

Stuart Mcclellan

Award inscribed: In recognition of his many achievements in water treatment and effectively advancing the membrane industry during a distinguished career of over 48 years, as well as his active leadership and participation in the American Membrane Technology Association and the Southeast Desalting Association.

• Professional in Water Treatment and Membranes since 1964.

• Key employee at Permutit, Basic Technologies and Dow Filmtec. Currently, operating as S A McClellan Inc.

• Director Emeritus and Life Member of AMTA and long time member of AWWA and SeDA.

• Outstanding contribution organizing Technology Transfer Seminars for ADA and AMTA.

Groundwater Replenishment System, orange county Water district

Award inscribed: In recognition of over 30 years of worldwide leadership, education and public outreach in the advancement of the use of membrane technologies for indirect potable reuse

• 86 MGD Siemens CS system

• In-basin submersible design

• 26 basins or cells

• 17,784 membrane modules

• Hollow fiber polypropylene

• 0.2 micron pore size

• 22-minute backwash (BW) interval

• 21-day cleaning (CIP) frequency

Mike heaton east Bay Municipal Utility District

Award inscribed: In recognition of his over 17 years experience, leadership and commitment in the development and continued success of his District’s recycled water program through his excellent communications, intimate knowledge of remote facility operations and ability to troubleshoot.

Award inscribed: in recognition of the outstanding preparation and presentation of a technical paper

The best paper award received the highest rating of all presentations during the conference by the Awards Committee:

brent Alspach, P.e Malcolm pirnie/ARCADIS

“Strategic Practices and Lessons Learned for Integrating Desalinated Seawater into Existing Systems”Accepting: Stuart McClellan Accepting: Mehul patel,

Orange County Water District

Accepting: Mike Heaton

p A G e 2 6

Award inscribed: in recognition of the outstanding preparation and presentation of a technical paper by a student presenter

Syed Zaki Abdullah The University of British Columbia

“Effects of Chemical Cleaning on Membrane Operating Lifetime”

Studying Under profession:

Dr. pierre R. Bérubé, Associate professor Department of Civil engineering, The University of British Columbia

2012 Best Poster Award

Award inscribed: In recognition of the outstanding preparation and presentation of a poster session

The best poster award selected by the Awards Committee based on having the best clarity & graphics, applicability of subject and presentation style:

J. R. cooper, Ph.d. NeoTech Aqua Solutions

“The Use of Ultraviolet Light in Combination with Membranes for Multi-Contaminant Removal”

2012 Student Best Paper Award

Award inscribed: in recognition of the outstanding preparation and presentation of a technical paper by a student presenter

laure dramas King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

“Interaction of Soluble Organic Matter with Metal Oxides used as Ceramic Membrane for Drinking Water Pretreatment”

Studying Under profession:

Jean-philippe Croué, professor King Abdullah University of Science and Technology

2012 Student Best Paper Award

p A G e 2 7

2012 AMTA AwardsRandy Truby, Chair of AMTA Award Committee, presented the

following awards at the Glendale Conference:

2012 Water Quality Person of the Year Award

2012 Outstanding Member Award 2012 Presidential Award

Thomas F. Seacord, P.e. Carollo engineers, Inc.

Award inscribed: In recognition of his years of hard work on behalf of AMTA, his active participation on concentrate disposal issues, serving as the editor of the AMTA’s quarterly newsletter “Solutions”, chair of the Affordable Desalination Collaboration and leadership in the establishment of AMTA’s newest affiliate association – the Northwest Membrane Operator Association

Stratton Tragellis Siemens Industry, Inc.

Award inscribed: In recognition of his contributions to AMTA, including the pre-Conference Workshop Chair during the 2012 Joint Conference & exposition and his support on AMTA Workshops during the past year.

Robert bergman, P.e.

Award inscribed: In recognition of his service as the Inaugural Chair of the first Joint Conference & exposition between AMTA and AWWA, this award acknowledges his leadership and commitment to the highest level of member service offered to the association.

Accepting: Tom Seacord Accepting: Stratton Tragellis Accepting: Robert Bergman, p.e.

p A G e 2 8

2012 Presidential Award

Rich Franks

Award inscribed: In recognition of his contributions to AMTA, including the pre-Conference Workshop 1 Chair during the 2012 Joint Conference & exposition and his support and involvement throughout the past year.

Accepting: Rich Franks

p A G e 2 9

AWWA/AMTA 2012 Membrane Technology

Conference & ExpositionRecap Article

By: Bob Bergman Chair, MTC12 Conference Planning Committee

p A G e 3 0

The first joint conference between AMTA and AWWA (American Water Works Association), the 2012 Membrane Technology Conference & Exposition, was successfully

held in Glendale, AZ February 27 – March 1, 2012. The conference attracted 933 attendees and had 73 exhibitor booths. Attendee feedback from the conference was

very positive.

A 16-member conference planning committee (PC), made of volunteers representing AMTA and AWWA in equal numbers, developed the conference procedures for this inaugural conference by combining the best features of previous membrane conferences from both organizations.

There were 174 abstract received and the PC selected 108 for oral presentations and 36 for posters. The conference had five pre-conference workshops and two facility tours (City of Scottsdale Water Campus Facility and City of Goodyear Bullard Water Campus RO Treatment Facility).

Additionally, several joint AMTA-AWWA awards were presented (Hall of Fame Award: Stuart McClellan, SA McClellan, Inc.; Membrane Facility Award: Orange County Water District’s Groundwater Replenishment System; Robert O. Vernon Operator of the Year: Mike Heaton, East Bay Municipal Utility District, California; Best Paper: Brent Alspach, Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS; Best Poster: J.R. Cooper, Neotech Aqua Solutions; and two Best Student Paper awards: Laure Dramas, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology and Syed Zaki Abdullah, The University of British Columbia).

The “call for papers” is now open for the second joint AMTA-AWWA membrane conference to be held in San Antonio, TX February 25-28, 2013. The closing date for abstract submission is July 16, 2012. n

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 eventsMay 21-23, 2012 AMTA Workshop, Seattle, WAJune 10-14, 2012 AWWA Annual Conference & expo (ACe), Dallas, TXJune 17-20, 2012 SeDA Spring Symposium, Bonita Springs, FLJune 19-22, 2012 CaribDA Conference & expo, ArubaJuly 16-18, 2012 AMTA Workshop, Fairfax, VAJuly 24, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, erie, COAug. 7, 2012 NWMOA Membrane Operations Basics Workshop, Fruitland, IDAug. 22-24, 2012 SCMA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TXSept. 18, 2012 SeDA Chemical pretreatment for RO Technology Transfer Workshop, Dunedin, FLSept. 18, 2012 NWMOA Basics for Membranes in Watewater Treatment Workshop, King County, WASept. 20, 2012 NWMOA Membrane Operations Basics Workshop, Cottage Grove, ORSept. 25, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, east Bay Municipal Utility District, CASept. 27, 2012 SWMOA Workshop, Chino, CAOct. 1, 2012 CaribDA Installation and Maintenance of pumps pre-Conf. Workshop w/CWWA, BahamasOct. 23-25, 2012 AMTA/SeDA Joint Workshop, Key Largo, FLDec. 11-13, 2012 AMTA/SWMOA Joint Workshop, Maui, HI2013 eventsFeb. 25-28, 2013 AMTA/AWWA Membrane Technology Conference & exposition, San Antonio, TXApr. 22-24, 2013 SWMOA Annual Symposium, San Diego, CAMay TBA, 2013 AMTA pre-Conf. Workshop at AkAWWA Section Annual Conference, Anchorage, AK

Non profit Org.U.S. postage

p A I DWest palm Beach, FL

permit #20852409 Se Dixie Hwy.Stuart, FL 34996