America’s Authority in
Membrane Treatment
10 MGD Membrane Bioreactor
Improving America’s Waters
Through Membrane Filtration and Desalting
New Facilities
solutions
Spring 2012
Irvine Ranch Water District’s Successful
Implementation of a 10 MGD Membrane
Bioreactor for Water Recycling
Authors:
Steven L. Malloy, P.E., Irvine Ranch Water District
Gregorio Estrada, P.E.,HDR Engineering, Inc.
I
rvine 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 Technology
Process 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.
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.
continued on page 4
President’s Message
Current Executive Committee
Peter M. Waldron
President
Peter Waldron
First Vice President
Mehul Patel, P.E.
Orange County Water District
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.
Second Vice President
Lynne Gulizia
Toray Membrane USA, Inc.
Treasurer
Steve Malloy
Irvine Ranch Water District
Secretary
Karen Lindsey
Avista Technologies, Inc.
Immediate Past President
Steve Duranceau, Ph.D., P.E.
University of Central Florida
AMTA Staff
Executive Director
Ian C. Watson, P.E.
Administrative Director
Janet L. Jaworski, CMP
American Membrane
Technology Association
2409 SE Dixie Hwy.
Stuart, FL 34996
772-463-0820
772-463-0860 (fax)
[email protected]
www.amtaorg.com
Editors
Tom Seacord, P.E. and
Winnie Shih, Ph.D., Carollo Engineers, P.C.
Publication Schedule
Winter
Pretreatment
Spring
New Facilities
Summer
Water Quality
Fall
Membrane Residuals
Peter M. Waldron
President – American Membrane
Technology Association
p ag e 2
AMTA Solutions is published
quarterly for the members
of AMTA. AMTA Solutions is
mailed to AMTA members
and published on the AMTA
website.
From the Editors
SUBMIT
YOUR
ARTICLE
TODAY!
solutions
By: Tom Seacord, P.E. and Winnie Shih, Ph.D.
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 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 ([email protected]) and
Tom Seacord ([email protected]) .
Thank you and we look forward to your
feedback on this and other issues of
Solutions.
Ben’s O&M Tip Corner
By: Ben Mohlenhoff
If you have a tip or a suggestion for a future O&M article,
please contact Ben Mohlenhoff
(772) 546-6292
[email protected]
What are we going to do
with all this water?
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
p ag e 3
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
[email protected].
Irvine Ranch Water District
continued from page 1
Table 1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Final Alternatives
Alternative
1
Advantages
Disadvantages
• Least number of new unit processes
(simplest operation)
• More difficult implementation and
phasing
• Lower construction and operational cost
• 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
• Higher construction cost
• Operational complexity associated with
membrane facility
• Smaller footprint
Note:
Alternative 1: Expansion of existing biological treatment train and filters
Alternative 2: Parallel MBR train
Existing Plant Overview
The 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 LudzakEttinger 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.
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.
Membrane Selection and
Agreement
IRWD 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
Figure 1
Michelson Water Recycling Plant Process Overview after Phase 2 Expansion
Phase 2 Expansion
The 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
p ag e 4
Figure 2
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 Bioreactor
The 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 Screening
Prior 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 “throughflow” 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 Treatment
The MBR aeration basins use a “folded
tank” design. The MLSS from the
membrane tank is returned to a firststage 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 Pumping
MLSS 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.
continued on page 6
p ag e 5
Irvine Ranch Water District
continued from page 5
Membrane Tanks
The 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 soundinsulated 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
Summary
Membrane 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 Considerations
Facility 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.
p ag e 6
• 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.
Conclusion
In 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, forwardthinking 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
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 ag e 7
Ben’s Design Tip Corner
By: 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
[email protected]
Little things when testing new
facilities which become Big deals!
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?
p ag e 8
• 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
Affordable Desalination Collaboration
(ADC) dissolution and turnover of
assets to AMTA
By: 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 ag e 9
Perspectives on
Desalination Energy Use and
Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Julia H. Sorensen, Todd K. Reynolds, Susan O’Hara,
and Melanie Mow Schumacher
Introduction
The 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 energyefficient 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
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 Background
Santa 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.
p ag e 1 0
Energy Use of Current
scwd2 Water Supplies
The 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
Requirements
The 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
Figure 1
Desalination Process
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.
Figure 2
Desalination Energy Use Relative to Other Santa Cruz Area Demands
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.
continued on page 12
p ag e 1 1
Perspectives on Desalination Energy Use
continued from page11
Desalination Energy
Use in a Community
Perspective
Although 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.
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
Figure 3
Typical Santa Cruz Area Residential Energy Use Including Water Supply
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
Perspective
Since 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.
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.
p ag e 1 2
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 Reduction
In 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 agencyspecific 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.
Figure 4
Household Energy Equivalents to Glass of Water
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 worstcase 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.
Figure 5
Recent 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 nonrenewable 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 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 pre1990 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
continued on page 14
p ag e 1 3
Perspectives on Desalination Energy Use
continued from page11
Figure 6
Potential Greenhouse Gas Reduction Amounts for scwd2
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 worstcase 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 CO2e. 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.
Summary
References
The 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.
California Energy Commission (2010a), “Frequently Asked Questions –
FAQs, Energy Efficiency Standards for
Televisions”, http://www.energy.ca.gov/
appliances/tv_faqs.html.
More information on this article can be
found on the scwd2desal.org website.
p ag e 1 4
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%20
version%203c_Oct2010.zip.
“Energy Priorities”, Water Desalination
Report, June 2008, Volume 44, Issue no.
20, page 2.
Electronic Energy Use”, http://www.
energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/
index.cfm/mytopic=10040.
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.
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.
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
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
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
p ag e 1 5
Message from the Executive Director
Ian C. Watson, P.E.
Executive Director
R
ecently I represented AMTA in a workshop titled
need for permitting the discharge, it would be beneficial
“Desal Dialogue”. The purpose of the workshop
to create a new classification within the NPDES permitting
and the research program of which it is a
procedure which would be for desal plant concentrates. At
segment is to examine the permitting process for
the workshop, a senior member of USEPA told me in no
desalination projects, both brackish and seawater. I consider
uncertain terms that the only way this will happen is through
this to be an extremely important and timely body of work,
an act of Congress. EPA has no authority under the current
particularly for brackish inland desalters where concentrate
Clean Water Act to establish such a category without changes
disposal has become the tail that wags the dog.
to the Act.
During the workshop, I reminisced about the early days of
This then should be our goal. I call upon all of you to enter
desalting in Florida, in particular the Cape Coral RO plant.
into a dialogue with your federal elected officials to start
The original concentrate discharge, which I believe is still
us down this path. I also issue a challenge to AWWA, WEF,
in use today, was to a salt water canal. While I was doing
and WateReuse to join forces with AMTA in a concerted
some work there, observations were made by biologists on
effort to persuade Congress to act in this matter. With the
the impact of this discharge to the aquatic environment. As
anticipated growth in both inland and coastal desalters on
I recall, these observations resulted in the discovery that
the horizon, the time to act is now. I would also urge the
marine life, both flora and fauna, was flourishing around the
Congress in its deliberations to consider the experience of
end of the discharge pipe. There was healthy crustacean
other countries, particularly Australia, which has very strict
life, which attracted fish species that fed on such creatures,
environmental guidelines, and Spain, which must comply with
together with flourishing beds of sea grass and other
the requirements of the European Union.
salt water plant species. Another presentation that I saw
Finally, back to the workshop. Out of 49 attendees, it was
during the preliminary work on the Tampa Desalter was a
encouraging to find that 23 were from state or federal
presentation by Mark Hammond of the South West Florida
regulatory agencies, including EPA, California, Arizona,
Water Management District. He had visited several sites
Texas, Massachusetts, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, and
in the Caribbean, and his slides of the end of pipe marine
Oklahoma. The other 26 included water agencies, including
environment told a similar story.
Sydney, Australia, and Spain, associations such as AMTA, and
In spite of evidence to the contrary, our industry is still
the study team.
fighting the battle to permit concentrate discharges. Part
Finally, recruit a new member! To get this permitting issue
of the problem I suspect is the classification of desal plant
resolved, we need to go to Congress with strength, and
concentrate as industrial waste. AMTA has over the years
strength in this case is in membership. Let’s get this moving,
tackled this subject with members of Congress and EPA,
without success. Our position is that while we recognize the
and I am confident that we can prevail. n
p ag e 1 6
Website Committee Message
Karen Lindsey
Avista Technologies, Inc.
Website Committee Chair
“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
p ag e 1 7
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
Regulatory Update
Christine A. Owen
Legislative Affairs & Regulatory Programs Committee Chair
HOT TOPICS
Chromium VI
Fracking
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.
Controversy 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.
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 Guide
Adaptation 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.
Atrazine
A 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 Rule
The 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 ag e 1 8
Proposed and Pending Rules.
Perchlorate
Notice: Regulatory determination
Bisphenol A (BPA)
Notice: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
Proposal: February 2013
Proposal: TBD
Final: August 2014 (statutory deadline); May 2015 if extended
Description/Status: EPA requested comments to its ANPRM
for environmental testing, testing of drinking water and its
sources
Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and
developing supporting materials; Agency intends to establish
an SAB committee
Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Notice: National primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR)
for up to 16 VOCs
Radon Rule
Proposal: November 1999
Proposal: October 2013
Description/Status: Agenda continues to identify the final
action for this rule as “to be determined”
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 Revisions
Proposal: May 2012
Final: 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
Final: December 2013
Description/Status: EPA conducting evaluations and
developing supporting materials; USEPA SAB DW Committee
considering effectiveness of partial lead service line
replacement
Six-Year Review
Notice: March 29, 2010
NPDES Pesticides General Permit
Proposal: June 4, 2010
Description/Status: The final comment period closed in
June 2010; additional Agency action depends on regulatory
determinations
Final: October 31, 2011
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3)
Proposal: March 3, 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 Rule
Proposal: 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
Final: To be determined
Final: January 2012
Description/Status: Office of Management and Budget review
is underway
Wastewater Pretreatment: Coal Bed Methane and Shale
Gas Production
Proposal (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 ag e 1 9
Membership Update
Lynne Gulizia
Steve Malloy
Membership Co-Chairs
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., BCEE
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
McKinley L. Cashwell III
City of Chesapeake
Luis Castilla
ACCIONA Agua
Jack Ceadel
Global Water Intelligence
Susan L. Crawford P.E., BCEE
CDM Smith Inc.
Thomas J. Lebeau Ph.D.
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Lisa Culbert
Layne Christensen Water Technologies
Phillip Lintereur
Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
Alan Dahlqvist
Layne Christensen Water Technologies
Nick Lucas
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Steve Diamond P.E.
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
Paul Marina
CDG Environmental, LLC
Melissa Fischer
AXEON Water Technologies
Robert McCandless P.E.
Brown and Caldwell
Guillermo V. Garcia Carrasco
OSMO
Thomas McGuckin
International Products Corporation
Tom Giese P.E.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
David B. Morris
CDG Environmental, LLC
Tom Gillogly
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Augustin Pavel
AXEON Water Technologies
Nigel Grace
Brown and Caldwell
Monica Pazahanick
Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Dean Gregory Ph.D.
CDG Environmental, LLC
Ronald L. Ruocco P.E.
Brian L. Hackman P.E., P.H., BCEE
Merry N. Shelley
Fountain Quail Water Management, LLC
Deb Harmon
Brown and Caldwell
Willie Stuart
Myron L Company
Steve Chesters
Genesys International Limited
Andrew Harris
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Preston Van Meter
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Hyo Soo Choi
Econity Co., Ltd
Moon Seon Jang Ph.D.
Econity Co., Ltd
Jake White
Burns & McDonnell, Inc.
Michele Christian
International Products Corporation
Paul Jung
Econity USA, Inc.
Michael C. Whittier
Siemens Industry, Inc.
Curtis Clay
CDG Environmental, LLC
Derek Kim Ph.D.
Econity USA, Inc.
Kelly Comstock P.E, BCEE
Brown and Caldwell
Jin Ho Kim Ph.D.
Econity Co., Ltd.
Matthew D. Charles
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
p ag e 2 0
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 ag e 2 1
p ag e 2 2
PROGAM SCHEDULE
Monday, May 21st
Wednesday, May 23rd
3:00 - 5:00
Exhibitor Set-Up
7:30 - 8:30
NWMOA Board Meeting
3:00 - 5:00
Early Registration
8:00 - 8:30
Continental Breakfast
Tuesday, May 22nd
8:30 - 12:00
SESSION 3: Drinking Water Membrane Applications
7:30 - 8:20
Registration and Continental Breakfast
Moderator:
Karen Lindsey, Avista Technologies, Inc.
8:20 - 8:30
Introductions & Opening Remarks
Bob Oreskovich, Workshop Chair
8:30 - 9:15
Considerations for MF/UF Procurement,
Design & Operation
8:30 - 12:00
SESSION 1: Membrane Basics & MBR Applications
Moderator:
Tom Seacord, P.E., Carollo Engineers, Inc.
9:15 - 9:45
YuJung Chang, Ph.D., HDR Engineering, Inc.
Nanaimo South Fork WTP Procurement &
Design Case Study
8:30 - 9:15
MBR/MF/UF Membrane Basics & Terminology
Michael McWhirter, MWH Americas, Inc.
Dan Hugaboom, P.E., Carollo Engineers, Inc.
9:45 - 10:15
Membrane Operational Issues: Clarifier & UF Chemistry
9:15 - 9:45
Pacific Northwest - Regulators’ Perspectives on
Permitting Requirements for Membrane Installations
Russell Swerdfeger, Siemens Industry, Inc.
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 MF/UF Case Study: Low Pressure Membrane Plant
10:15 - 10:30 Refreshment Break
Conversion to meet LT2 Standards
Tom Kennedy, Olivenhain Municipal Water District
11:00 - 11:30 MBR/MF/UF Technology Status & Trends
10:30 - 11:00 Toray Flat Sheet MBR Case Study
Duncan Millar, P.Eng., Toray Membrane USA, Inc.
Coley Ali, Professional Water Technologies
11:30 - 12:00 Airlift MBR - The Hybrid Membrane Bioreactor
11:00 - 11:30 A Re-Evaluation of the Economics of the MBR Process –
Has a Tipping Point Been Reached?
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
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
Tom Giese, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
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
1:30 - 2:00
Design and Operation of Membrane Bioreactors for
Nutrient Removal and Reuse
Joel Rife, P.E., CDM Smith
1:15 - 3:00
Tour of Brightwater MBR Membrane Plant
2:00 - 2:30
Accelerated Testing Protocols for Membrane Development
King County, Brightwater Treatment Plant Staff
Stratton Tragellis and Paul Gallagher, Ph.D.,
Siemens Industry, Inc.
3:00 - 4:00
Bus Ride from Plant to Hotel
2:30 - 2:40
Workshop Wrap-Up
Bob Oreskovich, Workshop Chair
3:00 - 9:00
AMTA Board Meeting
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
p ag e 2 3
p ag e 2 4
p ag e 2 5
2012 AWWA/AMTA Joint Awards
Randy 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
Accepting: Mike Heaton
Mike Heaton
East Bay Municipal Utility District
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
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.
2012 Best Paper Award
• 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
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
Accepting: Stuart McClellan
Accepting: Mehul Patel,
Orange County Water District
p ag e 2 6
“Strategic Practices and Lessons Learned
for Integrating Desalinated Seawater into
Existing Systems”
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
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
p ag e 2 7
2012 AMTA Awards
Randy 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.
Stratton Tragellis
Siemens Industry, 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
Award inscribed: In recognition of his
contributions to AMTA, including the PreConference Workshop Chair during the
2012 Joint Conference & Exposition and
his support on AMTA Workshops during
the past year.
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 ag e 2 8
Robert Bergman, P.E.
2012 Presidential Award
Rich Franks
Award inscribed: In recognition of his
contributions to AMTA, including the PreConference Workshop 1 Chair during the
2012 Joint Conference & Exposition and
his support and involvement throughout
the past year.
Accepting: Rich Franks
p ag e 2 9
AWWA/AMTA 2012
Membrane Technology
Conference & Exposition
Recap Article
By: Bob Bergman
Chair, MTC12 Conference Planning Committee
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.
p ag e 3 0
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 AMTAAWWA 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 ag e 3 1
Non Profit Org.
U.S. Postage
PA I D
West Palm Beach, FL
2409 SE Dixie Hwy.
Stuart, FL 34996
Newsletter
Advertisement
is Available.
Please Contact AMTA for rates and availability.
Janet L. Jaworski
American Membrane Technology Association
2409 SE Dixie Hwy. • Stuart, FL 34996
772-463-0820 • 772-463-0860 (fax)
[email protected]
A form is available on the website at
www.amtaorg.com/publications.html
Permit #2085
Calendar of Events
2012 Events
May 21-23, 2012
June 10-14, 2012
June 17-20, 2012
June 19-22, 2012
July 16-18, 2012
July 24, 2012
Aug. 7, 2012
Aug. 22-24, 2012
Sept. 18, 2012
Sept. 18, 2012
Sept. 20, 2012
Sept. 25, 2012
Sept. 27, 2012
Oct. 1, 2012
Oct. 23-25, 2012
Dec. 11-13, 2012
2013 Events
Feb. 25-28, 2013
Apr. 22-24, 2013
May TBA, 2013
AMTA Workshop, Seattle, WA
AWWA Annual Conference & Expo (ACE), Dallas, TX
SEDA Spring Symposium, Bonita Springs, FL
CaribDA Conference & Expo, Aruba
AMTA Workshop, Fairfax, VA
SWMOA Workshop, Erie, CO
NWMOA Membrane Operations Basics Workshop, Fruitland, ID
SCMA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX
SEDA Chemical Pretreatment for RO Technology Transfer Workshop, Dunedin, FL
NWMOA Basics for Membranes in Watewater Treatment Workshop, King County, WA
NWMOA Membrane Operations Basics Workshop, Cottage Grove, OR
SWMOA Workshop, East Bay Municipal Utility District, CA
SWMOA Workshop, Chino, CA
CaribDA Installation and Maintenance of Pumps Pre-Conf. Workshop
w/CWWA, Bahamas
AMTA/SEDA Joint Workshop, Key Largo, FL
AMTA/SWMOA Joint Workshop, Maui, HI
AMTA/AWWA Membrane Technology Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX
SWMOA Annual Symposium, San Diego, CA
AMTA Pre-Conf. Workshop at AkAWWA Section Annual Conference, Anchorage, AK
Contact the following organizations for more information regarding their listed events:
AMTA – 772-463-0820, [email protected], www.amtaorg.com
AWWA – 303-794-7711, [email protected], www.awwa.org
CaribDA – 772-781-8507, [email protected], www.caribda.com
IDA – 978-887-0410, [email protected], www.idadesal.org
SCMA – 512-236-8500, [email protected], www.scmembrane.org
SEDA – 772-781-7698, [email protected], www.southeastdesalting.com
SWMOA – 888-463-0830, [email protected], www.swmoa.org

MBR Package Plant for Sewage Treatment

S-002-2014 Membranes und ZLD

Uniseal® PVC

P641 ARABIDOPSIS NHR2 MEDIATES VESICLE TRAFFICKING

Commercial Membranes -Singapore

Cordek Puraflex VOC Membrane Data Sheet

Sartobind® Ion Exchange Sheet

QSE Balcony Quote Example 2014

download modules brochure

INTERNAL GRIPPER SERIES LGS