Selection of a Membrane Supplier

through Piloting

- Getting it Right

Membrane Masterclass

Cranfield University

January 26th 2006

Peter Hillis

Lead Technical Specialist

UU Water Engineering Group

Outline

• Introduction

• Membrane Selection Methodology

• Experimental Protocol

• Piloting

• Evaluation

• Selection

Introduction

• Why pilot?

• Variation on Feed water quality

• Seasonal – Temperature, Organics

• Transient – Turbidity, iron, manganese

• Undefined contaminants – NOM

• Variation in membrane suppliers

• MF vs UF

• PVDF vs PES

• Pressure vs Immersed

Membrane Selection

Methodology

• Pre-selection criteria

• Pilot trial evaluation

• Technical evaluation

• Tender review/Whole life cost

analysis

• Supplier selection

Selection Process Overview

Pre-Selection Criteria

Rejected

Pilot Programme

Technical Evaluation

Whole-Life-Cost Eval.

Contract Award

Pass

Pass

Pass

Pass Rejected

Rejected

Rejected

Pre-selection criteria

• Proven at full scale

• Minimum 12 months operation in a similar application

• Nominated membrane system for evaluation

• All aspects of the system, particularly the membrane material, to be tolerant to agreed water quality parameters

Pre-selection criteria

• All materials to comply with Water Supply (Water

Quality) Regulations – Regulation 31

• The proposed system shall appear in “The Water Supply

(Water Quality) (Amendment) Regulations 1999:

Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies - Listing of products

capable of removing or retaining particles greater than 1

micron diameter” or any subsequent amendments

• The proposed system shall have been used successfully

at full-scale in a secondary duty for the recovery of dirty

washwater from a primary membrane process

Experimental Protocol

• Objectives

• Test equipment description

• Testing Methodology

• Sampling and Analysis plan

• Data Management and Analysis

• QA/QC

• Health and Safety

• Communications

• Waste

Experimental Protocol

• Optimisation phase one

– Selection of initial operating conditions, determine preferred conditions for demonstration phase

– California Department of Health Services (CDHS) approved fluxrates

Demonstration phase one

– Fixed conditions, long term test under automatic control

Experimental Protocol

• Optimisation phase two

– Refine preferred operating conditions based

on Demo 1 performance

• Demonstration phase two

– Refined fixed conditions, long term test under

automatic control

Parameters Assessed In Pilot

Trials

• Hours of continuous operation/availability

• System robustness and reliability

• Membrane fibre integrity

• No more than one fibre failure per system during demonstration phases

• Number and type of cleaning chemicals

• Chemical consumption

• Cleaning frequency

• More than 30 days of acceptable level of operability

Parameters Assessed In Pilot

Trials• Backwash frequency

• Backwash quantity

• Backwash duration

• Operating flux (at specified temperature and trans-membrane pressure).

• Not to exceed flux the agreed fluxrates

• Maintenance clean frequency

• Waste stream quality

• Waste stream quantity

A g reed D em onstra tion Phase 2 O pera ting Cond ition s

Param ete r V a lue U n its

Mem brane flux (LM H ) 85 L /m 2/h

P ilo t sk id flow 8 .6 M 3 /h

Backw ash in te rva l 120 M inu tes

A ir scou r ra te 10 Nm 3/h pe r m odu le

A ir scou r du ra tion 30 Seconds

A ir scou r/w ate r w ash 10/1 .2 Nm 3/h pe r m odu le , m 3/h p er m odu le

A ir scou r/w ater w ash du ra tion

15 Seconds

W ash w a te r vo lum e 110 L itre s p er w ash (app rox im ate)

Down tim e 1 :45 M in s:secs (app rox im a te)

CIP c le an in te rva l >=90 days

Hypoch lo rite

streng th/ tem p

300 /25 Ppm /deg rees

Su lphu ric ac id

streng th/ tem p

0 .05 /am b ien t % /deg rees

M IT test frequency 7 days

M IT p ass cr ite r ia 4 Log rem ova l

U n ited U tilit ie s M em brane Supp lie r

S igna tu re … …… ……………… …… …………… S igna tu re … ………………………………

Da te …………………………… … ……………… ..

Results

• TMP Development

• CIP Performance

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.0025/07/2004

01/08/2004

08/08/2004

15/08/2004

22/08/2004

29/08/2004

05/09/2004

12/09/2004

19/09/2004

26/09/2004

03/10/2004

10/10/2004

17/10/2004

24/10/2004

31/10/2004

07/11/2004

14/11/2004

21/11/2004

28/11/2004

05/12/2004

12/12/2004

19/12/2004

26/12/2004

02/01/2005

09/01/2005

16/01/2005

23/01/2005

30/01/2005

06/02/2005

13/02/2005

20/02/2005

27/02/2005

06/03/2005

13/03/2005

20/03/2005

27/03/2005

03/04/2005

10/04/2005

17/04/2005

24/04/2005

Date

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

TMP

Flow

CIP

Optimisation

Phase 1Optimisation

Phase 2

DemonstrationPha

se 1

Demonstration

Phase 1

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

13/10/2004 00:00

14/10/2004 00:00

15/10/2004 00:00

16/10/2004 00:00

17/10/2004 00:00

18/10/2004 00:00

19/10/2004 00:00

20/10/2004 00:00

21/10/2004 00:00

22/10/2004 00:00

23/10/2004 00:00

24/10/2004 00:00

25/10/2004 00:00

26/10/2004 00:00

27/10/2004 00:00

28/10/2004 00:00

29/10/2004 00:00

30/10/2004 00:00

31/10/2004 00:00

01/11/2004 00:00

02/11/2004 00:00

03/11/2004 00:00

04/11/2004 00:00

05/11/2004 00:00

06/11/2004 00:00

07/11/2004 00:00

08/11/2004 00:00

09/11/2004 00:00

10/11/2004 00:00

11/11/2004 00:00

DAte

TMP

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

28/11/2004

12:00

29/11/2004

00:00

29/11/2004

12:00

30/11/2004

00:00

30/11/2004

12:00

01/12/2004

00:00

01/12/2004

12:00

02/12/2004

00:00

02/12/2004

12:00

03/12/2004

00:00

03/12/2004

12:00

04/12/2004

00:00

Date Time

Rate of increase: approx 2 kPa/day.

TMP upper limit before CIP: 67 kPa.

Estimated runtime: (67-24)/2 = 21.5

days

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.004/12/2005

05/12/2005

06/12/2005

07/12/2005

08/12/2005

09/12/2005

10/12/2005

11/12/2005

12/12/2005

13/12/2005

14/12/2005

15/12/2005

16/12/2005

17/12/2005

18/12/2005

19/12/2005

20/12/2005

21/12/2005

22/12/2005

23/12/2005

24/12/2005

25/12/2005

26/12/2005

27/12/2005

28/12/2005

29/12/2005

30/12/2005

31/12/2005

01/01/2006

02/01/2006

03/01/2006

04/01/2006

05/01/2006

06/01/2006

07/01/2006

08/01/2006

Date

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

TMP" Flow

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

15-Dec 16-Dec 17-Dec 18-Dec 19-Dec 20-Dec 21-Dec 22-Dec 23-Dec

Date

TMP (bar)/Feed Turbidity (NTU)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Temp (°C

)

TMP Temp

MEMBRANE SYSTEM TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET

Supplier/System:

Total Score: 0

Weighting (%) Score (0-100) Weighted Average Score

System Design and Engineering Concept 30 0 0

Health and Safety 10 0

Flux 10 0

Power Consumption 5 0

Pressure Rating of the System 8 0

Differential Pressure Rating of the System 8 0

Flow Control Methods 8 0

System Complexity 8 0

Operability 8 0

Maintainability 8 0

Integrity Monitoring System 4 0

Noise 5 0

Operator Interface and Data Acquisition 8 0

Redundancy 10 0

Pilot Plant Trials 25 0 0

Hours Continuous Operation/Availability 30 0

Downtime Due to Washing and Cleaning 10 0

Number of Fibre Breaks 40 0

Operator Input Requirement 20 0

Washing, Cleaning, Washwater Recovery and Waste Systems 25 0 0

Waste Stream Quantity 40 0

Waste Stream Quality 40 0

Number of Chemicals 20 0

Supplier Profile 20 0 0

Product Support 15 0

Product Development/Innovation 15 0

Maintenance Services 15 0

Pilot Plant Support 10 0

Design Capability 15 0

Spares Availability 15 0

Effective Use of QA Procedures for Collection and Assimilation of Pilot Data 15 0

Technical Evaluation Panel Name Signature Date

Membrane Selection

Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation

• Using financial model

• Inputs to model derived from data

supplied with bid proposal and

validated from pilot and reference

plant operation

Whole-Life-Cost Evaluation

Capital Cost

• Model requires: Civil, M&E, ICA, Other (membrane

replacement)

• Supplier bid will include MEICA costs

• UU estimating database will be used to estimate

civil/building costs (allows full impact of high/low footprint

solutions to be assessed)

• Whole-life-cost very sensitive to membrane replacement

costs. Guaranteed replacement costs and life

expectancy to be addressed during procurement

Membrane Selection

Operating Cost

• Derived by UU, using:

– Operating parameters provided by suppliers

– UU internal unit cost rates

• Guidance provided on information to be provided by supplier via tender schedules for

– Power

– Chemicals

– Waste

– Manpower

– Maintenance

Outcome

Preferred supplier selected based on:

• technical evaluation scores,

• pilot trial performance,

• tender review

• WLC