Final Report (November 2013)

Transcription

1 Final Report (November 2013) Project LIFE09 ENV/ES/ UFTEC LIFE+ Programme (European Commission) 01/09/ /08/2013

2 2

3 LIFE Project Number LIFE09 ENV/ES/ Final Report Covering the project activities from 01/09/2010 to 31/08/2013 Reporting Date 29/11/2013 LIFE+ PROJECT NAME or Acronym UFTEC Substitution of conventional treatment of raw river water by ultrafiltration membrane technology Data Project Project location Barcelona (Spain) Project start date 01/09/2010 Project end date 31/08/2013 Total budget EC contribution (%) of total costs (%) of eligible costs Data Beneficiary Name Beneficiary CETAQUA, CENTRO TECNOLÓGICO DEL AGUA, FUNDACIÓN PRIVADA Contact person Postal address Dr. Sandra Casas Telephone Fax Carretera d Esplugues, Cornellà de Llobregat (Barcelona) - Spain Project Website scasas@cetaqua.com 3

4 1. Table of contents 1. Table of contents List of key-words and abbreviations Executive summary General project description Project objectives Key deliverables Key outputs Main contents of the document Introduction Administrative Part Consortium structure Project coordination Partnership agreement Request for Modification Subcontractors and collaborators Stakeholders Evaluation of the management system Technical Part Action 2: Definition of the pre-treatment step baseline conditions Action 3: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT Action 4: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT Action 5: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT Action 6: Operation and monitoring of the prototypes Action 7: Determination of the evolution of advanced water quality parameters in conventional and UF pre-treatments Action 8: Determination of the evolution of basic water quality parameters, fouling indexes and viruses in conventional and UF pre-treatments Action 9: Efficiency assessment of conventional versus UF pre-treatment Evaluation of results achieved Analysis of long-term benefits Dissemination issues

5 List of Figures Figure 1. Project organisation chart Figure 2. Organisation chart of the team Figure 3. Gantt chart of the UFTEC project Figure 4. Picture of the Pentair prototype Figure 5. Picture of the Dow prototype Figure 6. Picture of the SGAB prototype (GE-Zenon technology) Figure 7. Picture of the UFTEC site with the three UF prototypes and the RO pilot plant Figure 8. Picture of the RO pilot plant Figure 9. Images of the autopsy conducted on the RO modules Figure 10. Picture of the operation of the prototypes Figure 11. Processes and boundaries considered in the UF LCA study List of Tables Table 1. Project objectives and achievements made... 9 Table 2. List of deliverables Table 3.UFTEC meetings held (internal meetings not reported) Table 4. Actions of the UFTEC project Table 5. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 6. Progress indicators. Action Table 7. Characteristics of the Pentair prototype Table 8. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 9. Progress indicators. Action Table 10. Characteristics of the Dow prototype Table 11.Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 12. Progress indicators. Action Table 13. Characteristics of the SGAB prototype (GE-Zenon technology) Table 14. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 15. Progress indicators. Action Table 16. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 17. Progress indicators. Action Table 18. Analytical plan conducted in Action 7 for advanced parameters determination Table 19. Number of analysis carried out in Action Action 7 for advanced parameters determination during the project Table 20. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action

6 Table 21. Progress indicators. Action Table 22. Analytical plan conducted in Action 8 for basic parameters determination Table 23. Routine analyses carried out (two years sampling) Table 24. Advanced analyses carried out (two years sampling) Table 25. Challenge tests carried out (two years sampling) Table 26. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 27. Progress indicators. Action Table 28. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action Table 29. Progress indicators. Action Table 30. Project objectives and achievements made Table 31. Evaluation of the output indicators of the project Table 32. Publications in general media Table 33. Global evaluation of communication activities

7 2. List of key-words and abbreviations AB Advisory Board ACA Agència Catalana de l Aigua CAT Consorci d Aigües de Tarragona CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis CEA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis CEB Chemically-Enhanced Backwash CER Cost-effectiveness ratio CIP Cleaning-In-Place CP Communication Plan CUADLL Comunitat d Usuaris d Aigües del Delta del Llobregat DWTP Drinking Water Treatment Plant EB Executive Board EC European Commission F-RNAPH F-specific RNA bacteriophages GC Genome copies ICER Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio UB University of Barcelona UF Ultrafiltration LCA Life Cycle Analysis MFI Modified Fouling Index NTU Turbidity units PES Poly(ether sulfones) PFU Plaque forming units P&ID Process & Instrumentation Diagram PTi Prototype i (1, 2, 3) PVDF Polyvinylidene fluoride RO Reverse Osmosis SDI Silt Density Index SGAB Societat General d Aigües de Barcelona SJD Sant Joan Despí SOMCPH Somatic Coliphages THM Trihalomethanes TSS Total SuspendedSolids TOC Total Organic Carbon WTP Water Treatment Plant 7

8 3. Executive summary 3.1. General project description The LIFE+ UFTEC project started on September 2010 and was completed on August During this period, CETaqua and UFTEC partners (Pentair, DOW and SGAB) have completed the 10 project actions successfully with no modifications in the initial project objectives. The UFTEC project was launched in order to provide tools to drinking water managers to better adapt to the current and future context. Drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) will have to face significant challenges in the following decades: be able to supply an increasing water demand, be capable of treating lower quality resources and face increased stringency in legislation, growing energy cost and social requirements in terms of processes sustainability. This context requires water treatment professionals to offer the best final product quality at the lowest possible cost in order to be competitive. This involves the application of leading-edge technologies combined with best operational practices, enabling a cost reduction, a risk minimization as well as the development of new businesses, thanks to the introduction of new technological solutions. The UFTEC concept relies on the application of ultrafiltration (UF) technology as a direct pretreatment in DWTPs, as alternative to the conventional ones, typically composed of dioxichlorination, coagulation/flocculation, settling and sand filtration. The use of UF in the polishing train in drinking water processes is quite known. Nevertheless, the approach adopted in this project is totally disruptive, pushing further the application of UF, since it is implemented just at the beginning of the treatment, filtering raw water from the Llobregat River (Barcelona, Spain), a challenging scenario because of its large water quality and quantity variability, enabling the assessment of a broad range of conditions. Few previous works published have assessed the evaluation of direct UF as alternatives to conventional pre-treatment in DWTPs treating surface water, concluding that they are suitable alternatives in terms of quality. Nonetheless, the scale of the experiments reported by these studies, their duration or feed water quality were highly different from the ones covered in this project. Three direct UF prototypes with the three module configurations (pressurized inside-out, pressurized outside-in and submerged namely Pentair, Dow and GE-Zenon) have been designed, constructed and operated continuously (7/7, 24/24) since May 2011 until April 2013 in Sant Joan Despí DWTP. The size of the three direct UF prototypes has been chosen so that scaling up risks have been eliminated by using membrane module sizes which are also being used in commercial installations. As a result, the UFTEC project has ensured the reliable validation of the technical viability. Additionally, an experimental reverse osmosis (RO) unit (fed by each direct UF prototype permeate and sand filtered water) has also been operated to assess the impact of direct UF on a subsequent RO step. Finally, aiming at having an integrated approach, a life cycle assessment and a cost efficiency analysis have been performed. The three prototypes have been able to deal with feed quality conditions, ranging from 5 to >1000 NTU, successfully in a continuous operation mode. The technical feasibility has been proven and their performance has significantly been optimized in order to become a competitive technical alternative to conventional pre-treatment. The innovative scheme proposed for DWTPs in the UFTEC project (direct UF followed by RO) offers technical advantages versus conventional pre-treatment: high and constant UF permeate quality independently of incoming water quality, soft need of coagulant (and hence, minimal sludge generation), reliability, modularity (and thus, easiness to scale-up), reduced space requirements, capacity to work even at extremely high turbidity (> 1000 NTU) and operation easiness. Since direct UF has demonstrated to be feasible with this challenging water source, it may be applicable in further scenarios, being the results highly transferable among other sites. Therefore, the innovative scheme proposed could be applied either for the construction and the upgrade of DWTPs, paving the way for the implantation of more stringent pieces of legislation and upcoming challenges. 8

9 3.2. Project objectives The UFTEC project aims at demonstrating the feasibility as well as the environmental and economic viability of direct ultrafiltration (UF) pre-treatment for reverse osmosis (RO) as an alternative to the conventional pre-treatment (coagulation-flocculation, settling and sand filtration) in surface drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs). For that purpose, three different configured UF prototypes were designed, constructed and operated during 2 years directly fed with Llobregat river water. Monitoring of the results both in terms of hydraulic performance and water quality obtained was developed during the project, following an exhaustive monitoring and analytical program. Impact of direct UF permeates and conventional pre-treated water to subsequent RO stage was evaluated through the operation of a reverse osmosis (RO) pilot plant. The specific objectives of the project as well as achievements made are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Project objectives and achievements made Objective To demonstrate at prototype scale that direct UF can be an efficient alternative to conventional pre-treatment (coagulation-flocculation, sedimentation, sand filtration) for RO at drinking water treatment plants Achievements Three direct UF prototypes with the existing configurations were designed, constructed and set-up at SJD DWTP. The prototypes have been operated continuously treating Llobregat River water during 2 years, independently of feed water fluctuations (Action 6). Technical efficiency of both pre-treatment options has been compared in terms of energy and reagents consumption as well as water losses, demonstrating the technically feasibility of direct UF as an alternative to conventional pre-treatment (Action 9). Water quality obtained in the prototypes has been compared to the results of conventional pre-treatment, showing the benefits of the innovative scheme in terms of fouling potential reduction for subsequent RO stage (Action 7 and 8). To assess the efficiency of 3 different UF prototypes with different configurations and membrane materials for their novel application as raw river water pre-treatment for RO In order to assess the efficiency of the prototypes, an exhaustive monitoring program, both in terms of water quality and hydraulic performance has been developed (Action 6, 7 and 8). Calculation procedures for chemicals and energy consumption as well as water losses was defined and validated. The results obtained with the three UF prototypes configurations (pressurised inside-out, pressurised outside-in and submerged outside-in membranes) in terms of water losses, energy and reagent consumption, environmental impact and costs have been assessed and compared within the project (Action 9). Optimal operation conditions have been defined for each configuration and have been used to conduct the scale-up projections in the case of SJD DWTP. A RO pilot plant was constructed and operated by feeding it with the UF permeates produced in the three direct UF prototypes and conventional pre-treated effluent (Action 6) in order to assess the impact of the pre-treatments on the subsequent RO stage. No detrimental fouling was observed neither from the hydraulic performance of the RO unit operated with direct UF water nor from the autopsies of the RO membranes conducted (Action 6). 9

10 Objective Achievements Conventional pre-treated water did not meet the water quality requirements for subsequent RO stage and produced fouling on the RO membranes, as was demonstrated through the operation of the RO unit and the autopsy of the RO membrane performed. In consequence, conventional pre-treatment alone is not a suitable pre-treatment for RO processes and additional pre-treatments would be needed. To evaluate reagents and energy consumption as well as water losses of the conventional and UF pretreatment for RO To perform LCA and CBA of the direct UF configurations and the conventional pretreatment for RO An exhaustive monitoring plan was conducted on the UF prototypes and RO unit to assess the reagents and energy consumption as well as water loses in the different operation conditions tested (Action 6, 7 and 8). Data from the conventional pre-treatment (water quality and hydraulic performance) was also gathered to be able to compare the different pre-treatments studied (Action 2, 7 and 8). Procedures and data needed to conduct the life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) were defined and validated. CEA was carried out taking into account the technical particularities of the project. LCA and CEA have been conducted based on the results obtained from the operation of the three direct UF prototypes, the conventional pre-treatment of SJD DWTP and the final scale-up projections conducted (Action 9). To develop adequate tools for scaling up the design and costs from prototype to fullscale plant and for adapting pilots conditions for full-scale implementation Direct UF technologies were scaled-up in the case of SJD DWTP taking into account the optimal operation conditions identified during the demonstration phase. The size of the three direct UF prototypes was chosen so that scaling up risks were eliminated by using membrane module sizes which are also being used in full-scale installations. The UFTEC project has ensured the reliable validation of the technical viability by using the data directly extracted from prototypes operation. To disseminate results and transfer the knowledge gathered to other DWTP s in Europe Results and conclusions were disseminated in the final workshop of the UFTEC project, with more than 65 attendants, and additionally through the different conferences assisted during the project (Action 10). Stakeholders have been continuously identified during the project and have been informed about the results through the project life. Networking activities have been performed in order to disseminate the results and applicability of the technological scheme demonstrated Key deliverables Table 2 presents the list of deliverables produced through the UFTEC project. The table includes the following information: name of the deliverable, Action involved and beneficiary responsible for its production as well as deadline reported in the proposal and actual delivery date. Even though some deliveries suffered some delay, UFTEC has been completed within the period specified in the proposal and achieving all its objectives. 10

11 Table 2. List of deliverables Num. Deliverable Title Action D01 D02 D03 D04 D05 D06 D07 Historical review of the conventional pre-treatment operation and raw river water quality Prototype PT1 design, specifications and instructions Prototype PT2 design, specifications and instructions Prototype PT3 design, specifications and instructions Midterm report on UF technical efficiency Midterm report on the characterisation of water samples in terms of advanced quality parameters Midterm technical efficiency evaluation of the UF pre-treatment versus the conventional one Proposal deadline Actual delivery Partner 2 Dec 10 Dec 10 SGAB 3 May 11 Apr 11 PENTAIR 4 May 11 Apr 11 DOW 5 May 11 May 11 SGAB 6 & 8 Feb 12 Apr 12 CETaqua 7 Mar 12 May 12 SGAB 9 May 12 July 12 CETaqua D08 Final report on UF technical efficiency 6 & 8 May 13 July 13 CETaqua D09 D10 D11 Final report on the characterisation of water samples in terms of advanced quality parameters Technical, environmental and economic assessment of the UF pre-treatment versus conventional Dissemination package: logo, website, video, notice boards, brochure, layman s report 7 May 13 July 13 SGAB 9 Aug 13 Aug 13 CETaqua 10 Aug 13 Aug 13 CETaqua D12 After-LIFE Communication Plan 10 Aug 13 Aug 13 CETaqua 3.4. Key outputs The main technical outputs of the UFTEC project are: Full implementation and operation of the proposed direct UF prototypes as planned. Three direct UF prototypes with different membrane configurations (pressurized insideout, pressurized outside-in and submerged outside-in configurations) were designed taking into account the feed water quality and objectives defined in Action 2. The prototypes were constructed and set-up at SJD DWTP, as scheduled. The prototypes were successfully operated during 2 years with Llobregat river water. An exhaustive monitoring program for hydraulic performance and water quality was conducted. 11

12 Successful optimization of the design and operation conditions to achieve 1) raised water production in terms of quality and quantity, 2) reduction of energy consumption (reduced pressure requirement) in order to decrease environmental impact, 3) reduction of cleaning reagents in order to decrease environmental impact, 4) increase of membrane lifetime. The design of three direct UF prototypes was assessed through a performance validation period of two months prior to operation, where all the prototypes were successfully verified. Performance of the prototypes, both in terms of operation and cleaning parameters, was optimized after 2 years of continuous operation in order to achieve the minimum energy and reagents consumption and maximum water yield under sustainable operation mode. The sustainable operation mode was mainly indicated by steady transmembrane pressures (always below the recommended threshold indicated by each membrane manufacturer) that would guarantee membranes integrity and thus, membranes lifetime. Optimal operating and cleaning conditions for each prototype were finally defined taking into account the inlet water characteristics. Minimization of the elevated consumption of chemicals reagents and energy in the WTP s pre-treatment stages. The reduction of their consumption would result in a reduction of the total footprint of the process. An exhaustive monitoring plan was conducted on the UF prototypes to assess the reagents and energy consumption in the different operation conditions tested. Data obtained in the UF prototypes at their optimal operation conditions was used to scale-up the technologies in the case of SJD DWTP. The size of the three direct UF prototypes was chosen so that scaling up risks were eliminated by using membrane module sizes which are also being used in commercial installations. In consequence, reliable technical comparison could be done between direct UF schemes and conventional pretreatment at scale-up levels. Results at scale-up level obtained demonstrate that direct UF presents a high reduction of chemical consumption, located in the range of 30-40%. Direct UF presents a soft need of coagulants (no coagulant used in some scenarios tested and hence, minimum sludge produced). The direct UF configuration also allows avoiding the dioxichlorination step required in the conventional pre-treatment. In terms of energy consumption, direct UF presents slightly higher requirements than conventional pre-treatment. However, water quality obtained in the conventional pretreatment does not meet the RO requirements for fouling indexes and so, further treatment would be needed. Additional process units would thus be needed to render the conventional process technically viable. In consequence, energy requirements in conventional pre-treatment schemes would be increased. Demonstration of the reduction of water losses occurring during the current RO pre-treatment, which translates into an improved management and use of this scarce resource. Direct UF presented similar water yields (89-95%) to modern conventional pretreatments. Nevertheless, direct UF was able to continuously operate independently of feed water fluctuations in contrast to conventional pre-treatment, which cannot treat feed water with turbidities higher than 500NTU. In consequence, direct UF would increase water availability by 10-37% in respect to conventional pre-treatment when treating Llobregat water source. 12

13 Decrease on the sites area required for the installation and operation of the pretreatment step in WTP s as result of the modularity of direct UF modules. Space requirements of direct UF schemes and conventional pre-treatment were assessed in the project. Direct UF using pressurized membranes presented a 8-11% reduction of space requirements in comparison to conventional pre-treatment when UF modules were installed in two levels. As mentioned before, conventionally pre-treated water would need to be further treated prior to its final polishing through RO. Therefore, space requirements reduction would be higher than the value reported. Identification of viruses in the feed water and quantification of their removal by the UF membranes and by the conventional pre-treatment. Advanced and viruses analysis in the feed water, conventional pre-treated water and UF permeates were conducted in the project (Action 7 and 8). Results demonstrate that UF membranes were able to completely remove the microbiological parameters (mainly E.Coli and SCRS) by size exclusion effect without the use of disinfectants. That would allow avoiding the dioxichlorination step used in the conventional pre-treatment. Direct UF presented higher removal of human viruses than conventional pre-treatment (usually 2 logs higher), which demonstrated the technical feasibility and security of the innovative scheme. Evaluation of the LCA of the three prototypes and the conventional pre-treatment scheme. Identification of the critical points and the pollution transfer likely to occur between the different units of one treatment life cycle (i.e. construction, operation, waste generation). LCA of the three prototypes at the optimal operation conditions and the conventional pre-treatment was carried out in the UFTEC project. Scope of the LCA was defined so to identify the critical points and pollution transfer likely to occur. LCA at scale-up levels was also carried out in order to compare the environmental impact of the different treatments schemes in terms of global warming. LCA results demonstrated that both systems present similar environmental impact, although sludge treatment was not considered in the conventional pre-treatment scheme. Performance of financial and economic analysis using the EU guide for CBA of investment projects. Identification of the main indicators enabling to assess the efficiency of the new technological approach compared to the conventional pretreatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis was finally developed in Action 9, taking into account the technical particularities of the project. Effectiveness indicator was defined in three different ways in order to completely assess the performance of the systems as a pretreatment for subsequent RO stages. A cost-effectiveness indicator was created to define the most suitable technology in each scenario faced. In general terms, direct UF was more cost-effective for the reduction of fouling indexes and some microbiological parameters than conventional pre-treatment. Widespread transfer of project outputs and know-how directly to stakeholders related to the water sector throughout Europe. The communication and dissemination Plan has been structured in a series of tasks aiming at disseminating the project objectives and results to the target audience. In addition, an after-life Communication Plan has also been defined in order to continue with the dissemination at the end of the project. A Layman s report has also been produced and copies will be distributed. 13

14 3.5. Main contents of the document The content of the different chapters of this report that will follow this executive summary are summarized below. Introduction This section presents the background, the main objectives and results of the UFTEC project. The key project objective is to assess the feasibility as well as the environmental and economic viability of direct ultrafiltration (UF) pre-treatment for reverse osmosis (RO) as an alternative to the conventional pre-treatment in surface water sources. Administrative part This section describes the management system and presents its evaluation. Besides, the different the different project coordination and monitoring meetings are detailed. Technical part This section presents all the technical Actions executed and completed during the project. It also evaluates the main tasks developed en each Action, as well as the results achieved. A special chapter is devoted to the dissemination and communication Action that have been done during the project, as well as to the definition of an After-LIFE communication plan. 14

15 4. Introduction Drinking Water Treatment plants (DWTPs) will have to face increasing water demand under a growing shortage of water caused by drought periods and under an increased stringency in legislation. Within this context, reverse osmosis (RO) membranes appear as a key technology for drinking water production. RO membranes have proven to be effective for the treatment of low quality river water in DWTP and relevant knowledge has been gathered throughout several experiences in the European context. However, pre-treatment units for RO need to be carefully assessed from a water losses and environmental and economic impact point of view. The feed water of the RO membranes needs to be of high quality. The current conventional pretreatment, consisting on coagulation-flocculation, sedimentation and sand filtration, presents some limitations mainly related to a high consumption of chemicals and high raw water losses. It is thus imperative to introduce new technologies that complement and/or replace conventional techniques that fail to efficiently treat raw waters or that are highly chemical or energy consuming. Ultrafiltration (UF) technology is being increasingly used for drinking water production, gradually gaining acceptance as pre-treatment for RO schemes. However, its longterm efficiency needs to be demonstrated at demonstration scale, especially for challenging surface water sources. Taking all these challenges into account the UFTEC projects aims at demonstrating the technical feasibility and the environmental and economic viability of direct ultrafiltration (UF) membrane technologies as an alternative to conventional pre-treatment schemes in Water Treatment Plants using RO membranes. The project contributes to the implementation of the Drinking Water Directive as the UF process is not based on the use of disinfectants, which are precursors of the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs), eventually formed in the conventional coagulation-flocculation treatment. It also provides means to minimize loss of scarce water resources and minimize the consumption of energy and chemical reagents in DWTPs. The potential reduction of energy, chemicals and water losses achieved through the substitution of the conventional pre-treatment by direct UF has been estimated in the project through the operation of three differently configured UF prototypes and a RO pilot plant. The outcome of the project will serve as basis for further full scale applications throughout Europe. 15

16 5. Administrative Part 5.1. Consortium structure Figure 1 shows the organisation chart of the project, which is based on the interaction between the LIFE+ Programme, the external monitoring team, the consortium and the stakeholders, Advisory Board members and subcontractors. STAKEHOLDERS Letters of Support Suez Environnement ACA CUADLL CAT Aigües del Prat AQUALOGY Degrémont ADVISORS Advisory Board Meetings Juan María Sánchez Sánchez (Ecoagua Ingenieros) Maria Kennedy (UNESCO- IHE) TorOve Leiknes (NTNU) Manuel Gonzalo Pérez (Aqua España) Miguel Torres Corral (CEDEX) LIFE+ PROGRAMME PROJECT CONSORTIUM EUROPEAN COMMISSION PROJECT COORDINATOR RESEARCH PARTNERS Funding Collaboration Grant Agreement Partnership Agreement MONITORING TEAM Executive Board Meetings Communication EC Reporting Communication Internal Reporting EC Monitoring Meetings SUBCONTRACTORS Subcontractors' Agreements Figure 1. Project organisation chart Figure 2 shows the structure of the project team. It is worth noting that three new scientific researchers joined the project team during the last year: Teresa Kersting (substituting Roger Guiu), Ignacio Martin (substituting Xavier Serrallach) and Sandra Casas (substituting Olga Ferrer) from CETaqua. Regarding CETaqua s Communication Department, Laura Ventura has substituted Maria Jesus Llorens and Ruth Hernandez. 16

17 COORDINATING BENEFICIARY TECHNICAL TEAM ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM Technical Director Carlos Montero General Director Tomas Michel RESEARCH AREA L1: ALTERNATIVE RESSOURCES PROGRAMMES DEPARTMENT Area Manager Xavier Bernat Programme Manager Rosa Maria Pieras Technical Project Manager Sandra Casas Administrative Project Manager Carles Valverde Scientific Researcher Carmen Galvañ COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT Scientific Researcher Ignacio Martín Communication Technician Laura Ventura RESEARCH AREA L2: IMPACT OF GLOBAL CHANGE Area Manager Àngels Cabello Scientific Researcher Xavier Aldea RESEARCH AREA L6: WATER DEMAND Area Manager Montserrat Termes Scientific Researcher Teresa Kersting ASSOCIATED BENEFICIARY TECHNICAL TEAM ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM PRODUCTION Technical Director Xavier Iraegui Head of Production Department Jose Luis Armenter Administrative Assistant María Dolores Amiguet Plant Manager José Mesa PRODUCTION Technical Project Engineer Marc Pons Administrative Project Manager Pedro López WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY Head of Laboratory Miquel Paraira Administrative Project Manager Jordi Escrig Scientific Researcher Jordi Martín ASSOCIATED BENEFICIARY TECHNICAL TEAM ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM General Project Manager Stephan van Hoof Administrative Project Manager Stephan van Hoof Technical Project Manager Remon Dekker Scientific technician Bastiaan Blankert Sales Support Spain Sergi Lluch ASSOCIATED BENEFICIARY TECHNICAL TEAM ADMINISTRATIVE TEAM Technical Project Manager Verónica García General Director DOW Ibérica Anton Valero Scientific technician Oscar Ruzafa Programmes Manager Alfred Arias Scientific technician Nicolas Corgnet Administrative Project Manager Isabel Muñoz Figure 2. Organisation chart of the team 5.2. Project coordination The Kick-off Meeting took place on the 14 th October 2010 in Barcelona. Technical, administrative, financial and communication issues were reviewed by representatives from all the project beneficiaries (sixteen attendants in total). The LIFE+ Programme External Monitor of UFTEC, Ms. Audrey Thénard, attended the meeting as well. In May 2011 the Inception Report was delivered to the European Commission (EC) and to the External Monitoring Team. A positive feedback was received from such report, which was communicated by CETaqua to the rest of the consortium. In May 2012 the Mid-term Report was delivered to the European Commission (EC) and to the External Monitoring Team, obtaining a positive feedback that highlighted the good standard of the report, which was communicated to the rest of beneficiaries. A Project Management Manual was prepared by the coordinating beneficiary and validated by the associated beneficiaries. The project manual went through some changes during the project in order to better adapt to the new organisation team, as well as other changes implemented. 17

18 Templates and reporting procedures were also prepared by the coordinating beneficiary and were used during the all development of the project. The beneficiaries have been organising regular Technical Meetings, according to the needs of the project and particularly for assessing the performance response of the prototypes as well as data interpretation, involving the responsible of each prototype construction (Pentair, Dow or SGAB), CETaqua (as operator) and SGAB (as analyses responsible). These meetings have comprised s, phone calls as well as gatherings in person, in order to optimise time as well as project carbon footprint. After a complete year of operation, a second round of technical review meetings (in person) were celebrated, in order to undertake a detailed assessment of each PT and orient the operational conditions in the last months. PT1 technical review meeting was held in CETaqua s headquarter the 27 th November 2012, and was attended by Stephan van Hoof and Remon Dekker from Pentair, Jordi Martin from SGAB and Tomas Michel, Xavier Bernat, Olga Ferrer, Ignacio Martín, Sandra Casas, Albert Bobé and Oriol Gibert from CETaqua,. PT2 technical review meetings were also held in SJD DWTP the 19 th of November 2012 and the 24 th January They were attended by Verónica García, Kelly Cristina Breceno, Nicolas Corgnet, Marcus Bush and Alfred Arias representing DOW, Jose Mesa, Jordi Martin and Marta Ganzer from SGAB and Tomas Michel, Xavier Bernat, Olga Ferrer, Ignacio Martín, Sandra Casas and Carmen Galvañ from CETaqua. PT3 technical review meeting took place in SJD DWTP the 7 th May 2013, and was attended by Marc Pons from SGAB, Ignacio Martin and Sandra Casas from CETaqua, Miroslav Blazevski, Carlos Yagüe and Alejandro Catalina (from GE to whom the PT3 membranes were acquired) and Mario Simarro and David Ambrona (from ITT to whom the PT3 prototype was constructed). Additionally, CETaqua undertook periodical Internal Meetings to assess the project results, involving people from different divisions in order to benefit from a multi-disciplinar approach. The requested decisions regarding the operational and experimental plan were discussed and subsequently agreed with the rest of beneficiaries. Data interpretation was also validated during these meetings. Ten Executive Board Meetings were planed during the entire project. The frequency of the meetings follows the project proposal (quarterly), but at the end of each EB session, an approximate date was agreed among all the beneficiaries in order to adapt to the project requirements and evolution. Table 3 highlights the ones celebrated. The last EB meeting was held out of the project schedule in order to review the main conclusions obtained and deliverables produced as well as for evaluating future collaborations within the consortium. The first Advisory Board Meeting was conducted in June 2012 (Table 2) with the aim of discussing results and identifying improvements on technical issues. It was undertaken just after the 6 th Executive Board meeting in order to optimise the beneficiaries travels. The advisory meeting was seen as fruitful for the improvement of the performance of the prototypes and for data interpretation. For that reason, a second Advisory Board Meeting was planned in May 2013 but was finally cancelled due to schedule problems. In March 2013, the project received the visit of the LIFE+ Desk officers: Santiago Urquijo for the technical review and Konstantinos Pappas for the financial review. All the partners and external monitor, Audrey Thenard, were involved in the meeting. The feedback highlighted the highly promising results obtained as well as the satisfactory state of implementation of the project. In June 2013, the final Workshop of the UFTEC project was held in Can Serra (Cornella, Spain). More than 65 persons attended the workshop, where the results and main conclusions were presented. The visit to the site was also interesting to show the different technologies involved in the project. Feedback from the attendants of the Workshop was very positive and useful for the preparation of the Deliverables. 18

19 Finally, in October 2013 took place in CETaqua the Final Monitoring Meeting with the External Monitor. Her recommendations were very useful for the preparation of the Final Report and the formal closing of the financial statement. Table 3.UFTEC meetings held (internal meetings not reported) Date Meeting 14/10/2010 Kick-off Meeting 16/02/2011 1st Executive Board Meeting 07/07/2011 2nd Executive Board Meeting 18/10/2011 3rd Executive Board Meeting 16/11/2011 Technical Review Meeting (PT2) 24/11/2011 Technical Review Meeting (PT3) 14/12/2011 Technical Review Meeting (PT1) 19/01/2012 4th Executive Board Meeting 19/04/2012 5th Executive Board Meeting (Cancelled) 21/06/2012 6th Executive Board Meeting 22/06/ st Advisory Meeting 19/11/2013 Technical Review Meeting (PT2) 20/11/2012 7th Executive Board Meeting 27/11/2012 Technical Review Meeting (PT1) 24/01/2013 Technical Review Meeting (PT2) 07/03/ th Executive Board Meeting 08/03/2013 EC monitoring visit 07/05/2013 Technical Review Meeting (PT3) 15/05/ nd Advisory Board (Cancelled) 11/06/ th Executive Board Meeting 20/06/2013 Final Workshop UFTEC 27/09/ th Executive Board Meeting (Webex)* 25/10/2013 Final Monitoring Meeting *Out of project schedule Partnership agreement The partnership agreement was signed in March 2011 and attached to the Inception Report Request for Modification The request for modification sent in March 2012 included the change in the corporate name for one of the beneficiaries, who went from Norit Process Technology BV to Pentair Water Process Technology BV. 19

20 5.5. Subcontractors and collaborators The main subcontractor for Action 8 (Determination of the evolution of basic water quality parameters, fouling indexes and viruses in conventional and UF pre-treatments) was the Dept. of Microbiology of the University of Barcelona (UB). Three different types of analyses were conducted by the UB during the project, subcontracted by CETaqua: Routine analyses (Escherichia coli, somatic coliphages (SOMCPH), F-specific RNA bacteriophages (or phages) (FRNAPH) in the raw water, conventional pre-treated water and direct UF permeates. Advanced analyses (human viruses): enteroviruses (PFUs and GC) and noroviruses (GC). E. coli, somatic coliphages (SOMCPH), F-specific RNA phages (FRNAPH) tested in the same samples. Challenge tests with bacteriophages GA, MS2, PDR-1 and spores of Bacillus to test the membrane integrity of the prototypes. ITT was subcontracted by SGAB in order to construct the prototype PT3 based on submerged ultrafiltration membranes. ITT was involved in Action 5 (Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT3). J.Huesa participated in the design and construction of PT2 involved in Action 4 (Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT2) and RO pilot plant involved in Action 6 (Operation and monitoring of the prototypes) as well as in the design and construction of PT2 ( Action 3. RO pilot plant was used to assess the impact of direct UF on subsequent RO membranes. Cigomático S.L participated in the maintenance work of the site and prototypes of Action 6 (Operation and monitoring of the prototypes) Stakeholders Stakeholders were informed of the start and ending of the project, as well as they were invited to the final workshop of the UFTEC project, where the main results and conclusions obtained were presented. Their name and website link has been displayed in the project website ( as well as in the brochure and Layman s report. More stakeholders than the ones specified in the project proposal were identified. All the current project stakeholders are listed below. Agència Catalana de l Aigua (ACA): Comunitat d Usuaris del Delta del Llobregat (CUADLL): Aigües del Prat: Suez Environnement: Consorci d Aigües de Tarragona (CAT): Degrémont: Aqualogy: 20

21 5.7. Evaluation of the management system The implementation of the consortium was very effective to make the best used of all the partners expertise and implement it in a successful way for the project. Very insightful meetings were periodically organized and helped keeping up to date all the project partners, as explained in section 5.2. CETaqua, as the Coordinating beneficiary, has been the responsible for making the consolidated financial reporting tool with the costs incurred by the consortium. The financial transactions between CETaqua and the beneficiaries have been carried out fluently over the entire project s duration. CETaqua s role has involved the monitoring and the control of the associated beneficiaries documentation, which was periodically updated and sent. The good quality and quantity of results obtained during the three years of the project validate the success of innovative treatment scheme proposed. The reproducibility of the project has been guaranteed through the dissemination of the methods used and results obtained in the conferences attended during the project. Continuation of the project or new cooperation activities are being under discussion with the rest of the partners and stakeholders. Continuation of the project to test green-chemicals (focus on coagulants) is being conducted with the final objective to further reduce the environmental impact of the process. Test of new ultrafiltration membranes with new properties is under discussion. 21

22 6. Technical Part This project was organized around 10 Actions, named in the following Table 4. Table 4. Actions of the UFTEC project Num. Actions Coordination A01 Project Management by CETaqua CETaqua A02 Definition of the pre-treatment step baseline conditions SGAB A03 A04 A05 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT1 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT2 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT3 PENTAIR DOW SGAB A06 Operation and monitoring of the prototypes CETaqua A07 A08 A09 Determination of the evolution of advanced water quality parameters in conventional and UF pre-treatment Determination of the evolution of basic water quality parameters, fouling indexes and viruses in conventional and UF pre-treatment Efficiency assessment of conventional versus UF pretreatment SGAB CETaqua CETaqua A10 Dissemination and Communication CETaqua This sections concerns the entire project Actions except for Action 1: Project management which is detailed in the administrative part (Chapter 5) and Action 10: Dissemination and Communication which is detailed in a separate chapter (Chapter 6.11). In Figure 3, the Gantt chart of the project can be found. Even though some project tasks suffered some delay, UFTEC has been completed within the period specified in the proposal and achieving all its objectives. 22

23 UFTEC - GANTT CHART September Coord. # Action Task 1.1. Beneficiaries coordination sep oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep CETaqua 1 Project Management by CETaqua 1.2. Project management 1.3. Monitoring of project progress SGAB 2 Definition of the pre-treatment step baseline conditions 1.4. External audit 2.1. Identification of technical, environmental and economical framework of the WTP pre-treatment 2.2. Compilation of analytical data X 1 1 Pentair 3 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT1 3.1 Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT Performance verification of the prototype PT1 X X 3.3. Technical assistance of the protoype PT1 X X DOW 4 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT Performance verification of the prototype PT2 X X 4.3. Technical assistance of the protoype PT2 X X 3 3 SGAB 5 Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT Performance verification of the prototype PT3 X X X 5.3. Technical assistance of the protoype PT3 X X X Assessment of the permeate flux evolution X X CETaqua 6 Operation and monitoring of the prototypes 6.2. Design of cleaning cycles X X X SGAB 7 CETaqua 8 CETaqua 9 Determination of the evolution of advanced water quality parameters in conventional and UF pre-treatment Determination of the evolution of basic water quality parameters, fouling indexes and viruses in conventional and UF pre-treatment Efficiency assessment of conventional versus UF pretreatment 6.3. Evaluation of the UF impact on coupled RO 7.1. Analyses of water samples in terms of advanced quality parameters 8.1. Basic quality parameters and fouling indexes determination in water samples 8.2. Analyses of viruses in water samples 8.3. Autopsy and characterisation of used RO membranes 9.1. Technical evaluation of conventional versus UF pretreatment 9.2. Life Cycle Assessment focused on Carbon Footprint evaluation 9.3. Cost-benefit analysis Logo X Website X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Workshop X 12 X General audience activities X X X X X X X X General Media CETaqua 10 Dissemination and Communication Technical Media Video X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Notice boards X X X X X Brochure X X X X Layman's report Elaboration of the "After-LIFE" communication plan Original schedule Original schedule Revised schedule - Executed Revised schedule - Planned X i i Revised schedule - Eliminated Deliverable "i" completed / planned Milestone "i" completed / planned Figure 3. Gantt chart of the UFTEC project 23

24 24

25 6.1. Action 2: Definition of the pre-treatment step baseline conditions Initially Proposal Period: September 2010 December 2010 Final period: September December Responsible: SGAB Discrepancies/ reasons: Identification of technical, environmental and economic framework of the WTP pre-treatment Data obtained from the operation of the conventional pre-treatment of SJD DWTP from was successfully compiled by SGAB. Water losses, the amount of reagents consumed, the amount of sludge produced) and energy consumption were defined as the framework for the conventional pre-treatment schemes. Details can be found in Deliverable D Compilation of analytical data Quality data from the Llobregat river water in SJD DWTP intake from was compiled by SGAB. Representative quality parameters both in terms of chemical and microbiological indicators were gathered, showing the high variability of this water source (for instance, turbidity ranged from less than 10NTU to more than 1000NTU in the period covered). This data was used as a baseline for the design of the three direct UF prototypes. Water quality requirements for the pre-treatment for subsequent RO stages were identified as SDI values below 3 %/min, MFI below 2 S/L 2 and turbidity values below 0.2 NTU according to the literature review conducted. In Table 5, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 2 can be found. In Table 6, the progress indicators for this action are shown. Table 5. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 2. Expected results in the proposal Compilation of technical data from the current pre-treatment of SJD DWTP Compilation of representative quality parameters of the Llobregat River Identification of requirements of direct UF for efficient treatment in subsequent RO systems Final results obtained DONE. Data from was compiled and technical, economic and environmental framework of conventional pre-treatment was defined. DONE. An exhaustive compilation was carried out, covering 3 years and more than 35 parameters (both chemical and microbiological indicators). DONE. SDI values below 3%/min, MFI below 2 S/L 2 and turbidity values below 0.2 NTU were defined as the main requirements. 25

26 Table 6. Progress indicators. Action 2. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Proposal Final date Progress date Milestone M1: Identification of the pre-treatment 31/12/ /12/ % baseline conditions Deliverable D1: Historical review of the conventional pre-treatment operation and raw river water quality 31/12/ /12/ % Action progress indicator: Compilation of historical data: feed water treated by 100% SJD plant and conventional pre-treatment operation (at least 3-years campaign) in order to enable future comparisons Action 3: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT1 Initially Proposal Period: September 2010 February 2013 Final period: September April Responsible: Pentair Discrepancies/ reasons: Due to the complexity of the design of the UF prototypes and site preparation works (Action 3, 4 and 5), the ending date of this Action was postponed so that to achieve the 2-years demonstration stage Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT1. Pentair designed the direct UF prototype equipped with a Pentair X-Flow Aquaflex UF module according to the specifications set-up and the baseline conditions of the Llobregat River water already identified in Action 2. The prototype was successfully set-up in SJD DWTP as scheduled before March The main characteristics and a picture of the prototype can be found in table 7 and Figure 4. Complete description of the prototype can be found in Deliverable D2. Table 7. Characteristics of the Pentair prototype Pentair prototype description Configuration Pressurised inside-out membranes Membrane model Pentair X-Flow Aquaflex Number of modules 1 Pore size 20 nm Material PES / PVP Filtration area 55 m 2 Pre-treatment possibilities Strainer (300 um) Coagulation (in-line or in the tank) ph correction Maximum capacity 7.7 m 3 /h ( nominal capacity: 5.3 m 3 /h) Possible cleaning sequences Hydraulic: backwash- forward flush, airflush Chemical cleaning: NaOCl, NaOH and HCl 26

27 Figure 4. Picture of the Pentair prototype Performance verification of the prototype PT1 The performance of the prototype was verified in-situ after the start-up to ensure that the required hydraulic conditions were reached. The performance verification started in March 2011 and finalised in May Two training periods were scheduled for the operating personnel before the operation start Technical assistance of the prototype PT1. Technical assistance was provided by Pentair during the entire project (March 2011 April 2013) through frequent meetings and contacts. Technical assistance was useful to define the experimental plan, operation strategies, cleaning and maintenance of the prototype. Due to the complexity of the design and site preparation works, the task was extended so it finally ended in April At the end of the operation period, Pentair conducted an autopsy of the used UF module so to determine the technical viability of the proposed scheme in terms of life-time reduction or performance effects. In Table 8, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 3 can be found. In Table 9, the progress indicators are shown. 27

28 Table 8. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 3. Expected results in the proposal Fully installation of the prototype as scheduled and initial start-up, as well as satisfactory fulfillment of the design parameters Final results obtained DONE. The prototype was set-up and its performance was validated before March Table 9. Progress indicators. Action 3. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Proposal Final Date Progress Date Milestone M2: Design, revision and set-up of the 31/03/ /02/ % prototype PT1 Deliverable D2: Prototype PT1 design, specifications and instructions. 31/05/ /04/ % Action progress indicator: Correct operation of the prototype for 24 months 100% at the designed feed flow rate 6.3. Action 4: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT2 Initially Proposal Period: September 2010 February 2013 Final period: September April Responsible: DOW Discrepancies/ reasons: Due to the complexity of the design of the UF prototypes and site preparation works (Action 3, 4 and 5), the ending date of this Action was postponed so that to achieve the 2-years demonstration stage Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT2. Dow designed the direct UF prototype equipped with two SFD-2880 modules according to the specifications set-up and the baseline conditions of the Llobregat River water already identified in Action 2. The prototype was successfully set-up in SJD DWTP as scheduled. The main characteristics and a picture of the prototype can be found in Table 10 and Figure 5. A complete description of the prototype can be found in Deliverable D3. 28

29 Table 10. Characteristics of the Dow prototype Dow prototype description Configuration Pressurised outside-in membranes Membrane model DOW Ultrafiltration SFP Number of modules 2 Pore size 30nm Material PVDF Filtration area 77 m 2 per module Pre-treatment possibilities Hydrocyclon and ring filters (200 um) Maximum capacity nominal capacity: 5.0 m 3 /h each module Possible cleaning sequences Backwash (including air scour and forward flush). Chemical Enhanced Backwash with NaOCl Cleaning in Place Figure 5. Picture of the Dow prototype 29

30 Performance verification of the prototype PT2 The performance verification of PT2 started in March 2011 and finalised in May The prototype was monitored to ensure the reliability of the results obtained Technical assistance of the prototype PT2. Technical assistance was provided by Dow during the entire project through periodical meetings and contacts. Technical assistance was useful to define the experimental plan, operation strategies, cleaning and maintenance Actions of the prototype. Due to the complexity of the design and site preparation works, the task was extended so it finally ended in April 2013 (initial end March 2013). At the end of the operation period, Dow conducted an autopsy of the used UF module so to determine the technical viability of the proposed scheme in terms of life-time reduction or performance effects In Table 11, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 4 can be found. In Table 12, the progress indicators for this action are shown. Table 11.Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 4. Expected results in the proposal Fully installation of the prototype as scheduled and initial start-up, as well as satisfactory fulfillment of the design parameters Final results obtained DONE. The prototype was set-up and its performance was validated before March Table 12. Progress indicators. Action 4. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Proposal Final date Progress date Milestone M3: Design, revision and set-up of the 31/03/ /03/ % prototype PT2 Deliverable D3: Prototype PT2 design, specifications and instructions. 31/05/ /04/ % Action progress indicator: Correct operation of the prototype for 24 months at 100% the designed feed flow rate 30

31 6.4. Action 5: Design revision, set-up and technical assistance of the prototype PT3 Initially Proposal Period: September 2010 February 2013 Final period: September April Responsible: SGAB Discrepancies/ reasons: Due to the complexity of the design of the UF prototypes and site preparation works (Action 3, 4 and 5), the ending date of this Action was postponed so that to achieve the 2-years demonstration stage Design verification and set-up of the prototype PT3. SGAB was in charge of the design of the direct UF prototype equipped with 10 submerged Zeeweed500D modules according to the specifications set-up and the baseline conditions of the Llobregat River water already identified in Action 2. The prototype was successfully set-up in SJD DWTP as scheduled. The main characteristics and a picture of the prototype can be found in Table 13 and Figure 6. A complete description of the prototype can be found in Deliverable D4. Table 13. Characteristics of the SGAB prototype (GE-Zenon technology) SGAB prototype description (GE- Zenon technology) Configuration Submerged outside-in Membrane model Zeeweed 500D Number of modules 10 Pore size 40nm Material PVDF Filtration area 40.9 m 2 per module Pre-treatment possibilities Rotary screen (1mm) Coagulation ph control Maximum capacity nominal capacity: 10.0 m 3 /h Possible cleaning sequences Backwash (including air scour). Relax and airscour. Chemical Enhanced Backwash with NaOCl or citric acid Cleaning in Place 31

32 Figure 6. Picture of the SGAB prototype (GE-Zenon technology) Performance verification of the prototype PT3 The performance verification of PT3 started in March 2011 and finalised in May The prototype was monitored to ensure the reliability of the results obtained Technical assistance of the prototype PT3. Technical assistance was provided by SGAB during the entire project through periodical meetings and contacts. Technical assistance was useful to define the experimental plan, operation strategies, cleaning and maintenance Actions of the prototype. Due to the complexity of the design and site preparation works, the task was extended so it finally ended in April 2013 (initial end March 2013). In Table 14, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 5 can be found. In Table 15, the progress indicators for this Action are shown. 32

33 Table 14. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 5. Expected results in the proposal Fully installation of the prototype as scheduled and initial start-up, as well as satisfactory fulfillment of the design parameters Final results obtained DONE. The prototype was set-up and its performance was validated before March 2011.The prototype operated Table 15. Progress indicators. Action 5. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Proposal Final date Progress date Milestone M4: Design, revision and set-up of the 31/03/ /04/ % prototype PT3 Deliverable D4: Prototype PT3 design, specifications and instructions. 31/05/ /05/ % Action progress indicator: Correct operation of the prototype for 24 months at 100% the designed feed flow rate 6.5. Action 6: Operation and monitoring of the prototypes Proposal Period: January 2011 February 2013 Final period: October 2010 / May 2011 April 2013 Responsible: CETaqua Discrepancies/ reasons: Due to the complexity of the design of the UF prototypes and site preparation works (previous Actions 3, 4 and 5), the initial date for the UF prototypes to start operation was slightly delayed and in correspondence, ending date for this Action was postponed to April RO unit design for UF impact assessment (Task 6.3) was advanced to October 2010 in order to meet the pilot plant set-up deadline Assessment of the permeate flux evolution. The operation of the prototypes started in May 2011 and ended in April The hydraulic performance of the prototypes was monitored daily to understand the prototype s behaviour and to optimize the results obtained in terms of energy and reagents consumption and water losses. The effect of the operation variables and feed water quality on permeate obtained was studied. Optimal operating parameters in terms of operation sustainability, energy and reagents consumption and water yield were defined in all the prototypes depending on the inlet water characteristics, as explained in Deliverables D5, D8 and D10. Results obtained were used in Action 9 for the technical, economic and environmental assessment. Samples were taken at several frequencies depending to the parameter measured to characterise the technologies studied in terms of water quality obtained. 33

34 Figure 7. Picture of the UFTEC site with the three UF prototypes and the RO pilot plant Design of cleaning cycles. Different cleaning strategies were used in all the prototypes in order to optimize the cleaning cycles and final performance obtained. The optimal cleaning sequence was identified for each prototype according to the inlet water characteristics. Chemicals consumption and water efficiency was calculated in all cases in order to further evaluate the efficiency of the cleanings in all the operational periods. Optimal cleaning strategies are reported in Deliverables D8 and D Evaluation of the UF impact on coupled RO. This task started in October 2010 in order to finally design, install and commission a RO unit feed with the three UF prototypes permeates and conventionally pre-treated water. The unit was installed in SJD DWTP in November Operation of the RO unit took place from May 2012 until April Due to overdose of sodium bisulphite caused by the malfunctioning of the redox control in the first months of operation, a cleaning was needed in September Continuous operation was thus resumed in October The RO operation period comprised between October 2012 and April 2013 is considered as representative to assess the UF impact on coupled RO membranes. The main characteristics of the RO unit as well as the experimental data obtained are reported in Deliverable D8. Operational parameters of the RO units were continuously monitored in the pilot plant. Fouling was not significantly evidenced on the operational parameters of any of the RO membranes fed with UF permeates. In Table 16, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 6 can be found. In Table 17, the progress indicators for this Action are shown. 34

35 Figure 8. Picture of the RO pilot plant Table 16. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 6. Expected results in the proposal Relate operation and cleaning sequences for each prototype Comparison of the impact on RO membranes among the three UF prototypes permeates and with the effluent of the sand filter of WTP of SJD. Final results obtained DONE. The prototypes were optimised both in operational parameters and cleaning sequences. Optimal operation and cleaning conditions were defined for each prototype depending on the feed water characteristics. DONE. Operation and monitoring of the results of the RO unit fed with the UF permeates and conventional pre-treatment was carried out from May 2012 to April Autopsy of the RO membranes used was carried out to identify the main type of fouling deposited on the membranes surface. Table 17. Progress indicators. Action 6. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Proposal Final date Progress date Milestone M5: Identification of the optimal operation 28/02/ /04/ % conditions and cleaning strategies Deliverable D5: Midterm report on UF technical 28/02/ /04/ % efficiency Deliverable D8: Final report on UF technical efficiency 31/05/ /07/ % Action progress indicator: Continuous performance of the prototypes PT1, PT2 100% and PT3. 35

36 6.6. Action 7: Determination of the evolution of advanced water quality parameters in conventional and UF pre-treatments. Initially Proposal Period: March 2011 February 2013 Final period: March 2011 May 2013 Responsible: SGAB Discrepancies/ reasons: This Action was extended due to the delay in the start date of operation of the prototypes. It was initiated in parallel with the verification period of the UF prototypes in order to optimize the analytical methods and procedures Analysis of water samples in terms of advanced water quality parameters Samples collected from the prototypes, raw river water and conventional pre-treatment were analysed by SGAB in order to determine the content of microbiological parameters and the particle size distribution. A modification on the initial analytical plan was carried out at the beginning of the project so to adjust the analysis to the reality of the project and demonstration site selected. The frequency of analysis of some parameters on the UF permeates and raw water was reduced (e.g. particle size) but, in contrast, other analyses providing useful information were included in the monitoring plan (e.g. algae counting). Organic compound determination frequency was reduced to a single campaign with 11 samples in total, as organic fractionation analysis. This new parameter was included in the analytical plan of Action 8. The analysis of metals and salts on the UF permeates and conventional pre-treated water for subsequent RO treatment as well as the analysis of salts and metals on RO permeates obtained was included in the analytical plan (Table 18). In Table 19, the number of analysis carried out is detailed. In Table 20, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 7 can be found. In Table 21, the progress indicators for this Action are shown. More information on the results obtained can be found in Deliverable 6 and 9. Table 18. Analytical plan conducted in Action 7 for advanced parameters determination. Analyses Particle size (three UF prototypes and conventional pretreatment) Clostridium perfringens, Colony count 22ºC (enumeration of culturable microorganisms), Total and Faecal coliforms, E. Coli (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) Frequency initially foreseen (project proposal) weekly weekly monthly weekly Updated frequency requested Organic compounds (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) 12 samples 11 samples New analyses undertaken since mid-term report Algae counting (three UF prototypes and conventional pretreatment) Chlorides, fluorides, nitrates, sulphates (RO experimental unit) - monthly - monthly Metals screening (incl. silica) (RO experimental unit) - monthly Phosphates (RO experimental unit) - monthly Alkalinity (RO experimental unit) - monthly 36

37 Table 19. Number of analysis carried out in Action Action 7 for advanced parameters determination during the project. Sampling points Faecal coliforms Clostridium perfrigens Total Coliforms E.Coli Aerobic Bacteria Algae Metals screening and alkalinity Particle size distribu tion Organic compou nds Raw water PT PT PT Conventio nal pretreatment TOTAL Table 20. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 7. Expected results in the proposal Continuous monitoring of the water quality entering and exiting the UF treatment units and conventional pre-treatment Final results obtained DONE. Continuous analysis were carried out according to the analytical plan of Table18 Table 21. Progress indicators. Action 7. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Milestone M6: Characterization of samples from conventional and UF pre-treatment in terms of advanced parameters Deliverable D6: Midterm report on the characterization of water samples in terms of advanced quality parameters. Deliverable D9: Final report on the characterization of water samples in terms of advanced quality parameters Proposal Final date Progress date 31/03/ /05/ % 31/03/ /05/ % 31/05/ /07/ % Action progress indicator: Microbiological characterization, particle size determination and organics screening in samples of raw, conventionally pretreated and UF pre-treated water 100% 37

38 6.7. Action 8: Determination of the evolution of basic water quality parameters, fouling indexes and viruses in conventional and UF pretreatments Initially Proposal Period: January 2011 February 2013 Final period: January 2011 May 2013 Responsible: CETaqua Discrepancies/ reasons: The analytical plan was extended 2 months (until April 2013). It was initiated before the UF prototypes were operated in order to optimize the analytical methods and procedures. Last month (May 2013) was devoted to RO membranes autopsies Basic water quality parameters and fouling indexes determination in water samples Analysis in terms of basic water quality parameters and fouling indexes were conducted on the raw water, permeates of the prototypes and sand filtration effluent according to the frequency described in the mid-term report shown in Table 22. Additional analyses of organic fractionation were conducted as a response to the removal of the organic determination analysis in Action 7. CETaqua was in charge of the basic quality analysis and results can be found in Deliverables 5 and 8. Table 22. Analytical plan conducted in Action 8 for basic parameters determination Analyses Frequency initially foreseen (project proposal) Frequency requested Temperature, conductivity, ph, turbidity (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) daily daily Silt Density Index (SDI), Modified Fouling Index (MFI) (three UF prototypes and conventional pretreatment) daily Three times per week for the three UF PTs permeate and once a week for raw river water Total Organic Carbon (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) weekly weekly New analyses undertaken since mid-term report Total Organic Carbon (RO experimental unit) - weekly Total Suspended Solids (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) - Three times per week for raw river water and once a week in the three UF PTs permeate UV Absorbance 254 (three UF prototypes and conventional pre-treatment) - daily Dissolved Organic Matter Fractionation (three UF prototypes) - 5 campaigns (3 initially foreseen in the midterm report) 38

39 Analysis of virus in water samples A comprehensive analytical plan for virus and virus surrogates was designed and put in place to assess the removal efficiency by the three direct UF prototypes (Tables 23, Table 24 and Table 25). Protocols and methodologies were defined for each prototype. In particular, three different types of analyses were conducted (subcontracted to UB): Routine analyses (Escherichia coli, somatic coliphages (SOMCPH), F-specific RNA bacteriophages (or phages) (FRNAPH) every two weeks Advanced analyses: enteroviruses (PFUs and GC) and noroviruses (GC). E. coli, somatic coliphages (SOMCPH), F-specific RNA phages (FRNAPH) tested in the same samples. Every two months Challenge tests with bacteriophages GA, MS2, PDR-1 and spores of Bacillus to confirm membrane integrity. Every three months approx. Table 23. Routine analyses carried out (two years sampling) Sampling points Bacteria Bacteriophages E. coli SOMCPH FRNAPH Raw water Conventional pre-treatment PT PT PT TOTAL Table 24. Advanced analyses carried out (two years sampling) Human viruses Sampling points PFUs Enteroviruses Enteroviruses Genome copies Noroviruses Raw water Conventional pre-treatment PT PT PT TOTAL

40 Table 25. Challenge tests carried out (two years sampling) Sampling points GA MS2 PDR-1 Bacillus spores PT PT PT TOTAL Autopsy and characterization of used RO membranes Membranes used in the RO unit were finally autopsied to define the type of fouling and impact produced by each pre-treatment (direct UF and conventional pre-treatment). Autopsy of the RO modules used was carried out in May A protocol was established for the autopsy of the used RO membranes, as described in Deliverable D8. Membrane opening, chemical characterisation of membrane fouling, external and internal view and integrity test were done in laboratory of CETaqua; microscopy analysis of the surface (SEM) and microbiological analysis were subcontracted for a complete characterization of the membranes. Biofouling was the only type of fouling observed in the autopsy of the RO membranes fed with UF permeates, demonstrating the feasibility of this innovative treatment scheme. In Table 26, a comparison of expected results and final results of Action 8 can be found. In Table 27, the progress indicators for this action are shown. Figure 9. Images of the autopsy conducted on the RO modules 40

41 Table 26. Comparison of expected results and final results. Action 8. Expected results in the proposal Monitoring the water quality entering and exiting the UF treatment units and the conventional pre-treatment Determine and compare the performance of each UF prototype and the conventional pretreatment units regarding virus removal Evaluate the quality of the UF permeates in terms of their fouling impact on RO membranes Final results obtained DONE. Continuous analysis were carried out according to the analytical plan previously described DONE. Results obtained regarding virus removal are reported in Deliverable D8 DONE. Fouling indexes were continuously monitored during the project in the permeates of direct UF, conventional pre-treated water and feed water (SDI, MFI). In addition, RO membranes autopsies were conducted to further assess the impact of the direct UF permeates on subsequent stages. Table 27. Progress indicators. Action 8. Progress indicators, deliverables and milestones Milestone M7: Characterization of samples from conventional and UF pre-treatment in terms of basic parameters, fouling indexes and viruses Deliverable 5: Midterm report on UF technical efficiency Proposal date Final date 31/03/ /05/2013 Progress 100% 28/02/ /04/ % Deliverable 8: Final report on UF technical efficiency 31/05/ /07/ % Action progress indicator: Characterization in terms of basic quality parameters 100% fouling indexes and raw water of samples from conventional and UF pre-treatment 6.8. Action 9: Efficiency assessment of conventional versus UF pretreatment Initially Proposal Period: March 2011 August 2013 Final period: March 2011 August 2013 Responsible: CETaqua Discrepancies/ reasons: Technical evaluation of conventional versus UF treatment This task started in March 2011 with the verification of the UF prototypes and ended in August Calculation procedures for chemical consumption, energy requirements and water yields were internally validated at the beginning of the task. A comparison of the technologies in terms of water productivity, chemical s consumption, energy and space needs has been conducted taking into account the optimal operation conditions identified for each prototype. Data obtained from the prototypes has been used for the scale-up of the different technologies in the case of SJD DWTP; the projections allowed to obtain more representative results, as similar conditions were used, and to conduct a fair comparison between the UF technologies involved. Comparison of the technologies both at prototype and scale-up levels are reported in the Deliverable D10 for a complete assessment. Periodical meetings of CETaqua personnel with 41

42 each beneficiary were undertaken to interpret the results obtained in the prototype and scale-up levels. Technical reviews have been conducted each year with each beneficiary for a detailed assessment of the UF technology. Figure 10. Picture of the operation of the prototypes Life Cycle Assessment focused on Carbon Footprint Evaluation Task 9.2 started in November 2011, but the parameters needed to conduct the LCA of the UF technologies studied and the conventional pre-treatment were already identified beforehand. The methodology and scope for the LCA was internally validated and the data was then compiled for treatment, according to the scope defined in Figure 11. Data obtained from the prototypes was used to calculate the impact on global warming with the Simapro software, as well as in other indicators considered interesting for the project. Prototypes and scale-up projections performed were compared in terms of environmental impact in Deliverable D10. Results demonstrated that environmental impact in both pre-treatments was quite similar and depended on the operational conditions. Nevertheless direct UF presented slightly high global warming impact due to its higher energy requirements compared to conventional pre-treatment. Sludge treatment was not considered though, and consequently, environmental impact of conventional pre-treatment could increase. 42