Membranes for Water Recycling

Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies troy.walker@veoliawater.com

Agenda

Introduction Membrane Types Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Introduction to the Technology Design Issues Membrane Bioreactors Particular Application of UF/MF Reverse Osmosis Also a membrane technology Complemented by UF/MF Case Studies Design Issues Costs

Case StudiesMembranes

in Reuse

Australia Growth in water reuse

Reuse Market Research - Cumulative Flow for Australia Veolia Water and Wanwick PAM 2002 data
450

400

350 Average Grow th Rate - 41.2% Grow th from 1995 to 2003 390 Ml/d = US$ 250 -350 Million or an average of US$ 30 - 45 Million each year

300 Flow (1000m3/d)

250

200

150

100

41% growth per year

50

0 1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994 Start Up Date

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Membrane Wastewater Reuse Options

Municipal Sewage

Primary Treatment

Biological Treatment Membrane Bioreactor Micro/Ultrafiltration

High Quality Irrigation (playing field, golf courses) Low Grade Industrial

Reverse Osmosis
High Quality Industrial Potable (Direct & Indirect)

Membrane Separation Where do they fit?

Case Studies Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration

Micro/Ultrafiltration - Barrier filtration

Contaminants accumulate on outer wall of the fibre Feed stream

Membrane wall Filtrate

High Degree Of Removal

Low turbidity/SS regardless of feed solids Removes parasites (crypto & giardia)

Sub-micron Pore size

3 - 14 microns

Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts are many times larger than membrane sub-micron pore size

Modules or Cassettes

10

Norit X-Flow

Zenon (Zeeweed)

Memcor (CMF/CMF-s)

Rack Assembly/ Cassette Assembly

11

Filtration cycle Managing Solids

12

FLOW

Start filtration

Filtration cycle Managing Solids

13

FLOW

FLOW

Start filtration

End filtration

Filtration cycle Managing Solids

14

FLOW

FLOW

Feed concentration constant @ raw water concentration

Start filtration

End filtration

Backwash cycle Managing Solids

15

AIR SCOUR

Backwash cycle Managing Solids

16

FILTRATE BACKWASH AIR SCOUR

Filtration cycle

17

FLOW

FLOW

FLOW

Start filtration

End filtration

Start filtration

Maintaining Filtration Rates - Backwash & Cleaning

18

Backwash

Membrane DP

Chemical Clean

Time

What Makes Up the System?

19

1mm Strainer Mesh Self Backwashing

VSD for flow control/power savings Low NPSH (if suction application) to improve operating window Internals compatible with cleaning chemicals Filtration pump also often used for backwash flows. Careful attention to turndown requirements. Filtrate Pumps

Feed Strainers
Inlet Water Prescreening

Microfiltration

Backwash Air Blowers

Cleaning System

Blowers

Membrane Barrier Test The Integrity Test

20

Air Pressure 100kPa

PDT

P = f (Qair _ through_ defect ) time

Air flow by diffusion Much More Sensitive Than Turbidity or Particle Counting

Defect

Air flow through defect

MF/UF Improvements - Market Growth

21

Market Growth 1994 2003 250 plants >1000 plants 0.2 ML/day Av. >3 ML/day Av.

Nett Installed MF Capacity

2000

1500 Installed ML/day

1000

500

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Year 1999 2000 2001 2002

Declining MF Membrane Cost

22

10,000

Process cost - $/kL/day installed

1,000

100

1988
10 100 1,000

1991

1994

1997

2000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

C umulativ e me mbrane are a - me tre s

MF Membrane and System Improvements

23

Membranes
Chlorine Resistance Higher flows Lower costs

Configurations
Pressurised Submerged

Lower costs, bigger flows, smaller area

MBR (Membrane Bioreactors)

24

Application of UF/MF Membranes

North Head (Sydney Water, CH2MHill, Memcor)

MBR = Activated Sludge + Membrane Filtration

25

Reduced footprint

Treatment Objectives
As a biological process Carbon removal Nitrogen removal Physical-chemical P-removal

26

As a membrane process

Total retention of TSS Disinfection (up to log 4 removal of viruses) Improvement of carbon and P removal (higher retention of particulates)

VWS2

Cassettes, Modules or Flat Sheets

27

Slide 27 VWS2 Add in a picture of Toray or Puron Flat Sheet Membranes.

Veolia Water Systems, 6/06/2006

MBR - Advantages

28

Reduced Plant Footprint (no clarfiers or sand filters) Not reliant on sludge settleability Designed with long sludge age, less sludge waste production MF/UF Quality effluent Plant can be housed in small building reduces noise, neighbour

issues.

Perthes et Gatais - France

MBR World References

29

Steven Chapman et al, Membrane Bioreactors for Municipal Wastewater Treatment An Australian Perspective. Enviro 05

MBR Australian References

30

31

Case Studies Reverse

Osmosis (RO)

What is RO? A Plant in Equilibrium

32

Leaf Growth

Air Nutrient Water Root Wall (semi-permeable Membrane) Root System Soil

Fertilising

33

Ammonium Sulphate Air Soil

Root Wall (semi-permeable Membrane) Root System

Fertilising

34

Air Soil

Root Wall (semi-permeable Membrane) Root System

Osmosis

35

Fresh Water

Salty Water Membrane

Concentrated Fresh Water

Diluted Salty Water

Reverse Osmosis
Applied Pressure

36

Applied Pressure

Fresh Water

Concentrated Salty Water

Membrane Configurations
Maximising Membrane Area/m3 Flat Sheet Tubular Hollow Fibre Laboratory Studies Specialty applications (eg Dairy) First commercial membranes Sensitive to fouling Obsolete for most applications Spiral Wound Widely used The industry standard

37

Making a Spiral Wound Membrane

38

Step 1

Step 2
Fold

Salty Water

Salty Water

Salty Water

Fresh Water

Membrane

Fresh Water

Making a Spiral Wound Membrane

39

Step 3

Step 4

Salty Water

Salty Water

Salty Water

Salty Water

Fresh Water

Pipe with holes

Fresh Water

Salty Water

Making a Spiral Wound Membrane

40

Step 5
Salty Water

Step 6

Salty Water

Salty Water

Fresh Water

Fibreglass casing Salty Water Salty Water Fresh Water

Membrane Housing

41

Feed
Spiral Element Spiral Element

Concentrate Permeate

Pressure Vessel

RO Unit Configuration - Design

42

Concentrate Valve Provides Backpressure, sets recovery rate Feed Pump Provides Driving Pressure Brine or Concentrate Waste

Staged Arrays High Quality Permeate

Membrane Materials
Cellulose Acetate (CA) Advantages Low Cost Lower fouling Thin Film Composite (TFC) Low Op. Pressure Better salt rejection High pH range Disadvantages High Op. Pressure pH Sensitive No Chlorine tolerance Prone to fouling High Cost

43

Membrane Materials
Cellulose Acetate (CA) Advantages Low Cost Lower fouling Thin Film Composite (TFC) Low Op. Pressure Even Lower Even Better salt rejection High pH range Disadvantages High Op. Pressure pH Sensitive High Cost No Chlorine tolerance Prone to fouling High Cost

44

Global Desalination Plant Growth

25000

45

Installed Capacity (ML/day)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

RO Improvements

46

Costs have dropped by 50% in 20 years Productivity has increased by 100% Chlorine Resistant, Low Pressure membranes Increased membrane manufacturer competition Membranes have become a commodity

47

Case Studies

Case Studies

Case Study - Eraring Power Station Reuse

48

Beside Lake Macquarie 4 x 660MW coal fired units Produces 25% of NSWs power Lake water for condenser cooling Used Hunter Water domestic supply for all other uses Water Reclamation Plant installed in 1995 First full-scale dual membrane reuse plant in the world

Case Study - Eraring Power Station Reuse

Proposed Pipeline

49

New STP

Savings
15km of piping not required Potable water augmentation delayed M$2.7 M$2.3

Immediate Saving

M$5.0

Case Study - Eraring Power Station Reuse

Power Stations Nett Savings
900 800
Production Saving Water Saving

50

Nett Savings (000's)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99

Data courtesy of Gary Craig - Station Chemist

Case Study - Eraring Power Station Reuse

Why did the project get up?

51

15 year agreement between

Eraring PS & Hunter Water Station chemists were passionate about the project Immediate & significant cost benefits to Hunter Water Environmental benefits Power station savings from cheaper water + boiler treatment chemicals

Case Study - Kwinana Water Reclamation Plant (KWRP)

52

Kwinana Large

Industrial Area South of Perth

Case Study - Kwinana WRP

53

Woodman Point STP

Kwinana Water Reclamation Plant

Case Study - Kwinana - Process

54

CMF-S Microfiltration Raw Water

Prescreening

RO Feed Tank

RO Units

50 TDS Product Water Tank

Industrial Customers

MF Backwash

Ocean Outfall

Water Quality < 50 mg/L TDS Better than drinking water

Case Study - Kwinana WRP Customer Drivers

55

KWRP is crucial to assist WAs State Government in achieving its goal of 20% reused wastewater by the year 2012 KWRP has doubled Water Corporations water reuse capacity from 3% to 6% KWRP will help to reduce Woodman Points effluent discharge at Cockburn Sound by about 20% KWRP will allow up to 16.7ML/d of potable water to become available for residential use (otherwise consumed by local industry)

Case Study - Illawarra Water Reclamation Plant

56

Water Reclamation Plant

Case Study - Illawarra Water Reclamation Plant

57

Part of $197m Illawarra Waste Water Strategy 20 MLD for Bluescope Steel Dual Membrane (Microfiltration and RO) 50 TDS Product 24 hr/ 7 day supply Commissioned 2005

Case Study - Illawarra WRP Customer Drivers

58

Replacing current town water usage with

high purity reuse water

Reduce raw water consumption by greater

than 60 %

Reduce effluent discharge

to ocean by greater than 40 %

Case Study - Illawarra WRP - Process

59

Wollongong

Primary Screening and Sedimentation

Biological Nutrient Removal BNR

Clarification

Microfiltration

Bluescope Steel

Tertiary Filtration

RO Units

Product Water

MF Backwash

UV

Ocean Outfall

NEWater Singapore
www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater
60

NEWater Singapore
www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater
www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater
61

Rainwater

INDIRECT POTABLE USE

Raw water Import

Reservoir
Waterworks

IPU
NEWater Seawater
NEWater Factories

Water Reclamation Plants

Population Industries Commercial

Desalted Water

Bedok Demonstration Plant

Previous studies show MF / RO as preferred process PUB Commissioned CH2M-Hill to

62

Design a full scale demonstration plant for a Design and Health Effect study

Bedok Demonstration Plant

Veolia Water won the contract to build the plant

63

10 MLD Memcor CMF technology USFilter RO Studies included a MS2 bateriophage challenge test

NEWater Safe to drink

Parameter Turbidity - NTU TDS - mg/L Lead - mg/L Mercury ug/L Hormones PCBs ug/L Dioxin pg/L TOC mg/L Coliforms/100ml Viruses Raw water 0.5 - 11 117 -154 <0.013 <0.03 ND ND ND 2.6 - 6.2 3 - 967 ND Tap water <0.1 150 0.002 <0.03 ND ND ND 1.9 3. ND ND NEWater <0.1 49 <0.002 <0.03 ND ND ND <0.1 ND ND USEPA WHO 5 500 0.01 1 Not spec 0.5 30 Not spec ND ND

64

Sample of 191 parameters tested over 2 years form Singapores 10 MLD Bedok demonstration plant

Demonstration Plant Outcomes

Expert Panel Review of 2 year study on Physical / chemical analysis Pesticide / herbicide analysis Radionuclides Synthetic and natural hormones Microbiological tesing Study Conclusions NEWater is considered safe for potable use Meets WHOs drinking water guidelines Singapore should adopt the approach of Indirect Potable

65

Reuse

NEWater Singapore
www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater
Kranji 2003
66

Selestar 2004 Changi 2007

Bedok 2002 Ulu Pandan 2005

Tuas Desal 2005

California ( West Basin & OCWD, Water Factory 21)

67

Mixing zone sampling

Seawater

Fresh water 20% saline ingress control 80% indirect potable (12-24 months)

West Basin, LA, California

68

10.5 MLD to aquifer 12.5 MLD to Mobil 22.4 MLD to Arco 15.9 MLD to Chevron

1997 1998 1999 2001

West Basin, California

4 Plants Nett capacity = 64 MLD Secondary effluent feed Product to RO for reuse Treated Water quality SDI <3 Turbidity <0.1NTU >4 Log Coliform

69

Reduction

Orange County Water District, California

70

2.5 million population 2% population increase per year 25-38 cm rain / year Started injection in 1976 Blend of 19 MLD RO permeate 34 MLD Carbon filtered 32.6 MLD deep well water < 500 mg/l tds Talbert Seawater intrusion barrier 26 injection wells 10 new wells planed

AQUIFER RECHARGE Saline ingress control & indirect potable

Water Factory 21, Orange County Water District,California. 330 MLD @ 1.19 kWh/m3 (1.8 - 2.6 kWh/m3 for imported water) Wastewater re-purification for indirect potable Largest ground water replenishment scheme Plans to expand current 330 MLD project to 494 MLD over 20 years.

72

Case Studies Frequently

Asked Membrane Questions

FAQ - What if the membranes fail?

73

Not a big issue , because:

Membrane degradation is slow Routine cleaning maintains membrane condition Ample time to source replacement membranes (good level of

spares in Australia - 000s in US)

FAQ - How long do membranes last?

74

3-7 years , but:

End of membrane life is project specific (quality or quantity?)

1600

Pressure

1000 800 600 400

TDS Rising Flow Falling

Pressure Product TDS Flow

100 80 60 40 20 0 8

200 0 0 2 4 Membrane Age (years) 6

Product TDS & Flow

Pressure 1200 increasing

1400

140 Pressure 120 limit

FAQ - How long do membranes last?

75

3-7 years , but:

End of membrane life is project specific (quality or quantity?)

Type of pretreatment can increase life Microfilter pretreatment - 5 years or more Sand filter pretreatment - 3 years Operating cost balance - Higher Pressure (energy) & frequent

cleaning vs capital outlay? You dont need a full set - keep the best and replace the worst

FAQ - Are they hard to maintain and operate?

76

No
Daily checks = 1/2hr Weekly checks = 1hr Daily monitoring can be done remotely Cleaning a semi-automatic process every 3-6 months

77

Case Studies Design

Considerations

Brine Disposal
Options include:
Sewer Ocean Discharge Solar Evaporation Dust Suppression Low grade industrial water Deep well injection Thermal Evaporation Mineral harvesting

78

Easiest & Cheapest

Expensive or Experimental

If you dont know how to dispose of the brine, you dont have a project

Pretreatment
Poor Pretreatment is the No. 1 killer of RO Systems
Invest time & $ to define the full range of feed conditions

79

(algae, salts, pH, turbidity etc) Extremes of feed conditions must be the design basis for pretreatment Choose pretreatment that gives stable treated water quality Give greater importance to proven technical solutions over price

Pretreatment MF/UF in Re-use Applications

80

Consistently low SDI (silt density index) < 3 Proven technology Extends RO membrane warranty from 3 - 5 years Industry Standard for wastewater reuse

Pretreatment Reduced Biological Fouling

Particular concern for wastewater re-use Oxidising disinfectants (Cl2) not compatible with RO

81

O R P (m V )

membranes Chloramine safe for RO membranes. Formed with NH3 in sewage or NH3 added. Monitored by ORP

ORP vs Concentration
800

Free Chlorine
700

600

Dichloramine

500

400

Monochloramine
300

200 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Concentration (mg/L)

Pretreatment Scaling Prevention

82

Correct Antiscalant

Selection Correct pH Control (acid dosing) Will affect maximum recovery CaCO3/BaSO4/SrSO4/CaF2 Silica Ca3(PO4)2 - Important for Wastewater Reuse

Design Issue - Recovery

100% 90% 80% 70% Typical Recovery 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Raw Water TDS (mg/L)

83

Area of diminishing returns

High cost for increased recovery More complex equipment More susceptible to failure

Design Issue - Recovery

Recommendations
Aim for:

84

80-90% TDS 2000-5000mg/L 75-80% TDS 5000-10000mg/L up to 75% Seawater (36000mg/L) 40-45% Sparingly soluble salts may restrict further DO make brine disposal the key driver for increasing recovery DONT use the lure of reduced operating cost as the driver for high recovery

TDS < 2000mg/L

Design Issue - Post Treatment

RO Product Water
Low in salts Low in pH (typically 5 - 6) Low in Alkalinity

85

Drinking Water Standards

pH = 7.0 - 8.5

Distribution Systems
Old, fragile pipe common Aggressive permeate can

lead to pipe failures Concrete lined pipe also suspect

Post Treatment Important

Design Issue - Post Treatment

Post Treatment Methods:
Calcite (CaCO3) Caustic Soda addition Degassing (CO2 stripping) Degassing + Caustic Soda Soda Ash addition Lime addition Lime/Caustic addition + CO2

86

Small Capacity

Simple

Large Capacity

Complex

87

Case Studies

Costs

Main cost impacts

88

Feed salinity, variability & fouling potential Plant Utilisation (Average Flow/Design flow) Location Level of standby equipment Brine disposal Delivery model

Capital Costs - Desalination Design & Construct

Prices include:
Civil and Building works Desalination design, supply,

89

Prices exclude:
Access to site boundary Raw Water extraction and

installation and startup Treated Water Storage Standby pumps Degassing & Chlorination

delivery to site Operator facilities Special project requirements Remote site costs & site agreements Standby process equipment Brine/waste disposal

Capital Costs - RO Desalination

90

10,000
Good bore (3000mg/L)

9,000 8,000

Poor bore (3000mg/L) Secondary Effluent (1000mg/L) Seawater (beach well)

Capital Cost (000's)

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

Plant Capacity (ML/day)

+/- 20% - Excludes special site conditions and project requirements

Operating Costs - Desalination Design & Construct

Prices include:
Chemicals at commercial quantity

91

Prices exclude:
Capitalisation Operations overheads Laboratory analysis Raw Water delivery costs

prices Power @ $0.10/kWhr Operator Labour @ $45/hr Maintenance Membrane Replacement using 7% discount rate Chlorination

Operating Costs - RO Desalination

92

1.50
Good bore (3000mg/L)

Operating Cost ($/kL produced)

Poor bore (3000mg/L)

1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0 2 4 6

Secondary Effluent (1000mg/L) Seawater (beach well)

10

Plant Capacity (ML/day)

+/- 20% - Subject to special site conditions

Operating cost summary (approximate)

93

Groundwater pumping costs

West Basin A$0.35 / m3

A$0.16 - 0.32 / m3

Capex, labour, parts, chemicals, power & waste

Scottsdale

A$0.32 / m3

Opex CMF & RO inc. power chemicals & labour Excludes capex inc. civils, laboratory & pilot studies $91.4M

Eraring Power

A$0.16 / m3

Opex Analytical costs, spares, chemicals, labour

(no power charge) Ashkelon A$0.78 / m3 (Sea water RO at 320 MLD) Energy saving expertise, energy & finance costs

Water Factory 21 Secondary sewage 308 - 494 MLD 50% of the energy needed to import water from N California 66% of the energy needed to treat Colorado river

94

Thankyou