Advanced Membrane Technologies

Stanford University, May 07, 2008

Membrane Technology – A Key

Component in Water Reuse Systems
Mehul Patel, P.E.
Principal Process Engineer
Orange County Water District

One Day Seminar for Treating Brackish Groundwater, Seawater, and Reclaimed Water

Stanford University
May 7, 2008
Presentation Outline

► Common Reuse Applications of Membrane

Technologies
► Historical Use of Membranes at OCWD
► Advantages, Disadvantages, and Recommendations
for use of Membrane Technologies for Reuse
Applications
► Examples of Reuse Applications: Water Factory 21 and
the GWR System
Common Uses of Membrane Technology for
Reuse

► MF/UF used as a tertiary treatment process to meet Title 22

recycled water criteria for irrigation or industrial process
water (carpet dye, paper processing)
► RO downstream of MF/UF for indirect potable reuse
including seawater intrusion and surface spreading for
groundwater replenishment
► Single or Two-Pass RO for ultra pure industrial processes
such as boiler feed or computer chip manufacturing
► Water quality requirements govern over process costs as
conventional treatment capital costs are normally less
Background On Use of RO at OCWD

► RO used for Water Factory 21 since 1975 (RO for treatment of

secondary effluent wastewater)
► Pilot scale polyamide TFC RO membranes tested downstream
of MF/UF systems since 1994
► Involvement in design and initial operation of Arlington
Desalter, Chino Desalter, and Tustin Desalter (RO for
desalination of brackish groundwater)
► GWR System contains the largest RO system in US (70 mgd)
► Partner for concept and planning of Irvine Desalter (RO for
contaminated groundwater on former Tustin Marine Corps Air
Base)
Background on RO Applied Research and
Testing at OCWD

► Cellulose acetate (CA) RO membranes used in WF-21 since

the late 1970’s
► Pilot scale polyamide TFC RO membranes tested downstream
of MF/UF systems since 1994
► Pilot scale tests using 4-inch diameter polyamide TFC
elements showed lower operating pressure and higher
rejection as compared with CA
► Testing also showed extended run time between cleaning due
to MF/UF pre-treatment (tests also showed polyamide
membranes not compatible with lime clarification pre-
treatment)
Conventional Versus Advanced Water
Treatment (Membrane Technologies)

► Conventional treatment relies upon chemically enhanced

settlement by gravity
► Disinfection is typically achieved solely through chemical
addition
► Advanced treatment primarily relies upon physical separation
by polymer based membranes
► Membranes offer two basic levels of treatment: particulate or
dissolved contatminant removal (i.e. low pressure vs. high
pressure membrane technology)
► Disinfection is achieved by chemical addition and/or altering the
DNA of microorganisms
Advantages of Membrane Based Treatment

► Footprint is typically 4 to 6 times less than conventional

clarification
► Level of treatment is far greater than conventional treatment
processes
► Process upsets occur less often due to nature of the treatment
process
► Removal by physical separation allows for treatment of a broad
range of water quality
► Allows for a high level of automation to potentially save on labor
costs
Advantages of Membranes for Municipal Reuse

► Most economical process for salinity reduction associated with

secondary effluent (or other wastewater source) TDS levels
► Low Pressure membranes provide consistent water quality for non-
potable reuse regardless of feedwater particulate content
► Stringent California DPH Draft Recharge Criteria water quality
requirements best met using RO technology
► Safeguard against future contaminants of concern (i.e.
Pharmaceuticals, EDC’s)
► Small footprint advantageous for areas where available land is at a
premium
Disadvantages of Membrane Based Treatment

► Capital costs can be far greater than for conventional systems

► Current expertise of typical plant operators may not be up to
level required
► Membrane replacement costs are high and must be budgeted
for appropriately
► Proven track record at municipal scale is still being forged
► Concentrate and waste stream disposal issues
Roadblocks to Use of Membranes for
Municipal Reuse

► High initial capital costs for process equipment

► O&M costs for membrane replacement
► Lack of large operator level knowledge base
► Post treatment or blending issues due to corrosive nature of
product water
► More economical technologies exist depending upon desired level
of treatment
► Energy intensive nature makes process expensive in areas where
energy costs are high (i.e. California)
RO Is Not a Panacea: Low Molecular Weight
Organic (LMWO) Rejection is not Absolute

► Not all LMWOs of concern are completely rejected by RO

membranes
► Rejection of LMWOs is directly proportional to molecular weight
and width of the compound
► NDMA is an example of a newly regulated compound not fully
addressed by RO alone
► Approximately 35 - 40% of NDMA is rejected by PA TFC
membranes; only 10 - 12% is rejected by CA membranes
► As lab methods improve more contaminants will be detected to
far lower levels further demonstrating that RO capability to
remove contaminants is not absolute
“Must Haves” if Membranes are to be
Considered for Municipal Reuse

► Pilot testing on source water for an extended period of time (6

months minimum for full benefit)
► Pilot testing must help establish realistic O&M costs
► Thorough understanding of organic and inorganic make up of
source water
► Proper pre-treatment (preferably low-pressure membrane
technology) if RO is considered
► Strong membrane warranty language and technical support from
chosen MF/UF and RO manufacturer
Recommendations for Use of RO Technology for
Reuse Applications

► TDS and organics removal requirements typically drive the need

for RO for reuse applications
► On-site pilot testing a must
► Level of pre-treatment determines the rate of O&M costs for RO
► State of CA water quality regulations for subsurface injection
indirectly require the use of RO
► Newly regulated contaminants of concern (such as LMWOs) have
shown that RO alone may not be enough
► A combination of low and high pressure membrane technology
reduces cost of possible downstream oxidation treatment
(UV/peroxide, UV/Ozone, Ozone)
 Water Factory 21 - The First Municipal Facility
to use RO for Reuse (1977 to 2004)

flocculation carbon adsorption (10 mgd)

AOP (5 mgd)
Secondary
treated (added later)
wastewater
filtration

clarification reverse osmosis Blending

(5 mgd) prior to
recarbonation
lime sludge use in
CO2 seawater
recycled lime barrier
(up to 75% recovery)

transfer thickening recalcining

Water Factory 21 Conventional vs. MF/UF
Treatment Prior to RO

Water Factory 21 – Conventional Pretreatment

Flocculation &
Sedimentation Recarbonation Chlorination Filtration
Lime

Reverse
Osmosis

GWR System – Microfiltration Pretreatment

NaOCl CA vs. PA
Microfiltration
GWR System Advanced Water Treatment Facility
(AWTF) Flow Diagram

Enhanced 70 mgd
70 mgd
Source 86 mgd Ultraviolet
Control
Reverse
Microfiltration Osmosis Light
Lime
(MF) (RO) (AOP) addition
Secondary
Treatment
Purified
Water

OCSD
Secondary Surface
Effluent Spreading &
Seawater
Intrusion Barrier
Backwash with
Concentrate hydrogen
NaOCl OCSD Plant 1 OCSD Outfall peroxide
addition
GWR System Components

Kraemer Basin
Santa Ana River
Fullerton

Future Mid-Basin
Injection/Recharge Santiago Creek

GWR Pipeline
Huntington Groundwater Basin
Beach Seawater
Intrusion
Barrier Pumping
Pacific Ocean
OCWD Facilities
Irvine
OCSD
Advanced Treatment
Water Purification Facilities
Facility Ocean N
Outfall
GWR System - Level of Treatment for Each
Process

► MF removes suspended solids, bacteria, and protozoa

► MF pre-treatment increases efficiency of RO process
► RO removes salinity (TDS), virus, dissolved organics
► AOP process provides an additional barrier for
disinfection
► AOP destructs low molecular weight organics
► Testing at OCWD has shown that the combination of
RO and AOP is effective against emerging compounds
such as: low molecular weight organics,
pharmaceuticals, and endocrine disruptors
AWTF Process Flow Diagram
Microfiltration System

► 86 MGD Siemens CMF-S

Microfiltration System
(15,808 membrane modules)
► Removes bacteria, protozoa,
and suspended solids
► 0.2 micron pore size
► In basin submersible
membrane system
► Includes 2 CIP systems
MF System Design

► US Filter CMF-S system (immersed membrane)

► Flux Rate = 20.4 gallons per ft2 per day
► 22 minute backwash interval using reverse flow and air
agitation with complete drain of tank (cell) contents
► 26 cells with 608 membrane modules each
► 3 basins with 8 cells per basin (one additional basin
with only two cells)
► 86 mgd total capacity
► 21 day cleaning interval
GWRS CMF-S MF System Design (86 mgd)

Train D Basins Train A Basins

Cell containing
684 MF modules
Train E Basins Train B Basins

Membranes relocated
Empty cells from temporary system

Punch - out wall for future expansion

GWRS Reverse Osmosis System

► 70 MGD Reverse Osmosis

System (15, 5 mgd units)
► 15750 Hydranautics ESPA-2
Membranes
► Recovery Rate: 85%
► 3 – stage array per unit in a
78:48:24 arrangement
► Removes salts, viruses,
organics
► Pressure range: 150 psi –
200 psi
► Includes 2 CIP systems
RO System Process Flow

Flush System Reverse

Mixer Osmosis

To
MF Filtrate Cartridge Feed Post-
Pump Filters Pump Treatment
Station CIP
Sulfuric System
Acid
System Concentrate
Threshold
to Ocean
Inhibitor
Outfall
System
Drain
GWRS Ultraviolet Light /Advanced Oxidation
System

► 70 MGD Trojan UVPhox

System
► Low Pressure – High Output
lamp system
► Nine 8.75 mgd trains (3888
total lamps)
► Removes trace organics
► Uses Hydrogen Peroxide to
form an Advanced Oxidation
Process
Post Treatment Process Flow

Decarbonator
Bypass UV Disinfection
To Seawater
Intrusion
Barrier and
Infiltration From RO
Basins System

Decarbonators

Barrier and Lime

Product Pump Addition
Stations (CaOH)
Stabilization and Storage

► Decarbonation and lime

addition stabilize purified water
► GWR System water is pumped
to seawater barrier and
spreading basins
► Natural soil filtration and
buffering provide final
treatment prior to extraction
after months of storage
Estimated Capital Cost

Construction Contracts Escalated Cost ($M)

Treatment Facilities 298.7

Equipment Engineering 0.8
Trailers 0.8
Phase 1 GWR System & Site Power 19.8
GWR Pipeline* 63.2
Barrier Facilities 17.1

Integrated Information System, Wells, 15.2

Workshops & Insurance

ELA & Contingency $65.3

*3 contracts Total $480.9

Estimated Annual O&M Cost

Item $ Million per Year

Power 14.5
Contract Maintenance 0.4
Chemicals 5.3
Plant Refurbishment 1.2
Membrane Replacement 2.8
UV Lamp Replacement 0.3
Compliance Monitoring 1.5
O&M Staff 3.6
Sub - Total 29.6
Metropolitan Water District Subsidy (3.8)
Total 25.8
Federal, State, and Local Funding

Grants $ Million

► Environmental Protection Agency 0.5

► United States Bureau of Reclamation 20.0

► State Water Resources Control Board 5.0

► State Water Resources Control Board (Prop.13) 37.0

► Department of Water Resources (Prop. 13) 30.0

Total Grants $92.5

Loans

► State Revolving Fund Loans $145.0

CA DPH Regulatory Criteria for Injection

Subsurface Injection CDPH Proposed Criteria GWR System

Total Suspended Solids <30 mg/L ND
Filtration < 2 NTU 0.2 NTU

Disinfection 4 log < 2.2 total per 100 mL ND

Underground Retention Time > 12 months 24 months

Horizontal Separation > 2,000 feet 3,120 feet

Biochemical Oxygen Demand < 30 mg/L ND

Total Nitrogen < 5 mg/L 2.6 mg/L

Total Organic Carbon < 0.5 mg/L 0.26 mg/L

Drinking Water Standards < MCLs < MCLs

Department of Public Health and Regional Board
Approval Process

► DHS Public Hearing - February 2003

► DHS Findings of Fact and
Conditions
► RWQCB incorporated DHS Findings
and Conditions into permit
► RWQCB Hearing – March 2004
► RWQCB issued requirements for
both Interim WF-21 and GWR
System
► GWR System 70 MGD - largest IPR
project in the world
Additional Requirements for GWR System

► Buffer areas
■ >500 ft for spreading
■ >2000 ft for injection
► Retention time underground
■ >6 months for spreading
■ >1 year for injection
► Replacement water plan
► Initial blending – 75% ramping up to 100%
RWC
► Independent Advisory Panel (NWRI
appointed) for OMMP review
Water Quality Requirements for GWR System

► Comply with Drinking Water Standards

plus TOC and Total N
► Non-aggressive water to reduce leaching
potential
► Testing for Notification Level compounds
like NDMA, perchlorate and 1,4-dioxane
► Testing for selected pharmaceuticals and
endocrine disruptors
► Monitoring in plant, blend water and
groundwater along flowpath to
production wells
Treatment Requirements for GWR System

► Enhanced Source Control by OCSD

(Title 22, CCR, Division 4, Chapter 3. Recycling
Criteria, Section 60320 General Requirements)
► Organics removal - <0.5 mg/L TOC
► Nitrogen removal - <5 mg/L Total N
► Disinfection – UV system >4 logs virus
inactivation
► UV photolysis for 1.2 log NDMA removal
► AOP for unknown organic contaminants
For More Information

Email: mpatel@ocwd.com

Project Website: www.gwrsystem.com

OCWD Website: www.ocwd.com