Zero liquiddischargestudy iwvwd_

©AMTA July 13-16, 2009 1

Pilot Testing of Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD)

Technologies Using Brackish Ground Water for Inland Desert Communities

Renee Morquecho, Ph.D., Tom Mulvihill – Indian Wells Valley Water District Andrew Wiesner , Adam Zacheis, Ph.D., P.E., and Graham Juby, Ph.D., P.E. – Carollo Engineers

Filename.ppt

Presentation Outline

Project Background

Pretreatment

Reverse OsmosisElectrodialysis Reversal

Project Costs

Filename.ppt

The Indian Wells Valley Water District is Located in the Mojave Desert

Ridgecrest, CA

Filename.ppt

Influent Water Characteristics Present Challenges to Desalting

Well Water Quality•pH = 7.1

•TDS = 1500 mg/L

•Hardness = 500 mg/L as CaCO3

•Calcium = 140 mg/L

•Sulfate = 500 mg/L

•Silica = 50 mg/L

•Silt Density Index = 1.0

Contaminants of Concern

•Iron = 40 μg/L

•Manganese = 46 μg/L

•Arsenic = 6 μg/L

•Selenium = 40 μg/L

Filename.ppt

Despite the Many Challenges, Potable Water Can Be Obtained by a Zero Liquid Discharge Treatment Train

Pre-Treatment Reverse Osmosis

Stabilization/Disinfection

ElectrodialysisReversal

BrineConcentrator

Coagulation

Pond

Pilot Scale

Full-Scale Plant

Filename.ppt

Pilot Project Objectives

Demonstrate feasibility of selected treatment train.

1.

2. Demonstrate primary RO and secondary EDR can achieve predicted recovery with minimal fouling.

3.

RO

Evaluate the effectiveness of a reversible RO configuration.

Filename.ppt

Pretreatment

Project Background

Pretreatment


Project Costs

Filename.ppt

Pretreatment Can Effectively Remove RO Constituents of Concern

•Fe/Mn Removal

•Granular Media Filtration

•Filtronics FV-03 Electromedia I

Filename.ppt

Pretreatment Can Effectively Remove RO Constituents of Concern

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Total Iron Manganese

Con

cent

ratio

n ( μ

g/L)

WellRO Feed

Filename.ppt

Reverse Osmosis

Project Background

Pretreatment


Project Costs

Filename.ppt

The RO Unit was Operated for Over 4,000 Hours

Filename.ppt

The RO Process Can Operate at High Recoveries

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

Run Time (Days)

Rec

over

y (%

)

Recovery (%)

Filename.ppt

The RO Process Produces a Low Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Product

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Well RO Feed RO Permeate RO Concentrate at70% recovery

Con

cent

ratio

n (m

g/L)

Filename.ppt

The RO Process Can Operate with Minimal Fouling

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Operation (Days)

Flo

w (

gp

m)

Stage 1 flowStage 2 flowTotal system flow

Restart Clean #1 Clean #2

Start of Reversible operation

Filename.ppt

Reversible RO Configuration Has the Potential to Increase Recovery and Decrease Membrane Fouling

Filename.ppt

System Normalized Permeate Flow - Reversible Operation vs. Conventional Operation

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

Throughput (gal x 100,000)

NPF

/NPF

initi

al

ReversibleConventional

Filename.ppt

1st Stage Normalized Permeate Flow -Reversible Operation vs. Conventional Operation

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0


NPF

/NPF

initi

al


Filename.ppt

2nd Stage Normalized Permeate Flow -Reversible Operation vs. Conventional Operation

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0


NPF

/NPF

initi

al


Filename.ppt

RO Concentrate Silt Density Index (SDI) Indicates Particle Removal After Flow Reversal

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Before Flow Reversal After Flow Reversal

SDI

Filename.ppt

Electrodialysis Reversal

Project Background

Pretreatment


Project Costs

Filename.ppt

The EDR was Operated Continuously for Over 1,600 hours

Na+

Cl-

Cl-

Na+

ConcentrateCompartment

ProductCompartment

Na+

Na+

Cl-

CationicMembrane

AnionicMembrane

CationicMembrane

Cl-

Cathode-ve Anode

+ve

Filename.ppt

Reduced RO Recovery to Meet EDR Feed Requirements



RO Recovery = 60%

RO Bypass

EDR Influent Silica Limit = 115 mg/L

Filename.ppt

EDR can Effectively Remove TDS from the RO Concentrate

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

EDR Feed EDR Product EDR Concentrate

TDS

(mg/

L)

Filename.ppt

EDR can Achieve High Recoveries

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800Run Time (hr)

Rec

over

y (%

)

(-)ve Polarity(+)ve Polarity

Filename.ppt

EDR Performance has been Stable

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800Run Time (hr)

Pres

sure

(psi

)

Feed PressureStack Inlet Pressure (+)Stack Inlet Pressure (-)

Filename.ppt

EDR Performance has been Stable

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Run Time (hr)

Res

ista

nce

(Ohm

s)

Stage 1 (+) Resistance

Stage 1 ( - ) Resistance

Stage 2 (+) Resistance

Stage 2 ( - ) Resistance

Filename.ppt

RO Primary Desalting and EDR Secondary Desalting can Achieve High Overall Recovery



31 gpm 28 gpm

3 gpm

System Recovery = 90%

Filename.ppt

RO Primary Desalting and EDR Secondary Desalting can Produce a Low TDS Product

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Well Product Concentrate

TDS

(mg/

L)

Filename.ppt

Project Costs

Project Background

Pretreatment


Project Costs

Filename.ppt

Limiting the Volume of Brine for Final Treatment Reduces Cost

ReverseOsmosis

Capital – 1 mgd $2 million $22 millionPower (kWh/1000 gal) 2.2 90

Brine Concentration

Filename.ppt

Impact of Overall Recovery is Significant – Example: 1-mgd Plant

0

50

100

150

200

250

70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Overall Recovery

Brine Flowrate

(gpm)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Brine Concentration

(mg/L)

Primary RO Brine

SecondaryEDR Brine

174 gpm

70 gpm

Filename.ppt

Limiting the Volume of Brine for Final Treatment Reduces Cost – Full-Scale Facility at 2.7 mgd

Capital Cost

(MM$/yr)

O&M Cost

(MM$/yr)

Total Cost

(MM$/yr)

RO + BC 2.8 3.7 6.5

RO + EDR + BC 2.4 2.6 5.0

Filename.ppt

Summary and Conclusions

Selected treatment train is feasible.1.

2. Primary RO and secondary EDR can achieve predicted recoveries.

3.

RO

The reversible function has potential to improve RO performance, but additional testing is needed.

Filename.ppt

Acknowledgements

California Department of Water Resources (Chapter 6(a) of Proposition 50)

Staff Indian Wells Valley Water District

Questions?

Questions?

[email protected]

Filename.ppt

Comparing Water Costs Indicates that Costs are Reasonable Given Water Quality and Inland Location

Typical Brackish Desalting

Ocean Disposal for Brine

This Project

Primary Desalting Step

Zero-Liquid Discharge/Brine Treatment

Bottled Water

AWWA – June 2005

Crystal Geyser

500 1000 1500

~ 450 - 550~ 500

~ 620

~ 1,160

~ 974,000

~ 6,500,000

$/AF

Total ~ 1,000

Total ~ 1,780

Zero liquiddischargestudy iwvwd_

Technology

Transcript of Zero liquiddischargestudy iwvwd_