Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse

Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute
Qatar Foundation, Qatar
International Training Course

on
Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse
26-28 May 2013
Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute

is pleased to invite you to the training course
"Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse"
May 26 to 28, 2013

This training program covers both theoretical and practical aspects of the use
of reverse osmosis (RO) membrane technologies for seawater desalination
and water reuse. The program focuses on selection, design and operational
monitoring of RO desalination and water reuse plants. A great number of
illustrations, e.g. pictures, videos, cases studies, feedbacks from operation,
design tips and operational traps, will be provided in order to help the better
design and operation of desalination and water reuse membrane facilities, with
improved reliability, energy efficiency and economic benefits.
Trainers:
Nikolay Voutchkov, President, Water Globe Consulting, LLC
Dr. Valentina Lazarova, Chief Project Engineer, Suez Environment, CIRSEE
Organizer: Dr. Basem Shomar (QEERI)
Enrollment: Limited to 50 participants; early registration is strongly encouraged
Registration Fees: Free
Venue: College of North Atlantic, Building 3, Theatre 1, 01.1.04. Doha, Qatar
Working Language: English
Deadline for registration: 20 May 2013
For Registration, Please
Contact: Dr. Khaled Mahmoud
Email: kmahmoud@qf.org.qa
Tel. Office +974 44541694
Tel. Mobile +974 66258517
Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI)

is pleased to invite you to the
Training Program on
Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse

Planning methodology, design tips & recommendations, operational traps &
best practices, improvement of energy efficiency and economic viability, latest
innovation in technology and operating practices
May 26 to 28, 2013

Doha, Qatar
Nikolay Voutchkov, President, Water Globe Consulting, LLC
Dr. Valentina Lazarova, Chief Project Engineer, Suez Environment, CIRSEE
This training program covers both theoretical and practical aspects of the use of reverse
osmosis membrane technologies for seawater desalination and water reuse. The program
focuses on selection, design and operational monitoring of RO desalination and water
reuse plants. A great number of illustrations, e.g. pictures, videos, cases studies,
feedbacks from operation, design tips and operational traps, will be provided in order to
help the better design and operation of desalination and water reuse membrane facilities,
with improved reliability, energy efficiency and economic benefits.
Program Outline
Day 1 (Sunday 26 May 2013)
Desalination and Water Reuse Fundamentals
8:00 9:00 Overview of Desalination and Water Reuse
Sustainable Water Cycle: Why we Need Desalination and Water Reuse?

Water Reuse
Status, Trends and Market Development
Benefits and Challenges
Alternative Water Reuse Technologies
Desalination
Alternative Desalination Technologies
Objective of the Training Course: How to Succeed Desalination and Water Reuse Projects?
Questions and Discussion
9:00 10:30 Reverse Osmosis Fundamentals
RO Separation Basic Principles

Principle of Operation & Basic Schemes and Calculations
Major Types of RO Membranes and Materials
Key Performance and Design Parameters
RO System/Plant Recovery
Membrane Rejection and Salt Passage
Concentrate Salinity and Concentration Factor
Feed Pressure and Membrane Flux
RO System Components
Intake Facilities
Pretreatment Alternatives
Key RO System Components
Post Treatment
Instrumentation and Control Systems
Video on Reverse Osmosis Fundamentals
10:30 10:45 Coffee Break

10:45 12:00 Planning for RO Desalination and Reuse Plants
Integrated Water Resource Planning

Key Project Implementation Steps
Water Reuse Projects
Key Issues When Implementing Water Reuse
Engineering Issues of Water Reuse Planning
Community and Political Engagement
Desalination Projects
Key Plant Components
How to Determine Plant Site Size and Location?
Source Water Quality Characterization
Choosing Product Water Quality Issues and Considerations
Video on Planning of Barcelona SWRO Plant
12:00 13:00 Lunch Break

13:00 13:45 Seawater Intakes
Source Water Quality Issues and Considerations

TDS, Mineral and Organic Content
Type of Membrane Foulants
Subsurface Intakes
Site Consideration, Requirements and Costs
Design Considerations
Monitoring & Operation
Open Ocean Intakes
Types of Open Intakes
Site Considerations and Recommendations
Case studies
Intake Screens
Monitoring & Operation: Minimizing Shellfish Growth
Selection of Intake
Power Plant Collocation: Capex Saving and Environmental Benefits
General Design Guidelines

14:00 15:15 Pretreatment for Desalination and Water Reuse
Membrane Fouling
Types of Foulants and Main Sources
Types of Fouling and Scaling
Effect of Fouling on Membranes Performance
Pretreatment Technologies for Desalination and Water Reuse
Enhanced Sedimentation: Coagulation & Flocculation
Filtration: Gravity & Pressurized
Low Pressure Membrane Filtration: Microfiltration & Ultrafiltration
Micro-Screens
Cartridge Filters
Conclusions: Selection of Pretreatment
Video on Orange County Advanced Water Recycling Facility
15:15 15:30 Round Table Discussion
Day 2 (Monday 27 May 2013)

Desalination and Water Reuse Systems Design & Costs
08:00 09:30 Reverse Osmosis System Configurations
Key Components
Type of Pumps
Membrane Elements and Vessels
RO Membrane Cleaning
Reverse Osmosis Trains Alternative Configurations for Desalination
Pumping Alternatives
Configuration Alternatives
Reverse Osmosis Trains Alternative Configurations for Reuse
Typical RO Membrane Configuration and Design Parameters
Critical Factors for Selection of RO Membranes for Water Reuse
Optimization of Membrane Performances: Examples and Recommendations
Energy Recovery Systems Types and Applications
Design and Sizing of Key Components of RO Systems
Video of Melbourne Desalination Plant
9:30 10:30 Energy Use in Desalination and Water Reuse
Energy Footprint of Water Reuse and Desalination

Key Energy Use Components & Factors
Example of Typical Desalination Plant Energy Use Breakdown
Example of Typical Water Reuse Plant Energy Use Breakdown

Desalination
Energy Use Trends and Examples
Methods to Minimize Desalination Plant Energy Use
Potential Energy Benefits of Collocation
Pumps & Motors Efficiency Constraints
Reducing Energy Losses Through Innovation: Nanotechnologies and Forward Osmosis
Water Reuse
Methods to Minimize Energy Use of Water Reuse Plants
Use of Renewable Energy In Water Reuse and Desalination: Solar and Wind Energy
Video of Pembroke Desalination Plant, Malta

10:45 12:00 Seawater Desalination Costs
Construction Costs (Capex)

Indirect Capex/ Example and Comparison
Capex of Intake and Pretreatment
Capex of SWRO Systems and Key Components
Capex of Post-Treatment and Brine Disposal
Influence of Plant Size
O&M Costs (Opex)
Typical Opex Breakdown
Variable, Fixed and Indirect Opex
Opex Comparison for Different Pretreatment Schemes
Total Cost of Water Production (Total Annualized Costs)
Typical Breakdown and Total Annualized Costs
Examples and Common Features of Low-Cost Desalination Plants
Key Factors Affecting Costs
Key Project Risks and Costs: The Role of Public-Private Partnership
Example of Large Desalination Plant Costs
Where Future Cost Savings Will Come From?

13:00 14:30 Water Reclamation and Reuse Costs
Purpose of the Cost Analysis and Key Components of Water Reuse Costs
Construction Costs (Capex)
Influence of Treatment Technologies
Influence of Recycled Water Distribution Systems
Typical Capex Breakdown and Examples
Evolution of Capex of Membranes for Water Reuse
O&M Costs (Opex)
Components of Opex
Examples of Opex Breackdowns for various reclamation facilities, MF/RO systems versus
Conventional Advanced Treatment, Pressure vs Vacuum Driven Membranes
Fixed and Variable Opex
Total Costs and Environmental Benefits of Water Reuse
Comparison of Total Cost of Water Reuse and Desalination

Examples of Total Costs and Influence of Plant Size
Challenges for Calculation and Example of Benefits of Water Reuse
Funding and Pricing of Water Reuse
Key Principles for Water Reuse Funding Strategy
Mechanisms for Funding Water Reuse Systems & Examples
Importance of Project Phasing
Pricing of Recycled Water: Who should pay for recycled water system costs?
Cost Recovery Concerns and Lessons Learned from Leading Water Reuse Projects
Cost Efficiency: Multi-barriers Approach and Custom-Made recycled Water
Example of Water Reuse Prices Worldwide
Video of West Basin Recycling Plant, California

14:45 15:30 Concentrate Disposal
Concentrate Disposal Alternatives

On-shore and Offshore Discharges
Technologies for Reduction of Concentrate Volume and Beneficial Reuse
Environmental Discharge Considerations
Key Issues and Concerns
How to Assess Discharge Dispersion?
New Method for Salinity Tolerance Evaluation
Concentrate & Effluent Toxicity
Beneficial Uses of Concentrate
Guidelines for Selecting and Designing Concentrate Disposal System
Examples of Concentrate Treatment and Disposal in Water Reuse and Desalination Projects
Day 3 (Tuesday 28 May 2013)

Plant Performance Optimization and Troubleshooting
08:00 09:30 Plant Performance Analysis and Optimization
Key Plant Performance Parameters for Desalination and Water Reuse Systems
Diagnostics of Membrane Fouling
Key Steps of Plant Performance Analysis
Normalized Permeate Flow
Plant Control with Changing Water Quality
Optimization of Plant Design and Operations
Optimizing Plant Design & Operation
Improving Performance by Redistributing Flux/Energy
Reducing Feed Pressure and Plant Recovery
Use of Larger Pumps/RO Trains
Optimizing Boron Rejection
Optimizing Energy Efficiency
Membrane Integrity Testing
Membrane Cleaning
09:30 10:30 Desalination and Water Reuse Plant Monitoring and Troubleshooting
Operating Practices In Water Reuse and Desalination
What Do We Monitor in RO Systems?
Operations Monitoring Methods and Equipment
RO Systems Monitoring
RO Membrane Fouling: Potential Impacts, Causes & Remedies
Decrease In Permeate Flow
Increase in Pressure Drop
Increase of CIP Frequency
Investigation and Definition of Type of Fouling
Failure Modes and Membrane Fouling in Water Reuse Systems
Failure Modes and Membrane Fouling in Desalination Systems

10:45 12:00 Desalination Plant Case Studies
Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant, USA Challenges and Solutions

Fujairah SWRO Plant, UAE Solutions for Source Seawater with High Fouling Potential

13:00 14:30 Water Reuse Plant Case Studies
Milestones in Membrane Applications for Water Reuse

The First Direct Potable Reuse Facility in Namibia Challenges and Solutions
Lessons Learned from the Largest and Most Efficient Water Reuse Operations in the World (Engineering
Design, Operation, Costs and Benefits)
Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County California
Designer Water Production in Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facilities, West Basin, California
Singapore Experience in Water Reuse: the NEWater Factories
Role of RO Systems for Urban and Agricultural Irrigation
Key Advantages and Main Constraints for RO Application for Industrial Water Reuse: Refinery of
Panipat, India

14:45 15:10 Interactive Discussion
15:10 15:30 Multiple Choice Test and Adjourn
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Day 1: Desalination and Water Reuse
Fundamentals
08:00-09:00
Overview
of Desalination
and Water Reuse
Technologies
SUEZ ENVIRONNEMENT
&
Water
WaterGlobe
GlobeConsulting
Consulting
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV and

Valentina LAZAROVA
Overview of Desalination and

Water Reuse Technologies - Outline
Sustainable Water Cycle: Why we Need Desalination

and Water Reuse?
Water Reuse
Desalination

Alternative Water Reuse Technologies
Alternative Desalination Technologies
Objective of the Training Course: How to Succeed in

Implementing Desalination and Water Reuse Projects?
INTRODUCTION
ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES
Why We Need Alternative Resources?

A Concern for Sustainability
Increasing water scarcity

9 By 2025, 1.8 billion people will be
living in countries or regions with
extreme water scarcity.
Increasing impacts of climate change

9 Longer and more severe dry seasons
9 Widespread changes in the distribution of precipitation with
more frequent drought and flooding events, leading to overall
long-term reduction in river flows and aquifers recharge rates
9 Increased water use for irrigation
9 Deterioration of the quality of all freshwater sources due to
higher temperatures and diminishing flows.
Source: UNESCO
Evolution of
Global Water Demand
Sustainable Water Cycles
The Role of Alternative Resources

Water conservation alone is not sufficient to
solve water scarcity challenges
Economic value and energy footprint of
water are becoming an issue
Environmental value of water is
underestimated
Trend towards one quality of water for one
usage (designer water quality)
Expensive desalinated water will have to be
recycled as many times as possible through
water reuse
Why Do We Need Alternative Resources?
A Win-Win Solution
Desalination of seawater and brackish water

z
Water reuse
z
Production of freshwater mostly for domestic

purposes
Beneficial reuse/recycling of treated urban or
industrial wastewater
Increasing the overall efficiency of water use
(Fit for Purpose approach), reducing in
addition the discharge of pollutants
Other Sources: Rainwater harvesting
Water Reuse & Desalination Market

USA +12%/yr
4.47 Mm3/d
10.79 Mm3/d
Europe +10%/yr
3.9
1.0 Mm3/d
Mm3/d
0.96 Mm3/d
3.9 Mm3/d
2005
2015
1.86 Mm3/d
Source: Global Water Intelligence
2015
MENA
+12%/yr
2005
2015
3
Desalination, Mm /d (+102%)
74.8 en 2012
2015 61.7
2005 30.6
3
Water reuse, Mm /d (+181%)

2015 54.5
2005 19.4
GWI 2005
2005
China
+29%/yr
5.59 Mm3/d
2015
GWI 2010
2005
Global World
Why Do We Need Alternative Resources?

Role of Water Reuse
Recycledwater
11 km3/yr
(GWI, 2010)
5% of treated wastewater
California: 0.9 km3/yr in 2009
Desalinated water
27.3 km3/yr
(IDA, 2012)
Oceans & seas

97.5 %
Withdrawals
1,385,000,000 km3
4,430 km3 (2000)

up to 5,000 in 2010
Fresh water 2.5%
Fresh water available,

accessible, renewable
Glaciers 70 %
Groundwater 29.7 %
Lakes & rivers 0.3 %
0.001 %
10,000 to 14,000 km3
WATER REUSE
Source: UNESCO, 2003
35,000,000 km3
Status and Trends in Water Reuse

Continuous Growth in All Continents
Recycledwater isbecomingtoberecognizedasa
beneficialresource andnotawastelostintheocean
Policytargetsfor20to100%recyclingratiooftreated
wastewater(Australia,California,Cyprus,Florida,Israel,Spain,
Singapore.)

Recycled Water as % of Total Water
Withdrawal in MENA Countries
Source: Qadir et al., 2009 (Based on data from FAO-AQUASTAT 2009; USEPA 2004)
Recycled Water as % of Treated Wastewater

Amount of
wastewater
reused
(en %)
91%
85%
32%
4%
Mexico
Wastewater
production
(in Mm3/d)
21m
11%
12%
Spain
Syria
12m
4m
14%
China
70m
14%
USA
Wastewater
production
Wastewater
reused
Source : GWI Global
Water Market 2011
35%
15%
Australia
119m
5m
Egypt
10m
Singapore Israel
1m
21m
Kuwait
1m
Production of High Quality Recycled Water

Linear growth of volumes of secondary effluent reused for
agriculture (approximately 6%/yr)
Trend towards exponential increase in volumes of recycled
water after tertiary or advanced treatment (>13% /yr)
Diversification of Water Reuse Applications
Landscape irrigation
20%
Source: GWI/PUB Water Reuse Inventory, 2010
Distribution of water reuse by application: 52% of the total

volume of recycled water is used for irrigation
Agricultural irrigation
32%

The Top 10 of Water Reuse Market
Source: Global Water Intelligence 2010
Water Reuse and Desalination

Comparison of Total Costs
2.5-10 /m3
Typical water reuse

costs
Predominantly small and
medium size projects
<5,000-40,000 m3/d
<5,000 m3/d
MF/RO 1.0 /m3
UF/RO 0.5 /m3

MBR 0.3
/m3
>20,000 m3/d
Existing
plus small
and medium
size projects
0.86 /m3
0.45 /m3
Recent bids
for large
projects
30,000280,000 m3/d
UV 0.02 /m3
Water reuse
UF/RO, MF/RO
MBR
Desalination
Benefits of Water Reuse

Reliable, secure and drought-proof water source
Faster and easier implementation than new
freshwater supply (high value for Islands)
Water conservation
Saving of high quality freshwater water for
potable water supply (high value in tourist areas)
Environmental value
Reduced pollutant discharge (beaches, lagoons)
Restoration of water bodies and biodiversity
Economic value
Avoided costs for new freshwater resources
development, transfer and pumping
(water transfer, new desalination plants, etc.)
Secondary economic benefits during droughts
Abu Dhabi:
Top Green City Reusing
100% of Its Wastewater
Role of Water Reuse for Water Cycle

Management of Megacities
Tianjin, China
All wastewater plants are producing recycled water

(4 existing WRPs + 2 under design) with overall capacity
of 1.99 Mm3/d of treatment and 0.26 Mm3/d of recycling
Total volume of recycled
water: 94.9 Mm3/yr
Total annualized costs:
0.33-0.41 /m3
(2.6-3.2 Yuan RMB/m3)
Reclamation treatment:
iMF + RO + O3 + Cl
Scenic environment
Toilet
flushing
Cooling
Source: Zhang et al. 2012
Major Challenges for Sustainable

Growth of Water Reuse
Public Perception: Improve
communication and public education
New policy: Converge regulatory
frameworks, provide institutional
incentives and reform water rights
Innovative technology: Improve
efficiency, reliability and water
quality
Economic viability: Establish
appropriate water pricing, provide
adequate financing and subsidies
Frame best management
practices
Water Quality Changes During the

Water Cycle Ultra-pure
NEWater
Drinking
Water
Re-purified
Water
Various
Quality of
Reclaimed
Water
High Quality
Surface or
Groundwater
Courtesy of Prof. T. Asano
Quality of Water
Water
Treated
Effluent
Wastewater
Time Sequence (No Scale)
Water Quality Changes During the

Anthropological Water Cycle
Industrial uses
Potable reuse
Urban
Main categories of
water reuse
Agriculture
Any level of water quality can be

achieved depending upon the use
of the recycled water
Source: Asano 2002; Lazarova et al. 2013
Wastewater Treatment and

Reclamation Trains
2. Tertiary Treatment
Advanced Primary
Treatment
2.1. Conventional scheme

Disinfection
lagoons/Cl/UV/O3
Pre-treatment
Coag/floculation/
clarification
Disinfection
Filtration Cl/UV/O3
1. Secondary Treatment
Coag/floc/
clarification
Filtration
Disinfection
Cl/UV/O3
Exponential
Increase of
recycled water
volumes after
tertiary and
advanced
treatment
2.2. Submerged membranes
Pre-treatment
Activated sludge
C, N-DN
3. Quaternary
treatment
(desalination)
Clarification
1+2. MBR
Disinfection
UF / MF Cl/UV/O3
Brine
2.2. External membranes

Reverse osmosis
Pre-treatment
Filtration
MBR
C, N-DN
EDI
MF/UF
Disinfection
Cl/UV/O3
Electrodyalisis Reversal
Definitions
Secondary Treatment = Biological Treatment:

Processes, which employ aerobic or anaerobic
microorganisms to remove C, N and P pollution
Tertiary Treatment Selected biological, physical, and

chemical separation processes to remove organic and
inorganic substances that resist conventional treatment
practices
Membrane filtration Pressure- or vacuum-driven

separation process in which particulate matter larger
than 1 m is rejected by an engineered barrier, primarily
through a size exclusion mechanism
Definitions
(Continuation)
Low Pressure Membrane Filtration Pressure- or

vacuum-driven separation processes ensuring rejection of
particles with size 0.1-0.2 m (Microfiltration) or 0.1 to
0.001 m (Ultrafiltration)
Nanofiltration Pressure-driven filtration through a

membrane that removes particles of about two
nanometres (>0.002 m) or larger
Reverse Osmosis - High Pressure Membrane Filtration

that removes many types of large molecules and ions by
means of a selective membrane separation
Primary
treatment
Sand
filtration
Biological
treatment
Microfiltration UltrafiltrationNanofiltration Reverse osmosis

Ozone
Disinfection
Activated
carbon
Separation
processes
Biological and
Physicochemical
processes
Sieving Salt
WW
(particle
removal) rejection
Conventional
Colloids Viruses
wastewater
MacotreatmentC+ Pathogens Pesticides Organics
N
Metals, Fe
Dissolved
organics
Salts, NH4
Effluent
Role of Membranes for Improvement of

Wastewater Treatment
Bacteria
Virus
UF
Salt
High pressure membrane
Helminths&Protozoa
Low pressure membrane
Membrane Treatment Integration for the

Production of High-Quality Recycled Water
Water
RO
Membrane Integration for the Production of

High-Quality Recycled Water
Multiple Membrane Treatment: Considered as

Best Available Treatment
Applications
z
z
z
Aquifer Recharge (Australia, California, Belgium)

Industrial Reuse (Australia, California, Hawaii, Singapore..)
Agricultural and Landscape Irrigation (China Kuwait, Spain)
Secondary
effluent
Low pressure
membranes
Reverse
osmosis
UV Disinfection
DESALINATION
Status and Trends in Desalination

Where Are We Today?
Over 15,000 Desalination Plants Worldwide

74.8 million m/d ofTechnology
Total Production Capacity
RO
Thermal
ED
IX & Other
3% 3%
27.7 million m/d
Thermal Desalination
47.1 million m/d
RO Desalination
31%
63%
40 % of All Plants > 50,000 m/d

Installed Capacity Expected
to Double by 2020
Source: IDA Desalination Yearbook 2012-2013
Status and Trends in Desalination

Thermal vs. RO Desalination
Source: Global Water Intelligence
SWRO Recent Large Projects
Source: Degremont
444,000 m/day Victoria Plant in Australia

the Largest RO Desalination Project
Completed in 2012
Desalination - Status and Trends

Desalination Costs Are Falling
3.5
3
2.5
2
U$/m3 1.5
1
0.5
0
1980
1990
2000
2003
2012
Commonly Used Terminology
Flow Measured in m/d, mega-liters per day

(ML/d) and million gallons per day (MGD)
z
1,000 m/d = 1 ML/d = 0.264 MGD
Salinity = Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)

Concentration = Total Salt Content
z Measured in mg/L & ppt
z ppt parts per thousand 1 ppt = 1,000 mg/L
Water Classification by Salinity:

z
z
z
Fresh Water TDS < 1,000 mg/L

Brackish Water - TDS 1,000 mg/L & < 10,000 mg/L
Seawater TDS 15,000 mg/L
(usually 30,000 mg/L to 46,000 mg/L)
Ocean Water Salinity Worldwide
Definitions
Distillation Separating Water from Salts by

Evaporation (Driving Force Heat)
Ion Exchange Selective Removal of One of

More Ions from the Source Water Via Charged
Media (Driving Force Adsorption to Ion-Selective
Resin)
Electrodialysis Electrically Driven Membrane

Separation of Salts (Driving Force Direct Electric
Current)
Definitions
(Continuation)
Reverse Osmosis Process of Producing Pure

Water by Forcing Saline or Impure Water Through a
Semipermeable Membrane Across Which Salts or
Impurities Cannot Pass
Forward Osmosis Process Defined as the Net

Movement of Water Across a Selectively Permeable
Membrane Driven by the Difference in Osmotic
Pressure Across the Membrane
Process Applicability
Separation Process
(Limiting Factor)
Salinity Range
(mg/L)
Distillation (Energy)
20,000 100,000
Reverse & Forward

Osmosis (Energy)
50 45,000
Electrodialysis (Energy)
200 3,000
Ion Exchange
(Media Capacity)
1 - 800
(Distillation) Processes
100%
GOR
MSF -10 to 20%;
MED -30 to 50%
MSF -80 to 90%;

MED -50 to 70%
TDS = 10 to 25 mg/L;
B < 0.2 mg/L.
5 to 15C Warmer
Discharge
Cost of Water = US$0.75 to 3.00/m
MSF-BR
4 - 12
MED-TC
3 - 15
MVC
20 - 40
Pressure
Boiling Temperature C
Atmospheric 100
25 % Atmospheric 65
10 % Atmospheric - 45
Gain to Output Ratio (GOR) = kg Distilled Water/ kg of Steam
Current Status
Thermal Plant Capacity 27.7 Million m/d (Mm3/d)

(31 % of all installed desalination capacity)
75 % of All Thermal Plants are Located in the

Arabian Peninsula
UAE 7.8 Mm/d
Saudi Arabia 12.9 Mm/d
Dominating Technologies:
z
z
z
Multistage Flash (MSF) 20 to 800 ML/d

Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) 2 to 20 ML/d
Vapor Compression (VC) 0.5 to 10 ML/d
330 ML/d SWRO Plant
240 ML/d Taweelah A1 MED Plant
Comparison of Lowest-Cost Water

SWRO & MED (Thermal) Plants
Ashkelon, Israel
(330,000 m3/d)
US$0.53/m
Taweelah A1, UAE

(240,000 m3/d)
US$0.70/m
40,700/30
47,800/25
32 @10,190 m3/d
4-Stage RO System
14 @17,140 m3/d
6 MED Effects/Stages
45 %
30.5 %
3.32 kWh/m (RO)

(Total = 3.8 kWh/m)
1.65 kWh/m (electr.)

(Total = 9.5 kWh/m)
US$220 MM
US$255 MM
Pressure @ 69.3 bars
Top Brine Temp @

63C
2005
2002
Parameter
TDS Intake/Product
(mg/L)
Drinking Water
Production Trains
Recovery
Power Consumption
Capital Cost
Operating Media
In Operation Since
Why Thermal Desalination is Not Popular

Outside of the Middle East?
It is More Cost Effective to Produce Power and Water Separately When

Power Can Be Produced From Local Resources Other than Oil
(Hydropower, Natural Gas, Coal)
Efficient Power Stations Produce Low Temperature Steam 35 to 40C

Inadequate for Thermal Desalination
Lower Seawater Salinity 33 to 35 ppt vs. 38 to 42 ppt
Cost of Water Production

z
z
High Power to Water (PW) Production Ratio (MW/MIGD)

z
z
z
Large Thermal Plants US$0.75 to 1.9/m (using low cost energy)

Large SWRO Plants US$0.5 to 0.8/m
VCMED - 1.4 to 1.6
MED 3.5 to 12
MSF 5 to 19
Actual Power-to-Water Demand:

z
z
Middle East 10 to 14
Rest of the World is 1.4 to 5 (California 2.5 to 4.0)
Electrodialysis
Cathode (-)
-
Na+
Na+
Na+
Cation-Transfer
Membrane
Na +
+
Na
Cl-
Cl -
Na+
Cl
Demineralized
Product
Cl
Cl
Cl
Na
Cl
Cl
Anion-Transfer
Membrane
Cl-
Cl
+
Na
Cl
Na+
Na
Na+
Na
Concentrate
Cation-Transfer
Membrane
Na+
Na+
Na
Anode (+)
+
Electrochemical Separation By Means of Direct Current
EDR Main Application Brackish

Water Desalination/Reuse
Water Reclamation for Irrigation Reuse EDR

Allows to Keep Essential Minerals While Removing
TDS
Drinking Water Production - Waters of High Silica

Content - Water Recovery Not Limited By Silica
(Silica Not Removed)
Drinking Water Nitrate Removal for Low Salinity

Source Water with NO3 Conc. < 100 mg/L
ED Membranes Less Sensitive than RO to Water

Turbidity, Chlorine and Silica
Contaminant Removal by
Desalination Technologies
Distillation
(%)
ED/EDR
(%)
RO
(%)
> 99.9
50 - 90
90 99.5
50 - 90
<5
5 - 50
> 99
<5
>99.99
TOC
>95
95-98
Radiological
> 99
Nitrate
>99
<20
50 - 90
60-69
Calcium
>99
Magnesium
Contaminant
TDS
Pesticides,
Organics/VOCs
Pathogens
90 - 99
90-94
95-97
>99
45-50
55-62
Bicarbonate
>99
45-47
95-97
Potassium
>99
55-58
90-92
95-97
World Largest Operating EDR Plant

Barcelona, Spain 200,000 m3/d
Source
Water
High-Bromide (> 1mg/L)/
High THM Content
(> 120 g/L)
High
Silica Content
90%
Recovery
(vs. 65 % w/ RO)
Started
up May 2009
9 Modules x 32 Lines/Module
(32 Lines of ERD Stacks in 2 Stages)

Salinity Reduction 75 to 85 %
Ion Exchange
The Treatment Process
Cation & Anion Exchange Resins In:

z
Separate Vessels (Dual-Resin Bed System)
Single Vessel Mixed Resin Bed System
Caustic Soda to Replace Anions
Acid to Replace Cations
Product Water Quality Can Be

Controlled by Changing the Dosage of the
Regenerant
Key Differences Between RO and

Ion Exchange
Salt Rejection of RO Membrane Elements Cannot Be

Changed Once Installed Rejection of IX System Can Be
Controlled by Changing Regenerant Dosage
RO Cannot Remove Gaseous Carbon Dioxide! In

Alkaline Environment of Anion Beads CO2 is converted to
CO3 and HCO3 Ions Which Are Exchanged with the Resin
Thereby Removing CO2 and Producing Ultrapure Water!
RO System Efficiency Decreases Significantly with

Capacity Turndown Up to 50% Capacity of IX System
Would Not Impact Its Efficiency!
Ion Exchange
Areas of Application
Product Water Softening (Removal of Ca + Mg)
Demineralization (when Low TDS Needed)
Removal of Nitrates and Arsenic
Boron Removal from Seawater RO Permeate
TOC/Color Removal (Hydrophilic Organics i.e., fulvic,

humic acids) Anion Resins/Brine Regenerant; GAC
works better on organics that do to carry charge
Removal of Barium, Uranium, Radium, Lead & Copper,

Chromium, Mercury & Other Metals
The Most Practical Method for Producing Low

Concentration of Silica
Ion Exchange for Boron Removal
Ion Exchange Resins Removes Only Boron from the Permeate!

Usually Ion Exchange is More Competitive than BWRO When Permeate TDS < 80 mg/L
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Fundamentals
9:00-10:30
Reverse Osmosis
Fundamentals
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV,
PE, BCEE
Water Globe Consulting
Reverse Osmosis Fundamentals Outline
RO Separation Basic Principles
Key Performance and Design Parameters
Membrane Rejection and Salt Passage
Concentrate Salinity and Concentration Factor
Feed Pressure and Membrane Flux
Principle of Operation & Basic Schemes and Calculations

Major Types of RO Membranes and Materials
Intake Facilities
Post Treatment
Instrumentation and Control Systems
Video on Reverse Osmosis Fundamental
Definitions
Reverse Osmosis A Process of Producing Pure

Water by Forcing Saline or Impure Water Through a
Semipermeable Membrane Across Which Salts or
Impurities Cannot Pass
Forward Osmosis Process Defined as the Net

Movement of Water Across a Selectively Permeable
Membrane Driven by a Difference in Osmotic
Pressure Across the Membrane
What is Osmosis and Why It

Has to be Reversed?
PRESSURE
OSMOTIC
PRESSURE
FRESH
WATER
SEMIPERMEABLE
MEMBRANE
SALT
WATER
FRESH
WATER
SEMIPERMEABLE
MEMBRANE
SALT
WATER
Calculating Osmotic Pressure

Approximate Estimate: Po = TDS/100 psi
= TDS/1470 Bar
More accurate method :
Po = R T (n/v), where R = 0.083

and (n/v) = sum of ionic concentrations
T - temperature
For 1,000 mg/l NaCl solution, @ 25oC

(n/v)Na = 0.0172
(n/v)Cl = 0.0172
Therefore Po = 0.083*(273+25)*(2 x 0.0344)

= 0.851 bar, 12.3 psi
For Typical Seawater @ 35,000 mg/L & 25oC

(35,000 mg/L /1,000 mg/L) x 0.851 bar = 29.8 bar (430 psi)
Reverse Osmosis
Osmotic Pressure of 35 ppt Seawater

= 30 bars (i.e., 30 atm)
SWRO Membranes
Made of Semi-permeable Plastic Material

Remove Dissolved Solids by Selective
Rejection
Driving Force Pressure Applied on the
Membranes
Can Reject Molecules with Size of 180
Daltons or More:
z
z
z
z
Na & Cl
Multivalent Ions (Hardness)
Organics
Pathogens (Bacteria, Viruses, Protozoa, etc.)
How SWRO Compares to Other

Membranes?
Reverse Osmosis removes smallest contaminants.
Cross-Flow Filtration
Membrane Materials
Polyamide (Thin-Film Composites)

z
Key Advantages Not Subject to Microbial

Degradation/Have Higher Salt Rejection
Key Disadvantage Sensitive to Oxidants
Cellulose Acetate
z
z
Key Advantage - Tolerant to Oxidants

Key Disadvantages Biodegradable/
Optimum Performance within a Narrow pH
Range (4.5 to 6.5)
Thin-Film Membrane Structure
Thin Polyamide Film Has

Random Structure
Thin Film
Two Key Types of SWRO

Membrane Configurations
Spiral-wound
z
z
Membrane formed into leafs

Leafs glued around three sides and rolled
around central tube to form membrane
element
Hollow Fiber
z
z
Membrane formed into fine fibers

Fibers bundled together into element
Spiral-Wound vs. Hollow-Fiber

Membrane
Spiral-Wound RO Membrane
Hollow Fiber RO Membrane
Spiral-Wound RO Membrane Leaf
Water Movement Between

Two the Membrane Leafs
Spiral-wound Membrane
Element
Typical SWRO
Membrane Element
8-inch diameter
40-inch (1-m) long
Feed/Concentrate
Channel
0.7 to 0.9 mm wide
40 membrane leafs
Total Membrane
Area = 35 to 36.8 m
Forward Osmosis
(solute recycle)
Potential to
Reduce 60 to 80 %
of Energy Costs &
15 to 25 % of Cost
of Water
Source:
Key RO System Performance and

Design Parameters
Membrane Rejection
Salt Passage
Concentrate Salinity
Concentration Factor
Feed Pressure
Membrane Flux
Key Terminology
Membrane Element /Module
Permeate,
Product
Feed
100 % Seawater (Q f)
TDS f = 35,000 mg/l
(35 ppt)
Q p = 40% to 65% Q f
(Q p avg. = 50 %)
Membranes
ppt parts per thousand
Concentrate,
Retentate,
Reject
TDS p = 200 500 mg/L

(2 to 5 ppt)
Q c = 35 % to 60% Q f
(Q c avg. = 50 %)
TDS c = 50 to 70 ppt
Pr = Permeate Recovery (%) =
Permeate Flow (Q p) x 100 = 50 % Qf = 50 %

Feed Flow (Q f)
Qf
% Salt Rejection = (1 permeate TDS/feed TDS) =

(1 200 mg/l/35,000 mg/l) = 99.4 %
Salt Rejection and Passage

Salt Rejection = (1-TDSp/TDSf) x 100%
Example:
For TDSp = 0.5 ppt & TDSf = 35 ppt Salt Rejection = 98.6 %
Salt Passage = 100 Salt Rejection,%

Example:
For Salt Rejection = 99.4 % - Salt Passage = 100 99.4 = 0.6 %
Can be used for TDS and for specific ions
Spiral-Wound SWRO Elements

Contaminant Rejection
Concentrate Salinity
TDSc = [TDSf (TDSp x Pr/100)]/(1-Pr/100)
For Example:
z
z
z
Source Seawater Salinity - TDSf = 35,000 mg/L

Permeate Recovery - Pr = 50% = 0.5
Permeate Salinity TDSp = 200 mg/L
TDSc = (35,000 mg/L 200 mg/L x 50%/100)/

(1- 50%/100) = 69,800 mg/L
Concentration Factor
CF = 1/(1-Y)
Where:
Y = Recovery as a decimal
CF = Cci/Cfi
Cci = spec. ion concentration in concentrate
Cfi = specific ion concentration in feed
Example:
For TDS Recovery = 50 % - CF = 1/(1-0.5) = 2
(i.e., on average the TDS conc. will increase two times)
Water Flux
Flux = permeate flow/unit membrane area/unit
time
Expressed as liters/m2/hour (L/m.h or LMH)
(or gallons/ft2/day, gfd)
Flux = Qp/A
Qp = Permeate Flow
A = No. of membranes x Membrane Area
Typical SWRO Membrane Flux

12 to 18 L/m2.h
Net Driving Pressure (NDP)

Trans-membrane Pressure = Pd
(Pressure Drop) = 2.0 bars
Feed Pressure = Pf = 65 bars
Permeate Pressure =
Pp = 1.1 bars
NDPavg .= Pf -Pp - 0.5 Pd 0.5 (Po + Pc)
= 65 1.1 0.5 x 2.0 0.5x( 29.8 + 59.4) = 18.3 bars
Po = Osmotic Pressure of Source Water

= (TDSf/1,000) x 0.851 =
= (35,000 mg/l/1,000 mg/L) x 0.851 = 29.8 bars
Pc = Osmotic Pressure of
Concentrate
= (TDSc/1,000) x 0.851 =
= (69,800 mg/l/1,000) x 0.851
= 59.4 bars
Permeability & Relative Salt

Transport
Permeability = Flux / Net Driving Pressure (L/m.h/bar)

Typical Range: 1 1.5 L/m.h/bar
Relative Salt Transport = Salt Passage x Flux

Typical Range: 0.05 0.12
Example (SWC4+ SWRO Element):
Test Flux = 27.6 L/m.h; Test NDP = 27.6 bars
Salt Rejection = 99.8 % (at test conditions)
Salt Passage = 100% 99.8% = 0.2%
Permeability = 27.6 L/m.h / 27.6 bars = 1.0 L/m.h/bar
Relative Salt Transport = (0.002) (27.6 bars) = 0.055
Checking the Membrane Flux of

SWRO System
Example
train produces 100 m3/h
(2400 m3/d or 2,400,000 L/d) of permeate
Train has 30 vessels, 7 elements/vessel
SWRO Membrane Area is 35 m2
RO
Total
membrane area (A) = 30*7*35 = 7,350 m2
Permeate
Flow Q = 100,000 L/h

Flux Q/A = 100,000 L/hour / 7,350 m2 = 13.6 L/m2.h
Typical
SWRO membrane water flux is

12-18 L/m2.h
SWRO Plant Key Components
SWRO Plant
Key Process Alternatives
Subsurface intake
Capacity
Intake
Combined intake
Co-located intake
Intake type
Feed water quality
Pretreatment
Conventional filtration
Membrane filtration
Membrane type
Redundant capacity
Configuration
High pressure pump

Energy saving
Pump
Media filtration
Cartridge filtration
Capacity
Pretreatment type
RO system
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Dissolved air flotation
Surface intake
Source water quality
8 diameter / 16 diameter
Hollow fiber / spiral wound
Number and size of individual RO trains
Number of vessels per RO train
Number of elements per vessel
Multi stage & passes
HP and/or Booster pump
Permeate blending & throttling
Concentrate recycle
Centrifugal pump
Positive displacement pump
Pelton wheel
Renewable energy (solar, wind, etc)
Turbocharger
Pressure exchanger
Permeate water
Vertical pressure filter

Horizontal pressure filter
Gravity filter
Submerged MF/UF
Pressure MF/UF
Energy (pressure) recovery device
Post-treat
Diatomaceous earth filter

Two-stage, granular media
Single-stage, granular media
Product water quality

Remineralization, pH adjustment
Disinfection
Boron removal
Blending (hybrid)
Concentrate
Shoreline discharge
Nozzle diffuser
Wastewater effluent blending
Blended with cooling water
Intake Facilities
Subsurface Intakes (wells)
Surface (Open) Intakes
Goal: Collect Seawater of

Low Suspended Solids/Silt
Content & Low Organics
4000 m3/d Grand Cayman SWRO Plant

Vertical Intake Well
Dhekelia, Cyprus
56,000 m3/d
Desalination Plant
Surface (Open) Ocean
Intake
Pretreatment Processes
Particulate Foulant Removal

z
z
z
z
Mineral Foulant Control

z
Coagulation & Flocculation

Conventional and Enhanced Sedimentation
Granular Media Filtration
UF and MF Filtration
Addition of Anti-scalants
Organic and Microbial Foulant Control

z
z
Chlorination/De-chlorination
Addition of Biocides
Cartridge Filtration
Cartridge Filter
RO System
Components and Configuration

Tampa Bay SWRO Plant
Membrane Elements
z
z
Membrane Vessels
z
z
z
Diameter 4 to 16 (8 most widely used)

Length 40-in (60-in also available)
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic

6 to 8 Membranes per Vessel
Installed on Welded Steel or FRP Support Racks
Membrane Process Trains

z
Membrane Vessels Connected with Ports to Feed

Concentrate and Product Water Lines
Cross-Section of Membrane
Element
Brine Seal
O-rings
Connector
Anti-telescoping support
Performance Summary of Most

Widely Used SWRO Elements
Membrane Element Rejection &

Productivity
Membrane Vessel
6 to 8 Membranes per Vessel (7 typical)
Material FRP or Stainless Steel
Pressure Rating 83 bar (1,200 psi)
Fresh Water Production

One Membrane 500 L/h
One Vessel - 7 mem. x 500 L/h
= 3,500 L/h (84 m3/d)
840 people @ 100 L/person
SWRO Membrane Train

Membrane Vessels Connected in
Parallel
100 to 200 Vessels per RO Train
Typical SWRO Train Capacity =
750 to 20,800 m3/d
(0.2 to 5.5 MGD)
Example:
100 Vessel RO Train Capacity =
500 L/h /RO element x 7
elements/Vessel x100 vessels/Train =
350,000 L/h
8,400 m3/d (2.2 MGD)
Energy Recovery System
Permeate Post-treatment
Post-Treatment
Corrosion Control
Goals
z
z
z
Alkalinity > 40 mg/L

(as CaCO3)
Calcium Carbonate
Precipitation Potential
(CCPP) 4 to 10 mg/L
as CaCO3
Larson Ratio < 5
Hardness > 50 mg/L
as CaCO3
pH 8.3 to 8.8
Disinfection and
Finished Water
Quality
z
Chlorination
Choramination
Chlorine Residual Stability

Effect of Bromide
Addition of Alkalinity
Carbonate &
Bicarbonate Alkalinity
Provide Buffering
Capacity to Prevent
pH Variation in the
Distribution System
Alkalinity Addition
z
Addition of NaOH or
Ca(OH)2 to Permeate
Which Contains Carbonic
Acid
Addition of Carbonic Acid
+ Lime
Addition of Sodium
Carbonate or bicarbonate
Calcium Carbonate
(Calcite) Contact Filters
Post Treatment Lime Addition
Key System Elements:

1. Lime Silos and Feed System
2. Lime Contactors
3. CO2 Feed System
4. Acid Addition System
5. NaOH Addition System
Post-treatment Calcite Filters
Check Permeate Quality for

Conductivity
Compare Water Quality of

Individual RO Trains
Check Chemical Feed and

Mixing Systems
Lime/Calcite Quality &
Quantity
Calcite Contact
Filters Larnaka,
Cyprus
Check Turbidity of
Conditioned Water
Lime May Add Turbidity
Barcelona SWRO Plant has Once of the Most

Advanced Calcite Filtration Technologies
Addition of Corrosion Inhibitors
Phosphate or Silicate Inhibitors Added to Form

Protective Film of Pipe Walls
Ortho-phosphates React w/ Pipe Metal to Form

Passivating Layer
Silicate Inhibitors Form Glasslike Film
Common Practice Overseas Where the

Distribution Systems Are Built Entirely of Plastic
Pipe is to Use Corrosion Inhibitors Only!
Instrumentation and Controls
Desalination Plants Highly

Automated Water Factory
SCADA System
Day/Night Shift Staffing 7/2
Unmanned Operations Possible
More than 200 Sensors
Duplicate or Triplicate Instrumentation in Critical

Locations
Use of Internet to Remotely Monitor Plant

Performance
Control Systems
All PLC-based Today
Usually One or More PLCs, and Central Control

Room
Local Control Panels Typically Used for Plants

Larger than 20 ML/d
Basic Control Strategies are Typically Based on

Maintaining Constant Permeate Flow
Concluding Remarks
Reverse Osmosis is a Process Where Water is

Moved From the High-salinity to Low-salinity
Side of the Membrane by Pressurization
Osmotic Pressure of Seawater is a Function of

Salinity & Temperature (0.85 bars/1000 mg/L)
Spiral-Wound, Thin-Film Composite Polyamide

SWRO Membranes Are Most Widely Used
Today
Membranes Have Standard Size

8-inch x 40-inch Elements Most Common
Questions?
POSEIDON RESOURCES
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Fundamentals
10:45-12:00
Planning for RO
Desalination and
Reuse Plants
Valentina LAZAROVA
Planning for Desalination Outline
Integrated Water Resource Planning

Key Project Implementation Steps
Water Reuse Projects
Key Issues When Implementing Water Reuse

Engineering Issues of Water Reuse Planning
Community and Political Engagement
Key Plant Components
How to Determine Plant Site Size and Location?
Source Water Quality Characterization
Choosing Product Water Quality Issues and Considerations
Video on Planning of Barcelona SWRO Plant
Integrated Urban Water Cycle

Management: Security via Diversity
z Promotion of Integrated Water Management Plans
Responsible management of water resources
Water conservation
Enhanced groundwater recharge & surface water detention
Water trading & transfer
Rainwater harvesting
Desalination
Water reuse
Evaluate Water Resources and

Water Demand
Example: Western Australia
1. Recycled
z
z
z
2.
z
water
Western Corridor
Recycled Water
Project
Capacity 236,000 m3/d
3 AWTP: Gibson
Island, Luggage Point
and Bundamba
200 km pipelines
Source: Water Secure
Example: The South East

Queensland Water Grid (Australia)
Desalinated Water
Gold Coast
Desalinated Water
Project
The 2010 and 2014 Sydney

Metropolitan Water Plans
Water savings: 145 Mm3/yr by 2015

Total annual volume of treated wastewater: 510 Mm3/yr
Total volume of recycled water: 70 Mm3/yr by 2015
Desalination: up to 90 Mm3/yr during droughts
Source:
Sydney Water
Desalination Projects:
Key Implementation Steps
1.
Determine Desired Plant Size
2.
Select Plant Site
3.
Decide on Intake and Concentrate Discharge Types
4.
Assess Source Water Quality
5.
Determine Product Water Quality
6.
Complete Environmental Impact Analysis
7.
Pilot Test Alternative Technologies and Designs
8.
Complete Detailed Plant Design, Construction and

Start-up
Water Reuse Projects:

Key Implementation Steps
Rationale: Drivers, Role for Integrated Water
Reuse Management and Market Assessment
1.
Identifying Type of Applications and End-Users
2.
Engineering Issues in Water Reuse Planning

z
Choosing Product Water Quality
Assessing Existing Wastewater Treatment
3.
Selecting New Reclamation Schemes (Centralized,

Decentralized and Satellite Systems, Storage and Distribution)
Selecting Best Available Technologies: Advantages and
Disadvantages of Membranes
Specific Issues in Water Reuse Planning: Public

Participation and Outreach
WATER REUSE
Key Issues
When Implementing Water Reuse
1.
Financing / Economics
2.
Regulatory challenges and institutional

issues
3.
Public concerns and acceptance
4.
Process selection
5.
Legal issues
6.
Others (process installation, etc.)
Water Reuse Planning: A MultiStep Process

Market identification
client needs
potential users
policy & regulations
Definition of
project objectives
Background data
climate/resources
water demand per sectors
infrastructure (urban/rural)
economics
Phase 1. Conceptual planning

(readily available background information and basic indicators)
Phase 2. Feasibility investigations

(analysis and comparison of alternatives, with or without water reuse)
Survey and evaluation
of existing water supply,
water resources,
wastewater facilities,
short and long -term
needs assessment
Water reuse
market evaluation
(direct contacts of
potential customers,
preliminary
negotiations)
Detailed analysis of water reuse and alternative scenarios

Economics
Environmental
Engineering
Social aspects
(Estimation of Capex (study of health &
(consideration
(involvement of
& Opex, identification environmental
of technical
stakeholders in
of potential subsidies impacts, contacts
constraints)
planning)
and revenues)
of regulators)
Engineering report
Phase 3. Water reuse facilities planning

(design of the reuse system, financial planning, regulatory process, marketing,
market assurance, public education)
Engineering Issues in Water

Reuse Planning
Water Reuse Facility Planning
(Outcome of the Feasibility Assessment)
Waste
Water
Definition of the end

uses and recycled
water quantity and
quality
Wastewater
treatment plant
Rutilisation
des eaux et
recharge de
nappe,
Lazarova
Water
reclamation
facility
Irrigation
Urban uses
Industrial uses
Secondary
effluent
13
Aquifer or reservoir
replenishment
Typical Water Reuse Plant Size
Depends on the end uses: as a rule, smaller plant

size compared to desalination plants
Classification of water reclamation facilities
(USEPA, 2012)
z
Large water reclamation facilities: > 38,000 m3/d (10 mgd)

9 Significant design challenges and high importance of public
education and information
Medium size reclamation facilities: from 3800 to 38,000

m3/d (1 to 10 mgd)
9 Largely dependent on the needs of their customers
9 Significant challenges of individual homes plumbing
Small water reclamation facilities: <3800 m3/d (<1 mgd)

9 Mainly decentalized systems for one users (e.g. golf course) or
industrial recycling
Engineering Issues in Water

Reuse Planning
Choosing Product Water Quality

z
z
Definition and Design of Water Reclamation

Treatment
z
z
z
Production of one recycled water quality

Tailoring Recycled Water Quality to User Needs
Assessment of existing wastewater treatment: water

quantity and quality, discharge consent, water quality
variations, reliability of operation
Centralized versus decentralized and satellite systems
Advanced membrane or conventional treatment
Design of distribution network and storage

facilities
Back-up systems and response to failures
Wastewater Quality
Constituents of Concern
Water
Supply
Microorganisms Organics Metals (Cr)
Nutrients
Salts
to wastewater treatment
Main Criteria Influencing the

Choice of Recycled Water Quality
Water Quality Criteria for Water Reuse
Public health
protection
Environmental
and agronomic
impacts
Microbiological
parameters
short-term
biological risk of
infection
Environmental
adverse effects
1) on aquifers
2) on soils
3) on flora and fauna
Chemical
compounds
Ecomundo,
long-term
Water Reuse
biological
risk of
for Irrigation,
toxicity
Lazarova
Agronomic
aspects
1) on crops
2) on soil properties
17
Other concerns
Technical
constraints
1) irrigation systems
2) treatment trains
3) storage&distribution
Political or
economic pressure
Public perception
1) aesthetics
2) safety of use
Selecting Product Water Quality

Fit for Purpose Concept
Industrial uses
Potable reuse
Urban
Main categories of
water reuse
Agriculture
Any level of water quality can

be achieved depending on the
use of the recycled water
Source: Asano 2002; Lazarova et al. 2013
New Trends: Multi-Quality

Recycled Water Production
Industrial Uses
Landscape Irrigation and Urban Uses
Source: Edwards and Layi, 2012
45,400 m3/d
Example: Water Quality

Parameters for Aquifer Recharge
Parameter
E.coli
Enterococci
Helminth eggs
pH
Conductivity
TDS - salinity
Residual chlorine (if necessary)
BOD
COD
TSS
Turbidity
Dissolved O2
NO3
Phosphates
Surface
spreading
200 ufc/100mL
20 ufc/100mL
1 egg/L
6-9
1500 S/cm
< 500 mg/L
< 10 mg/L
< 50 mg/L
< 10 mg/L
<5 NTU
> 8 mg/L
< 25 mg/L
< 2 mg/L
+ Heavy metals, trace organics, residence time, distance, etc.
Direct injection
not detected
6-9
<1 mg TOC/L
<0.2 NTU
-
Example: Water Quality Parameters

Constituent
High-purity RO water (industrial uses)
Units
Range
rng/L as CaCO3
079
Calcium (Ca)
Magnesium (Mg)
mg/L
0119
Sodium, (Na)
Potassium (K)
mg/L
mg/L
Units
Range
mg/L as CaCO3
01
Magnesium (Mg)
mg/L
01
0174
015
Sodium(Na)
Potassium (K)
mg/L
mg/L
03
01
mg/L as CaCO3
0245
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
mg/L as CaCO3
01
Sulfate (SO4)
Chloride (CI)
Silica (SiO2)
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
046
0300
084.5
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
01
02
01.5
Strontium (Sr)
mg/L
00.33
Fluoride (F)
mg/L
05
Nitrate (NO3)
mg/L
01200
Calcium (Ca)
Bicarbonate HCO3
pH
Standard Unit
69
Ambient
BOD5
Total Suspended
Solids
Settleable Solids
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/L
030
mg/L
030
m1/L
00.1
mg/L
26
Total Dissolved
Solids
mg/L
0800
Fecal Coliforms
no./100 mL
0 2.2
Temperature
Constituent
Sulfate (SO4 )
Chloride (Cl)
Silica (SiO2)
Electrical
Conductivity
pH
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Temperature
S/cm
030
Standard Unit
58
mg/L
037
Ambient
City of Honolulu,
Hawaii
Source: Edwards and Layi, 2012
R1-grade reclaimed water (urban uses)
New Trend: Semi-Decentralized

Treatment and Reuse
Advantages
z
Easier implementation
Easier water recycling and recovery of

heat and nutrients
Compliance with stringent
water quality requirements
Disadvantages
z
Feasibility and economic
viability for new urban districts
Source: P. Cornel, 2010
Decentralized Water Reuse
200 million dedicated to reuse schemes to

construct 20 tertiary treatment plants in addition to
the 10 existing reclamation facilities
Production of 70 Mm3/yr
of recycled water
140 km recycled water
ring + 1200 km
distribution pipelines
Irrigation of 6500 ha
public green areas
12,400 m3/d WRP for
paper mill (coag./sand
filter/GAC/RO/RO)
Alternative Treatment Processes

Secondary Treatment (C, N and P removal)
Activated sludge, Trickling filters, Biofilters, Rotating biological contacttors, etc.
Membrane bioreactors (MBR)
Conventional Tertiary Treatment (removal of residual suspended solids)
High rate clarification, Dissolved air flotation
Depth (sand) filtration, Surface filtration (cloth filters, microsieves)
Microfiltration & Ultrafiltration (removal of residual colloidal solids)
Pressure driven membranes
Immersed vacuum driven membranes
Advanced Treatment (removal of dissolved solids)
Reverse osmosis
Nanofiltration, Elecrodialysis
Disinfection and polishing (removal of specific trace constituents)
Chlorination, UV radiation, Ozonation
Advanced oxidation (UV/H2O2), Carbon adsorption, Ion exchange
Source: Deza and Martinez, 2012
The Dpura Plan of Madrid
Source: Bartels, 2011
Implementation of RO Membranes
in Water Reuse Systems
GWRS Advanced Water

Treatment Facility Flow Diagram
325,500 m3/d
265,000 m3/d
Source: Mehul, 2008
Membrane Application in Water Reuse

Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Compactness
z
footprint 4-6 times less

than conventional
processes
Better water quality

Fully automated
Physical barrier for
microorganisms
Most economical
process for salinity
reduction associated
from secondary
effluents
Disadvantages
Capex greater than conventional

treatment
High energy consumption
Qualified staff is required
Membrane replacement costs are
high and must be budgeted for
appropriately
Concentrate and waste stream
treatment and disposal issues
Post treatment needed (corrosion
control, etc;)
Pilot testing required
z
proper pretreatment, water quality, Opex
Main Concerns in Public

Perception and Education
Should
be an integral effort of any water

reuse planning process
Small
fraction of total project expenditure

but has great effect
Public
acceptance of non-potable reuse

applications is quite high in all countries
More
public contact with treated water,

more public outreach is needed
z
z
potable versus non potable uses

park irrigation versus agricultural irrigation
Strong Impact of Media on Public

Perception
Critical Role of Politicians and

Decision Makers
Questions?
DESALINATION
Desalination Plant Size

Selection
Key Factors
z
z
z
z
Available Water Demand (Seasonal vs. Constant)

Other Available Sources of Water
Future Water Needs
Water Use: Potable, Industrial or Agricultural
Important Considerations
z
Plant Size has Significant Effect on Water Costs and

Power Use
Desalination Plants Operate Best at Steady State
Constant Production Flow
Plant Size and Construction Costs
Plant Size and Energy Use

Plant Size
SWRO System Energy Use

kWh/m
1,000 m/day
4.5-6.0
40,000 m/day
200,000 m/day
3.0-4.0
2.5-3.0
Selecting the Plant Site

Concentrate
Disposal
(Location,
Environmental Impact
& Costs)
Site Conditions
(Geotechnical, Climate,
Soil Contamination,
Endangered Species,
Cost of Land)
Source Water
Quality
(Intake Location,
Environmental Impact
& Costs)
Key
Factors
Impacting
Selection
Type and Location of

Key Water Users &
Power Supply
Source
(Distance & Cost to
Connect)
Public Perception,
Acceptance
and
Licensing
How Much Area In Needed for

the Desalination Plant Site?
Plant Capacity
m3/day
Typical Plant Site Size

(m2)
Typical Plant Site Size

(acres)
1,000 m3/day
800 1,600
0.2 0.4
5,000 m3/day
2,000 3,200
0.5 0.8
10,000 m3/day
6,100 8,100
1.5 2.0
20,000 m3/day
10,100 14,200
2.5 3.5
40,000 m3/day
18,200 24,300
4.5 6.0
100,000 m3/day
26,300 34,000
6.5 8.5
200,000 m3/day
36,400 48,600
9.0 12.0
Site Size Dependent on Plant

Complexity
Type of Intake
Type of Pretreatment (Source Water Quality)
Product Water Quality/RO System
Complexity
Concentrate Disposal Alternative
Need for Power Generation On Site
Need for Solids Handling and On-site
Storage
Site Layout
Provide Adequate Space for:
Product Water Storage Tank
Scavenger Tanks
Solids Handling Facilities
Future Expansion
Tampa Site 8.5 acres
Reverse Osmosis Building

7 (6 +1 RO Trains)
@ Capacity of 15,800 m3/d each
95,000 m3/d
Tampa Bay
SWRO Plant
Site Size is Very Dependent on

the Type of Pretreatment!
165 ML/d Aguilas SWRO Plant, Spain
Pretreatment System
Courtesy: Degremont
140 ML/d Perth SWRO Plant, Australia
Intake Considerations for Site

Selection
The desalination plant site should be selected

in close proximity of suitable intake area
Avoid Ports, Enclosed Bays and Endangered
Species Habitats, Kelp Forests
Stay Away from:
z
z
z
Underwater Currents turbid water

Areas with Beach Erosion structural damage possible
River Estuaries variable water quality w/ high turbidity
and organic spikes
Wastewater Plant Discharges
200 MLd Barcelona SWRO Plant

Location
Courtesy: Degremont
200 MLd Barcelona Plant

Treatment Facilities
Courtesy: Degremont
Site Layout of Barcelona

SWRO Plant
Courtesy: Degremont
Concentrate Disposal Often

Drives Site Location and Size
Site Location Has to Allow Concentrate to Be

Easily Dissipated into the Receiving Body
(Ocean or Sea)
The Discharge Location Should Cause

Minimum Environmental Impacts
The Discharge Capacity Should Match

Ocean Capacity to Assimilate the Discharge
Salinity
Other Factors Associated with

Site Selection
Subsurface Conditions (soils, groundwater

levels and contamination)
Source of Electricity
Location of Largest Water Users
Public Perception and Acceptance
Source Water Quality Assessment
Characterize Intake Water Quality in Terms of:

z
z
z
z
z
Salinity and Key Ions (i.e., Chlorides, Sodium, Boron,

Bromides)
Scaling Compounds (i.e., Silica, Calcium)
Temperature, Turbidity, Suspended Solids
Pathogens
Metals (Iron, Copper, Nickel)
Identify Contamination Sources Within 2-Mile

Radius from the Intake:
z
z
z
z
z
WWTP & Industrial Discharges

Source Water Area Dredging
Agricultural Contamination
Surface Runoff During Rain Events (Oil & Grease)
Ship Channel Traffic
Typical Mineral Content of

Pacific Seawater
Positive Ion
Conc. (mg/L)
Sodium (Na)
Magnesium (Mg)
Negative Ion
Conc. (mg/L)
10,030 Chloride (Cl)
18,450
1,530 Sulfate (SO4)
2,500
Potassium (K)
480 Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Calcium (Ca)
270 Carbonate (CO3)
Bromide (Br)
110
30
75 Fluoride (F)
Boron (B)
5 Nitrate (NO3)
Other
0.09
10 Other
Total Positive Ions =
12,400 mg/l Total Negative Ions =
8
21,100 mg/l
TDS Concentration = 12,416 mg/L + 21,110 mg/L = 33,500 mg/L

Conductivity = 1.5 x 33,500 mg/L = 50,250 S/cm
Product Water Quality A Key

Project Design Driver
What the Desalinated Water Will Be Used for:

z Human Consumption (TDS, Boron)
z Irrigation (Boron, Chloride & Sodium Levels)
z Industrial Applications (WQ Goals May Vary Widely)
What is the Existing Disinfection Strategy? (Chlorine,

Chloramines, Other) Bromides
Will the Desalinated Water Be Reused? Sodium,

Chloride and Boron Targets May Need Readjustment
Desalinated Water Quality

Issues and Considerations
Water Quality Targets &

Costs
Boron Issues
Disinfection Considerations
Corrosion Control
Alternatives
Algal Toxins
Emerging Contaminants
Calcium, Magnesium &
Fluor
Desalination for Safe Water Supply

New WHO Guidelines
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/gdwqrevision/
desalination/
Heath Aspects:
Source Water Quality
Selection of Desal Technologies
Product Water Quality Monitoring
Environmental Aspects
Target Boron Level Considerations
Health Related Aspects 1 mg/L

Irrigation of Ornamental Plants & Water Reuse
0.75 mg/L
Irrigation of Citrus Trees 0.3 to 0.5 mg/L
Irrigation of Vegetables & Grains < 2.5 mg/L
US No Boron Limit
EC 1.0 mg/L; Canada = 5.0 mg/L
WHO 2.4 mg/L
Disinfection Considerations
Chlorination the Most Suitable Disinfection Method for

Desalinated Water
z
z
Chloramination Could be Trouble if Br Concentration

> 0.4 mg/L
z
z
Very Stable Chlorine Residual

Blending w/ Other Waters Very Beneficial
Negative Effect on Chloramine Residual

Solution Super-chlorination or Br Removal to < 0.4 mg/L
Ozonation Could be Trouble if Br Concentration

> 0.2 mg/L
z
Unacceptably High Levels of Bromates Formed 50 to 150 g/L

(Limit 10 g/L)
Solution Blend w/ Other Water Sources Before Ozonation or Remove
Bromides to Less Than 0.2 mg/L
Corrosion Control
SWRO Permeate is Soft (Ca < 0.5 mg/L) and Has Little Buffer
Capacity (low carbonate & bicarbonate content) Aggressive!
WHO Recommended Water Quality Targets:

z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Alkalinity > 40 mg/L

CCPP = 4 to 10
LSI = +0.5 to +1.0
Total Hardness > 50 mg/L
pH 8.3 to 8.8
Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential Better Indicator than LSI
Larson Ratio < 5 (for unlined steel pipes)
Corrosion Inhibition Vs. Water Stabilization Paradigm Change in

Countries Which Use Predominantly Desalinated Water
Key Minerals in Desalinated Water

SWRO
Permeate
Concentration
Minimum as
Dietary
Supplement
Minimum for
Corrosion
Protection
Calcium
0.2 to 0.5
mg/L
30 mg/L
40 mg/L
(as CaCO3)
Magnesium
2.0 to 4.0
mg/L
10 mg/L
NA
Fluoride
0.1 to 0.3
0.2 mg/L
NA
Mineral
Algal Toxins Effectively

Removed by SWRO Membranes
Molecular Cut-Off @ 150 to 250 Daltons
Compound
Formula
Anatoxin-a
Anatoxin-a(S)
Saxitoxin
Domoic Acid
Nodularin
Brevetoxin
Microcystin
C10H16NO
C6H19N4O4P
C8H16N7O4
C15H21NO6
C41H59N8O10
C50H57O13
C49H74N10O12
Molecular Weight
(Daltons)
166
243
274
311
823
865
994
SWRO Pathogen Removal 4 to 6 logs

16
Source: USBR, 2004

Tampa Bay Seawater
14
12
Log Removal
10
0
CMF
UF
SWRO
MS-2
CMFSWRO
UFSWRO
Virus -30 nm
CMF
UF
SWRO
PRD1
CMFSWRO
UFSWRO
Virus -28 nm
CMF
UF
SWRO
Fr
CMFSWRO
UFSWRO
Virus - 68 nm
Pathogen Removal How to

Monitor RO Membrane Integrity?
Salinity 2 log Removal; Sulfates > 3 Log Removal
Endocrine Disruptors, NDMA & Dioxins

Not a Problem in Desalinated Water!
Extensive Source Seawater & Product Water Testing @

Carlsbad and San Francisco Bay Show No Emerging
Contaminants
No Emerging Contaminants in Seawater Concentrate!
Wastewater Contains Large Quantities of Emerging

Contaminants Not All of Which Are Well Rejected by
BWRO Membranes Require UV & Peroxide Post
Treatment!
Product Water Quality

Selection - Summary
Depends on Use
Usually Superior than Reclaimed Water and

Most Surface Waters
SWRO System Can Produce Any Water

Quality it is a Matter of Cost!
New WHO Desalination Guidelines Good

Source of Information Regarding WQ
Water Quality Targets vs. Costs

Constr.
Costs
O&M
Costs
Cost of
Water
TDS/Cl = 500/250 mg/L

Boron = 1 mg/L
1.0
1.0
1.0
TDS/Cl = 250/100 mg/L

Boron = 0.75 mg/L
1.15-1.25
1.05-1.10
1.10-1.18
TDS/Cl = 100/50 mg/L

Boron = 0.5 mg/L
1.27-1.38
1.18-1.25
1.23-1.32
TDS/Cl = 30/10 mg/L

Boron = 0.3 mg/L
1.40-1.55
1.32-1.45
1.36-1.50
Target WQ
Environmental Impact Analysis
Key Impacts Discharge & Intake Operations
Discharge :
Salinity
Temperature
Toxicity
Dissolved Oxygen
Color
Intake:
z
z
Impingement
Entrainment
Impingement & Entrainment of

Marine Organisms
Impingement potential
injuries or loss of marine
organisms retained on the
intake screens
Entrainment loss of marine

organisms which enter the
desalination plant with the
source seawater
What is an Impact ? more

than 30 % of larval eggs
could be lost w/o any threat
to species Survival (over 90
% lost in nature)
How to Minimize Intake Impingement

and Entrainment Effects on Marine Life?
Beach Wells/Galleries
for Plants < 20,000 m3/d
Collocation with Power

Plants Use the Same
Intake Seawater Twice
Deep and Long Open

Intakes:
z
Over 10 m of Water Column

Depth
Location Beyond the Tidal
Zone
Other Key Environmental

Impacts
Energy
Use/Carbon Footprint
Noise
Traffic
Land
& Coastal Uses

Visual Impacts
Socio-economic Impacts
Air Quality
SWRO Plant Waste Streams

Spent
Membrane
Cleaning
Solution
Spent Filer Backwash
Concentrate
Residuals
(Sludge)
Current Concentrate Discharge

Practices in the US
CA
(% of Total)
US
(% of Total)
Surface Waters
33
41
Sanitary Sewer
57
31
Injection Wells
17
Evaporation Ponds
Spray Irrigation
Other
100 %
(22 plants)
100 %
(96 plants)
Disposal Method
Total (%)
Disposal Methods for Spent Chemical

Cleaning Solutions
Disposal Method
Percent of Plants Employing Disposal

Method
NF (7 Plants)
RO (42 plants)
Sewer
43%
54%
Mixed with
Concentrate
57%
17%
Deep Well Injection
14%
None
Ocean Discharge
14%
None
Evaporation Pond
None
5%
Other (or No Data)
None
34%
70
Why Backwash Water Has to

Be Treated ?
Red Discolorization of the
Discharge Due to
Iron Hydroxide Contained
In the Backwash
Water
How Much Solids Are Contained

in the Backwash Water?
Desalination Plant Capacity Q = 10,000 m3/d (50 %

recovery)
Intake Capacity Q i= (Q /Recovery) x 1.10
Q i = (10,000/0.5) x 1.1 = 22,000 m3/d
Total Suspended Solids in Seawater (TSS) = 10
mg/L (0.01 kg/m3)
Coagulant (Fe) Dosage = 10 mg/L (0.01 kg/m3)
Solids (dry) = Qi x (TSS + 0.8 x Fe) = 22,000 x
(0.01 + 0.008) = 396 dry kg/d
Solids After Dewatering to 20 % = 396/0.20 = 1,980
wet kg of solids/day (1.98 wet tons/day)
Solids Handling System
Backwash Equalization
Sedimentation
Residuals (Sludge) Dewatering
Sludge Disposal
Sedimentation Basins
Lamella Settlers
Residuals Dewatering Belt

Filter Presses
Tampa Solids Handling Facility,

Florida, USA
Why Pilot Test?
Confirmation of Production Capacity

Operation Under Varying Source Water Quality
Selection of Pretreatment System
Evaluation of Alternative Source Water
Conditioning Chemicals
Assessment of SWRO Membrane System
Performance Under Extreme Conditions:
z
z
z
z
High & Low Temperatures & TDS

Algal Bloom (Red Tide) Conditions
Storms & Heavy Rains
Dredging Operations, Boat Traffic & Other Challenging Events
Testing of Concentrate Management & Product

Water Conditioning Alternatives
Project Planning
&Implementation - Summary
Determination of Project Services Area & Size

Site Selection & Acquisition
Source Water Quality & Site Characterization
Process Design
Environmental Impact Review
Pilot Testing
Detailed Design
Contractor Procurement
Project Construction & Commissioning
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Fundamentals
13:00-13:45
Seawater
Intakes
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV
PE, BCEE
Seawater Intakes - Outline
Source Water Quality Issues and

Considerations
Subsurface Intakes
Open Ocean Intakes
Selection of Intake
Power Plant Collocation: Cost Saving and

Environmental Benefits
General Design Guidelines
How is Source Water Quality Characterized

z
z
Total Dissolved Solids (typically 30 to 42 ppt)

z
z
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in mg/L or ppt

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in mg/L or NTU
Minerals over 99.9 % of seawater content

Organics - < 0.1 % (critical impact on performance)
Total Suspended Solids (typically 0.5 to 100 mg/L)

z
z
Turbidity (NTU) 0.04 NTU to 100 NTU

Silt Content silt density index (SDI) 1 to 6
Total Dissolved Solids Content

- Minerals
Seawater when TDS > 15 ppt /Otherwise Brackish

Water
Seawater TDS Content Can Vary 30 ppt to 42 ppt
Conductivity (S/cm) = typically 1.5 x TDS (in mg/L)
Mineral Content Driven by Na & Cl 85 % of TDS
Mineral Content Determines Osmotic Pressure and

Therefore SWRO System Design
Typical Mineral Content of

Pacific Ocean Seawater
Positive Ion
Conc. (mg/L) Negative Ion
Sodium (Na)
Conc. (mg/L)
10,030 Chloride (Cl)
Magnesium (Mg)
1,530 Sulfate (SO4)
Potassium (K)
480 Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Calcium (Ca)
270 Carbonate (CO3)
Bromide (Br)
18,450
2,500
110
30
75 Fluoride (F)
Boron (B)
5 Nitrate (NO3)
Other
0.09
10 Other
Total Positive Ions =
12,400 mg/L Total Negative Ions =
21,100 mg/L
TDS Concentration = 12,416 mg/L + 21,110 mg/L = 33,500 mg/L

Conductivity = 1.5 x 33,500 mg/L = 50,250 S/cm
Mineral Content Varies

Temperature ,C
(Average )
TDS (mg/L)
Temperature , C
(Range)
Pacific/Atlantic Ocean
33,500
9 - 26
18
Caribbean
36,000
16-35
26
Mediterranean
38,000
18-26
24
Gulf of Oman/
Indian Ocean
40,000
22-35
30
Red Sea
41,000
24-33
28
Arabian Gulf
45,000
18-35
26
Seawater Source
Organic Content of Seawater
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

z
z
Typically less than 0.5 mg/L

During Red Tide Events over 1 mg/L
Oil & Grease (O&G)

z
z
Typically less than 0.2 g/L

During Oil Spill Events over 1 mg/L
Particulate Foulants suspended solids & silt

Colloidal Foulants 0.001 to 1 m
z
Mineral Scaling Foulants

z
z
Colloidal Silica & Iron
Mainly Salts of Calcium, Magnesium

Metal Oxides iron, manganese, copper, etc.
Natural Organic Foulants humic & fulvic acids

(negatively charged)
Microbial Foulants polysaccharides & proteins
from algal and bacterial cells
Desalination Plant Intakes

The First Line of Defense
Intake Facilities
Subsurface Intakes
Surface (Open) Intakes
Collocation: Intake
Connection to Power
Plant Discharge
1 MGD Grand Cayman SWRO Plant

Vertical Intake Well
Dhekelia, Cyprus
15 MGD Desalination
Plant
Surface (Open) Ocean
Intake
Subsurface Intake Facilities

(Wells)
Horizontal
Radial
Collector
Well
Vertical Well
Typical Capacity: 100 to 3000 m3/d
Typical Capacity: 4000 to 20,000 m3/d
Horizontal Directionally
Drilled (HDD) Wells
NEODREN Technology
Perforated HDPE Pipes w/ 120- Openings
Typical Pipe Size 350 mm
Pipe Depth 5 to 10 Below Ocean Bottom
Pipe Length 200 to 600 m
65 ML/d Cartagena I SWRO Plant, Spain
20 Pipes @ 350 mm - 6 ML/d per Pipe
Riverbed/Seabed Filtration System
Production Rate
3.0 6.0 m/d per m
Fukuoka SWRO Plant,

Japan
50 ML/d
Intake Area 7.2 acres
Construction Costs
1.2 to 2.3 times higher
than vertical wells
Well Productivity & Costs

Well Type
Typical Production
Capacity (Yield) of
Individual Well
(ML/d)
Cost of
Individual Well
(US$ MM)
Vertical Well
0.1 3.5 ML/d
$0.2 - $2.5 MM
Horizontal Radial Collector

Well
0.5 20 ML/d
$0.7 $5.8 MM
Slant Well
0.5 10 ML/d
$0.6 - $3.0 MM
HDD Well (i.e., Neodren)
0.1 5.0 ML/d
$0.3 - $1.3 MM
Infiltration Gallery
0.1 - 50 ML/d
$0.5 - $27.0 MM
Wells Site Considerations
Most Suitable Conditions:

z
z
z
Permeable Formations w/ Transmissivity > 1,000

m/day/meter
Formation Depth 15 meters or More
Ocean Floor with Intense Wave Action Allowing Swift
Solids Transport
Avoid:
z
z
z
Beaches of Shallow Bays w/ Alluvial/Mud Deposits

Ocean Floor Areas of Limited Natural Flushing
Coastal Aquifers Hydraulically Connected to Contaminated
Groundwater
Areas with Large Coastal Marshes
Wells Site Requirements
Permeable unconsolidated deposits (sand or sand

& gravel) suitable coarseness or permeable rock
Hydraulic connection with seawater
Adequate saturated thickness of formation
Minimal sediment layer at seawater/aquifer
interface
Suitable recharge/infiltration rate
Favorable source water quality
Inland/regional groundwater conditions
Beach Erosion Wells # 1

Enemy
Beach Erosion Effect on Wells
Five Years After Installation
Two Years After Installation
Intake Wells Design

Considerations
Install 20 to 25 % of Extra Wells a minimum

of one extra well
Wells Have Short Useful Life 10 to 15 years
Install Well Intake Bypass to Return Intake

Flow to Ocean
Distance Between Wells 50 to 100 meters
Intake Wells Monitoring & Operations

Some Lessons Learned!
1. Provide Capability to Flush the Intake
Source Water to Waste At Each Well!
Each Time Well Starts Surge of Turbidity!
2. Loss of Production Over Time Provide
25 % Standby Capacity.
3. Check Source Water Quality It May
Change Over Time!
Open Intakes Types
Off-shore Intake for Sydney Water

Desalination Plant, Australia
Near-shore Intake Point Lisas

Desalination Plant, Trinidad
Open Intakes Site Considerations
Suitable Location Should

z
z
z
Have Adequate Submergence at Low Tides

Be Protected from Storm Wave Motion
Be Located Away From Near-Shore Sediment Transport
Zone (Silt & Sediment Deposits)
Avoid Intake Location in

z
z
z
z
Industrial Ports
WWTP and Storm Drain Discharges
Ship Channels and Areas of Frequent Dredging
Oil Terminals
Open Intakes
Stay Away from Areas with Strong
Currents They Bring Algae &
Turbidity! (Fujairah, UAE);
Avoid Areas Near River
Estuaries - Rivers Carry
Alluvial Organics & High
Turbidity Seasonally !
(Point Lisas, Trinidad);
Horizontal Pumps in Dry Wells
Are Preferable to Vertical
Pumps in Wet Wells Less
Corrosion and Maintenance!
Impingement & Entrainment Solutions

for Open Intakes
Intake Location
(min 30 m Offshore)
Velocity Cap Required

on Vertical Open
Intakes
z
Intake Velocity < 0.15 m/s
Trash Racks Needed

Ahead of Fine Screens
Self Cleaning Fine

Screens
z
Opening Size Adequate to

Prevent Entrainment of
Adult Fish (10 mm or less)
Intake Huntington Beach, CA
Gold Coast SWRO Plant

Intake Structure
Intake of Larnaka, Cyprus

SWRO Plant 50,000 m3/d
Intake of 330,000 m3/d Ashkelon

Desalination Plant, Israel
Tri-mushroom
Configuration
Air Agitation Very Effective to Reduce Entrainment
Minimizing Shellfish Growth on

Intake Walls of Intake Pipe
Sodium Hypochlorite Addition Alone Cannot

Control Shellfish Growth
Intake Pipe Oversizing (typically 130 %) &

Cleaning by Pigging is Needed
Alternative Hypochlorite/Sulfuric Acid Biogrowth Control Measure Would Eliminate the

Need for Pipeline Pigging
Polyethylene Lining is Essential
Perth II Desalination Plant Intake

Pipe Polyethylene Lining
Polyethylene Lining
Studies Show that 80 % of the Shellfish Growth Occurs in the First 300 meters
Polyethylene Lining or Use of HDPE is Preferable to Other Materials
Innovative Method for Controlling

Excessive Shellfish Growth
Conventional Intake Shellfish Control:

z
Sodium Hypochlorite Addition @ 5 -15 ppm with Target

1 ppm @ Intake Bay 4 hrs/week
Chemical Usually is Inadequate to Suppress Shellfish
Growth in the Pipeline & Will Allow Shellfish Growth in
the Pretreatment System
Innovative Method for Shellfish Growth Control:

z
Sodium Hypochlorite Addition @ 3 to 5 mg/L @ 4 to 6

hrs/day Every Week/Other Week (Winter/Summer)
Sulfuric or Hydrochloric Acid Whichever is Cheaper @ 100/120 mg/L for 2 to 4 hrs every week/every other
week (Winter/Summer)
Wedge-wire Screen Intakes
Intake Screens
Perth Seawater Desalination Project

On-shore Active Screening
Band Screen
Courtesy of the Water

Corporation
Fine Screens Downstream of

Open Ocean Intake
Travelling Band Screens
Drum Screens
Open Intakes Strainers &

Microscreens
500-
Strainers
120- Disk
Filters
Open Intakes Mechanical Screens
Micro-screens (80 to 120 m)
Power Plant Collocation
Use of Existing Intake & Discharge

Key Advantages:
Intake & Discharge Cost Savings;
Power Use Reduction Warm Water;
Accelerated Concentrate Mixing.
Key Disadvantages
Accelerated Biofouling if Temp. > 28C
Potential for Copper & Nickel Fouling
Dependence on Power Plant Operation
Collocation
Capital Cost Savings
Avoidance of Construction of New Intake &

Discharge Facilities 10 to 30 % of Construction
Costs
Avoidance of Construction & Operation of New

Screening Facilities
Electrical System Cost Savings

z
Lower or No Power Grid Use Tariff Charge

Use of the Spinning Reserve of Must Run Power
Plants
Environmental Benefits of
Collocation
Mutually Accelerated Dissipation of Salinity

and Thermal Plumes
No Need of Costly Diffuser System for

Concentrate Mixing
No Beach or Ocean Floor Habitat Disturbance

for Intake and Discharge Construction
No New Ocean Source Water Collected

Minimized Impingement & Entrainment
Collocation in Tampa, Florida
General
Methodology
For Intake Selection
Summary & Conclusions
Selecting the Most Suitable Intake for a Given

Plant Location Requires Detailed Source
Water Quality Studies, Hydro-geological &
Oceanographic Studies
Subsurface Intakes are Suitable for Small and

Medium Size Desalination Plants
Open Ocean Intakes are Suitable for All Plant

Sizes but Usually Produce Inferior Water
Quality
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Fundamentals
14:00-15:15
Pretreatment for
Desalination
and Reuse
Valentina LAZAROVA
Pretreatment - Outline
Membrane Fouling
Pretreatment Technologies for Desalination and Water

Reuse
Types and Sources of Foulants

Types of Fouling and Scaling
Effect of Fouling on Membranes Performance
Enhanced Sedimentation: Coagulation & Flocculation

Low Pressure Membrane Filtration: Microfiltration & Ultrafiltration
Micro-Screens
Cartridge Filters
Conclusions: Selection of Pretreatment

Video on Orange County Advanced Water Recycling
Facility (Groundwater Replenishment System)
Plant Schematics and Pretreatment

Schemes
1. Desalination Plant Schematics

Inlet
screening
Primary
Pretreatment
Coagulation / Flocculation /
Sedimentation / Flotation
Secondary
Pretreatment
Media Filtration, Ultraor Microfiltration
Desalination
Reverse Osmosis
2. Water Reuse Plant Schematics

Secondary Wastewater
Treatment
Post
treatment
Tertiary Treatment
(RO Pretreatment)
Desalination
Membrane Bioreactor
Re-hardening
Disinfection
Dual Media Filtration,

Ultra- or Microfiltration
Reverse Osmosis
Why Pretreatment is Necessary?
Pretreatment is Critical for the Removal of Particulate,

Colloidal, Microbial and Some Organic Foulants
Biofouling and Colloidal Fouling are Typically the
Causes of Most RO System Problems in Both Water
Reuse and Desalination Plants
Algal Blooms Most Frequent Cause for

RO Membrane Bio-fouling in
Dasalination Plants!
Algal Growth/Activity Increases

During the Summer Months
RO Membrane Fouling
Particulate Foulants suspended solids & silt

Colloidal Foulants 0.001 to 1 m
z
Mineral Scaling Foulants

z
z
Colloidal Silica & Iron

Mainly Salts of Calcium, Magnesium
Metal Oxides iron, manganese, copper, etc.
Organic Foulants humic & fulvic acids

(negatively charged), residual organics
Microbial Foulants polysaccharides & proteins
from algal and bacterial cells
Water Quality Parameters

Indicators of Fouling Potential
Total Suspended Solids

z
z
Turbidity (NTU)
z
z
Desalination: 0.04 NTU to 100 NTU

Wastewater Effluents: 2 to 20 NTU
Silt Content Silt Density Index (SDI) 1 to 6

Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
z
z
Desalination: Typically 0.5 to 100 mg/L

Wastewater Effluents: Typically 5 to 35 mg/L
Desalination: Typically <0.5 (>1 mg/L during red tide events)

Wastewater Effluents: Typically 5 to 20 mg/L
Oil & Grease (O&G)

z
Typically less than 0.2 g/L (>1 mg/L during oil spill events)
Membrane Fouling
Membrane Fouling
Feed Pressure Increase with
1bar (15 psi) @ Constant
Production
Typical 4 to 6 months
Accelerated 1 month
Low 12 months or more
Surface Damage Caused by

Particulate Matter on RO Surface
Colloidal Fouling
Membrane Surface
Polyamide Surface
ESPA3 Surface
Colloidal Fouling
Complex Organics: Naturally

Occurring Matter (NOM)
Plant and animal decay products
Terrestrial- woody and herbaceous plants
Aquatic- algae and macrophytes
Cellulose
Lignin
Proteins
Cutins
Lipids
Tannins
O2
light
bacteria
H+, OHmetals
fungi
NOM
Humic
substances
& small
organics
CO2
Biological Fouling One of The Most

Common Problems for RO Systems
Biofouling
Scaling Precipitation of
Sparingly Soluble Salts
Calcium Phosphate
Calcium Sulfate
Calcium Carbonate
Specific Wastewater Pathology in

Reuse Systems: Calcium Phosphate
Calcium phosphate fouling
9 Unusual foulant until recently, characteristic for
MF&UF/RO systems (last stage of RO membranes)
9 Major cause: high phosphate concentration in wastewater
9 Thin deposit layer that dramatically affect membrane
permeability (-50% at 6 hours)
50-200 m amorphous
non crystalline mat
SEM-EDAX micrograph of calcium phosphate deposit
Effect of Fouling on Membrane

Performance
RO Pretreatment
Desalination Source Water

Chemical Conditioning
Chemical Conditioning in Water

Reclamation Systems
secondary
effluent
z MF/UF: Preventive
measures against
membrane fouling are
crucial (air scouring,
backpulse, maintenance
cleaning)
z Recovery cleaning
(according manufacturers
protocol: 1-2 per year for
submerged; >6 par year
for sidestream systems
z RO fouling prevention: pH adjustment,

anti-scalants, biocides
z RO cleaning: a wrong choice can
aggravate scaling and fouling problems;
Frequently both alkaline and acid
cleanings are required (always high pH
first, low pH as a second step)
Chemical Conditioning of Source Water

(Coagulation and Flocculation)
Target Enhanced Removal of Colloidal & Particulate

Foulants
Coagulants - Iron Salts @ Dosages between 0.5 and
20 mg/L (desalination) and up to 70 mg/L (reuse)
Flocculants
z
Usually very small

dosages of 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L
Mostly in reuse systems
Aluminum Salts Not Desirable

z
For both desalination & reuse
Coagulation: Poor Mixing of Coagulant

with Feed Seawater
Coagulant
Mixing is
Critical
Accumulation of
Coagulant
In Filter Influent
Distribution
Channel
Pretreatment Technologies Common

for Desalination and Water Reuse
Enhanced Sedimentation - Coagulation &

Flocculation (High Rate Clarification)
Low Pressure Membrane Filtration:

Microfiltration & Ultrafiltration
Micro-Screens
Cartridge Filters
Conventional & Enhanced

Sedimentation
Conventional Sedimentation
z
Enhanced Sedimentation (Lamella Settling or

Named Also High Rate Clarification)
z
z
Desalination: Typically Used When Turbidity

> 20 and < 40 NTU
Water Reuse: Not Applicable
Desalination: When Turbidity > 40 NTU

Water Reuse: When Poor Secondary Effluent Quality
Target Effluent Quality

z
z
SDI < 6
Turbidity < 2 NTU
High Rate Clarification

Water Reuse Plants
Coagulation + Flocculation + Lamella Settling

Coagulation: Fe (8 to 70 mg/L ) and High Energy of
Mixing (80 W/m3)
Polymer Dosing: 0.25 to 2 mg/L with Slow Mixing
Key Design Parameters: Hydraulic & Mass Loads
West Basin Recycling Plant: Densadeg
Sludge Recirculation
Optimisation of Chemical
Dosage: Jar-tests
Coagulation: overcome the effect of electrostatic charge of particles
n Fe
Flocculation: Inter-particle bridging to form large floc particles
o Poly
Lamella Setlling
High Efficiency with Low Footprint
High Rate Clarification
Luggage Point AWTP, Australia
Treatment capacity
70,000 m3/d
FeCl3 dosage 100 mg/L
Flow velocity 0.8 m/h
RO Pretreatment Filtration
Alternatives
Granular Media Filters

Gravity & Pressure
Single & Two-Stage
Continuous backwash
z
z
z
Hydrasand
(Andritz)
Low Pressure Membrane

Filtration
Ultrafiltration (UF) &

Microfiltration (MF)
Vacuum (Submerged) &
Pressure-Driven (Side-stream)
Membranes
Aquazur V
(Degremont)
MF sidestream
Micro-Screening
Commonly Used Sand Filtration

Technologies
Conventional down-flow filters with typical filter bed

depth of 0.75-1.0 m
z
Common for both desalination & reuse
Other: Pressurized and

Deep-bed filters
z
Dual Filter
Desalination & reuse

PRODUCT
WATER
Backwashing of down-flow sand filter
WATER
INPUT
COAGULATION
AGENT PUMP
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENTATION
CONTROL
SYSTEM
Gravity Pretreatment Filters

Used for Large Plants
High efficiency and

better algae removal
Easier operation &
Maintenance
Longer useful life
Pressure Pretreatment Filters

Used for Both Small and Large Plants
Vertical Pressure Filters
Pressure filters are typically

tri-media:
Activated Carbon
Anthracite
Sand
Horizontal
Pressure
Filters
Lower construction costs

Smaller footprint
No algae growth in filter
weirs
Gravity vs. Pressure Filtration

If Pressure filtration used
GAC+antracite+sand media
is recommended
GAC reduces 20 to 40 % of
TOC which helps to subdue
biofouling
Gravity
Filtration
Pressure
Filtration
Courtesy of Degremont
<0.5 NTU
Clarification by Dissolved Air

Flotation
DAF Combined with Pretreatment Filters

Tuas SWRO Plant, Singapore
SWRO Plant with Conventional

Pretreatment
200 ML/d Barcelona Plant DAF +

Gravity Filters + Pressure Filters
Courtesy: Degremont
200 ML/d Barcelona SWRO Plant

Location
Courtesy: Degremont
Membrane
Pretreatment
Low-Pressure Micro-Porous Membranes
z
z
Organic (PS, PES*, PVDF**) or Ceramic

Pressure-driven (side-stream) & Vacuum-driven
(submerged)
Main Configurations (geometry)

z
z
Hollow fibers,
pressurized
Main Configuration (driving force)

z
Microfiltration 0.1 0.4 m

Ultrafiltration 0.001 0.02 m
Type of Membranes (Material)

z
Tubular
Porosity
Organic Membranes: Hollow Fibers & Plate

Ceramic: Tubular & Plate
Flux direction (hollow fibers)

z
Out-In & In-Out

*PES: Polyether sulfone, **PVDF: Polyvinylidiene flouride
Plate (plane)
vacuum-driven

Numerous Manufacturers: Lack of
Pore size
Geometry Configuration
Filtration Process
Standartization
on
Pur
s
tic
au b
an Su
dr ra
Hy Hyd
Me
m
CM tec
Fs
Zeno
n
Submerged
Mits
ubis
hi
In
Plate
Tubular
XFlo
w
Hollow fiber
tec
Mem
CMF
Cartridge
In
Pall
ce
sour
Aqua
/O
ut
XF
low
s
ic
ut p
na a
ra raC
yd d
H Hy
x
flu al
y
H rist
K
ray
To
a
Kubota/Yuas
UF/MF
UF/MF
Toray
ut
/

Pressure vs Vacuum-Driven Systems
Vacuum-Driven
Pressure-Driven
Selection of Membrane System

Pilot Plant Study Recommended
Accelerated advancement in membrane

manufacturing
z
Best available technology: validity < 5 years
Example: One of the first MF+RO
1995-2002: Sidestream MF (Memcor)
Since 2006: Submerged MF (Memcor)
z Membrane Bioreactor (MBR):

activated sludge where clarification
is replaced by membranes
z High sludge concentration (up to
8-10 g/L) and sludge age (>15 d)
z Production of high-quality effluent
(C,N P removal, disinfection, some
priority pollutants)
z Two major types
2,7 m
Increasing Use of MBR in

Water Reuse Systems
Plate membranes
Kubota
Submerged (vacuum driven) membranes

(mostly for urban wastewater)
Sidestream (pressure driven)
Submerged hollow fiber
membranes (mostly for industrial
membranes Zenon
wastewater and tertiary treatment)
ZeeWeed 500d
SWRP Membrane Pretreatment

Key Technology Providers
SWRO Membrane Pretreatment

Is Finding Wider Application
Seawater Plant with Vacuum-Driven

Membrane Pretreatment
Pressure-Driven Membrane
Pretreatment
Largest Suppliers:
Hydranautics - Hydracap
Norit (X Flow Seaguard)
Norit & Siemens Pressure-Driven

Perth II - Siemens
Memcor CP
Flux - 65 Lmh
Outside-in
Norit X Flow
SeaGuard
Chennai SWRO - 100 MLd
Flux - 75 Lmh
Inside-out
40,000 m3/d Fukuoka SWRO Plant One of the

Largest Facilities with Pressurized Membranes
Perth II - Memcor Pressurized

Pretreatment
Pressurized LMP Memcor CP 960 System
Outside - In
2 Trains x 4 + 1 Units 912 Units/Unit
Nominal Pore Size 0.04
Flux (Avg/Peak) = 52/65 Lmh
No Chemical Addition
Courtesy: Siemens
Vacuum-Driven Membrane
Pretreatment
Largest Suppliers:
GE Zenon (ZeWeed 1000)
&
Siemens (Memcor CS)
GE Zenon UF System
300 m3/d Adelaide, Australia the Largest

SWRO Plant w/ Vacuum-Driven Pretreatment
UF Filtration
Submerged LMP Memcor CS System
2 x 14 cells x 900 units/cell
Nominal Pore Size 0.04
Flux (avg/Max)= 52/65 Lmh
No Chemical Addition
Potential Benefits
For Pretreatment System:
Superior Microbial Removal
Smaller Footprint
No Source Water Chemical

Conditioning Required
Less Residuals to Handle
Easier to Operate
For RO System:
Longer Membrane Life
Potential Operation at Higher Flux

(less membranes needed)
Reduced Membrane Replacement

and Cleaning Costs
Membrane Pretreatment What

Makes it Different for Water Reuse?
Conventional pretreatment
Membrane
Conventional
typically 4.5 to 6.0
Membrane pretreatment
typically 0.5 to <2.5
Inlet
Conventional
Membrane
Membrane Pretreatment What

Makes it Different for Seawater?
Barnacles & Sharp Objects/Shells Micro-Screens of

120 vs. 500 Needed! (More Energy & More
Expensive Micro-screens)
Red Tides Watch Out for Elevated Organics
Silt (Especially if Intake is Close to Ship Channels with

Heavy Traffic or is Exposed to Dredging)
Chlorine Release After Chemically Enhanced

Backwash Effect on SWRO Membranes
Lower Recovery & Higher Energy Use
Granular Filtration vs.

Dual Media Pressure Filters

Inalsa SWRO Plant, Spain
UF Pretreatment Cells,
Carlsbad SWRO, California
Granular Media vs. Membrane

Pretreatment Issues Frequently
Omitted in Life-Cycle Cost Comparisons
Cost of Membrane Micro-Screening
Cost of Chemically Enhanced Backwash Chemicals
Costs and Downtime of Membrane Cleaning
Cost of Membrane Backwash Treatment
Loss in Membrane Integrity Over Time
Risks/Financial Penalties Associated With:

z
Lack of Standardization & Inter-changeability of Membrane

Elements Produced by Different Manufacturers
Time Needed to Produce a New Set of Membranes for Your
Plant if The Existing Set Experiences Complete Failure
Limited Track Record for Seawater Applications
Micro-Screens Used Upstream of

Micro-strainers
Disk Filters
Cartridge Filtration
CONCLUSIONS
Selection of Pretreatment
Pretreatment Alternatives in
Water Reuse Systems
High rate clarification
(coag/floc)
Reverse
osmosis
High rate
clarification Filtration
Reverse
osmosis
Filtration
Ultrafiltration
Reverse
osmosis
(MF or UF)
Microscreening MBR
(MF or UF)
Reverse
osmosis
Strong Influence of
Downstream
Wastewater Treatment
Low Pressure
Membrane Filtration
(MF or UF) is
Considered as Best
Available RO
Pretreatment
Increasing Interest and
Good Performance of
MBR Systems in
Combination with RO
Pretreatment Alternatives in
Desalination Systems
Selection of Seawater Pretreatment System

Recommended
Configuration
Notes
Cartridge Filters or Bag Filters

Only
Grit Removal May

be Needed
Turbidity > 0.1 NTU < 5 NTU

SDI < 5/ TOC < 1
Single Stage Dual Media Filters +

Cartridge Filters
Or MF/UF
Coagulant
Addition Usually
Not Needed if UF
Used
Turbidity > 5 NTU < 30 NTU

SDI > 5/ TOC < 4
Single Stage Dual Media Filters +

Cartridge Filters
Or MF/UF
Coagulant
Addition Usually
Needed

SDI > 5/ TOC > 4 and/or Oil
Spill Potential
Sedimentation/DAF + Single Stage

Dual Media Filters + Cartridge
Filters
Or Sedimentation/DAF + MF/UF
Coagulant
Addition Needed

SDI > 5/ TOC > 4 and High
Oil Spill Potential
High-rate Sedimentation/DAF +
Two Stage Dual Media Filters +
Cartridge Filters
Or High-rate Sedimentation/DAF +
MF/UF
Coagulant
Addition Needed

Turbidity < 0.1 NTU
SDI < 2/TOC < 1
Questions ?
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Systems Design & Costs
08:00-09:30
Reverse Osmosis
System Configuration
Valentina LAZAROVA
RO System - Outline
Reverse Osmosis Trains Configurations for Desalination
Reverse Osmosis Trains Configurations for Reuse
Key Components
Membrane Vessels
Alternative RO Membrane Trains
Typical RO Membrane Configuration and Design Parameters
Critical Factors for Selection of RO Membranes for Water Reuse
Optimization of Membrane Performances: Examples and
Recommendations
Energy Recovery Systems Types and Applications

Design and Sizing of Key Components of RO Systems
Video of Melbourne Desalination Plant
RO SYSTEM COMPONENTS
COMMON FOR WATER REUSE &
DESALINATION
Pumping is Consuming Most

Energy in Both Desalination
and Advanced MF/RO Water
Reuse Systems
High Pressure Pumps

RO Vessels
CIP: Membrane Cleaning
RO Trains
Pumps
Types of RO Feed Pumps
Reciprocating (Positive Displacement/Piston)

Pumps
z
z
z
Applications Typically Limited to 1.0 MGD

90 % to 95 % Efficiency
Flat Pump Curve Efficiency and Flow Constant at
Changing Membrane Pressures
Centrifugal Pumps
z
z
z
Available in All Sizes

82 to 88 % Efficiency
Pump Efficiency Varies with Changing Membrane
Pressure
Positive Displacement (Piston)

Pumps Key Features
Fixed Flow Independent of Pump Operating

Pressure
Rotating Motion of the Motor is Converted to

Reciprocating Motion to Drive the Pistons
Delivered Capacity Fluctuates with:

z
z
z
z
Number of Pistons
The Area of the Pistons
Stroke Length
Operating Speed Often Run at Speed to Reduce
Maintenance (Reduces Efficiency to 80 85 %)
Piston Pumps
Flow Variation & Control
All Piston Pumps Deliver Pulsating Flow
Flow Pulsation (Difference between Min and Max Flow)

Depends on the Number of Pistons:
z 2 Pistons 46 %
z 3 Pistons 23 %
z 7 Pistons 4 %
z 9 Pistons 2 %
CAT triplex pump
Installation of Multiple Pumps with Common Suction

Header Typically Creates Severe Vibration Problems
Suction Stabilizers and Pulsation Dampeners A Must!
Centrifugal Pumps
Horizontally Split-case Multistage Pumps

z
z
Segmental Ring (Ring-section) Multistage

Pumps
z
z
Most common for large applications > 2.5 ML/d (>2500 m3/d)
Typically Yield Highest Efficiency 80 88 %
Unit flow rates 1.0 to 2.5 ML/d (1000-2500 m3/d)

Popular for Medium Feed Flows lower costs at reasonable
efficiency
High-Speed Single-Stage Pumps

z
z
Used for small plants 0.1 ML/d 1.0 ML/d (100-1000 m3/d)
Often Combined w/ Turbochargers
Horizontally Split-Case
Multistage Pumps
Casing Split in two Pump Halves
Seawater Guided from Stage to Stage by Set

of Volute Passageways
Opposing Impeller Design Allows to

Reduce Net Axial Trust
Larger, More Rugged, More Expensive Than

Segmental Ring Pumps
Horizontally Split-Case Pumps

2 Stages in Large Sizes (12 14)
4 Stages in Smaller Applications
Capacity 14 ML/d to 72 ML/d

Power Input 1,500 hp to 9,000 hp
Ashkelon - Largest Horizontally-Split

High Pressure Pumps In Use Today
Two Sets of 3+1
Two-stage Horizontal
Split-case Pumps
60 ML/d each
Pump Motors 5.2 MW
5-year Pump Efficiency
Guarantee
All Wet Parts Made of
Duplex Stainless Steel
Gold Coast Similar
Configuration (3+1/4.8 MW)
Radially Split-Case Pumps

Occupy Less Space
Easier to Maintain
Less Vibrations
Only One Mechanical Seal
on the Drive End (Horizontally Split
Case Pumps Have2 seals)
Internal Fiber-Composite Bearings
(Water Lubricated) vs.
External Grease Lubricated
Largest Pumps First Installed for
Expansion of Dhekelia SWRO
Plant (Cyprus) to 50 ML/d
Unit Capacity 25 ML/d (2,800 hp)
87 % Efficiency
Radially Split High Pressure

Pumps Are Installed in Sydney
Sydney SWRO Plant
12+1
KSB HP HGM-RO 8/3 Pumps
Pump Capacity = 25 ML/d
2 MW each
87 % Efficiency
One Pump per SWRO Train
Segmental-Ring Pumps
Individual Pump Stages Located Between

Pump Suction and Discharge Casings
Impellers Mounted on
Common Shaft
Smaller Diameter
Lighter Construction
Lower Cost
Centrifugal Pumps
Key Considerations
Pump Efficiency Increases with Square Root of

Speed for the Same Flow
Speed typically 3,000 to 3,500 rpm

(up to 12,000 rpm)
z
z
Shaft size and required NPSH increase with Speed

Limit Pump Speeds to 3,500 rpm
Pump Curve Flattens with Increase of Number

of Stages
Pump Efficiency Increases with Flow for the

Same TDH
Maximizing Pump Efficiency

Bigger Pumps Rule!
Perth
One Pump per 2 RO Trains
Pump Efficiency ~
n x (Q/H)0.5x (1/H)0.25
Where:
n = pump speed (min -)
Q = nominal pump capacity (m/s)
H = pump head (m)
Pump Efficiency
One Pump Per Train 83 %
One Pump Per 2 Trains 85 %
Three Pumps Per 16 Trains 88 %
Ashkelon, Israel
(3+1) 7,100-hp Pumps per 16
RO Trains
Membrane Elements
&
Vessels
Membrane Elements
z
z
Membrane Vessels
z
z
z
Diameter 4 to 16 (8 most widely used)

Length 40-in (60-in also available)
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
6 to 8 Membranes per Vessel
Installed on Welded Steel or FRP Support Racks
Membrane Process Trains

z
Membrane Vessels Connected with Ports to Feed,

Concentrate and Product Water Lines
Characteristics of 8 and 16
Inch Elements
8 (203 mm)
16 (406 mm)
8 Elements
16 Elements
Membrane
area: 40 m
Nominal flow:
45 m3/d
Average flow:
19 m3/d
Membrane
area: 140 m
Nominal flow:
155 m3/d
Average flow:
68 m3/d
SWRO Membrane Elements

Technology Evolution
Membrane Vessels
Key Manufacturers:
z
Pentair (Codeline)
www.codeline.com
End-port
BEL Composite
America, Inc.
www.belvessels.com
Bekaert Progressive
Composites, Corp.
www.bekaert.com
Side-port
Membrane Vessels Multiple Ports
Membrane Vessels
Even Flow Distribution is Critical
System
RO Membrane Flushing After Temporary RO system

Shutdown
RO Membrane Cleaning When RO System

Performance is Impacted:
z
z
z
10 to 15 % increase in normalized pressure drop between the

feed and concentrate
10 to 15 % decrease in normalized permeate flow (10% for
water reuse systems)
10 to 15 % increase in normalized permeate TDS
concentration
5 to 10% increase in normalized salt passage (reuse systems)
Before long-term shutdown
DESALINATION
RO Trains Configurations
RO Membrane Trains
One High Pressure Pump Per One RO Train
One High Pressure Pump per Two RO

Trains
One High Pressure Pump Serving 50 % of

the Trains
One HP Pump One RO Train
One HP Pump Two RO Trains
Three Duty HP Pumps

All SWRO Trains
Alternative RO System
Configurations
Single-Pass SWRO System
Two-Pass RO Systems
TDS < 50 mg/L
Interstage Booster
Pumps
Two-Pass RO Systems (Perth, Tuas, Trinidad)
Alternative Configurations of
Two-Pass RO System
Partial Second Pass System

(Perth, Australia & Tuas , Singapore)
TDS =38.6 ppt

Temp.=28C
Energy
Use=
4.5 kWh/ML
4000 mg/L
80%
10-30 mg/L
20%
420 mg/L
Source: Degremont
Two-Stage RO Systems
Two-Stage RO System Example

= One Pass/One Stage System
Terminology:
Additional Stage
Treatment of Concentrate
From Previous Pass
Additional Pass
Treatment of Permeate from Previous Pass
Two-Pass vs. Two-Stage RO Systems

Two-Stage RO System (Mas Palomas)
Recovery - 55-60%
Two-Pass RO System (Trinidad)

TDS < 50 mg/L
Adding Extra Pass

to Improve Water Quality
Adding Extra Stage
To Produce More Water
130 ML/d Point Lisas SWRO Plant, Trinidad
Two Pass /Two-stage SWRO System
TDS = 35 ppt
TDS =
85 mg/L
WATER REUSE
RO Trains Alternative
Configurations for Water Reuse
Typical RO Configurations
Indirect
potable reuse
MF
Single pass
RO
UV/H2O2
Low pressure
boiler water
brine
MF
Two-pass RO
High pressure
boiler water
brine
Two- and
Three-stage
RO to improve
recovery
brine
brine
Critical Parameter of RO
Design in Water Reuse Systems
Membrane flux
z
z
z
Typical system flux from 17 to 20 L/m.h (10 to 12 gfd)

Individual element flux typically < 27 L/m.h (<16 gfd)
Individual element recovery <14-15%
Concentration polarization ( value measuring the

thickness of the boundary layer)
z
Target level of < 1.13, which can be achieved by:

9 Increasing concentrate flow rate through individual
elements
9 Minimizing individual element recovery
9 Optimizing flux
Comparison of Main Parameters

of RO Systems for Desalination
and Water Reuse
Water Source
Average Permeate
Flux, L/m.h
Recovery
Rate, %
Treated wastewater
(after MF or UF
pretreatment)
17 20
(10 12 gfd)
75 85
Brackish water
25 29
(15 17 gfd)
75 85
12 15
(7 9 gfd)
45 55
Seawater
Critical Factors for Selection of

RO Membranes
Rejection of constituents of concern

z
z
Operational performance
z
z
Salt
Organic micro-pollutants and emerging
parameters
Energy consumption
Pressure
Reliability of operation
z
Fouling & scaling propensity
Pilot
testing recommended
Examples of High-Rejection RO
Elements Used in Water Reuse Plants
Examples of Low-Fouling RO
Elements Used in Water Reuse Plants
Optimization of RO Performance
in Water Reuse Plants
Flux can be optimized using inter-stage boost pump,

energy recovery turbine or elements with wider spacers
Optimization of RO Performance
New technologies to control fouling at higher fluxes

z
Graham Tech high flux, 16 inch element process used at

Bedok water reclamation plant (Singapore)
Plant flux is two times higher than typical flux rates
Implementation of 16 Elements
at the Bedok Recycling Plant
Characteristics of 8 and 16-inch

Elements (at average flux rate
Source: Hydranautics
of 20.4 L/m.h (12 gfd)
Large Water Reuse RO Facilities

Example: GWRS, Orange County (CA)
Capacity: 265,000 m3/d

(70 mgd)
RO Membranes:
Hydranautics ESPA-2
15,750 membrane
elements in Fifteen 3stage array units
(78:48:24), 19,000 m3/d
each
Recovery rate: 85%
Flux of 12 gfd
Pressure range: 8.6 to
15.9 bar (125 230 psi)
Two CIP systems
Typical Water Reuse Process Schematics

GWRS facility,
California
Energy Recovery
Systems
Hydraulic Turbocharger
TurboBooster
Courtesy: PEI
Turbocharger Popular for

Small and Medium Size
Plants (20 to 40 % pressure
boost)
Available for Low & High

Pressures
Used for High-Recovery

(Brine Conversion)
Systems to Achieve 60
65 %
Low Maintenance & Brine

Leakage Into Feed Stream
Lower Cost and Space

Requirements than Other
Energy Recovery Systems
Energy Recovery System Incorporates

Pump of Improved Efficiency
100%
90%
Feed Pump Efficiency
80%
70%
AVS Single-Stage
Pump
90 % Efficiency
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Feed Flow (m3/h)
1800
AVS Pump
ER Turbine
(88 to 90 %
efficient)
58
Courtesy: PEI
2000
2200
2400
2600
Typical Energy
Recovery
Efficiency
75 to 80 %
2800
Hydraulic Turbocharger Large

Installations
(2.35 to 2.65 kWh/m)
Pump Efficiency ~
0.5
0.25
n x (Q/H) x (1/H)
114 ML/d Plant in Jebel Ali, UAE

z
z
z
z
9 RO Trains
16 Single-stage HP RO Pumps
Up to 525 psi (40 bars) of Boost
HP RO Pumps Operating @ Full
Flow @ Pressure
5-7 % Extra Efficiency
35 ML/d Plant in Thailand

(PT Chemicals) 2.6 kWh/m
145 ML/d NEWater Ulu Pandan

Plant, Singapore
Pelton Wheels Majority of

Existing Plants
Conversion
Efficiency:
80 to 90 %
Pelton Wheels Limit Individual RO

Pump Size to 20,000 m3/d
Key Limitation of
Pelton Wheel
Technology on
Pump Efficiency
- Couples Pump
and Energy
Recovery System
Trinidad SWRO Pump and Pressure Exchanger

System The Largest in the World
Pressure Exchangers Allow the Use

of Larger Pumps/RO Trains
Pelton Wheel
Pressure Exchanger
Provides 40 - 42 % of the Energy
DWEER and ERI Pressure

Exchangers
ERI PX Pressure Exchanger

96% Energy Conversion Eff.
Smaller Footprint
One Moving Part
Shaftless Rotor
Rotor Hydrostatically
Suspended in Ceramic Sleeve
DWEER Exchanger
Positive Displacement Pistons
Instead of Rotor
LinX Valves Cause the Two
Vessels to Exchange Functions
before The Piston Completes
Stroke
ERI System Current Status
Largest In Operation
Victorian Plant 444,000 m3/d
Largest in Construction
Hadera (Israel) 275,000 m3/d
Base Unit PX 220

(1400 m3/d) in ops since 2002
10 to 16 Units per RO Train

(9500 15,000 m3/d RO train)
Challenges
z
z
Mixing 5 to 7%
Efficiency Decreases w/
Increase in Plant
Recovery
Perth SWRO & Pressure

Exchanger Systems
ERI New Energy Recovery

Equipment
PXQ 260 & PXQ 300

45 to 65 m3/h
- Quadribaric Technology two

pressure exchanges revolution
- Increased Efficiency 97.2 %
- Less Noise 81 vs. 96 Decibels
PX 260
- 18% Larger Capacity than
PX220;
- Wider Flow Paths to Higher
Throughput @ Minimum
Pressure Losses
PX 300 (45 to 68 m3/h)
- 36 % Larger Capacity than PX220
- Reduced Cycle Speed - Less

Mixing than PX 220 and 260
- Quieter Unit
- Site-ported Housing
Victorian RO Plant in Australia, 440,000 m 3/d

the Largest Project with
ERI Energy Recovery System
51 RO Trains with Individual ERI Units
DWEER System
Current Status
Used in Ashkelon (330,000 m3/d)

and Singapore (130,000 m3/d)
5000 m3/d SWRO Train One

DWEER System Model 1100
Ashkelon 2 x 40 DWEER 2200

Systems
RO w/ DWEER 0.5 to 0.7

kWh/m3 Less Energy than Pelton
Wheel @ (45 % Recovery)
Tuas, Singapore
Triple DWEER 1100
15,000 m3/d SWRO Trains
DWEER
Recent Large Projects
Gold Coast, Australia 133,000 m3/d

Sydney, Australia 125,000/250,000 m3/d
Aguilas, Spain 180,000 m3/d
69
510,000 m3/d Sorek Desalination Plant Israel

The Largest Plant with DWEERs
Calder AG (Flowserve)
DWEER GA
25 % Higher Capacity
Than DWEER 1100
FRP Instead of Steel

Vessels
New LinX Valve with

Two Seal Rings for
Lowest Leakage
Specific Power
Consumption Losses
Reduced by 26 %
Energy Recovery in RO Water Reuse

Systems
New trend: common misconception that energy

recovery is not economical because the low
feed pressures and high recovery
Lesson learned in Ulu Pandan (Singapore):

the use of an ERD instead of a booster pump
reduces pumping energy by 6.5%
New projects: the 114,000 m3/d (30 mgd)

extension of GWRS
z
6300 Hydranautics membrane elements

in six 3-stage array units (77:49:24)
Six energy recovery devices (one per unit),
ERD integrated with booster pump
Estimated payback period for implementing ERD:
7 years (saving 21.7 kW/yr)
ERD w/motor
Sizing of Key Components of

RO System
RO
Number
of Membranes
Number
of Trains
Key Design Steps

Determine
Establish Product Water Quantity

and Quality
Complete
Initial (Desktop) Design
Computer
RO Software Design
Design Water Quality Parameters

(After Pretreatment)
Dissolved
Minerals
Foulants
(Particulate &
Organic)
Foulants
(Colloidal & Mineral)
Other Parameters
TDS = 35 ppt
Turbidity = 0.06 NTU
Fe = 0.05 mg/L
Temp = 2332C
(25C avg.)
Boron = 5 mg/L
TSS (mg/) < 1
Mn = 0.02 mg/L
pH = 7.8 8.3
Br = 75 mg/L
SDI (units) = 3
Cu = 0.03 mg/L
Chlorine <0.01 mg/L
Silica = 4 mg/L
TOC = 0.5 mg/L
CO3 = 30 mg/L
ORP < 200 mV
Cl = 19 ppt
Oil & Gr. = 0.01 mg/L
Sulfate = 2,900 mg/L
DO = 6 to 8 mg/L
Na = 10 ppt
HCO3 = 119 mg/L
Ca = 1.100 mg/L
Fluoride = 1.5 mg/L
Mg= 1,500 mg/L
Nitrate = 0.1 mg/L
Example:
Plant Production Capacity = 10,000 m3/d (417 m3/h)

Variations
Summer
vs. Winter (TDS & Temp.)
Rainy vs. Dry Season (TDS, Temp.,

Turbidity/TSS, TOC, Oil & Grease)
Algal Blooms/Red Tides TOC, DO
Intake
Area Dredging/Periodic Boat

Traffic SDI, TOC, Turbidity/TSS
TDS
Conductivity
Boron
Chloride
Temperature
DO
pH
Alkalinity
Hardness
Disinfection Type
Turbidity
Example:
TDSp = 500 mg/L [Removal Needed: (35,000 500)/35,000 = 85.7 %]
Boron = 1 mg/L [Removal Needed: (5-1)/5 = 80 %]
Chloride = 250 mg/L [Removal Needed: (19,000-250)/75 = 98.7 %]
Step 1 Determine RO
System Recovery
Recovery = Permeate Flow /Feed Flow

z
z
Higher Recovery (55 65%) Benefits:

z
z
Typically - 40% to 55%

Maximum 60% to 65%
Lower Capital Costs/More flow from existing system

Less RO Membranes
Lower Recovery (40% to 45%) Benefits:

z
z
z
Lower Energy Consumption

Less Membrane Fouling/Lower Cleaning Costs
Example: Recovery = 50 %
What If We Want Higher

Recovery?
Check Against
Saturation Limits of
Key Salts:
z
z
SiO2 120 to 180 mg/L

CaCO3 200 %
saturation (50 % rec.)
Add Anti-scalants:
z
z
z
z
z
Nalco
GE Betz
American Water
Chemicals
King Lee
Professional Water
Technologies
Initial (Desktop) Design
Number of Stages & Passes
Vessels Per Stage
Elements per Vessel
Type of Elements
Feed Pressure & Energy Recovery
How Many RO System Stages

& Passes?
One Stage if:

z
z
TDSs 35 ppt &

Recovery 50 %
One Pass if:

z
z
z
Two Stages if:

z
z
TDSs > 36 ppt &/or

Recovery > 55 %
Two Passes if:

z
z
Three Stages if:

z
Target Boron (B)

Level < 0.5 mg/L
TDSs 35 ppt &

TDSp 500 mg/L
Bp 0.75 mg/L
TDSs > 36 ppt &/or

TDSp 200 mg/L
Cl < 100 mg/L
Bp < 0.75 mg/L
Example Single Stage/

Single Pass System
Select SWRO Element
1. Select SWRO element

8D x 40L
(for first pass)
Example: SWC5(Hydranautics)
From Hydranautics Specs:
z Element Membrane Area
A = 36.8 m
z Salt Rejection = 99.8 %
2. Select Design SWRO

Element Flux (Flux) Rate
= 13.5 to 18 l/m.h
Example: Selected Flux =
14 l/m.h
3. Determine Element
Production (Ep) = Flux
(l/m/h) x Area (m)
Example: Ep = 14 l/m.h x
36.8 m = 515 l/h
Alternative SWRO Membrane

Suppliers and their Products
Determine Total Number of

SWRO Elements Needed
Number of Elements (Ne)

= Product Water Flow Qp
(l/h)/Element Productivity
Ep(l/h) =
Q p x Ep
Example:
z
Q p = 10,000 m3/d =
417 m3/h = 417,000 L/h
Ep = 515 L/h
Ne = 417,000/515 =
810 SWRO elements
Determine Total Number of

Pressure Vessels
Assume 7 or 8 SWRO
Elements per Vessel
Total Number of
Pressure Vessels PV
= Total Number of
Elements
(Ne)/Elements per
Vessel
Example:
z
Number of Elements,
Ne = 810
Number of Elements per
Vessel = 7
PV = 810/7 = 116 vessels
Actual Number of SWRO
Elements = 116 x 7 = 812
Selection of Number of RO
Trains
Package Plants (<1000 m/d) One RO Train
Small Plants (<5000 m/d) 2 to 4 RO Trains
Medium Size Plants (<40,000 m/d)

z
z
Large Plants
z
z
z
z
20 to 50 vessels/RO train
4 to 8 RO Trains
100 to 200 vessels per train

Large RO Trains (7500 m/d to 15,000 m/d)
Max 16 RO Trains
Two Parallel Plants
RO Train Number Selection Based on Max Increase in Flux of

not More than 18 L/m.h w/one RO train Out of Service
Example RO System
Configuration
10,000 m3/d (417,000 L/h)

116 vessels needed (min)
Selected 4 RO Trains
Needed 116 Vessels/

4 RO Trains =
29 Vessels per Train
Selected - 4 columns x 8
rows = 32 Vessels/Train
Total Number of Installed

Vessels = 32 x 4 = 128
Actual Total Number of RO

Elements = 4 RO Trains x 32
vessels x 7 RO elements =
896
Membrane Flux w/All 4 RO

Trains = 417,000 L/h /(896
elements x 36.8 m2/element)
= 12.7 L/m.h
Membrane Flux w/ 3 RO
Trains = 12.7 x 4/3 L/m.h =
16.9 L/m.h
< max of 18 L/m.h - OK
Example 10,000 m/d

SWRO System
4 SWRO Trains
32 Pressure Vessels per SWRO Train (4 columns

x 8 rows of vessels)
7 RO Elements/Vessel
Total of 896 8-inch SWRO Elements

(Hydranautics SWC 5)
Membrane
Projection
Software
Free Design Software

Hydranautics
IMSDesign
Filmtec ROSA
Toray TORAYDS
Koch KMS ROPRO
Membrane
Software - 2
Free Design Software
Hydranautics
IMSDesign
Filmtec ROSA
Toray TORAYDS
Koch KMS ROPRO
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
09:30-10:30
Energy Use in
Desalination and
Water Reuse

Valentina LAZAROVA
Energy Use in Desalination and

Water Reuse - Outline
Energy Footprint of Water Reuse and Desalination

Key Energy Use Components & Factors in Desalination
and Water Reuse
Desalination Energy Footprint
Methods to Minimize Energy Use of Water Reuse Plants

Methods to Minimize Desalination Plant Energy Use
Energy Efficiency of Advanced MF/RO Water Recycling
Energy Recovery in Water Reuse Systems
Use of Renewable Energy In Water Reuse and

Desalination: Solar and Wind Energy
Video of Pembroke Desalination Plant, Malta
Increasing Role of Water and

Energy in Urban Planning
Solving the
WaterEnergy
Nexus =
Holistic
Management
of Water and
Energy
Energy
consumption
of water cycle
= up to 30%
of total
energy of a
municipality
Interrelationships between Water and Energy, US Dep.Energy (Dec 2006).
Alternative Water Resources Will

Secure Water Supply in the Future
Treatment of future
water supplies will be
more energy intensive
(increasing pollution of
natural water bodies)
Wastewater treatment
will evolve to energy selfsufficiency
Mobilization of
alternative resources is
energy intensive and will
require new energy
efficient technologies
Energy Footprint
of Water Reuse and Desalination
Seawater desal RO1 + RO2
Seawater desalination RO
Waste water reclamation (quaternary)
Waste water reclamation (tertiary)
kWh/m3
Energy Footprint of Water Resources

Water Reuse and Desalination
2.9 kWh/m3, Desalination plant in Ashkelon, Israel
0.35 kWh/m3, Strass energy self-sufficient WWTP, Austria
0.53 kWh/m3, GWRS, Orange County
5
3
Energy consumption, kWh/m
5.0
Energy footprint of advanced water reuse

is still about 5 times lower than
desalination for similar treatment capacity
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
0.1
1.5
0.2
1.4
0.24
0.05
0.3
0.16
0.4 0.6
0.24 0.25
Water
Water
Water Preliminary Trickling
conveyance treatment distribution treatment
filters
0.3
Activated Activated
Sludge sludge with
nitrification
0.5
MBR
0.2
4.0
2.5
1.5
1.0
1.2
Source: Lazarova et al. 2012
2.5 kWh/m3, State Water Project, CA
0.3
Water Reuse Brackish Seawater

Rainwater
water desalination harvesting
desalination
Energy Footprint
Comparison of Treatment Processes
Source: Novotny, 2010; Lazarova et al., 2012
Plant size 10,000 m3/d
Energy Footprint
Influence of the Energy Source

790
Coal modern plant
1182
13
Natural gas (combined

cycle)
389
511
7
Wind
124
15
Biomass forestry waste

combustion
101
Greenhouse gas emissions

gram equivalents,
gCO2/kWh
2
59
Nuclear
2
Source: International Energy Agency IEA, 2000
731
Solar photovoltaic
48
Hydropower
Greenhouse gas emissions gram equivalent, CO2/kWh

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
DESALINATION
Energy Use Trends and

Examples
Desalination Power Use
Usually Not A Significant Burden
Power needed to produce

desalinated water for one
family for one year =
Power used by familys
refrigerator (4000 kWh/yr)
Treatment
Conventional
Surface Water
Power Use
(kWh/m3)
0.4 to 0.6
Brackish Water
Desalination
0.7 to 1.2
RO Wastewater
Treatment
0.8 to 1.0
Seawater
Desalination
3.0 to 5.0
Desalination vs. Refrigerator

Energy Use
Household water use 400 gal/day (1.5 m3/d) or 146,000

gal/yr (553 m3/yr)
Energy to produce one gallon of water (conservative)

0.0144 kWh/gal (0.055 kWh/L)
Total annual energy use for water production - 2102 kWh/yr
16 cu ft (0.45 m3) refrigerator 2117 kW/yr (US DOE

Internet Site)
Many households use significantly less than 400 gal/day

and have several refrigerators bigger than 16 cu ft each
Should we even consider subsidizing desalination energy

costs???
Typical Cost and Energy Ranges

(Medium & Large SWRO Plants)
Classification
Cost of
Water
Production
(US$/m)
SWRO System
Energy Use
(kWh/m)
Low-End Bracket
0.5 0.8
2.5 2.8
Medium Range
1.0- 1.5
3.0 3.5
High-End Bracket
2.0 4.0
4.0 4.5
1.0
3.0
Average
Seawater Reverse Osmosis System

Energy Use Trend
*kWh/m3
kWh/acre-ft
Source: ADC, 2008
8.0 10,000
7.0 8,750
6.0 7,500
5.0 6,250
4.0 5,000
3.0 3,750
2.0 2,500
1.0 1,250
0
1980
1990
2000
2001
ADC-2005
Note:
*Numbers for energy consumption represent the RO process only. They do not
include any allowance for supply or distribution.
Key Energy Use Components

of SWRO Desalination Plants
Reverse osmosis system is the major

component of energy consumption
Pre
filtration
9%
Permeate
treatment
1%
Intake
17%
For SWRO Plants

RO System Uses
over 70 % of the
Total Plant Energy
SWRO
73%
200,000 m/d SWRO Plant

Key Energy Uses
Pretreatment
10.8 %
(0.39 kWh/m)
RO System
71 %
(2.54 kWh/m)
Product Water Delivery

5.0 %
(0.18 kWh/m)
Other Facilities
7.6 %
(0.27 kWh/m)
Intake 5.3 %
(0.19 kWh/m)
Example
Energy Use of 200,000 m/d
Plant @ TDS =33.5 ppt & Temp = 23C
Plant Component
No of Units
(duty/standby)
Unit Size
(Hp)
Avg. Total
Power (HP)
Avg. Total
Electricity
(kWh/m3)
Intake Pump Station
3/1
750
2,138
0.191
Pretreatment Filters Blowers
2/1
75
150
0.013
Pretreatment Filters
Backwash Pumps
2/1
90
180
0.016
Filter Effluent Transfer

Pumps
12/1
350
3,990
0.357
High Pressure RO Feed

Pumps
12/1
3,500
37,800
3.383

(reduction)
12/1
-875
-9,450
-0.845
4/1
550
1,980
0.177
Other Facilities
3,122
0.280
TOTAL
39,910
3.572
Product Water Pumps
SWRO Plant Size Matters!

Plant Size
SWRO System Energy Use

kWh/m
1,000 m/d
4.5 - 6.0
40,000 m/d
200,000 m/d
3.0 - 4.0
2.5 - 3.0
Examples of Energy Use of Largest

Desalination Projects Worldwide
SWRO Plant
Sorek, Israel 510 ML/d
(Largest in the World) BOOT
Point Lisas, Trinidad 130 ML/d
(Largest in The Americas) - BOOT
Tuas, Singapore 136 ML/d
(Largest in Asia) - BOOT
Al Dur, Bahrain 220 ML/d
(Largest in the Middle East) - BOO
Victorian Plant, Melbourne 444 ML/d
(Largest in Australia) DBO
Barcelona, Spain 200 ML/d
(Largest in Europe) DBO
Seawater
Salinity
(ppt)
Total Plant/RO
Power Use
(kWh/m)
40
3.6 / 2.9
38
4.8 / 3.8
33
4.3 / 3.3
46
4.6 / 3.8
36
3.9 / 3.0
35
3.7 / 2.6
Methods to Minimize
Desalination Plant Energy Use
Desalination Energy Use Factors

Energy Saving
Approach
Potential for
Energy Savings (%)
Source Water
Salinity
Use Low-Salinity
Source or Blend
1.5 to 5 times
Source Water
Temperature
Use Warmer Source

Water
(Co-Location)
5 to 15 %
Use Low-Rejection or
Higher Productivity
Membranes
5 to 10 %
Maximize Pump and

Motor Efficiency
3 to 5 %
Use Isobaric Chamber

Technology
5 to 15 %
Factor
Membrane Element
Losses and
Productivity
RO Feed Pump
Efficiency
Recovery of Energy
from RO Concentrate
Power Reduction Using Lower

Salinity Source Water
Use of brackish water when available

1.5 to 5 times lower power costs
Co-desalination of brackish water and/or

brine from brackish desalters with seawater
Use of lower salinity bay water vs. open

ocean seawater
Integrating Collocation &

Brackish Water Desalination
Cost of water production
< 0.4 US$/m
Energy use < 1.5 kWh/m
Integrating Brackish & Seawater

Desalination
Where Would the Benefits Come From?
Higher SWRO plant recovery 65 % vs. 45 %

z
Lower salinity
Beneficial use of anti-scalant in brackish brine
Lower energy use energy reduction proportional to

brine flow & concentration
Avoided costs associated with brackish brine disposal
Lower environmental impacts

z
Lower salinity of desalination plant discharge
Solution to ion-imbalance triggered toxicity of brackish brine
Influence of Temperature on
Energy Use
Energy use
(kWh/m3)
4.5
Disproportional Increase Above 12 C
4
Proportional to Temperature
Between 12 and 38 C
3.5
Use of warm
water may be
beneficial!
3
2.5
Use of
intake wells
or deep
intakes
may result in
energy penalty!
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Temperature, degrees C
Temperature and Water Quality
Collocation with Power Plant

Desalination plant intake &
discharge connection to
power plant discharge
Avoids construction of:
o New intake
o New discharge
o New screening facilities
Potential Energy Benefits of

Collocation
Reduced intake and discharge pumping costs

1-3 % power savings
Power cost savings due to warmer source water

5-15 % power use reduction
Use of power plant spinning reserve energy where

available
Use of power plant emergency energy generator

savings from avoidance of separate emergency power
supply
Potential avoidance of power grid connection

charges/power tariff fees
Energy Losses in SWRO Systems
Concentrate
High pressure pumps
Energy is lost mainly due to:
Pump/motor efficiency constrains

Limited energy recovery from concentrate
Energy losses during membrane separation
Pump & Motor Efficiency

Constraints
Typically all pumps higher than 200 hp are equipped

with Premium Efficiency Motors (96 to 98% efficient)
Piston-driven pumps can be up to 98% efficient
Typical centrifugal pumps are 82 to 85% efficient
Centrifugal pumps have theoretical efficiency limitation

of 92%
Pump efficiency increases with increase of pump size

and with the decrease of the delivered pressure:
z
z
Bigger is better!
Two pumps in series are more efficient than one!
Piston Driven Pumps Have Highest

Energy Efficiency (Up to 98 %)
Practical Applications
Piston high pressure feed pumps are widely

used in small plants
Piston pumps are used as energy recovery

devices (Pressure exchangers)
Newest trend development of combination

of piston high pressure feed pump & piston
energy recovery device
Pressure Exchangers Pump Seawater

@ 94 to 96 % Efficiency
Pelton wheel
Pressure exchanger
Pump Efficiency Increases with

Pump Size
Carboneras, Spain & Perth

One pump per 2 RO trains
Pump efficiency ~
n x (Q/H)0.5x (1/H)0.25
Where:
n = pump speed (min -);
Q = nominal pump capacity (m/s);
H = pump head (m).
Ashkelon, Israel
Two pumps per 16 RO trains
Pump efficiency
One pump per train 83 %
One pump per 2 trains 85 %
Two pumps per 16 trains 88 %
The Three-Center Design Allows the Use

of Few Large Pumps
Lowest energy use

SWRO plant
worldwide 3.8
kWh/m @ 40 ppt
Reducing Energy Losses Through

the SWRO Membranes
Nano-Structured SWRO Membranes
Nano-composite Membranes
NanoH2O
Nanoparticle
Nanoparticle-Polyamide
Dense Film Layer
~100 nm
Polysulfone Porous
Film Layer
Polyester Non-Woven
Support Fabric
~50 Pm
~100 Pm
Nanocomposite RO Membrane
Forward Osmosis
(solute recycle)
Potential to
Reduce 60 to 80 %
of Energy Costs &
15 to 25 % of Cost
of Water
Source:
Cath et al., WateReuse Research Foundation, 2009.
Forward Osmosis for Combined

Desalination and Reuse
Harnessing Osmotic Power
Source: Statkraft
Other Energy Saving Approaches
RO design around time-of-use/peak load reduction

rates
Peak summer day saving programs power bill

discount for reduced energy use during specified
summer days
RO design around interruptible power supply tariff
Power self-generation (use of natural, methane or

landfill gas to run gas generators or gas driven
engines)
Use of waste heat from power plants or other

sources
Power Self-Generation from Natural

Gas Why it May Make Sense?
Carbon Footprint of Desalinated

Water
Desalinated water production CF =

8.2 to 24.6 lbs CO2/1000 gallons (1.0 to 3.0
kg/m3)
CF of desalinated water per person =

0.11 ton CO2/person/yr (0.55 %)
Carbon footprint of burgers consumed by

average american - 0.40 ton CO2/person/yr
(2 %)
CF of the average american =

20 tons CO2/person/yr
WATER REUSE
Energy Consumption of Wastewater

Treatment and Reclamation
Secondary
Membranes
Energy intensity increases

with the increase of the
product water quality
Energy intensity decreases
with the increase of plant size
Examples of Energy Footprint of Large

Water Reuse Projects Worldwide
Recycling Plant
Process
GWRS, Orange County, California

Largest Indirect Potable Reuse Plant
El Prat de Llobregat Water Reclamation
Plant, Largest European Reuse Plant
MF/RO/
UV
Coag/
MF/UV
MF/RO/
UV
Bundamba Advanced Water Recycling

Plant, Western Corridor, Australia (IPR)
Capacity
(max with
extension)
m3/d
265,000
(378,000)
Power
use,
kWh/m
Total (RO)
1.1 (0.53)
300,000
0.28
66,000
1.14
(0.60)
Methods to Minimize Energy

Use of Water Reuse Plants
Key Components and Methods for

Energy Minimization in Water Reuse
System design and process

optimization
Pumping optimisation
z
z
MFor
UF
25%
Pumping
17%
Membrane design and

optimization
z
Pumping is consuming most energy

Use of VFD (variable frequency drive)
and premium efficiency motors
UV
Advanced
Oxidation
7%
Reverse
Osmosis
Pilot testing of pretreatment by MF, UF

or MBR and RO selection)
Control of membrane fouling
50%
Energy recovery and brine

treatment for RO systems
Energy Efficiency of Advanced
MF/RO Water Recycling Facilities
Advanced Purification Facility of GWRS (CA)
Total specific power consumption: 1.1 kWh/m3 (83 GWh/yr)

RO specific power consumption: 0.53 kWh/m3 (48.2%)
MF
24.9%
Screenings;
0.001%
Pumping to
Percolation
Basin
10.2%
Pumping to
Injection Wells
8.1%
Lime Post
Treatment
0.2%
Decarbonation
RO, 48.2%
1.0%
UV
7.2%
Source: Mehul, 2012
Energy Efficiency of Advanced MF/RO

Water RecyclingFacilities
Memcor CMF-S
(Siemens)
Source: Franks et al., 2007
Advanced Purification Facility of GWRS (CA)
GWRS Advanced Purification Facility

Plant Expansion and Energy Recovery
MF/RO expansion capacity

z
RO membranes: six 3-stage array units (77:49:24),

18,930 m3/d each (6,300 membrane elements)
Six energy recovery devices (one per unit)
z
z
114,000 m3/d (30 mgd)
ERD integrated with booster pump with VRD

Compared to RO desalination plants, recoverable
energy is low but ERD is providing high degree of
operational flexibility and energy recovery that offsets
capital costs
Expected energy saving: 182,000 kWh/yr

z
Payback period for the ERD device: 2 to 7 years

depending on operating conditions, Capex and energy
rebates
ERD Impacts: Optimization of

Flux and Energy Use
Source: Argo et al. 2011
Fluxes are better balanced between stages by using

energy recovered from concentrate
Reduction of overall energy use
Energy Efficiency of MF/RO
Advanced Water Recycling Plant,

Bundamba Western Corridor, Australia
Total specific power
consumption
1.14 kWh/m3
RO specific power
consumption
0.60 kWh/m3 (53%)
AMMONIUM SULPHATE
FeCl3
NaClO
NaClO
ANTISCALANT
H2SO4
CO2
H 2O 2
LIME
UV
PRETREATMENT
MICROFILTRATION
REVERSE OSMOSIS
3 STAGES
REMINERALIZATION
Source: Delgado t al., 2012
Advanced Water Recycling Plant,

Bundamba Western Corridor, Australia
RO: Koch Megamagnum 18,

3 Stage (7:4:2), 85% recovery
Pressuruzed MF:
Memcor L20V
Use of Renewable Energy

in Desalination and Water Reuse

Solar Energy
Mature solar technologies
Concentrated solar power systems (electricity + heat) and
photovoltaic systems (electricity)
Photovoltaic power generation in the EU

22.5 TWh (terawatts) in 2010 (growth +120%/yr)
Growing interest in desalination and water reuse

Total installed desalination capacity worldwide 3330 m3/d
(0.88 MGD), 80% in the Middle East
Major drawbacks
High capital and operation costs

Low energy efficiency (<10% to 15%)
Large footprint (surface area)
Highly dependent on geographical conditions
Solar Desalination and Water Reuse

Costs & Viability
Typical investment costs (Capex): 3300-6000 /kW

(4300-7800 US$/kW)
Typical operation costs (Opex): 0.3-0.55 /kWh

(0.39-0.72 US$/kWh)
Suitable for small plants: < 1 mgd (<3785 m/d)

z
1 mgd plant needs 13,760- 18,201 m (3.4 to 4.5 acres) of

PV panels (US$4.5-10 Milion or 3.5-7.7 Million)
For a desalination plant with
a footprint of 2020 m (0.5
acres), the Capex is $4.5 to
5.0 Million (3.5-3.8 Million)
Use of Solar Energy for Water Reclamation
Example: Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facilities
2848 panels
5574 m
564 kW
Located in El Segundo, West Basin, California

Treatment capacity: 170,000 m3/d
Solar energy production: 783,000 kWh/yr
Benefits: reduction of Opex by 10%
(supply of 10% of peak energy needs)
New Development:
The Solar Active System (SAS)
Wastewater reclamation plant Aquaviva of Cannes

(France, Suez Environnement): 22% of electrical demand
must be covered by an innovative photovoltaic-thermal
system (PVT) with improved energy efficiency
Principle: Recovery of solar power up to 70% by the

production of thermal energy (56% efficiency) in addition of
electricity (14% efficiency)
Water Reclamation Plant Aquaviva

of Cannes (France)
A zero carbon footprint Water Reclamation plant

Design capacity of 300,000 p.e. (MBR)
Average daily flow 52,000 m3/d
Solar panels
MBR
Water Reclamation Plant Aquaviva

of Cannes (France)
Production of
22% of the power
consumption

Wind Energy
Mature technology: wind generators with vertical or

horizontal axes and off-shore wind parks
Industrial applications
z
Wastewater treatment and reuse: Atlantic City, New

Jersey is satisfying 67% of its electrical demand with
wind power (producing 1.5 MW of electricity)
Desalination: used for small capacity desalination
plants with increased application for large plants
Major constraints
z
Highly dependent on
geographical conditions
Public subsidies are needed
Wind-Powered Desalination and

Water Reuse: Costs & Viability
More promising for coastal areas with strong winds

z
Suitable for areas with wind speed > 19 km/h (> 18 fps)
Decreasing costs
z
Capex typically 600 to 1,000 /kW
Opex 0.10-0.16 /kWh (0.15-0.20 US$/kWh)
More cost effective if it can supply excess energy to

the electric grid
Perth Seawater Desalination

Plant, Australia
Desalination capacity: 143,700 m3/d
100% of the energy demand of 180 GWh/yr is covered by

wind energy
9 Produced by the 83 MW Emu Downs Wind Farm, located 200 km
north of Perth, total production 272 GWh/yr
Other measures: energy recovery from RO

9 specific energy consumption 2.22 kWh/m3 first RO pass (overall
3.4 kWh/m3)
Perth Seawater Desalination

Plant, Australia
Emu Downs wind generation facility
z
Located at Badgingarra 200 km north

of Perth
Operated by Stanwell/Griffin Joint
Venture
Capacity 80 MW
Number of Turbines 48
Hub Height 68 m
Blade Length 41 m
Water Corporation is purchasing 68%

of the energy output 24 MW
(185 GWh/yr)
z
Start-up November 2006
Wind Farm Area 31 km2
Courtesy of the Water Corporation
Energy Recovery from Wastewater

As Samra WRP Jordan (2.2 million p.e.)
Energy self-sufficiency: 85% to 95%of energy demand

is covered by next generation technologies
z
Biogas production by digestion and co-generation 4 digesters

of 15,900 m3 each producing 3,000 Nm3/h biogas
Biogas cogeneration: 6 units of 1000 kWe each
Energy production from sewage flow

z
Inlet Pelton turbines (2 units x 900 kW) and outlet Francis

turbines (2 units x 850 kW)
Biogas production
Inlet
Pelton
turbine
Outlet Francis turbine
Concluding Remarks
Optimizing the energy of desalination and advanced recycling

water treatment is becoming a critical component of
integrated water cycle management (water-energy nexus)
Energy use for production of high-quality recycled water

water is relatively low, 0.5 to 1.2 kWh/m compared to
desalinated water, 3.0 to 4.5 kWh/m
Large plants have better energy efficiency and innovative RO
system configurations offer 10 to 15 % energy savings
Nano-structured membranes may offer significant additional
energy savings in the near future
Increasing renewable energy source utilization and reducing
GHG emissions are becoming also an important goal
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
10:45-12:00
Seawater
Desalination Costs
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV,
PE, BCEE
Desalination Project Costs

Outline
Key Components and Factors
Construction Costs
O&M Costs
Total Cost of Water Production
Key Project Risks and Costs: The Role of

Public-Private Partnership
Examples of Desalination Plant Cost Estimate
Where Future Cost Savings Will Come From?
Desalination Cost Components
Capital Costs
Operation & Maintenance Costs
Construction (Direct or Hard) Capital Costs

Indirect (Soft) Capital Costs
Variable
Fixed
Cost of Water
Annualized Capital Costs

O&M Costs
Seawater Desalination Plant

Construction Costs
Pretreatment
15% to 20 %
of construction costs
RO System
40 % to 60 % of
construction costs
Discharge 5 to 15 %
Intake 5 to 20 %
Indirect (Soft) Costs

15 to 50 % of Total Capital Costs
Cost Item
% of Total Capital Costs
Project Engineering
5.0 12.5 %
Project Development
2.0 10.0 %
Project Financing
3.0 17.5 %
Contingency
5.0 10.0 %
Total
15 50 %
Indirect Capital Cost Comparison
Conventional Water Treatment Plant

Indirect Costs - 15 to 25 % of Capital Costs
Seawater Desalination Plant:

Indirect Costs - 15 to 50 % of Capital Costs
Where Does the Difference Comes from? Cost of

Project Related Risks (Intake and Source Water Quality;
Permitting; Technology; Reliability, etc.)
This Difference Helps Understand Why Majority

of the Large SRWO Projects Worldwide are
Mainly Completed Under BOOT Delivery!
Intake Construction Costs

Key Factors
Very Dependent on Source Water Quality
Usually Between US$50 and 100/m/day
Beach Well Intakes Usually Less Costly
Horizontal and Slant Wells Comparable to

Open Intakes
Infiltration Galleries Often are More

Expensive than Open Intakes
Pretreatment
Construction Costs
Very Dependent on Source Water Quality &

Type of Treatment Technologies
High Quality Well Water Sources Require

Only Cartridge Filtration (Low Cost
Pretreatment)
Single-stage Granular Media Filtration

Usually is Less Costly than Membrane
Pretreatment
SWRO System
Construction Costs
Dependent on Source Water Quality & Target

Usually Between US$300 and 1,000/m/day
Single-stage/Single Pass SWRO System is

Least Costly
Additional Costs for Two-Pass/Two-Stage

RO System May Vary Between 15 and 30 %
of the These of Single Pass/Single Stage
SWRO System
Costs of Key RO System

Components
Component
8-inch SWRO Membrane Element
8-inch SWRO Pressure Vessel
RO Train Piping
Construction Cost (US$/item)

US$450 US$600 / element
US$4,000 - US$6,000 / vessel
US$200,000 US$600,000 /RO Train
RO Train Support Frame
US$150,000-US$400,000/RO Train
RO Train Instrumentation &

Controls
US$20,000 US$90,000/RO Train
High Pressure Pumps
US$150,000 US$800,000/RO Train
Post-treatment
Construction Costs
Dependent on Target Water Quality
Hardness
Alkalinity
pH
Need for Addition of Corrosion Inhibitors
Type of Disinfection
Need for Addition of Fluoride & Magnesium in
the Drinking Water
Concentrate Disposal
Construction Costs
Disposal Method
Construction Cost
(US$ Million/ML/d)
New Outfall w/Diffusers
0.50 1.50
Power Plant Outfall
0.05 0.15
Sanitary Sewer
0.03 0.10
WWTP Outfall
0.08 0.45
Deep Well Injection
0.65 1.65
Evaporation Ponds
0.75 2.50
Zero-Liquid Discharge
3.50 7.50
Key Capital Cost Components

40,000 m3/day Plant w/
Low-Cost Intake & Outfall
Cost Item
Cost (US$)
% of Total
Intake
2.76 MM
4.8 %
Pretreatment
4.64 MM
8.0 %
RO System Equipment
18.56 MM
32.0 %
Post Treatment
1.16 MM
2.0 %
1.45 MM
2.5 %
Buildings
1.74 MM
3.0 %
Waste and Solids Handling
0.87 MM
1.5 %
Electrical & Instrumentation
1.30 MM
2.2 %
Other Items
2.90 MM
5.0 %
Total Construction (Direct) Costs
35.38 MM
61 %
Engineering Services
5.80 MM
10.0%
Development, Financing & Contingency
16.82 MM
29 %
$58.0 MM
100 %
TOTAL
Capital Costs and Plant Size
Annual O&M Cost Breakdown

Cost Item
Range
(% of Total O&M Costs)
Variable O&M Costs
50.5 85.0%
Fixed O&M Costs
15.0 49.5%
Total
100 %
Variable O&M Costs

Cost Item
Power
35.0 58.0 %
Chemicals
5.5 9.0 %
Membranes & Cartridges
6.5 11.0 %
Waste Stream Disposal
3.5 7.0 %
Total
50.5 85 %
Fixed O&M Costs

Cost Item
Labor
4.0 11.0 %
Maintenance
3.0 13.0 %
Environmental &
Performance Monitoring
1.0 5.0 %
Indirect O&M Costs
7.0 20.5 %
Total
15.0 49.5 %
Indirect O&M Costs 7 to 20.5 %

of Total Costs
Administrative Costs
Operations Insurance
O&M Reserve Funds Required by Investor

(Project Risks)
Contingency
Staff Training and Professional Development
Operator Fees
O&M Costs & Cost of Water
40,000 m3/day Plant w/ Low-Cost Intake & Outfall

Cost Item
Cost (US$/yr)
% of Total
Energy
3.24 MM/yr
55.5 %
Chemicals
0.35 MM/yr
6.0 %
Replacement of RO Membranes & Cartridge Filters
0.62 MM/yr
10.6 %
Waste Stream Disposal
0.26 MM/yr
4.4 %
4.47 MM/yr
76.5 %
Labor
0.33 MM/yr
5.7%
Maintenance
0.38 MM/yr
6.5 %
Environmental & Performance Monitoring
0.09 MM/yr
1.5 %
Other O&M Costs
0.57 MM/yr
9.8 %
Total Variable Costs
Total Fixed Costs 1.37 MM/yr

$5.84 MM/yr
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS
23.5%
100 %
Annual O&M Costs = US$5.84 MM/(40,000 m/dayx365 days) = US$0.40/m
Cost of Water
40,000 m3/day Plant w/ Low-Cost Intake & Outfall
Annual O&M Costs = US$5.84 MM/yr ($0.40/m)

Capital Costs, Cap = US$58 MM
Capital Cost Recovery Factor,
CRF = [(1+i) - 1] / [ix(1+i) ]
Where: m period of repayment of capital
expenditures; i interest rate of capital
For example, for m = 20 years & i = 5%
CRF = [(1+0.05) - 1] / [0.05 (1+0.05)] = 12.462
Annualized Capital Costs = Cap/(CRF x Qp x 365 d)

= US$58 MM/(12.462 x 40,000m/d x 365 d) = $0.32/m
Cost of Water = $0.40 + $0.32 = $0.72/m
Cost Comparison of 100 ML/d SWRO

Plant with Conventional and
Comparison of O&M costs

and Costs of Water Production
100 ML/d SWRO Plant
Conventional
Pretreatment
Membrane
Pretreatment
Cost of Water Production
Typical Cost and Energy Ranges

(Medium & Large SWRO Plants)
Classification
Cost of
Water
Production
(US$/m)
SWRO System
Energy Use
(kWh/m)
Low-End Bracket
0.5 0.8
2.5 2.8
Medium Range
1.0- 1.5
3.0 3.5
High-End Bracket
2.0 4.0
4.0 4.5
1.0
3.0
Average
Water Production Costs of

Recent SWRO Desalination Projects
Cost of Water ,
US$/m
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Be Careful When Comparing

Costs!
Projects Differ By:
Source Water Salinity and Temperature

Unit Cost of Construction, Labor and Permitting
Cost of Capital
Unit Cost of Power
Source of Equipment Supply
Project Completion Schedule
Projects Have to Be Normalized for These and

Other Factors for Accurate Comparison
Perth & Sydney SWRO Plants

Cost Breakdowns
Perth
Sydney
125
<1
26.2
$325
250
4.5
14.3
$1,539
$281
$44
$982
$557
$25
$120
Capacity (ML/d)
Distance from intake (km)
Distance to delivery (miles)
Total Capital Cost ($M)
Total Capital Cost Desal Plant ($M)
Total Capital Cost - Delivery ($M)
Annualized Capital Cost ($M/yr)
Total Annual O&M Costs ($M/yr)
Annual O&M Cost Desal Plant ($M/yr)
Annual O&M Cost Delivery ($M/yr)
Cost of Water Capital Component ($/m3)
Cost of Water O&M Component ($/m3)
$17
$16
$46
$42
$1
$0.70
$0.44
$4
$1.65
$0.58
Cost of Water Delivery Component ($/m3)
$0.02
$0.06
Total Water Cost, $/m3
$1.16
$2.29
adapted from Waterlines:NWC Australia
Common Features of Low-Cost

Low Cost HDPE Open Intakes or Beach Wells
Near-Shore/On-Shore Discharges w/o Diffuser

Systems or Co-discharge w/ Power Plant of
WWTP Outfalls
Point of Product Water Delivery within 5 Miles

of Desalination Plant Site
RO System Design w/ Feed of Multiple Trains

by Common High Pressure Pumps and Energy
Recovery Systems
Turnkey (BOOT, BOO) Method of Project

Delivery
Key Factors Affecting Costs
Source Water Quality - TDS, Temperature, Solids, Silt and

Organics Content
Product Water Quality TDS, Boron, Bromides,

Disinfection Compatibility
Concentrate Disposal Method
Power Supply & Unit Power Costs
Project Risk Profile
Project Delivery Method & Financing
Other Factors
Intake and Discharge System Type

Pretreatment & RO System Design
Plant Capacity Availability Target
Source Water Quality & Costs

Construction
Costs
O&M Costs
Cost of
Water
1.00
1.00
1.00
Caribbean
(36 ppt /26 C)
1.04-1.35
1.02-1.10
Mediterranean
(38 ppt /24 C)
1.06-1.40
1.04-1.15
1.05-1.28
Gulf of Oman/Indian Ocean

(40 ppt /30 C)
1.15-1.50
1.10-1.25
1.12-1.38
Red Sea
(41 ppt /28 C)
1.18-1.55
1.12-1.28
1.15-1.42
Arabian Gulf
(45 ppt /26 C)
1.25-1.60
1.15-1.33
1.20-1.48
Water Source
(TDS, ppt /Temperature, C)
Pacific/Atlantic Ocean
(33.5 ppt /18 C)
1.03-1.22
Product Water Quality & Costs

Constr.
Costs
O&M
Costs
Cost of
Water
TDS/Cl = 500/250 mg/L

Boron = 1 mg/L
1.0
1.0
1.0
TDS/Cl = 250/100 mg/L

Boron = 0.75 mg/L
1.15-1.25
1.05-1.10
1.10-1.18
TDS/Cl = 100/50 mg/L

Boron = 0.5 mg/L
1.27-1.38
1.18-1.25
1.23-1.32
TDS/Cl = 30/10 mg/L

Boron = 0.3 mg/L
1.40-1.55
1.32-1.45
1.36-1.50
Target WQ
Key Project Risks and Costs
Permitting Risks Very High for Large Plants

Source Water Risks High for Most Large Plants
Technology Risks High, Especially for New Technologies
with Limited Track Record
Operational Risks High Experienced Operator Needed
Desalinated Water Demand Risks High When Cost of
Desalinated Water Significantly Higher than That of Existing
Supplies
Power Supply & Entitlement Risks Moderate
Regulatory Risks Moderate
Construction Risks High Limited Experience
Financial Risks High
Project Delivery Alternatives
Design-Bid-Build (DBB)
Design-Build-Operate (DBO)/Alliance
Key Benefit - Utility Owns All Assets

Key Disadvantages Utility Takes All Risks and Reduces
Borrowing Capacity
Key Benefit Utility Owns All Assets

Key Disadvantages Utility Shares Some Construction &
Operations Risks and Reduces Borrowing Capacity
Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT)
Key Benefit Utility Transfers Most Risks to Private Sector and

Only Pays for Water it Receives
Key Disadvantages Utility Does Not Own the Assets
Worldwide the Lowest Cost of

Desalinated Seawater Has Been
Delivered
Under BOO/BOOT Contracts!
Risk Allocation Profiles for BOOT

& Alliance (DBO) Project Delivery
Type of Project Risk
BOOT
Alliance/DBO
Permitting
Private
Public
Source Water
Private
Shared
Technology
Private
Shared
Operations
Private
Shared
Public (Take or
Pay Private
Equity at Risk)
Public
Power Supply
Private
Public
Construction
Private
Shared
Financial
Private
Public
Water Demand
Large SWRO Desalination

Projects Worldwide
Cost of Water,
US$/m
Power Use,
kWh/m
(TDS)
Ashkelon, Israel 330 ML/d

(Largest in The World) BOOT
0.53
3.8
(40 ppt)
Point Lisas, Trinidad 130 ML/d

(Largest in The Americas) - BOOT
0.72
4.8
(38 ppt)
Tuas, Singapore 136 ML/d

(Largest in Asia) - BOOT
0.48
4.3
(33 ppt)
Barcelona, Spain 200 ML/d

(Largest in Europe) BD+O
1.16
4.4
(38 ppt)
Fujariah, UAE 170 ML/d

(Largest in the Middle East) - BOOT
0.90
4.5
(38.5 ppt)
SWRO Plant
Year 2005/13 The Five Lowest Cost

SWRO Project Bids Worldwide
Cost of Water,
US$/m
Power Use,
kWh/m
(TDS)
Sorek, Israel 411 ML/d

BOO (startup 2014)
0.53
3.7
(40 ppt)
Mactaa, Algeria 500 ML/d

BOOT (startup 2013)
0.56
3.7
(40 ppt)
Hadera, Israel 330 ML/d

BOO/co-located (startup 2009)
0.60
3.7
(40 ppt)
Cap Djinet, Algeria 100 ML/d

BOO (startup 2010)
0.72
4.0
(38 ppt)
SWRO Plant
What All Recent BOOT Projects

Have in Common?
All Yielded the Lowest Costs and Power Use

of Desalinated Water in Their Respective Markets
Plant Performance & Permitting Risks Reside with
the Private Sector
Debt Repayment is Private Sector Obligation
Private Sector Only Gets Paid for Delivering Product
Desalinated Water
Public Utility Can Buy Out (Transfer) Project
Ownership Once Plant Has Proven Its Long-term
Performance
Where Future Cost Savings Will

Come From?
Main Areas Expected to Yield Cost Savings in

the Next 5 Years (20 % Cost Reduction Target)
Improvements in Membrane Element Productivity

- Polymetric Membranes (Incorporation of Nano-particles Into
Membrane Polymer Matrix) CSIRO & UCLA;

- Larger Membrane RO Elements (16 Diameter or Higher).
Increased Membrane Useful Life and Reduced Fouling

- Smoother Membrane Surface Carbon Nanotube Membranes
University of Texas (Austin).
- Increased Membrane Material Longevity;
- Use of Systems for Continuous RO Membrane Cleaning;
- UF/MF Membrane Pretreatment.
Commercial Forward Osmosis Systems

Co-Location With Power Plants
Regional Desalination and Concentrate Disposal
Larger RO Trains and Equipment
Full Automation of All Treatment Processes
CSRO &
Nano-Structured SWRO
Membranes
Research Directions to Meet the

Long-Term 80 % Cost Reduction Goal
Improve Membrane Useful Life and Productivity
Develop Corrosion Resistant Non-Metallic Materials to

Replace High-Quality/High Cost Stainless Steel RO
Piping
Reduce Pretreatment Costs
Develop New-Generation Energy Recovery Systems
Introduce Low-Cost Technologies for Beneficial

Concentrate Use and Disposal
Explore New Technologies for Seawater Desalination

Different from RO and Thermal Evaporation
Aquaporine-Based
Desalination
The Best of Seawater Desalination

Present Status & Future Forecasts
Parameter
Today
Within 5 Years
Within 20 Years
US$0.6-0.8
US$0.5-0.6
US$0.1-0.2
Construction Cost
(Million US$/ML)
1.2-2.4
1.0-2.0
0.5-1.0
Power Use
(kWh/m)
2.8-4.0
2.5-3.5
2.0-2.5
Membrane Productivity
(gallons/day/membrane)
5,00012,000
8,000-15,000
20,000-40,000
5-7
7-10
10-15
45-50
50-55
55-65
Cost of Water (US$/m)
Membrane Useful Life

(years)
Plant Recovery Ratio (%)
Concluding Remarks
The Ocean Will Become One of the Key Sources of

Reliable and Draught-Proof Coastal Water Supply in the
Next 10 to 20 Years
Large-scale Seawater Desalination is Economical

Today and Will Become Even More Cost-Competitive in
the Future
The Future of Seawater Desalination Is Bright 20%

Cost of Water Reduction in the Next 5 Years
Long-term Investment In Research and Development

Has the Potential to Reduce the Cost of Desalinated
Water by 80 % In the Next 20 Years
Seawater Desalination Costs
Questions?
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
13:00-14:30
Water Reclamation
and Reuse Costs
Prof. Dr. Valentina LAZAROVA
Water Reuse Project Costs

Outline
Purpose and Key Components of Water Reuse

Cost Analysis
Capital Costs
O&M Costs
Total Costs and Benefits of Water Reuse
Cost Trends and Factors
Funding and Pricing of Water Reuse
Video of West Basin Recycling Plant, California
Costs of Water Reclamation
What is the Purpose of the Cost Analysis?
The definition and valuation of the costs of a

recycling installation depend on the purpose of
the analysis
The most common purposes of water reuse

cost analysis are to assess:
the overall financial feasibility

the charges to water users (recycled water rates)
the need of financing the project
the wider economic performance of the investment,
including the environmental impact costs
Triple-Bottom-Line (TBL) Approach =

Assessment of Sustainability
Application of a holistic approach with a comprehensive

cost-benefit analysis (TBL*) including economic
benefits/costs , ecological impacts and social-cultural
impacts
Take into account the
entire (urban) water
cycle and/or
catchment area and
all benefits (market +
nonmarket)
Reliability of supply
Health safety
Wellbeing
Employment
Capital & O&M costs

Revenues
Economic benefits
Water bodies quality

Biodiversity & river flow
Air quality
Energy & GHG
*The triple bottom line (triple bilan) is a new accounting framework which goes beyond the traditional measures of profits,
return on investment, and shareholder value to include environmental and social dimensions
Capital Costs of Water Reuse
Capital (initial construction) costs
Including cost of land, design, supervision

Civil works including earthworks, civil engineering
(canals, pipes and buildings)
Equipment including treatment and pumping
installations, electricity supply, automation and control
Others: workshop and office equipment, communications,
vehicles, landscaping, etc.
Indirect capital costs: R&D studies, permits..
Replacement costs for some equipment (O&M)
Economic life for civil works typically 20 to 30 yrs and

10 to 15 years for mechanical equipment
Annual Operating Costs

(Operation & Maintenance)
Annual operating costs (O&M costs)
Repairs and maintenance

Labor and management
Fuel and energy
Licenses (water monitoring, charges for water supply,
brine, sludge or bio-solid waste disposal, etc.)
Others: interest payment on loans, subsidies, taxes
Key components of O&M costs
Labor, energy, membrane replacement

(typical membrane life time 5-7 yrs)
Annual Fixed Costs
Annual fixed costs = amortization of capital costs
Amortization costs are unavoidable and have to be paid

even if the plant is not used
Capital investment costs are expressed as an annual
equivalent fixed cost by calculating the amortization
cost for each capital item according to:
n 1
A P(1 / (1 /(1 r )
n 20
Where: A - annual amortization payment which includes both depreciation
and charges for interest on capital,
P - capital investment,
r - annual rate of interest as a decimal paid on borrowed funds
n - life of the particular capital item (n=20 for civil works, for example)
Total Average Annual Costs

(Total Annualized Costs)
Total annual costs = Annual fixed costs + Total

annual operating costs (in /m3 or $/m3)
These costs are expressed per unit of output of treated water

For a given plant size, fixed costs will be lowest when the
plant is operating at full capacity
As a rule Advanced Water Reclamation has high capital
costs (e.g. fixed costs account for a relatively high proportion
of total average costs ) and they need relatively long term
investment funding
For these reasons, without guaranteed demand for treated
water or assistance with funding, such investments may be
regarded as risky for many private investors
Example of Cost Estimate for

a Water Reclamation Project
Parameter
Capital costs,
$000 (k$)
Civil
5000
engineering
and storage
Treatment
1800
equipment
Subtotal
Operation and
maintenance
Total annual cost
Water output, million m3/year
Life
(years)
Amortization Annual costs

factor at 10% $000 (k$)
20
0.1175
587.5
10
0.1627
292.9
Average water cost, $/m3
880.4
500
1380.4
4.0
0.35
Major Economic Concerns

of Water Reuse
Relatively high capital cost of recycled water

infrastructure, in particular distribution network, and
relatively high O&M costs
Difficult revenue and cost-recovery:
Inadequate water pricing (subsidized drinking water price)

Uncertain water reuse patterns
Seasonal variations in demand and need for large storage
capacity (irrigation projects)
Cost evaluation of wastewater treatment and reuse

remains one of the greatest challenges of water
professionals and decision-makers
Very limited information, different methodologies, etc.
Capital Costs of Water Reuse
Influence of Plant Size on Capital

Costs of Water Reuse Projects
Specific Capital Costs (1) decrease with plant
size and (2) increase with increasing product
water quality
MF/RO/UV&H2O2
MF/RO/RO
Capex,MillionUS$
600
500
400
300
200
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
100
500
0
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
Capacity,m3/d
0
400,000
Capex,US$/m3
Data for selected

water reuse
regional projects
in Southern
California with
short term
implementation
(Source: Adapted
from US Bureau of
Reclamation, 2002)
Capital Cost of MF/RO vs

Coagulation/O3/BAC/GAC/UV
ZLD
UV
UV
RO
RO
MF
MF
Source: Schimmoller et al., 2009
Impact of Distribution Systems

on Capital Costs of Water Reuse
Example of the Capex of Phase 1 and 2 of the West Basin Water

Recycling Facility, California : distribution is ~50% of Capex
Capacity 114,000 m3/d, 5 designer water qualities
~70 km
Breakdown of Capital Costs of

MF/RO Water Reuse Systems
Example of a MF/RO reuse facility, Spain
Treatment capacity 12,000 m3/d
Total investment: 2.7 Million
Other (civil works, pumps)
30%
Reverse osmosis
20%
Sand filtration
20%
Microfiltration
30%
Breackdown of Capital Costs
Expansion of the ECLWRF, West Basin (CA)
Example of Capital Costs
Epansion of the ECLWRF, West Basin (CA)

Unit Capex per m3/d
$528/m3.d-1
$1585/m3.d-1
$277/m3.d-1
$594/m3.d-1
x2
x3
$1189/m3.d-1
$1651/m3.d-1
Unit Cost of Membranes

Relative cost (cost in 1994 = 1)
Downward Trend (Example: Zenon)

1.0
0.9
Cost of membranes / m3 treated water
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
ZW-150
(1995)
ZW-500a
(1997)
ZW-500b
(1999)
ZW-1000
(2000)
Capital Cost of Membrane Systems

Membrane cost /m
Low pressure MF membranes
Manufacturer 1
Manufacturer 2
Number of modules
Operating Costs of
Water Reuse Plants
Key Components of Operating

Costs
Labour and management: high automation, less manpower,

but higher qualification needed
Energy and fuel: variations from country to country with

increasing energy demand for membrane processes
Repair, renewal and maintenance costs: high variation

depending on the treatment train, relatively high for
membrane processes
Chemical costs: influenced by membrane fouling
Charges for brine disposal
Other costs
Water Quality Monitoring, Internal and external laboratory

costs: relatively high depending of water reuse application
Other Minor and Case Specific

Components of Operating Costs
o
o
o
o
o
Distribution networks and external pumping stations

that are sometimes operated by the WRP staff
Rents and tenancy, in the case if the WRP is not the owner
of their land and buildings
Annual charges for interest payment on loans, as well as
subsidies and taxes
Administrative costs, including insurance if not paid
centrally by the municipality, taxes, etc.
Water charges: licenses or charges for water supply or
abstraction, if charged to the WRP (sometimes covered by
the municipality)
Communication and marketing costs, specific for water
reuse projects
O&M Costs of the Reliability

of Operation of Water Reuse
O&M costs
Risks of failures should be minimised

with reasonable O&M costs
Breakdown of O&M Costs of

Example of a MF/RO reuse facility, Spain
Treatment capacity 12,000 m3/d
O&M cost: 0.54 /m3 (47% of the total
annualized cost)
Sand filtration
10%
Reverse osmosis
55%
Microfiltration
35%
Breakdown of Operating Costs

for MF/RO Reuse Systems
100%
Spain
10,000-12,000 m3/d
0.6
(~3 mgd)
2.2
4.2
Water quality
monitoring
2.8
12.5
12.3
80%
Cartridge filters
12.5
17.6
60%
17.9
9.1
Repair and
maintenance
40%
25.2
Chemicals
25
32.2
Membrane
replacement
Energy and
labour are the key
O&M components
20%
25.9
Labour
0%
Plant B
Plant A
Energy
Breakdown of Operating Costs

for MF/RO/RO Reuse Systems
100%
Labour
90%
Example: India
80%
70%
37
Chemicals
43
1.07
kWh/m3
60%
50%
40%
30%
1.41
kWh/m3
54
Power
20%
47
10%
0%
Plant 1 (TDS 1790 mg/L)
Plant 2 (TDS 800 mg/L)
Industrial
wastewater
treatment
MF/RO/RO/IE
650 m3/h and
450 m3/h
Very low
labour costs
(maintenance
and
administration
only 1%)
Fixed O&M Costs of MF/RO

Water Reuse Systems
Cost Item
% of Total O&M Costs
Labour
20 40%
Repair and Maintenance
10 20%
Water Quality Monitoring
1 10%
Indirect O&M Costs
<5%
Total
40 70%
Variable O&M Costs of MF/RO

Water Reuse Systems
Cost Item
Energy
15 35%
Chemicals
10 20%
Membranes & Cartridges
10 20%
Brine Disposal
2 10%
Total
30 60%
Annual O&M Cost Breakdown

Range
Cost Item
Variable O&M Costs
30 60%
Fixed O&M Costs
40 70%
Total
100%
O&M Costs of Vacuum-Driven vs.

Pressure Driven Membrane Systems
Vacuum-driven
(submersed)
membranes
Pressuredriven (side
stream)
membranes
Energy Consumption of Vacuum-Driven vs.

Pressure Driven Membrane Systems
Vacuum driven (submersed) membranes
0.3 kWh/m3 (at nominal capacity)
0.95 kWh/m3 (at 30% of design capacity)
effluent
(permeate)
wastewater
excess sludge
Pressure driven (sidestream)

membranes
wastewater
effluent
(permeate)
excess sludge
0.43 kWh/m3 (MF only at nominal

capacity)
2.86 kWh/m3 (full treatment: sand
filter+MF+RO)
O&M Costs of Water Reuse Plants

Influence of Pretreatment
10,000 m3/d
12,000 m3/d
MF
0.12
PRODUCT
WATER
WATER
INPUT
COAGULATION
AGENT PUMP
INSTRUMENTATION
INSTRUMENTATION
CONTROL
SYSTEM
Dual Filter
0.10
RO
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
/m3
0.08
/m3
0.08
Pulsed
bed filter
HydroClear
Energy
Chemicals
Cartridge
filters
Energy
Chemicals
Cartridge
filters

Influence of Pretreatment
The more efficient is the pre-treatment (and the

control of downstream wastewater quality) the lower are
the O&M costs of membranes systems (MF&UF and RO)
An efficient membrane fouling control leads to lower energy

and chemical costs, increasing also membrane life time
After very efficient pre-treatment (Dual Filter in this case) the
energy consumption of RO was almost two times lower: 1.17
kWh/m3 (0.073 /m3) compared to 2.13 kWh/m3 (0.132 /m3)
Chemical costs: chemical consumption was significantly lower,
about 0.005 kg/m3 (antiscalants, biocides, membrane cleaning
chemicals) compared to ~0.02 kg/m3 mainly due to the higher
consumption of antiscalants and biocides
O&M costs are influenced by the plant size, the level of

treatment and the characteristics of distribution system
(pumping, length, pressure, re-chlorination)
Provisions may be added for overall project contingency (~25%)
0.70
0.60
MF/RO/RO
Opex,$/m3
0.50
0.40
0.30
MF/RO/UV&H2O2
0.20
0.10
0.00
0
100,000
200,000
Capacity,m3/d
300,000
400,000
Data for selected

water reuse
regional projects
in Southern
California with
short term
implementation
(Source: Adapted
from US Bureau of
Reclamation, 2002)
Average annual flow 48,000 m3/d
ZLD
UV
UV
RO
RO
MF
MF
Source: Schimmoller et al., 2009
US$/year
O&M Costs of MF/RO vs

Coagulation/O3/BAC/GAC/UV
Total Costs and Benefits of

Water Reuse
Water Reuse Costs and Benefits

0.2-1.4
$/m3
Health
Storage&
distribution
0.05-0.4
$/m3
UV, Cl
Basic
treatment
Watershed
protection
Environmental
benefits
Networks Tanks
0.03-0.1
$/m3
0.33-0.65
$/m3
0.4
$/m3
0.24-0.9 Tourism
0.2
$/m3
$/m3
Water Supply
0.2-0.7
$/m3
Tertiary&
Quaternary
0.16-1.16
$/m3
Wastewater
Energy Disposal
Economic benefits
Wastewater
treatment
Water Reuse versus Desalination

Comparison of Total Costs
2.5-10 /m3
Typical water reuse

costs
Predominantly small and
medium size projects
<5,000-40,000 m3/d
UF/RO 0.5 /m3

MBR 0.3
/m3
<5,000 m3/d
MF/RO 1.0 /m3
>20,000 m3/d
Existing
plus small
and medium
size projects
0.86 /m3
0.45 /m3
UV 0.02 /m3
Water reuse
UF/RO, MF/RO
MBR
Desalination
Recent bids
for large
projects
30,000280,000 m3/d
Influence of Plant Size on

Total Costs
Total costs are reduced with the increase of plant

capacity and are increased with the improvement of
finished water quality
calculated for 30-year period of analysis, 2% inflation rate and discount rate 4.8%
Totalcost,$/m3
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Data for selected

water reuse
regional projects
in Southern
California with
short term
implementation
MF/RO/RO
MF/RO/UV&H2O2
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
(Source: Adapted
from US Bureau of
Reclamation, 2002)
Capacity,m3/d
Range of Costs and Benefits of

Water Reuse
Examples of environmental costs
0,4 Cost of eutrophication
0,5 Environmental impact cost
0,08
Secondary treatment with

restricted irrigation
0,02
(Source: Eureau for England & Wales, J. Pretty, 2003)
(Source: Eureau for WFD implementation in England, 2004)
0,54 Cost of drought

(Source: Eureau)
0,7 Cost of replacing lost

abstraction in UK (Source: Eureau)
Quaternary treatment for

groundwater recharge
0,75
0,45
0,43
0,15
Tertiary treatment for

industrial purposes
0,23
0,12
Tertiary treatment for

landscape irrigation and
urban uses
0,2
0,4
0,6
1,5
0,8
Integral recycling "zero

discharge" in industry
0,8
Specific cost, US$/m3
1,2
1,4
1,6
Example of Water Reuse

Benefits, California
Water reuse benefits are significantly higher than

the total cost and the water reuse rates - average
cost of 3.9 $/m3 (from 1.23 $/m3 to 7.15 $/m3 )
Unitcost,$/m3
MF/RO/UV&H2O2
Benefits,$/m3
8.0
Cost,US$/m3
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
MF/RO/UV&H2O2
3.0
2.0
Data for selected

water reuse
regional projects
in Southern
California with
short term
implementation
(Source: Adapted
from US Bureau of
Reclamation, 2002)
1.0
0.0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
Plantcapacity,m3.d
Funding and Pricing of

Water Reuse
Key Principles for Water

Reuse Funding Strategy
Revenues from rates and charges should be

sufficient to cover annual O&M costs and capital
improvement costs
Budget should be adequate to support asset management, including

planned and preventive maintenance, as well as infrastructure
reinvestment
Accounting practices should separate reclaimed

water accounts from other governmental or entity
operations for transparency (to prevent uses
unrelated to water services)
Rates and fees should reflect both monetary and

non-monetary benefits of water reuse
Mechanisms for Funding of

Water Reuse Systems
Internal Funding: based on revenue from customers
Mainly from large-volume customers where funding is obtained

from rates over the life of the project
Debt Funding: revenue bonds and low interest loans
State and Federal Financial Incentives: direct grants,

tax incentives, connection & discharge fees
European and Other structural and/or investment funds
Local Funding Sources
Phasing: necessary to extend capital expenditures
Examples of Grants and Government

Funding of Reuse Projects
Australia, Queensland
50% of Capex
China
30%
USA, California
26% (Capex)
Israel
50%
Spain
Belgium
Europe
mainly EU funds
Mechanisms for Funding
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility

in West Basin, California (phase 1&2)
Capital costs
Federal Grants of $50 million from the US Bureau of

Reclamation
State of California low-interest loan $5 million
(Water Resources Control Board)
$115 million in water revenue-bonds sold by the
West Basin Municipal Water District
O&M costs
Financial support from the Metropolitan Water District:
$0.2/m3 of saved potable water over the next 25 yrs
Water sales
Importance of Phasing

in West Basin, California (phase 1 to 4)
Plant
Year
ECLWRF Phase 1
1995
Design flow m3/d

(MGD)
56,780 (15.0)
Application
18,930 (5.0)
Title 22
Barrier Water: Lime
Clarification-GMF / RO
56,780 (15.0)
9,460 (2.5)
6,430 (1.7)
9,840 (2.6)
37,850 (10)
18,930 (5.0)
Title 22
Barrier Water: MF / RO
Industrial water: MF / RO
Industrial water: MF/RO/RO
Title 22
Barrier Water: MF/RO
ECLWRF Phase 2
1999
ECLWRF Phase 3
2003
ECLWRF Phase 4
2006
Chevron
1995
1999
18,930 (5.0)
16,280 (4.3)
Industrial water: Nitrified
ExxonMobil
1998
Carson
2000
18,930 (5.0)
12,110 (3.2)
18,930 (5.0)
3,785 (1.0)
Industrial water: MF/RO

Industrial water: MF/RO
Importance of Phasing

in West Basin, California (phase 1 to 4)
Increase in the production of high-quality
2006
recycled water for industrial uses
215,000 m3/d
1995
75,000 m3/d
221 customers
1999
142,000 m3/d
30 customers
154 customers
53%
65%
11%
Industrial uses
22%
Barrier water
25%
22%
13%
Industrial uses
51%
38%
Urban uses
Pricing of Recycled Water
Pricing is a critical issue for water reuse

projects with implications for:
water users and water service providers

for environmental quality and public welfare
Water reuse pricing should incorporate a broad

range of economic, environmental and
social considerations (Triple Bottom Line
approach)
Water reuse pricing is very context specific
Key Functions of Recycled

Water Prices
1.
A measure of benefits derived from the use of recycled

water relative to spending an equal amount on some
other good or service (freshwater or desalinated water)
Showing the willingness to pay on the part of the buyer
The upper bound for water prices that a user will pay is the
value of water of a given quality and reliability of supply
2.
An indication that the price received is sufficient to

cover all (or at least a sufficient part) of the costs
involved in making the water service available
Showing the willingness to supply on the part of the provider
If recycled water has a higher quality and/or a more reliable
supply than freshwater it can command a higher price
Water Reuse Marketability

= f (Pricing Factors)
Discounting recycled water is a

necessary incentive
Securing recycled water users
Securing onsite service connection
Who should pay for recycled water

system costs?
What share should be borne by users?
Economic viability and financial

sustainability of water reuse projects is
challenged by constraints such as:
The potentially high infrastructure and treatment

costs
Uncertainties regarding the volume and growth

of water reuse demand
The imperative of competitive pricing to

displace potable water use
Lessons Learned from Water

Reuse Projects
Water prices are commonly heavily subsidized and set at

levels below full cost recovery, often for political reasons
As a rule, recycled water is offered at a lower price
compared to potable water to encourage its use
Price discounting,
combined with underpricing of potable
water, strongly affect
financial sustainability
of water reuse with
full cost recovery
Cost Recovery Concerns

of Water Reuse Projects
Only few water reuse
projects recover full costs
Percentage of O&M Costs Recovered

Through Water Reuse Rates
Data from the U.S. survey of 500 utilities with

109 respondents (AWWA, 2008)
Most utilities recover <25% of O&M costs

(mainly because the high costs)
Year 2000
Year 2007
Revenue Sources to Meet

O&M Costs of Water Reuse
Additional revenues received in the U.S. to cover

O&M costs are used to insentivise customers to
utilize recycled water
Year 2007
Cost Recovery Concerns
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility in

West Basin, California
Sound Financial & Resource Management

Sharing Costs of Alternative Water Resources
Clear Pricing Policy
Higher Added Value to Support O&M
Double RO
Single RO
Drnking water
Softened RO
Nitrified
Title 22
(conventional
tertiary 0
treatment)
0,5
1,5
2,5
Price / Drinking water cost
Water Reuse Pricing Instruments
Flat monthly charge (for example for irrigation, $/ha/month)
Flat charge per unit volume ($/m3)
Base fee plus volume charge
Seasonally adjusted rate (winter/summer)
Ascending block rate (to discourage high consumption )
Declining block rate (to attract the larger users and achieve
economies in delivery costs)
Time-of-day based rate (peak/off peak)
Take-or-pay based contracts
Customer-specific negotiated rates
Example of U.S. Recycled Water Rates

(USEPA, 2012)
0.65 $/m3
0.84 $/m3
0.21 $/m3
0.23 $/m3
0.63 $/m3
0.38 $/m3
0.80 $/m3
1.37 $/m3
0.0.38 $/m3
0.465 $/m3
0.119 $/m3
Example of U.S. Recycled Water Rates

(USEPA, 2012)
0.13 $/m3
0.195 $/m3
0.13 $/m3
0.42 $/m3
0.95 $/m3
0.33 $/m3
0.40 $/m3
0.34 $/m3
0.24 $/m3
0.26 $/m3
Declining Water Reuse Charges

Bora Bora, small-size UF
Objective: encourage large users

Recycled water charges vary from 30 to 100% of potable
water rate, depending on user category
Fixed annual charge of 187 is by connection
Parameter
Criteria
Volume for large users,

m3/month
Recycled water charge, /m3
Volume for medium users,
m3/month
Volume for small users,
m3/month
>350m3
<350m3
First
block
Second
block
Third
block
<550
550 to 800
>800
2.35
2.18
1.65
<110
110 to 200
>200
1.16
1.08
0.88
<5
5 to 10
>10
0.76
0.71
0.67
<30 m3
Custom-made Recycled Water

in West Basin, California
Carson Regional Recycling Plant
2006
HYPERION WWTP
secondary effluent
215, 000 m3/d
>300 customers
62 Million m3/yr
Reverse
Osmosis
MF
Tertiary nitrification
Cl
FeCl3
(Biofor
Chevron & Exxon/Mobil Refineries
Cooling water
Cl
Disinfection
High pressure
boiler water
Low pressure
boiler water
Title 22 effluent
Filtration
Flocculation Mono-media
Microfiltration
(Cl)
Storage
Urban uses, Irrigation, 13%

High pressure
boiler water
Low pressure
boiler water Industrial reuse, 65%
Reverse
Osmosis
Reverse
Osmosis
Filtration
Multi-media
Microfiltration
Reverse
Osmosis
H2O2
Cl
Decarbonator
Barrier
effluent
Aquifer recharge, 22%

UV Disinfection
Recycled Water Prices (2011)

in West Basin, California
Water rates are approved annually by the Board of Directors

Recycled water rates depend on the water quality, and for the Title 22
water on the delivery volumes with declining rate
Compared to 2010, the price increase was from 0 to 16% with a higher
increase for Title 22 and nitrified water
Type of Designer Water
Title 22 water
- Distributed inside service area
- Distributed outside service area
Barrier water
Nitrified water
Low-pressure boiler feed water
High-pressure boiler feed water
$/m3
Price
($/acre-foot)
% of total
production
11.5%
0.60-0.63 (735775)*
0.56-0.59 (777817)**
0.45 (553)
0.63 (775)
0.74 (914)
1.1 (1,359)
26%
30%
25%
7.5%
*Rate varies with volume delivered per month

**Rate varies according to service area and volume delivered per month
Multi-Barrier Approach for

Planned Indirect Reuse
Water Tariff Structure in

Singapore
Before 1 July 1997
Tariff
category
Consumption
W.e.f. 1 July 2000
Tariff
($ Sn/
m3)
WCT
(%)
Total
($ Sn/
m3)
WBF
($ Sn/
m3)
Tariff
($ Sn/
m3)
WCT
(%)
Total
($ Sn/
m3)
WBF
($ Sn/
m3)
1 to 20
0,56
0,56
0,10
1,17
30
1,521
0,30
20 to 40
0,80
15
0,92
0,10
1,17
30
1,521
0,30
Above 40
1,17
15
1,346
0,10
1,40
45
2,030
0,30
All units
1,17
20
1,404
0,22
1,17
30
1,521
0,60
(m3
Domestic
Nondomestic
block
per mth)
WCT : Water Conservation Tax - Broad-based Tax levied by the Government

to reinforce the water conservation message
WBF : Waterborne Fee - Statutory charge collected by PUB for maintenance
and extension of the public sewerage system
Example of Water Reuse

Prices Worldwide
Reuse project
Use
Sydney Olympic Domestic /

Park, AUS
Urban (Irrigation)
Rouse Hill,
Sydney, AUS
Domestic
Potable water
1.20 AUD/m3
(up to 1,100
m/d)
1.48 AUD/m3
(> 1,100 m/d)
1.20 AUD/m3
(up to 1,100
m/d)
1.48 AUD/m3
(> 1,100 m/d)
Noirmoutier, FR
Agricultural
irrigation
1.54 /m3
Cyprus
Agricultural
irrigation
0.1 /m3
Recycled water
1.05 AUD/m3
(=1.09 US$/m3
=0.84 /m3)
0.293 AUD/m3
(=0.30US$/m3
=0.233/m3)
0.23 - 0.30 /m3
(=0.30-0.39
US$/m3)
0.1 /m3
(=0.131 US$/m3)
% of potable
water
88 %
71 %
24 %
20 %
15 20%
100 %
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
14:45-15:30
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV,
PE, BCEE
Seawater Concentrate
Disposal - Outline
Concentrate Disposal Alternatives
On-shore and Offshore Discharges
Technologies for Reduction of Concentrate Volume

and Beneficial Reuse
Environmental Discharge Considerations
Guidelines for Selecting and Designing

Concentrate Disposal System
Examples of Concentrate Treatment and Disposal

in Water Reuse and Desalination Projects
SWRO Plant Concentrate
Concentrate
Desalination Plant Waste Streams
Concentrate Salinity & Flow
Qconcentrate = Qpermeate (1/Y 1)

Y- Plant Recovery Rate (%)
Example:
Plant Production Capacity,
Qpermeate = 2.0 Ml/d;
Plant Recovery, Y = 45 % (i.e., 0.45);
Qconcentrate = 2.0 ML/d (1/0.45 1) = 2.4 ML/d
Concentrate Most Widely Used

Disposal Alternatives
Direct Ocean Outfall Discharge
Discharge to Sanitary Sewer
Co-Discharge with Power Plant Cooling

Water
Direct Ocean Outfall Discharge
Used in Large Plants All Australian SWRO

Plants; Ashkelon, Israel; Point Lisas, Trinidad;
Desalination Plants in Cyprus and Most Plants in
Spain
Key Issues Suitable Location for Adequate

Blending and Dilution
Difficult to Obtain Environmental License
Costly for Large Plants Usually Requires the

Construction of Long Outfall and Elaborate
Diffuser Structure
Alternatives for Dispersal of

Saline Discharge
Use of Mixing Energy & Transport Capacity of

Tidal Zone Near-shore Discharge
Use of the Buoyancy of Existing Fresh Water

Discharge (Existing WWTP Outfall)
Use the Buoyancy of Existing Thermal Discharge

(Power Plant Cooling Water Outfall)
Build New Diffuser System Directing Discharge

Up Inclined @ 45 to 60
Near-Shore Discharge
Common Low-Cost Option
Near Shore Discharge Structures Are Usually

Easier to Build and Operate than Long Outfalls
Discharge of Filter Backwash
Near-Shore vs. Diffuser

Discharge
Desalination Plant Discharge
Power Plant Discharge
ASHKELON DESALINATION PLANT
Diffuser Discharge
Near vs. Offshore Discharge Costs
How Do We Know if We Have

Good Near-shore Mixing?
Look for:
Popular Surfer
Spots!
Underwater
Currents Near
Shore!
All Large
Desalination
Plants in
California Are
Located at
Popular Surfer
Beaches!
Discharge to Sewer/WWTP
Outfall Key Issues
Impact on Wastewater Treatment Processes
Outfall Capacity
Need for WWTP Diffuser Modification
Matching Concentrate and WWTP Effluent

Volumes to Sustain Minimum Dilution Ratio
Whole Effluent Toxicity Caused by Ion

Imbalance
Discharge to Sewer/WWTP
Impact on Plant Operations
Positive Impact on Sedimentation
Activated Sludge Tank Influent TDS Higher

than 3000 mg/L Causes Treatment Process
Inhibition
Decrease of WWTP Outfall/Treatment

Capacity
Effects on Water Reuse TDS, Boron,

Sodium
Discharge to WWTP Outfall
Toxicity Triggered by Ion Imbalance
Blending Fresh Wastewater Discharge with

Concentrate of Very Different Salinity Make-Up
May Cause Marine Organism Toxicity
Example - Santa Barbara WWTP Effluent /Desal

Plant Discharge Blend Toxicity
Sea Urchins Tell the Story
Negative Effect on Egg Development When Exposed

to Concentrate + WWTP Effluent
No Effect When Exposed to Concentrate + Seawater
Discharge to WWTP Outfall Sea

Urchin Toxicity Lessons Learned
Carboneras SWRO Plant, Spain

Co-discharge with WWTP
Power Plant Collocation Concept
Key Benefits of Collocation With Power Plant
Mutually Accelerated Dissipation of Salinity

and Thermal Plumes
No Need for Construction of Separate Outfall

10 to 30 % Construction Cost Savings
Minimal Environmental Impact:
No Beach or Ocean Floor Habitat Disturbance

No New Ocean Source Water Collected
Minimized Entrainment
Power Cost Savings
Comparison of Diffuser-based
& Collocated Discharges
Concentrate Ocean Discharge

via Diffuser System
http://www.ifh.uni-karlsruhe.de/science/envflu/Research/brinedis/density.htm
Discharge Mixing Without

Diffusers
Dilution Limited to 1:1 to 1:3

Usually > 1:30 Needed if Natural Mixing is
Minimal
Sydney Desalination Plant

Diffuser Structure
Discharge Outfall Tunnel

Extends 500 m
Offshore
1:45 dilution
Discharge Through a Long Outfall

and Diffuser System Universal but
Expensive Alternative
1:45 Dilution at the Edge of Near Field Concentration

Concentrate Salinity Within 10 % of Ambient

Seawater Concentrate Dispersion
Initial Mixing
Zone = 100m
initial
mixing
zone
Concentrate Rises
to Height of 8.5 m
far field
45x
dilution
diffuser
Courtesy of the Water

Corporation

Concentrate Discharge System
50 m limit for
mixing zone
45 x dilution
Diffusers
470 m
offshore
30 m mixing zone
achieve 42 x dilution
20 diffuser ports at 5 m spacing
Outfall pipeline
0.22 m nominal port diameter
1200 mm
Depth 10 m
Bifurcated T Arrangement
Discharge Angle - 60
Courtesy of the Water Corporation
Key Environmental Discharge

Issues and Concerns
Discharge Dispersion and Recirculation to
Plant Intake:
1.
Salinity Field Under Worst-Case and Average

Conditions
Long-term Salinity Accumulation
2.
Marine Organism Salinity Tolerance
3.
Whole Effluent Toxicity
4.
Meeting the Numeric Effluent Water Quality

Standards
How to Assess Discharge Dispersion?

Hydrodynamic Modeling of Near-Field
local/near-shore salinity elevation effects
Far-Field salinity accumulation in large water bodies
Background Data Collection/Model Calibration
Available Models
Cormix Model Approved by US EPA
Popular in Spain, Caribbean
Other Models for complex hydrodynamic conditions
Scripps Institution of Oceanography Model Used for

Carlsbad and Huntington Beach Desalination Projects
What Questions Should be Answered

by Hydrodynamic Modeling?
Average and Worst-Case Salinity at Edge of Zone of

Initial Dilution (ZID) at:
Ocean Surface, Mid-Depth & Bottom
Mixing (Dilution) Ratio at the Edge of Zone of Initial

Dilution
Length of Occurrence of Worst Case Scenario

(days/hours)
If Diffusers Are Used Number, Configuration and

Location of Discharge Diffusers
Can Discharge Influence the Intake Salinity?
Salinity Tolerance of Marine Organisms
Depends on Type & Mobility of Marine Organisms
Echinoderms Most Sensitive;

Most Organisms More Sensitive to Low Rather than High
Salinity
Length of Exposure to Elevated Salinity

Hrs/Days/Permanent
Stage of Development of Marine Species

Embryonic vs. Adult
Criterion for Impact/Tolerance Toxicity or
Survival of Both Adult & Embryonic Species

Normal Reproduction, Growth & Behavior
New Method for Salinity

Tolerance Evaluation Key Steps
1.
Determination of the Test Salinity Range Average

Mid-Depth/Mid ZID Salinity & Bottom Salinity @ Edge
of ZID Determined Based on Hydrodynamic Modeling
2.
Identification of Site-Specific Test Species Collect

Species from the Area of the Discharge
3.
Biometrics Test Long-Term Exposure to Average

Steady State Conditions of Elevated Salinity
4.
Salinity Tolerance Test Short-Term Exposure to

Extreme Salinity for Period Determined Based on
Hydrodynamic Modeling
What is Needed for the Salinity

Tolerance Evaluation?
Hydrodynamic Modeling to Determine Test

Average and Extreme Salinities and
Exposure Time During Extreme Conditions
Pilot Plant to Obtain Concentrate for the Test
Test Marine Species to be Collected from

the Area of Discharge
Marine Aquariums to be Complete Test
Case Study Carlsbad Desalination Plant
Desalination Pilot Plant
Provides Waste Streams Needed for the

Environmental Impact Studies
Marine Aquariums Biometrics &

Salinity Tolerance Tests
Biometrics Test @ TDS = 36 ppt

Salinity Tolerance @ TDS of 37 ppt to 40 ppt
Salinity Tolerance Threshold Test

Sand Dollar
Duration 19 Days
Three Test Species
Test Salinities of 37, 38,

39 & 40 ppt
All Species Survived &

Kept Reproductive
Capacity!
Salinity Threshold
40 ppt
Short-Term Exposure
Threshold 46 ppt
(up to 60 ppt for 2 hrs)
Purple Sea Urchin
Red Abalone
Concentrate & Effluent Toxicity
Concentrate Toxicity Can Be Caused:
High or Low Salinity Concentration (Osmosis)

Ion Imbalance - Difference in Ratios Between TDS and Key Ions
(Ca, Mg, Na, Carbonates, Metals)
Seawater Concentrate TDS < 40 ppt Not Likely to

Exhibit Acute and Chronic Toxicity
Blends of Seawater or Brackish Water Concentrate and
Wastewater May Cause Ion-Imbalance Triggered
Toxicity
After Blending with Seawater Concentrate, Other
Desalination Plant Waste Streams (i.e., Filter
Backwash, Membrane Cleaning Solutions) Typically Do
Not Exhibit Toxicity
Whole Effluent Toxicity What to

Look For?
Complete Acute and Chronic Toxicity Testing
Use Species Endogenous to the Discharge Area
Test At Worst-Case Scenario Blend:
For Open Ocean Discharges Look for Assessing

the Effect of Diffuser Dispersal
For Co-Discharge with Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent Look for Ion Imbalance Triggered Toxicity
For Co-discharge With Power Plants Look for the
Effect of Temperature
Meeting the Effluent Discharge

Standards What to Look For?
Metals:
Open Ocean Seawater Has Low Metal Concentration;

Metals May be An Issue When Combined with WWTP
Discharge or Power Plant Discharge
Turbidity contribution from coagulant
Discoloration effect of beach well intake WQ and

use of iron-based coagulants for pretreatment
Oxygen & pH
US EPA Non-Degradation Rule Typically Conc.

Increase within 10 % of Background Levels is
Acceptable
Other Concentrate Disposal

Alternatives
Injection Wells
Evaporation Ponds
Zero Liquid Discharge
Beneficial Uses of Concentrate
Salt Solidification &

Recovery by
Fractional
Crystallization &
Precipitation
Disposal to Brackish
or Saltwater Wetlands
Use As Cooling Water
for Small Power
Plants
Algal Production
for Extraction of
Commercial Grade
Beta-Carotene
Brine Shrimp
Production
Dust Suppression
De-icing
Selection of Concentrate Disposal System

for SWRO Plant Key Factors
Desalination Plant Size
For Plants < 1000 m3/d Usually All Options Are Viable!
Viable Options for Plants > 1000 m3/d & < 20,000 m3/d
Injection Wells & Ex-filtration Galleries
Surface Concentrate Discharge to Ocean
Viable Options for Plants > 20,000 m3/d

Surface Concentrate Discharge to Ocean
Environmental Constraints could preclude some of

the viable options listed above
Costs
Sewer Discharge Lowest Cost

Zero Liquid Discharge Most Costly
Concluding Remarks
Ocean Discharge is Viable
Proving Discharge Environmentally Safe Requires:
Hydrodynamic Modeling
Toxicity Testing
Salinity Tolerance Analysis
Reliable Intake Water Quality Characterization
Ocean Discharge Alternatives Ranked by Their

Preference/Environmental Impact
1. Co-Location with Power Plants
2. Separate Outfall With Diffuser System
3. Co-Location with Wastewater Treatment Plant
Discharges
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
Day 3: Plant Performance Optimization
and Troubleshooting
8:00-09:30
Plant Performance
Analysis and
Optimization
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV &

Valentina LAZAROVA
Plant Performance Optimization

and Troubleshooting - Outline
Key Plant Performance Parameters for

Desalination and Water Reuse Systems
Diagnostics of Membrane Fouling
Key Steps of Plant Performance Analysis

Optimization of Plant Design and Operations
Optimizing Plant Design & Operation
Improving Performance by Redistributing Flux/Energy

Reducing Feed Pressure and Plant Recovery
Optimizing Boron Rejection
Optimizing Energy Efficiency

Membrane Integrity Testing
Membrane Cleaning
Key Plant Performance

Parameters
Key O&M Goals
Produce Fresh/Purified
Water at Target Quality
& Quantity
Meeting Target Water
Quantity Usually Drives
Operations Decisions
As Target Quantity is
Produced, Verify that it
Meets Quality
Specifications
Meet Performance
Goals for:
Energy Use
Membrane Useful Life
Chemical Use
Membrane Cleaning
Frequency
Cartridge Filter
Replacement
Frequency
Criteria for Well Operating Plant

Parameter
Product Water Flow & Quality
Average RO Membrane
Replacement Rate
Criteria for Well Operating Plant

Meet Design Specifications
Do Not Change Significantly with Changes in
Source Water Quality and Time
10% to 15 % (not more than 20 %) of all RO
elements replaced per year
Cartridge Filter Replacement

Frequency
6 to 8 weeks (one every 6 to 12 months best)
Total Plant Energy Use (without

Product Water Pumping)
0.7 to 1.2 kWh/m (for water reuse TDS <3 ppt)

3.0 to 3.5 kWh/m (for seawater TDS 35 ppt)
4.0 to 4.5 kWh/m (for seawater TDS > 38 ppt)
Plant Operational Availability

RO Membrane Train Cleanings
per Year
Minimum 95 % of the time (99 % of the time

best) / down for not more than 10 to 15 days/year
1 to 2 (not more than 4) cleanings
Factors Affecting RO Plant

Performance
Changes in Source Water Quality
Normal Wear & Tear of Membranes, Cartridges,

Equipment & Instrumentation
Membrane and Equipment Failures
Operator Errors
Changes in Regulatory Requirements
Key Source Factors Affecting

RO System Performance
Temperature lower temperature higher water

quality/higher energy use @ the same product flow
Salinity higher salinity higher energy use @ the

same product flow
pH higher pH higher water quality within a range

@ the same flow scaling problems
Recovery higher recovery more product water

but more energy & more fouling & potential scaling
Effect of Temperature on
RO Performance
Increases
with
increasing
temperature
Decreases
with
increasing
temperature
Measure Source Water Temperature Continuously!

Install Temp. Sensors @ Intake Pump Station and RO Feed
Effect of Salinity on RO
Performance
Less
pronounced
decrease
with
increasing
salinity
followed by
fast shift for
very high
salinity
Fast
decrease
with
increasing
salinity
Measure Source Water Salinity/Conductivity Continuously!

Install Conduct. Sensors @ Intake Pump Station and RO Feed
Interaction between Feed pH and

Membrane Chemistry
Change in feed pH
effects membrane charge
and chemical structure
of membrane
which effects 5
salt passage
Salt Passage Correction Factor for Composite Polyamide

Membranes
SPCF
4
3
2
1
0
4
8
Feed Water pH
10
11
12
Effect of Feed pH on Boron Rejection
Calculated nominal rejection of

SWC4 membrane, %
Boron species rejection at 25 C

Conflicting pH
Targets
100.0
Optimum for
Coagulation
5.5 to 6.5
98.0
96.0
Optimum for
Scaling Protection
below 6.5 to 7
94.0
92.0
90.0
6
10
11
12
Optimum for
Boron Rejection
8.5 to 9.5
pH of solution
Effect of Recovery on RO
Performance
Measure Source Water and Permeate Flows Continuously!

Install Flowmeters @ Intake Pump Station and
RO Feed & Permeate Lines
Impact of RO System Recovery on

Performance
Impact of RO Permeate Flux on System

Performance
Additional Source Seawater Factors

Affecting SWRO Performance
Turbidity increase above 0.1 NTU will likely cause

RO fouling
Silt & Colloidal Content SDI above 4 likely to

shorten RO membrane cleaning cycle
Organic Content TOC increase above 2 mg/L likely

to cause biofouling
Oil & Grease levels above 0.1 mg/L would foul the
membranes
Strong Oxidants ORP levels > 220 mV will damage

membranes
Diagnostics of
Membrane Fouling
Types of Foulants
Naturally Occurring Colloidal and

Particulate Matter
Coagulant Post-Precipitation
Organic Adsorption
Scaling of Sparingly Soluble Salts
Biological
Diagnostics of Membrane
Fouling
Biofilm is Slippery
When A Sample Is
Collected &
Incinerated
It Smells Like Burnt
Hair!
How Do We Guess What

Fouling Do We Have?
Dominant Type of RO
Fouling
Permeate
Flow
Salt
Passage
Biofouling
Organic Fouling
(i.e., Oil, Cationic Polymers)
Colloidal Fouling
Scaling
Key Steps
of Plant
Performance
Analysis
Differential
Pressure
Normalizing RO
System Performance
RO System Performance
Permeate Flow and Temperature
1100
25
1050
20
15
Temperature
950
10
900
Permeate Flow
850
Date
4/29/00
4/9/00
3/20/00
2/9/00
2/29/00
0
1/20/00
800
Temperature (C)
1000
1/0/00
Permeate Flow (m3/hr)
Normalized
Permeate Flow

(NPF)
NPF = Qp x TCF25 C x
(NDP initial/NDPpresent) x MC
Qp permeate flow measured at ambient temperature
TCF 25 C temperature correction factor provided by
membrane manufacturer;
1
TCF 25 C =
( T 25C)
1.03
NDPinitial net driving pressure during initial operations (first 48 hrs)
NDPpresent - net driving pressure at the time of measurement
MC membrane compaction factor (usually MC = 1)
Net Driving Pressure (NDP)

Trans-membrane Pressure
(Pressure Drop) Pd = 2.0 bars
Feed Pressure = Pf = 65 bars
Permeate Pressure =
Pp = 1.1 bars
NDPavg .= Pf -Pp - 0.5 Pd 0.5 (Po + Pc)

= 65 1.1 0.5 x 2.0 0.5x( 29.8 + 59.4) = 18.3 bars
Po = Osmotic Pressure of Source Water

= (TDSf/1,000) x 0.851 =
= (35,000 mg/l/1,000 mg/L) x 0.851 = 29.8 bars
Pc = Osmotic Pressure of
Concentrate
= (TDSc/1,000) x 0.851 =
= (69,800 mg/l/1,000) x 0.851
= 59.4 bars
Pressure Drop (Pd)
(Pd = Feed Concentrate Pressure)

Calculate Daily
Prepare Graph At Least Weekly
Increase of Operating Pressure Drop at the
Same Operating Conditions Indicates Fouling
When Pressure Drop Reaches 10 to 15 % or
Reaches Prescribed Value (1.5 to 2.0 bars) the
RO System Should be Chemically Cleaned
Normalized Salt Passage

(NSP) & Pressure Drop (NPD)
SP = 100 x TDSp/TDSf
NSP = SPpresent x FL present/FL initial

FL permeate flux
Normalized Pressure Drop = PD initial x
(Qf initial/Qf present) 1.4

PD pressure drop
Qf average feed flow
RO Operating Parameters for Monitoring

and Normalizing Performance
Permeate
CONDUCTIVITY
PRESSURE
FLOW
Feed
FLOW
TEMPERATURE
pH
TURBIDIDTY & SDI
CONDUCTIVITY
(Salinity)
PRESSURE
3
4
Normalized parameters
Normalized permeate flow
Normalized specific flux
Normalized salt passage
Normalized pressure drop
INTERSTAGE
PRESSURE
PRESSURE DROP 1
PRESSURE DROP 2
5
Concentrate
CONDUCTIVITY
PRESSURE
FLOW
How Often Should NPF be

Determined?
Calculate Net Permeate Flow Daily
Prepare Graph At Least Weekly
Each Subsequent Measurement Should Be

Compared to NPF at Start Up
When NPF Drops 10 to 15 % the RO System

Should be Chemically Cleaned
Normalization Software
Optimizing Performance with

Changing Seawater Water Quality
Water Quality
Parameter
What Typically
Causes the Change?
Rain Events
Salinity
River Discharges
(Conductivity) Wastewater
Discharges
Temperature
Rain Events
Seasonal Variations
Wastewater
Discharges
Pretreatment
Changes
pH
Freshwater
Discharges
Recommended Performance
Optimization Actions
If TDS decreases, decrease feed pressure
until TDS increases to max limit
If TDS increases, increase feed pressure or
decrease recovery
If temperature increases, decrease feed
pressure until permeate TDS reaches
maximum limit
Temperatures < 12C will increase feed
pressure exponentially
Temperatures > 45C will damage the RO
membranes
If pH drops below 6 adjust it to at least 6.5
(or 8.5 in the case of boron removal) by
feeding NaOH
If pH increases above 9, use antiscalant
Most RO membranes can only operate in a
range of 3 to 11

Recommended Control/
Troubleshooting Actions
Water Quality
Parameter
What Typically
Causes the Change?
Turbidity (NTU)
- Measure
continuously
(preferred)
Rain Events
River & Wastewater
Discharges
Ship Traffic
Algal Blooms
If turbidity increases more than 20 %, then

measure SDI
If SDI > 4 then increase coagulant dosage
Silt & Colloids

- Measure SDI
at least daily.
Rain Events
River & WW
Discharges
Ship Traffic
Algal Blooms
If SDI increases > 4 then increase

coagulant dosage
Alternatively, reduce pretreatment filter
loading rate/plant production
Oil & Grease

- Measure as
needed
Rain Events
Oil Spills
Ship Traffic
Increase coagulant dosage

Reduce plant capacity or discontinue plant
operations
OxidationChlorination for
Reduction
biofouling control
Potential (ORP)
Industrial discharges
measure cont.
Add sodium bisulfate to reduce ORP of feed

seawater water
Reduce chlorine feed dosage
Optimizing Plant Design
Optimizing RO System Performance
Large SWRO Trains

Large RO Membrane Elements
Alternative RO Train Configurations
Internally Staged Design
Evolving SWRO Membrane

Performance
Larger Membrane Element Area: 440 sq ft vs.

400 sq ft (41 vs. 37 m)
Larger RO Element Productivity: 9000 to

12,500 gpd (41 to 57 m3/d)
Improved Salt Rejection: 99.7 to 99.8 %
Increased Boron Rejection: 90 to 93 %
Wider Membrane Spacers: 28 mil vs. 34 mil

(0.70 vs. 0.85 mm)
Large SWRO Membrane Elements

Large Size RO Membranes Advantages
Potential Space Savings 10 to 15 %.
Capital Cost Savings 5 to 10 %.
Total Cost of Water Savings 4 to 6 %
Standard 8 RO Membrane Element
16 RO Membrane Element
Potential Disadvantages
Loading Requires Special Equipment
and Extra Space
Uneven Flow Distribution
Accelerated Fouling
Special Vessels Needed
16-inch Elements Key

Manufacturers & Models
Projects with Large RO Elements
Large Element Space Savings

Could Be Elusive!
Brackish Desalination
Plant
Yuma, Arizona
12-inch RO Elements
Large Space Needed
For the Machine
For Element Loading!
Optimizing Performance by
Redistributing Flux/Energy
Flux of First Element Can Be Reduced by:
1. Increase in Permeate Pressure:
Permeate Pressure Control Valve;
Permeate Interconnector Disk (Acciona).
2. Inter-stage Design:
Low Permeability/High
Permeability Membrane
Combo.
3. Decrease in Feed Pressure:

Two Pass RO System
w/ Interstage Booster Pump;
Nano-Nano Configuration.
Conventional RO
Feed
Seawater
Second
(Brackish RO)
Pass
HP Pump
First (SWRO) Pass
Permeate
Flux is Proportional to the Difference of the Feed and Permeate Pressure
Booster Pump
Concentrate First Pass to ER

Concentrate Second Pass
Split Regulated First Pass RO System Configuration
Smaller
Second
(Brackish
RO) Pass
HP
Pump
First (SWRO) Pass

Plug
Smaller
Booster Pump
Concentrate First Pass to ER

Permeate
20% to 40% of Total Permeate
Feed
Seawater
Internally Staged Design (1-1-5)

Element Flow at Standard Test Conditions
~22.7
m3/d
~28.4
m3/d
~41.6
m3/d
Compared to standard SWRO design, ISD SWRO offers:

- Higher average permeate flux with same lead element flux
- Good permeate quality
- Energy Savings - 5% - 10%
Courtesy: Dow Chemical
High Productivity/
Low Rejection
Feed
Seawater
Internally-Staged Design
(ISD)
Second
(Brackish
RO) Pass
HP Pump
Lower Feed
Pressure
Booster Pump
Permeate
Low Productivity/
High Rejection
Concentrate to ER
ISD + Split Regulated RO System Configuration
Smallest
Second
(Brackish
RO)) Pass
HP Pump
Lowest Feed
Pressure
First SWRO Pass
Smallest
Booster Pump
Concentrate to ER
Permeate
20% to 40% of Total Permeate
Feed
Seawater
Reducing the Feed Pressure to Combat Fouling

Point Lisas SWRO Plant, Trinidad
TDS = 35 ppt
TDS =
85 mg/L
Reducing Plant Recovery to Combat

Fouling & Decrease Energy Use
Usually Designing &

Operating Plant for
Recovery
Below 40 %
Dramatically Reduces
Fouling
Plants Designed for

Low Recovery is
Easier to Operate but
Require 15 to 20 %
Higher Capital
Expenditures
Minimum Energy Use

& RO Fouling Usually
Can Be Achieved @
Recoveries Between
35 % and 39 %.
Energy Savings for

Operating at Lower
Recoveries Could be
As High as 30 %.

Pelton Wheel
Pressure Exchanger
Provides 40 - 42 % of the Energy
Why Use Larger RO Trains?

Economies of Scale
Reduced High Quality Stainless Steel Costs for

Piping and Valves
Faster Installation
Expedited Commissioning
Limited Benefits if Plant Has to Be Designed for
Large Turn-down of Production
Optimizing Boron Removal
High Boron Rejection RO

Membranes;
(Boron Removal ~ 90 to 93 %);
Split Partial Second RO Pass;
pH Increase of RO Feed Seawater;
Multiple RO Stage Design.
Boron Rejection of RO Membranes
RO System Configurations for

Enhanced Boron Removal
B<
0.5
mg/L
NaOH
+ NaOH
B = 0.8 1.0 mg/L
NaOH
B=
0.5 1.0 mg/L
NaOH
B = 0.5 0.75 mg/L
B < 0.4 mg/L
NaOH
Collection of Permeate From Both

Ends of RO Vessels & Second Pass
Ashkelon, Israel A Four-Stage RO

System
Treatment Target:
Boron < 0.4 mg/L
Optimization of Energy
Efficiency
Optimisation of Energy Efficiency

Global Approach
1 Data collection
Water characteristics
Plant characteristics, PID
Treatment consent
List of processes & motors
2 On-site detailed
energy audit
Measurements of the
absorbed power of
motors
MacroDiagnosis
3 Repartition & variations

of energy consumption
Assess major
indicators
Global Benchmarking
Compare theoretical
to real consumption
External
benchmarking
Recommendations Detailed process

analysis
6 Optimisation of
5 In-depth
analysis of
operation (motors, etc.)
Replacement
Cost analysis
energy consumers
Process modeling and
monitoring
Detailed On-Site Energy Audit
Main tasks of the energy audit

Measurement of the absorbed
power of all motors
On-line measurement of power
consumption of selected motors
Installation of sub-metering
equipment for selected treatment
processes
Special focus on pumping
station, aeration, mixing, sludge
treatment, ventilation & odour
treatment
On-line control of energy consumption
Example: Pressure-Driven
Ultrafiltration
Results, recommendations and expected saving
Pumps
concentrate
extraction
Back
3%
washing
pumps
6%
Booster
pumps
12%
Pumps
mixing
PAC
4%
Mixers
1.3% Mixers
1.4%
UF
23010
Wh/m3
Change the mode of

operation to dead end
filtration: 150 MWh/yr
Review the choice of
booster pumps (not
optimal design) and use
synchronous HPM
motors: >60 MWh/yr
Replace pumps for
Remixing by mixers
circulation
pumps
70%
875% pumping cost
Efficiency in Water Reuse Plants
Ulu Pandan Recycling Plant, Singapore (148,000 m3/d)
*ERD: turbo boost, a direct coupled impeller to transfer hydraulic energy from
the concentrate stream of the second stage to the feed of the second stage
Advanced Purification Facility, Orange County, CA (265,000+114,000 m3/d)
Efficiency in Water Reuse Plants
Lesson learned: energy saving membranes perform as well as

low fouling membranes
GWRS Orange County ERD:

182,000 kWh/yr expected
Ulu Pandan ERD:

Energy saving of 6.5%
on pumping energy
Membrane Integrity Tests
How to Ensure High Efficiency

and Reliability of Operation?
Proper operation of
membrane pretreatment
and chemical dosing can
ensure stable operation of
the RO system and
reduce chemical cleaning
frequency
Lower power consumption

can be achieved at lower
feed salinity, flux and
recovery
Assessment of MF/RO Performance

in Water Reuse: MF Membranes
Normalized Trans-Membrane Pressure (TMP)
Pressure Decay or Membrane Integrity tests
Silt Density Index
On-line Measurement of Turbidity
1.72
1.03
0.69
0.345
TMP, bar
1.38
Integrity Testing for UF/MF

SDI
UF&MF Membrane Integrity

Monitoring
On-line monitoring: Pressure Decay Test

Acoustic Sensing (manual)
Bubble Point Test (manual)
Pressure Decay Test & Log

Removal Value monitoring of 4
MF units: one faulty unit
Assessment of MF/RO Performance

in Water Reuse: MF Membranes
3.0
2.5
Koch
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1 year
Specific Flux, L/m.h.bar
Specific Flux (Permeability)

Normalized Differential Pressure
Normalized Permeate Conductivity
Conductivity Profile
Individual Vessel (Stage) Permeate Flow
Water Quality Analysis
The Two Most Common Problems
Membrane Integrity
Loss
Membrane Fouling
Initial Diagnostics Steps
Review Normalized Plant Performance Data

Determine if problem is:
Review Membrane Maintenance History
Instantaneous (startup) - Instrumentation or Mechanical

Gradual Membrane Fouling or Degradation/Damage
Excessive Salt Passage (i.e., Low Salt Rejection)
Reduced Plant Production or Increased Feed Pressure
Cleaning Frequency & Chemicals
Membrane Change-outs
Past Problems w/ Equipment & Source Water Quality
Check Instrumentation and Calibration History
RO Membrane System
Diagnostics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Check Feed Water Quality have, TDS, pH,

Temperature, ORP, TSS, TOC and Algal Content
Changed?
Check Whether Pretreatment Performance/Mode of
Operation Have Changed?
Remove Front & End (Tail) RO Elements for Inspection
Measure Element Weight Fouling will Show as
Measurable Weight Increase
Compare w/Ex-factory Test Results
If Salt Passage Has Increased, Check for Integrity
Breach
Membrane Integrity Diagnostics

A two Step Process
1. Complete a
Pressure Vessel
Conductivity
Profile
To Find the Problem
Vessel
2. Probe the Problem

Vessel
to Identify
the Location
of the Problem/s
Vessel Conductivity Profile

6 RO Elements/Vessel
Concentrate
25
49
Feed
24
224
118
RO Feed Pump
High TDS
Product
Initially Complete Profiling of Each RO Train in 24 to 48 hrs from Startup to

Establish Baseline Record
Do a Complete Conductivity Profile Every 6 Months
Permeate Conductivity of All Vessels Should be About the Same
Remove Elements from High Conductivity Vessels and Inspect o-rings,

Adapters, Interconnectors, and Elements
Vessel Probing
Probe vessels that show higher than expected conductivity
Move element position (maintain interconnector position)
Re-probe
Vessel Probing Test
Insertion of tubing into permeate tubes to determine

conductivity levels along length of vessel
Points of higher conductivity indicate leakage areas
Need to determine whether o-ring leakage or

element leakage is the cause
Marked Tubing Essential for

Successful Probing
Distances from Permeate Plug to Each O-ring Measured!

Sample Tubing Marked at These Distances.
Probing Procedure
Permeate Plug Removed from the End Cap and Tubing

Is Inserted through Length of the Vessel
Probe Tubing Is Pushed Along the Length of the Vessel
Move End to First Sampling Point
Measure Conductivity Until Stable (1-2 min)
Move to Next Mark, etc.
Combined salinity in pressure vessel
Salinity ppm TDS
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
Element position
SWC RO elements
Probing Example SWRO
RO Probing
RO Integrity Testing
Vacuum Hold Test
Vacuum Hold Test: the only direct integrity test

for RO Membranes
Recommended before installation to verify integrity

Element evacuated to 100-300 mbar absolute pressure
A rapid decay (>100 mbar/min pressure
increase) indicates leak presence
Optimization of RO Flux /Energy

Inter-stage boost pump

RO elements with wider spacers
Energy recovery
New technologies: Graham Tech high flux, 16-inch RO
elements/electromagnetic biofouling control process
Interstage booster pump on

the concentrate line
16 elements
Cleaning of RO Membranes
Why Do We Have to Do RO
Membrane Cleaning?
To Protect the Useful Life and Performance

of the Membranes
Dissolve and Remove Inorganic Scales
Dislodge and Remove Particulates
Break Down and Remove Microbial Biofilm
Optimisation of RO Membrane
Cleaning: When to Clean
The normalised flow decreases by 10%,

The pressure drop increases by 10-15%, and/or
The normalised salt passage increases by 5-10%
Optimisation of WWRO Membrane

Cleaning: How to Clean ?
A wrong choice can aggravate scaling and fouling problems
Acids for scaling
Hycrochloric acid, citric acid, phosphoric or sulfamic acid
Alkaline for biological fouling (0.5-1% Na-EDTA + 0.1%

NaOH)
Alkaline with detergent for organic fouling (0.1% NaOH +
0.025% Na-DSS, sodium salt of dodecylsufate)
Frequently both alkaline and acid cleanings are required
(always high pH first, low pH as a second step)
Scaling
Permeate
backpressure
damage
Compaction
Cleaning Process
RO Cleanup Skid
10-micron
Clean-up Filter
Pump
RO Clean-up
Tank
RO Stage
Typical
5,000 gal
Concentrate
Permeate
Cleaning Solution Volume Requirement per RO Element

(these volumes do not include volumes required for piping, filters, etc)
(these volumes do not include initial 20% of volume dumped to drain)
Element Size
Normal
Fouling
(Gallons)
Heavy
Fouling
(Gallons)
Normal
Fouling
(Liters)
Heavy
Fouling
(Liters)
4 x 40 inches
2.5
9.5
19
6 x 40 inches
10
19
38
8 x 40 inches
18
34
68
8.5 x 40 inches
10
20
38
76
Cleaning Process Conditions

Hydranautics pH and Temperature Limits for Cleaning
(See Table 3 for target pH and temperatures)
Membrane
45 C (113 F)
35 C (95 F)
30 C (86 F)
CPA
2-10
2-12
2-12
ESPA
2-10
2-12
2-12
LFC
2-10
2-12
2-12
SWC
2-10
2-11
2-12
ESNA
3-10
2-12
2-12
Cleaning and Flushing Flow Rates per RO Pressure Tube

(Pressures are not to exceed 60 psi (4 bar) at inlet to tubes.)
Elem ent Diam eter
GPM
LPM
4-inches
6 to 10
23 to 38
6-inches
12 to 20
46 to 76
8-inches
24 to 40
91 to 151
8.5-inches
27 to 45
102 to 170
Cleaning Chemicals
Problem
Inorganic Scale
Typical pH
Low pH
2 to 3
Typical Cleaning Agents

Citric Acid
Hydrochloric Acid
Phosphoric Acid
Sulfamic (not sulfuric) Acid.
High pH
10.5 to 12
Caustic Soda (NaOH) & Sodium

Dodecylsulfate
Organic Fouling &

Biofouling
High pH
10.5 to 12
Caustic Soda (NaOH) & Sodium

Dodecylsulfate or
Sodium Ethylene Diamine
Tetraacetic Acid (EDTA) or
Sodium Triphosphate
Iron Complexed w/
Organics
Low pH
4 to 4.5
Silt & Particulates
Silica
No Adjustment
Citric Acid pH Adjusted w/

Ammonia
Ammonium Bifloride
Concluding Remarks
Analyzing Plant Performance (Normalized Flow, Salt

Passage & Pressure Drop) Weekly is Critical
Understanding What is the Optimum Performance

Point in Terms of Production & Recovery for Which the
Plant Was Designed is Critical
Plant Production Capacity Can be Increased at the

Expense of Using More Energy
Designing & Operating Plants at Low Recovery

Reduces Energy Use and Fouling
<40% SWRO, <85% WWRP
Preventive Maintenance, Integrity Tests and
Adequate Cleaning are Critical
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
and Troubleshooting
09:30-10:30
Plant Monitoring and

Troubleshooting
Valentina LAZAROVA
Desalination and Water Reuse Plant

Monitoring and Troubleshooting - Outline
Operating Practices in Water Reuse and

Desalination
RO Systems Monitoring
RO Membrane Fouling: Potential Impacts, Causes

& Remedies
Failure Modes and Membrane Fouling in Water

Reuse
Failure Modes of Desalination Pretreatment
Operating Practices
in Water Reuse and
Desalination
What Do We Monitor at Desalination

and Water Reuse Plants?
Production Flow & Product Water Quality
Energy Use
Chemical Use
Frequency of Membrane Cleaning and

Replacement
Compliance with Regulatory Requirements:
Product Water Quality & Quantity

Concentrate Discharge Quality & Quantity
Worker Safety
Compliance with Permits and Regulations
Factors Affecting Plant

Performance
Changes in Source Water Quality
Normal Wear & Tear of Membranes, Cartridges,

Equipment & Instrumentation
Failure of Pretreatment
Membrane and Equipment Failures
Operator Errors
Changes in Regulatory Requirements
Monitoring to Capture Trouble?

Parameter
Monitoring Locations
Monitoring Frequency
Flow (flowmeters)
Feed
Permeate / % Recovery
Concentrate (difference)
Continuous
Pressure (pressure
sensors)
Feed
Concentrate
Permeate
Interstage
Continuous
Pressure Drop
Feed to concentrate
Continuous
Conductivity
Feed, Permeate &

Concentrate
Continuous
TDS Concentration
Feed, Permeate and
(Typically 0.5 to 0.75 of
Finished Water
Conductivity in S/cm)
Weekly/Monthly to
Check Relationship
Between TDS &
Conductivity
Flow Measurement
Magnetic flowmeters
most widely used today
Low-conductivity (< 20
S/cm) permeate
stream flow is
measured with vortex
shedding meters
Rotameters used for

small plants not as
accurate
Calibration at least
once per year
Feed Flow (Qf) =
Permeate Flow (Qp) +
Concentrate Flow (Qc)
Recovery = Qp/Qf
Recommended
Accuracy 0.5 % of the
reading
Pressure Measurement
Pressure Gauges
(Bourdon tube type)
used for local indication
(low accuracy)
Electronic Pressure
Transmitters 10 times
higher accuracy
( 0.1 % of span)
Differential Pressure
Transmitters
(diaphragm-actuated)
Monitor:
Feed Pressure (Pf)

Differential Pressure (P
Across the RO Stage) =
Pf Pc
Typically P = 10 to 25 psi
Conductivity Measurement
On-line sensors
Measurement Points:
Hand-held instruments
Calibration frequency:
monthly
Mixed Permeate
Individual RO Trains
Individual RO Vessels
Performance Parameters:
% Salt Rejection SR =
((Cf Cp)/Cf ) x 100 (90 95%)
Percent Salt Passage SP =

(Cp/Cf) x 100 = 1- SR
Minimum Source Water Monitoring

Requirements - Desalination
Daily:
Source and Pretreatment System Turbidity

SDI Before and After Cartridge Filters
Intake and Product Water Flowrates
Source and Product Water Conductivities
Source and RO Feed ORPs
Weekly or During Rain & Other Unusual Events (i.e.,

Algal Blooms) or Operational Changes: - pH, TOC & Oil
& Grease
Monthly heavy metals, pathogens
Water Quality Monitoring in

On-line
Daily
Turbidity, conductivity, pH, temperature, chlorine residual,

UV absorbance
Flow rate, salt rejection, membrane integrity testing, UV
intensity
SDI before and after cartridge filters

Physical-chemical (TOC, BOD, COD, TSS, TDS, N, P) and
microbiological parameters according to permits
Weekly or Monthly (according to permits)
Organics, oil & grease, surfactants, asbestos, radioactivity,

hexavalent chromium, phenol and pharmaceuticals/EDCs
RO System Monitoring
Common Operational Problems

of RO Plants
1.
Loss of Productivity
2.
Loss of Salt Rejection
3.
Fouling and/or scaling due to (1) faulty pretreatment ,

(2) poor source water quality or (3) inadequate operation
Due to physical and/or chemical damage
Others: increase in energy consumption, etc.
What Could Happen to the

RO Membranes?
Loss of Productivity
Fouling first &

second elements
Scaling last two
elements
Use of More Energy

to Produce the Same
Permeate Flow
Integrity Loss due to

Physical and/or Chemical
Damage
Permanent Physical
Damage
Excessive Feed Pressure

Excessive Backpressure
Excessive Differential
Pressure (Pressure Drop)
Loss of Membrane Integrity

Caused
by Damage of:
- Membrane O-rings
- Brine Seals
- Envelope glue connections
- Membrane Leaf Material:
Punctures
Backpressure
Contact with Oxidant
Key Impacts of Damages:
Loss of Productivity and/or

Permanent Physical Destruction
What Could Cause Increased Salt

Passage?
(#1 Cause Incomplete Oxidant Removal)
# 2 Cause Water Hammer - Typically Occurs After

Membrane Replacement/Cleaning or Abrupt Power
Shutdown:
Broken Brine Seals
Broken O-ring Connectors
# 3 Cause - Defective Membrane Leaf Glue Connections

# 4 Cause - Membrane Puncture by Sharp Objects/Debris
Increase In Permeate
Conductivity/Salt Passage
Diagnostics
Check Feed Seawater ORP/Temperature

Prepare Conductivity Profiles to Find Problem
Vessels
Compare With Historical Data of That Train
and Others
Potential Solutions
Replace Brine Seals or O-rings If Damaged

Replace RO Membranes If Oxidized
Conduct CIP If Fouling is the Prime Cause
High Salt Passage Due to Excessive

Permeate Back-pressure
Membrane De-lamination May Occur
When
Permeate Pressure Exceeds Concentrate
Pressure by
More than 0.3 bar (5 psi)
What Could Cause Loss of

Membrane Productivity
No. 1 Cause Hydraulic Surge
No. 2 Oil, Hydrocarbons or Other Dense

Substances in the Source Water
Visible Effects:
RO Element Telescoping
RO Element Collapse/Breakage
Telescoping of RO Element
Due to Hydraulic Surge
Extruded brine spacer
Collapse of RO Element
Due to Hydraulic Surge
Extruded brine spacer
RO Membrane Fouling
Potential Impacts,
Causes & Remedies
Decrease In Permeate Flow

(#1 Cause Lower Temperature)
(#2 Cause Fouling/Scaling)
Diagnostics
Measure SDI Before & After Cartridge Filters

Check Feed Temperature & TDS Lower
Temperature and Higher TDS will Result in Lower
Permeate Flow @ the Same Feed Pressure
Check for Fouling Inspect Lead RO Element for
Fouling & Debris.
Potential Solutions:
Increase RO Feed Pressure if Feed T is Low

Conduct CIP if Fouling Caused Productivity Loss
Apply Fouling Reduction Measures
Increase in Pressure Drop

(#1 Cause Fouling)
Diagnostics

Check Overall System Recovery. If the System is
Operating at Lower Recovery & the Same
Product Flow Pressure Drop Increase is Normal
Fouling & Debris
Decrease Feed Flow Increases Recovery

Conduct CIP
Decrease in Interval Between

Two CIPs or Ineffective CIP
Diagnostics
Fouling & Debris
Contact RO Membrane Manufacturer to Discuss
Alternative Cleaning Chemicals
Reduce RO System Flux & Recovery
Types of Foulants
Naturally Occurring Colloidal and

Particulate Matter
Coagulant Post-Precipitation
Organic Adsorption
Scaling of Sparingly Soluble Salts
Biological
How Do We Find What Type

of Fouling We Have?
Discolorization & Odor of First Element
SDI Pad Appearance

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
Energy Dispersive X-Ray Analysis (EDX)
Loss on Ignition Test
Discolorization - Particulate Fouling

on Spiral Wound Element
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

Fouling Caused by Over-dozing of
Ferric Chloride
Silica Fouling
Low Permeate Flow Frequent

Result from Coagulant Overdose
How Can I Reduce Colloidal

Fouling in My RO System?
Target Filter Performance
SDI (< 3 preferred)

Turbidity (< 0.1 preferred)
Particle Counts (<100 of 2 m particles/mL)
Optimize Your Media Filtration

Improve Coagulant Mixing
Consider Media Change
Optimize Coagulant Dose
Reduce Pretreatment Filter Loading Rate
Biofouling # 1 Cause for Productivity

Loss/Feed Pressure Increase
Depends of the Type and Source of Organics in the
Water Mainly of Algal & Alluvial Origin
EPS Extracellular
Polymeric Substances
Failure Modes and

Membrane Fouling in
Water Reuse
How to Improve Operation to

Decrease Rate of Fouling ?
Non optimized Operation
Optimized Operation with intermediate booster
Permeate Flow per element
(m3/h)
1.2
Maximum Recommended
Permeate Flow per element
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Elements in Second Stage
Elements in First Stage
0
0
10 11 12
High flux
operation
favors fouling
Smoother
operation with
compensated
fluxes
13 14
Element Position
Non-optimized operation: First element of the first stage

operates at a high flux increasing risk of fast fouling
Failure Modes of RO Systems

Membrane Autopsy
RO autopsy: the most common way to
understand the causes of the loss of
membrane permeability and flux
To allow evaluating both membrane
polymer condition and foulant nature
Main Purposes of RO
Membrane Autopsy
Visual inspection and test of membrane integrity

Estimate membrane permeability and rejection
properties using a flat sheet test rig
Observations by electronic microscopy of the state
of the polymer and deposits
Characterization of deposits
Fourier Transmission by Infrared (FTIR)
X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy
(XPS)
scanning electron microscope (SEM)
connected to energy dispersive X-ray
analysis (EDAX)
Magnetic Nuclear Resonance
X-Ray Difraction
Flat sheet test rig
Fouling of RO Membranes in
Water Reuse Systems
Clean Poliamide
RO Membrane
Bacteria
Particulate/Colloidal
Deposits
Influence of Membrane Position

on Membrane Fouling
Deposits
1st stage
2nd stage
Influence of Membrane Position

Particulate/Colloidal Fouling
Highest amount of organic deposits is observed on the feed

end of the first membrane
Fibrous
deposits
Biofouling is Predominant
Pathology in Water Reuse Systems

Biofilm development is often observed despite MF or UF
pre-treatment and biocide addition
Major cause: improper pre-treatment
and/or operation (chemical dosing)
3296
1652
Absorbance
Biofilm <104 cfu/cm

does not affect
membrane performance
1068
1040
2919
1544
2851
View of heavy biofouling
4000
3000
2000
1500
1000
Wave numbers cm-1
Infrared spectrum of the fine layer showing

the predominance of proteins
500
Specific Wastewater Pathology

Calcium Phosphate Deposit
Calcium phosphate fouling
Unusual foulant until recently, characteristic of wastewater
membrane (last stage of RO membranes, after MF or UF)
Major cause: high phosphate concentrations in wastewater
Thin deposit layer that dramatically affect membrane
permeability (-50% at 6 hours)
Calcium
phosphate
is the most
insoluble of
calcium
salts
50-200 m amorphous
non crystalline mat
SEM-EDAX micrograph of calcium phosphate deposit

Source: Bele, 2009
Increase in phosphorus concentration leads to

increasing risk of RO fouling
Recommended P-PO4 concentration below 1 mgP/L

Colloidal fouling of RO membranes following

MF/UF pretreatment poses a serious
challenge to economical and reliable peration
of large membrane plants
Variations of pH, calcium and phosphate concentrations in

water recycling facilities
Co-Fouling of Inorganic and

Organic Compounds
Ca2+ can increase the severity of organic fouling

Dominant organic foulants: humic and neutral fractions
Recommended DOC level <6 mg/L (dissolved organic carbon)
Urban wastewater
SEM-EDX* images
of fouling layers
Industrial wastewater
*Scanning
electron microscope (SEM)
coupled with Thermo Scientific
EDX spectrometer
Source: Antony et al., 2012)
Main Causes of RO Membrane

Fouling in Water Reuse
Statistical data of a survey of MF/RO trains for 5-year period:
51% of failure events and fouling resulted from deficient
pre-treatment
Chemical dosing problems are the second important cause
Membrane Autopsies 2001-2006. Main cause of failures detected.
12%
2%
Plant recovery & Anti-scalant
dosage issues
Dose of chemicals (flocculant,
coagulants)
51%
Issues on cleaning pr ocedures
30%
Oxidation pr ocesses
Source: Lazarova et al., 2007
Deficient pretr eatment

5%
Operational Problems of MF & UF

Membrane Systems
Membrane clogging and fouling
Faulty pre-treatment
Failure in operation (due to poor water quality

of faulty auxiliary equipment, e.g. valve, flow
meters, etc)
Faulty & damaged membranes or modules

Sieve clogging
Broken fibers
MF module:
Manufacturing
potting
defect
Other Failures and

Operational Traps
Faulty storage basin
liners before MF or
RO membranes
Storage basin before UF

with faulty liner
Cartridge filter housing with liner

debrits
Damaged cartridge filters
Failure Modes and Membrane

Fouling in Desalionation
Desalination Plant Pretreatment

System Troubleshooting
Use the of ClO2 Instead of Chlorine to Control Biogrowth

(Tampa, FL & Carboneras, Spain)
Do Not Use Chloramines for Pretreatment of SWRO Systems!
Do Not Overdose Coagulant It Will Increase SDI Greatly &

Shorten the Life of the Cartridge Filters!
Complete Mixing of Coagulant With Source Seawater Is

Essential Avoid Direct Filtration!
Membrane Pretreatment Has Advantages and Limitations!
Use of 20- vs. 5- Cartridge Filters (Larnaka, Cyprus;

Ashkelon, Israel; Huntington Beach, CA)
Controlling Oxidants in
Seawater
Most-stable Sodium Bisulfite (SBS) Solution

40 %
3.66 ppm of Sodium Bisulfite Needed to

Neutralize 1 ppm of Free Chlorine
Add After Cartridge Filters & Before

Antiscalant Injection Point (Some
Antiscalants are Oxidized by Free Chlorine)
Watch Out for Ammonia/Bromamines in the

Source Water
Alluvial-Organics Based
Fouling
Food Source NOM from Alluvial

Aquifers/Rivers or WWTP Discharges
humic & fulvic acids
TOC > 2.0 mg/L
DOC usually < 50 % of TOC
UV254 > 0.5 cm-1
Chlorophyll a > 0.5 g/L
Algal Count < 2000 cells/mL
How Can I Reduce Biofouling

in My RO System?
Pretreatment
Prevent Formation of Assimilable Organic Carbon

(AOC)
DAF treatment before RO

Use gravity and low pressure membrane filtration
Install carbon cap on the filter surface
Avoid Continuous Chlorination/Dechlorination

Use Shock Chlorine Dosing as Needed
Disinfect Lines
Chemical Prevention of Biofouling - Bactericides
DBNPA Non Oxidizing chemical
Chlorination Main Biofouling

Control Practice Used Today
Intermittent Chlorination Much More

Effective 5 to 15 mg/L @ 1 3 times/week
for 4-6 hrs/day
Bacteria Can
Create
Protective
Capsules
to Survive
Continuous
Chlorination
34mil
Clearance A of 34mil is 20% wider than 28mils
Filament
Flow
Use of Wider Spacer Helps Reduce

Colloidal Fouling
Particle
28mil
RO Membrane Mineral
Scaling
Impacts of Membrane Mineral Scaling
Reduces Permeate Flow

Increases Differential Pressure
Has Very Little Impact on Salt Passage
Usually Occurs on the Last Two RO

Elements
Scale is Formed As a Result of Precipitation

of Salts on the Membrane Surface
Key Scaling Compounds in SWRO

Systems Ca & Mg Salts
RO Element Scaling with

Clacium Sulfate
Antiscalants with Successful

Track Record
PermaTreat PC-191 (Nalco):
Lowest biofouling
Flocon 295 N (BWA) attacks Mg (OH)2;

CaSO4 & CaCO3 and works at relativley high
pH
Flocon 135 and 190 (BWA) no interactions

with coagulant
Vitec 5100 (Avista)
Algal Blooms Typical Cause

of Biofouling in SWRO
Food Source
Polysaccharides From Dead
Algae
TOC > 2.0 mg/L
DOC usually > 80 % of TOC
UV254 < 0.5 cm-1
Chlorophyll a > 1.0 g/L
Algal Count > 2000 cells/mL
How Can I Prevent Scale

Formation in My RO System?
Measure Magnesium to Calcium Ratio in Source

Seawater:
If Mg : Ca < 3.3 Antiscalant Not Needed

If Mg : Ca Ratio > 3.3 for More than One Week Begin
Antiscalant Addition (Recommended to Use PC-98 from Nalco)
Always Add Antiscalant Downstream of the Point of

Sodium Bisulfite Addition Many Antiscalants are
Oxidized by Chlorine
Rotate Membrane Elements Every 6 to 12 Months

Back Elements to the Front
Other Mineral Scaling

Reduction Approaches
Reduce First Pass RO System Recovery to

Less than 40 %
Feed Sulfuric Acid of Dosage of 25 to 30

mg/L When Temperature > 35 C
Adjust pH to between 11.0 and 11.3 to Feed

of the Second Pass
CONCLUSIONS
Monitoring & Troubleshooting
The Golden Rules:
1. Do Not Take Chances Monitor Water Quality & Performance Daily!
2. Biofouling Is Typically the Cause of Most RO System Problems!
3. Involve Equipment Suppliers In the Selection of Coagulants, Antiscalants
and Cleaning Chemicals!
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
and Troubleshooting
10:45-12:00
Desalination Plant
Case Studies
Nikolay VOUTCHKOV,
PE, BCEE
Two Case Studies
95,000 m/d Tampa Bay Seawater

Desalination Plant, Florida - Largest
in the USA
140,000 m3/d Fujairah SWRO Plant,

UAE
Tampa Bay SWRO Plant
Fresh Water Production Capacity = 95,000 m/d
Tampa Challenges & Solutions
Tampa Project Background
95,000 m/d (25 MGD) Seawater Desalination Plant

Located at Tampa Electric Power Generation
Station
Main Desal Plant Intake Connected to Power Plant

Discharge Outfalls
Intake Water Salinity = 22 to 34 ppt (avg. 26 ppt)
Product Water Salinity = 200 mg/L
Tampa Bay Plant Key Statistics

Parameter
Value
Capacity m3/d
(collocated)
95,000
Date
Commissioned
Jan 2008
(2002 original)
Pretreatment
System
Recovery
42 %
(55 % original)
RO System
(Dow Membranes)
7 RO Trains
Partial Second
Pass
16 32
(26 avg.)
Energy Recovery
System
Pelton Wheels
Feed TDS, ppt

Feed Temperature
20 to 35 C
(26 avg.)
Parameter
Intake/Discharge
Energy Use
Capital Cost
(US$MM)
$158 MM
Product TDS, mg/L
Cost of Water
(US$/m)
$0.84/m
Post treatment
Value
Collocated w/
Power Plant
Gravity Filters +
DE Filters
2.96 kWh/m
200 mg/L
Lime + CO2
Tampa Desalination Plant

Collocated w/ Power Plant
Power Plant Intake

Desalination
Plant
Power Plant Discharge
Plant Original Treatment System
High Seawater Turbidity Change of

Screening Configuration
New Source Water Screens
Tampa New Plant

Pretreatment Modified to Address Challenges &
Original Design Deviations
Tampa Layout Before &

After Modifications
Original Plant
Modified (Existing) Plant
What Are the Key Plant

Start-Up Challenges?
Change in Source Water Quality
Inconsistent Pretreatment Filter Performance in

Terms of SDI and Turbidity
Short Cartridge Filter Useful Life
Permitting of New RO Membrane Cleaning

Chemicals
Energy Recovery Below Projected
Product Water Turbidity Spikes
Why Pretreatment Filters Do Not

Perform?
Poor Chemical Mixing In-line Mixer Not Installed
Lack of Even Distribution Between Filter Cells Aeration

System for Mixing Intake Canal Not Operational
Filter Cells Not Lined With Protective Coating Concrete

Corrosion and Release of Calcium Salts in the Cells
Leaky Glue Connections of Internal Piping Backwash and

Unfiltered Water Discharging into the Filter Effluent Zone
(Lack of Detailed Start-Up Plan)
Leaky Filter Backwash Pipe Gaskets 316 L Instead of

Duplex Stainless Steel Straps
Filter Distribution Channel
Original Configuration
Modified Distribution System
Screens & Coagulation

& Flocculation Chambers
DSS (Dualsand) Pretreatment
Leaky Glue Connections/Gaskets
Cartridge Filters Plugged With

Ferric Coagulant and Silt
Two-stage Filters Converted to

Single Stage
Pretreatment
Filers
Diatomaceous Earth Filters

Added
Cartridge Filters
New and Old
Why The Cartridge Filters Did

Not Perform?
Pretreatment
Filter Effluent Water

Quality Not To Specifications
Cartridge
Filters Undersized
SWRO System No Major

Modifications
Tampa SWRO System
6 + 1 SWRO Trains & 2 BWRO Trains (Partial Second Pass)
What Caused the Energy

Recovery System Problems?
1.
Concentrate Discharge Pipe Elevation Not

Correct (Backpressure on Energy Recovery
Turbine Impacts Performance)
2. Energy Recovery Device Orientation

Deviated from Specifications
Energy Recovery Equipment

Installation Out of Specification
What Caused the Product

Water Turbidity Spikes?
VFDs Not Installed on the Lime Feed Pumps DOD
Lime
Contactors
Could the Problems Have

Been Avoided? > Yes
By Adherence to the Original Design

Specifications and Schedule
By Development of Detailed Startup Plan
By Preparation of Contingency Plans for the

Commissioning of Key Facilities
By Additional Intake Water Quality

Characterization As Per Original Contract
Fujairah SWRO Plant, UAE

Fresh Water Production Capacity = 140,000 m/d
Fujairah Desalination Plant Location
Fujairah SWRO Plant
Fujairah Key Statistics

Parameter
Capacity m3/d
Value
140,000
Parameter
Intake/Discharge
Value
Intake 3 Intake
Pipes/Discharge
Co disposal with
Power Plant
Date Commissioned
2002
Pretreatment
System
Dual Media
Gravity Filters
Recovery
41 %
RO System
(Hydranautics
Membranes)
Conventional RO
Design
2 passes/2 stages
Feed TDS, ppt

Feed Temperature
40 - 42
(26 avg.)
22 to 36 C
(28 C avg.)
Energy Recovery
System
Energy Use
Capital Cost (US$MM)
$212 MM
Product TDS,
mg/L
Cost of Water (US$/m)
$0.93/m
Post treatment
Pelton Wheels
4.5 kWh/m
150 mg/L
Lime and Carbon
Dioxide
Fujairah Plant Site
Fujairah Intake System
Treatment Processes
Fujairah Seawater Desalination Plant
140,000 m/d
Source Seawater Quality

Parameter
Source Seawater
Pretreated Seawater
0.5 5.0
0.1 0.25
12 - 16
2.0 5.0
Salinity, mg/L
39,500 42,000
Same
Conductivity, S/cm
58,000 66,800
Same
Chlorides, mg/L
20,800 24,400
Same
pH
7.9 8.2
Same
Calcium, mg/L
440 - 550
Same
1,100 1,600
Same
Turbidity, NTU
SDI 5
Magnesium, mg/L
Pretreatment Filters
Two Lines
of
14 Singe-stage
Dual Media
Filters
(Anthracite &
Sand)
Loading Rate =
8 m/m.h (avg.)
12 m/m.h(max)
Cartridge Filters
Two Lines of 9
5- Cartridge
Filter Vessels
360 Cartridges per
CF Vessel
SWRO System
1st Pass - 17 + 1
SWRO Trains
136 PV x 7 Elements
Recovery - 43 %
TDS = 300 1,000 mg/L
2nd Pass - 8
BWRO Trains
70 PV x 7 Elements
Recovery - 90 %
TDS = 20 50 mg/L
Plant Performance Challenges
Pretreatment Does Not Produce Adequate

Filtered Water Quality and Consumes
Excessive Amount of Chemicals
Cartridge Filters Have Short Useful Life
Original SWRO Membranes Have Exhibited

Accelerated Biofouling
High Irreversible Differential Pressure
Pretreatment Optimization Measures
Switching from Intermittent to Continuous

Chlorination/Dechlorination
Sodium Hypochlorite Added at Dosage to
Reduce Chlorine Residual in Seawater After
Cartridge Filters to < 0.1 mg/L
Coagulant Dosage Reduced from 5 to 10 mg/L
Down to 0.5 to 2.0 mg/L
Polymer & Sulfuric Acid Feeds Discontinued;
Antiscalant Added Only When Mg : Ca Ratio in
Seawater > 3
New Ferric Chloride Addition

Approach
If Source Water Turbidity is Above 0.5 NTU

Ferric Chloride Dosage is Matched with the
Actual Level of Turbidity in the Water (i.e., 1.0
mg/L of FeCl3 per 1 NTU of Source Seawater
Turbidity)
If Source Water Turbidity is Below 0.5 NTU

Addition of Ferric Chloride is Discontinued
Anaerobic Conditions Upstream of the

Cartridge Filters Have Negative Impact
on Their Useful Life
Elimination/Reduction of
Antiscalant Addition
If Mg : Ca Ratio < 3 Discontinue the Use of

Antiscalant; Check Mg/Ca Ratio Weekly
Most Antiscalants are Oxidized/Inactivated by

Chlorine Shift Point of Antiscalant Addition
Downstream of the Point of Addition of SBS
Many Antiscalants Cause SWRO Biofouling

& Contain Impurities/Check for Cu and Ni
Why Did These Measures Work?
Low Turbidity Source Seawater Overdosing

of Ferric Coagulant Adds Turbidity & SDI
Small Size Particles with Little Charge:
Coagulant Does Not Work Well When the Particles
in the Source Seawater Have Little to No Charge
pH Adjustment Has No Practical Benefit Because it
Only Enhances the Coagulants Ability to Attract
Charged Particles (Which Are Not Present)
High-Salinity (Ionic Strength) Water with High

Magnesium Content Does Not Form Scale @
pH below 9.4
Other Optimization Measures
Recovery of Filter Media to Original Depth
Adjustment of the Lengths of the Water-AirWater Backwash Periods to Minimize Time

for Reaching Filtration Maturity and Improve
Filter Effluent Quality
Cleaning of Anaerobically Digesting Sand

Deposits in the Filtered Water Channels
Citric Acid Soak (Summer) &

NaOH Soak (Winter)
Citric Acid (2 % Solution) Target pH 3 3.5
Caustic Soda (120 to 150 mg/L)

Target pH 10.5 to 11
Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
Drain Down Filter Cell You Plan to Clean

Refill Cell with Filtered Water which Contains Soaking
Chemical
Let Filter Cell Soak for 24 hrs
Backwash Filter Cell
Optimization of Filter Backwash Cycle Length
If Backwash Water
Cycle is Too Short:
Length of the Filter Cycles

is Reduced
Filtered Quality is Reduced
Complete Backwash
Profile:
1.
Collect Backwash Water at

Time Zero and Every 1
Minute After Initiation of
Backwash Cycle
Measure Turbidity of
Collected Samples
Prepare Plot of Backwash
Turbidity vs. Time for the
Entire BW Water Cycle.
2.
If Backwash Water
Cycle is Too Long:
Filter Produces Inferior

Quality Over the First
Several Hours After
Backwash
3.
Optimum BW Time Time

at Which BW Water
Turbidity Reaches 10 NTU
(5 NTU if Filter Feed Water < 1 NTU)
Optimum Filter Backwash Cycle Length
For Filter Feed Water

< 0.5 NTU
Water 6 min
Air 6 min
Water 6 min

0.5 & < 1.0 NTU
Water 7 min
Air 6 min
Water 7 min

1.0 & < 5.0 NTU
Water 8 min
Air 8 min
Water 8 min

5.0 NTU
Water 10 min
Air 10 min
Water 10 min
Media Uniformity Coefficient of Critical

Importance
Cartridge Filters Anaerobic Biofouling
Dark Surface
No Bacterial Layer on
the Filter Surface
Dry Surface
Ocean Odor
Cartridge Filters
Normal Fouling
Cartridge Filters
Anaerobic Fouling
Cartridge Filter Cleaning with Citric Acid

Iron Reduction & Biofouling Control
Isolate CF Vessel You Would Like to Clean
Drain the CF Vessel
Fill up Approximately 10% of the Volume with

Citric Acid & Fill Up the Rest with Clean Water
(Water Hose)
Let the CFs Soak for 24 hours

pH Target 2 to 3
Drain & Flush the CF Vessel 2 Times
Reverse Osmosis System Challenges &

Solutions
Effect of Overly High Feed Pressure

on Membrane Productivity Loss
56 bars
63 bars
70 bars
77 bars
85 bars
Fujairah Permanent Loss of Membrane

Productivity Due to High Feed Pressure
Fujairah - Effect of Replacing the First Two

Elements w/ SWC4LD Membranes
Fujairah LD Elements Effect on

Permeate Production
Fujairah LD Membrane Impact on

Permeate Quality
International
Training Program
26-28 May 2013
Doha, Qatar
and Troubleshooting
13:00-14:30
Water Reuse Plant

Case Studies
Prof. Dr. Valentina LAZAROVA
Outline
Milestones in Membrane Applications for Water Reuse
The First Direct Potable Reuse Facility in Namibia

Challenges and Solutions
Lessons Learned from the Largest and Most Efficient

Water Reuse Operations in the World (Engineering
Design, Operation, Costs and Benefits)
Groundwater Replenishment System, Orange County California

Designer Water Production in Edward C. Little Water Recycling
Facilities, West Basin, California
Singapore Experience in Water Reuse: the NEWater Factories
Role of RO Systems for Urban and Agricultural Irrigation
Key Advantages and Main Constraints for RO Application

for Industrial Water Reuse: Refinery of Panipat, India
Implementation of Membrane
Technologies: Milestones
1.Industrial
applications
2. Water Reuse
1977s
Water Factory 21,
CA
38,000 m3/d
First RO for
indirect potable
reuse
1970
1950s Electrodialysis at
large scale
1960s
UF cellulosic membranes
MBR (Japan)
.
1965
First large RO plant
1980
1995
West Basin,
California
MF/RO/UV-H2O2
47,300 m3/d
(total 170,000 m3/d)
153 injection wells
1990
2008, OCWD,
MF/RO/UV-H2O2
265,000 m3/d
2004
Sulaibiya,
Kuwait, UF/RO
375,000 m3/d
Irrigation
1650 ha
2000
2010
3. Drinking Water
1990s
Aquasource UF
Groundwater
>30 plants
1997
First large DWT
1976
Vigneux sur Seine
Synthetic polymers
55,000 m3/d
Nanofiltration
2008
San Diego Twin
Oaks Valley, CA
380,000 m3/d
Largest DWT
ZeeWeed UF
The Role of Membrane in

Water Reuse
High growth and demand for membrane
systems
Physical barrier for
microorganisms
Improved removal of
priority substances and
emerging parameters
Small footprint and fully
automated
Numerous proved
technologies
Decreasing capital costs
Major challenges: Improve reliability of

operation and decrease energy and O&M cost
Milestones: Aquifer Recharge

Example: Orange County, California
Highlights
1976: Water Factory 21 for seawater barrier (1976-2004),
57,000 m3/d, 23 injection wells, first RO in 1977, 67%
recycled water
2004-2008 Interim Water Factory MF/RO/UV (19,000 m3/d)
2008: Groundwater replenishment system, 265,000 m3/d
Advanced Water Purification: MF / 3 stage TFC RO /
UV+H2O2 / on-line monitoring

Extension of the seawater barrier with 100% recycled water
and replenishment of existing spreading basins
Advanced Water
Purification facility
Water Factory 21
Milestones: Seawater Intrusion

Barrier, West Basin, California
Highlights
1995: West Basin WRP (The Edward C. Little WRP), First
MF/RO, 47,300 m3/d (five types of designer water, total
170,000 m3/d) 153 injection wells
Step by step implementation with permits for injection
of 35% initially to currently 75% of recycled water
Advanced Water Treatment MF/RO/UV+H2O2/ on-line
monitoring
Pilot studies and evolution of membrane technologies
MF
UV
RO
Edward C. Little Water Recycling

Facility: Barrier Treatment Train
Reverse
Peroxide UltraPre-treatment Osmosis
Violet
(Seven 2.5 mgd trains)
Hyperion
WWTP
M.F.
H2O2
R.O.
MWD
Imported
37,000 m3/d
U.V.
MF/RO/UV
64,000 m3/d
West Coast Barrier

JORE 2007
Milestones: Industrial Reuse as

Boiler Water, West Basin, California
Chevron El Segundo Refinery: Largest Single User
of Reclaimed Water in California
19,000 m3/d of recycled water (MF/RO and MF/RO/RO)

80% of the water supply
Applications: cooling towers, landscape irrigation and dust
control
In 2010: on-site advanced RWTP, x2 reclaimed water uses
Milestones: Spreading in Aquifers,

Torreele, Belgium
2002: Torreele WRP, UF/RO/UV (6,800 m3/d), artificial

recharge with 2.5 Mm3/yr of the dune aquifer of St-Andr
10 years of R&D and pilot tests (1997-2000)

Capex 7 million, 0.500.4 /m3
Benefits: improvement of water supply and water quality (hardness)
Milestones : Integrated Solutions

NEWater Facilities, Singapore
Secondary
effluent
Low pressure
membranes
Bedok
m3/d
32,500
+82,000 m3/d
Kranji
m3/d
41,000
+77,000 m3/d
Seletar
24,000 m3/d
Ulu Pandan
145,000 m3/d
Changi
227,000 m3/d
Reverse
osmosis
2002
2008
2002
2007
2004
DBOO 2007
DBOO 2011
UV Disinfection
NEWater
Industrial +
Indirect Potable Reuse
30% of the Singapores
water supply by 2015
Membranes in Water Reuse

Lessons Learned
Keys to success: ability to produce high-quality

recycled water and improve public acceptance
Major challenges
Compliance with stringent water reuse regulations (disinfection)

Removal of trace organics (indirect potable reuse) and salts &
inorganic micropollutants (industrial reuse)
Reliability of operation: failure modes are not well
documented, pre-treatment was underestimated
Fouling control: the first generation of MF and RO were not
well adapted to wastewater quality
Energy consumption: need to be reduced
Innovation: new nano-membranes, better on-line

process control
DIRECT POTABLE REUSE PROJECT

WINDHOEK, NAMIBIA
Major Drivers for Water Reuse
Severe
droughts
Chronic
water stress
Population
growth
New Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant
Courtesy of the City of Windhoek
Start up 2002
New Goreangab Water

Reclamation Plant
Courtesy of the City of Windhoek
Multiple Barrier Approach
Non-treatment barriers
Strict separation of domestic and industrial wastewater
Comprehensive monitoring of the plant inlet
Blending of the reclaimed water with other sources (max. 35%
of reclaimed water in the network)
Treatment barriers
Gammans Sewage Treatment Plant (nutrient removal plant)
Maturation ponds
Advanced multi-barrier system for potable reclamation (New
Goreangab Water Reclamation Plant)
Operational barriers
Additional treatment options (e.g. PAC dosing)
Switching to the recycle mode in case of inadequate inlet and
outlet values

Water Quality Criteria and Performance
Parameter
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Colour
Dissolvec Organic Carbon
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
Final Water
Specification
Units
Physical and Organic

mg/L
10 - 15
mg/L Pt
8 - 10
mg/L
3*
1,000
max
or 200
mg/L
6.6
0.5
1.7
11
0.5
2.8
above incoming
838
938
0.1 - 0.2
0.05
0.10
0.00 - 0.06
0.015
0.027
0.005
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.18
0.03
0.015
0
0
0
0.27
4
0
0
2.58
or 5 log removal
0 count/100 L
35
57
NTU
abs/cm
UV254
Actual Operational Results

50%tile
95%tile
Aluminium
Ammonia
Iron
Manganese
Heterotrophic Plate Count
Total Coliforms
Faecal Coliforms
Chlorophyll a
Giardia
Cryptosporidium
Trihalomethanes
Al mg/L
0.15
N mg/L
0.1
Fe mg/L
0.05 - 0.10
Mn mg/L
0.01-0.025
Microbiological
per 1 mL
80 - 100
per 100 mL
0
per 100 mL
0
g/L
1
0
count/100
L
per 100 L
per 100 L
or 5 log removal
Disinfection by products
g/l
20 - 40
Source: Lahnsteiner et al., 2013
Inorganic

Water Quality Performance
Ultrafiltration membranes
X-Flow hollow-fiber UF (2002)

5 racks, design flux of 107 L/m.h
Parameter
Unit
Treatment Plants
Von
Bach
NGWRP
Dam
Median
WTP
Median
Turbidity
NTU
0.05
0.6
DOC
mg/L
1.7
3.6
35
73
0.015
0.05
871
161
THM
UV254
TDS
g/L
abs/cm
mg/L
Performance
of UF
Very high
permeability of
one rack during
a week end
Start-up
Decrease of permeability
period:
Increasing
fouling
Increase
of flux
Shut
down
Poor inlet
water quality
Poor cleaning
(chemicals:
hydrochloric
acid + faulty
software)
Cleaning
optimization
Lower feed flow
Pilot test for

cleaning
optimization
New
chemicals
(caustic soda
blended with
sodium
hypochlorite /
hydrochloric
acid)
Source: Theron-Beukes and Konig, 2008
Performance
of UF
Stable operation
Fiber
breakage
Relatively low fiber repair

Fouling +
chemicals
Problems of
operation (PAC)
Faulty
Rack A
Causes
of
fiber breakage
Hydraulic
damage
Particulate
matters
Solutions
Addition of
100 m strainer
Better SCADA
control
Source: Theron-Beukes and

Konig, 2008
Lessons Learned from Windhoek WRP
Direct Potable Reuse is a Sustainable Solution
Courtesy of City of Windhoek
Safe potable water production without any outbreaks of water

borne diseases
Secured social and economic development
Reliable operation: Public-Private Partnership
Excellent information policy and education practice
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM

ADVANCED WATER PURIFICATION FACILITY
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Advanced Water Treatment Facility

Flow Diagram
Start up 2008 with on-going extension

265,000 m3/d
265,000 m3/d
Source: Patel, 2012
326,000 m3/d
Advanced Water Treatment Facility

Process
schematics
Courtesy of OCWD
10-14 bar
AWTF: Microfiltration
CMF-S System of Siemens

(Memcor)
26 cells, 608 membranes
modules each
0.2 m hollow fiber
membranes
3 basins with 8 cells per basin
immersed vacuum driven
membranes)
Flux 35 L/m.h
2 CIP systems
Recovery cleaning interval:
21 days
AWTF:
Microfiltration
MF
basin
CIP
system
AWTF: Reverse
Osmosis
Hydranautics ESPA2
membranes (15,750 units)
Recovery rate 85%
3-stage array per unit (15 units,
19,000 m3/d each) in a
78:48:24 arrangement
Pressure: 10-14 bar (150-200 psi)
Flux 20 L/m.h (12 gfd)

2 CIP systems
AWTF:
Reverse
Osmosis
Train 3
Train 2
AWTF: Advanced
Oxydation (UV + H2O2)
Trojan UVPhox system

Low pressure high output lamps
Nine 33,100 m3/d (8.75 mgd) trains
3888 lamps in total
AWTF: Post Treatment
Decarbonation and
lime addition are
used to stabilize
purified water
(corrosion control)
Average Water Quality of the

Advanced Water Treatment Plant
Constituent
MCLa
Influent
(mg/L)
1.39
Million
6.41
Total Coliform (MPN/100 mL)

Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Total Dissolved Solids, mg/L
500-1,000
920
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
0.5/RWC
14.1
<5
2.94
Turbidity (NTU)
UV Transmittance %@254 nm
pH
Total Nitrogen, mgN/L
45,200
<2
6.17
2.80
15.8
<2
<2
963
19.9
81.0
11.8
0.17
0.19
0.11
61.1
6.5 8.5
Total Hardness, mgCaCO3/L
MF Feed RO Feed ROPb FPWc

(mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
7.69
7.74
290
97.75
98.8
7.14
6.12
8.22
290
<.1
22.9
27.9
27.6
Ammonia, mgN/L
24.7
24.8
Total Phosphorus, mgP/L
0.79
NDMA, ng/L
1,4-Dioxane, g/L
aMCL:
cFPW:
10
31.1
0.10
1.42
Maximum Concentration Level; bROP: the RO permeate flow stream

finished product water quality as it leaves the plant
GWRS Facilities and

Recharge Basins
Source: Chalmers and Patel, 2013
0.18
1.67
1.35
1.35
<0.01
26.3
<2
<1
Regulatory Requirement for

Aquifer Recharge
Additional Requirements for

GWRS
Buffer areas
Retention time underground
>6 months for spreading

>1 year for injection
Replacement water plan
>500 ft for spreading

>2000 ft for injection
Initial blending 75% ramping up to 100% RWC
Independent Advisory Panel (NWRI

appointed) for OMMP review
Capex and Opex of GWRS
Total Capex (2008) $ 480.9 Million

Capex for Expansion (2011) $142 Million
O&M cost 0.35 $/m3 (432 $/AF)
Total annualized cost 0.49 $/m3 (606 $/AF)
Energy consumption 0.53 kWh/m3
MiscellaOther;
neous $14,950,000
5%
4%
GWRS
Pipelines
$63,010,000
16%
Repartition of
O&M cost
Plant
Maintenance
14%
Electricity
25%
R&R Fund
Contribution
16%
Labor
28%
Chemicals
17%
AWPF
$298,330,000
75%
Capex Repartition (2008)
New RO Design with ERD for

the Plant Expansion
Objective: better control of fouling, balancing of flux
and reduction of energy consumption
Source: Argo et al; 2010
Major Challenges for Operation
Membrane Selection
Control of Biofouling
Pilot tests of low fouling (neutrally charged, highly hydrophilic)

and energy saving RO membranes
For similar permeate quality, energy saving membranes showed
a 30% higher permeability than the low fouling membranes
Production of chloramines by chorine and ammonia dosing at
3-5 ppm (chlorine can oxidize polyamide RO membranes)
Control of Scaling
Precipitation of tri-calcium phosphate (Ca3(PO4)2)

Operation at low pH ~6
Testing of 6 scale inhibitors to select the most appropriate
enabling to operate at pH 7
Lessons Learned from GWRS

The Advanced Water Treatment Facility is ensuring safe,
local and reliable water supply for 600,000 residents
Indirect potable reuse is a sustainable solution, using less
power than imported water and with reduced discharge to the
ocean
EDWARD C. LITTLE WATER RECYCLING

FACILITY (WEST BASIN, CALIFORNIA)
Current capacity 170,000 m3/d
Final capacity: 315,000 m3/d
West Basin Recycled Water Program

One
of six US National Centers

for Water Treatment
Technologies facilities (2002
Only facility in the world to
produce five types of designer
water
Built in 1995
with state/federal funding following a state-wide
drought
One
of the first MF/RO treatment

High-valued Public/Private
Partnership
Edward C. Little Water Recycling

Facilities Overview
HYPERION
Secondary Effluent
Pump Station
Edward C. Little
Water Recycling Facility
(ELWRF)
Title 22 Distribution System

Title 22 Customers
Chevron Low Pressure Boiler Feed (Industrial RO)
Chevron High Pressure Boiler Feed (Industrial Ulltra Pure RO)
Chevron Nitrification
Facility
(CNF)
Exxon Mobil Water
Recycling Facility
(EMWRF)
Carson Regional Water
Recycling Facility
(CRWRF)
3 satellite plants
Chevron El Segundo
Refinery
Nitrified
Industrial RO
Nitrified
Exxon Mobil Torrance

Refinery
Industrial RO
BP Carson Refinery
Nitrified
West Coast
Barrier Blending
Stations
West Coast Seawater

Intrusion Barrier
Distribution network
of 160 km (96 miles )
Source: Walters et al., 2013
Schematics of ECLWRF
RO membranes:
Hydranautics ESPA2 (standard)
Koch TFC-HR (2005)
Courtesy of WBMWD
MF membranes:
Siemens Memcor CMF pressure driven
Replaced in 2006 by CMF-S vacuum driven
West Basin Water Recycling Plant

Conventional vs MF Pretreatment
Side-by-side comparison of the two pretreatment processes

Lime pretreatment (2 trains, 3 mgd each)
1995
MF pretreatment (1 train)
1997 3 mgd
2.5 bar
RO 85% recovery

Side-by-side comparison of the two pretreatment processes

Advantages of MF
Cost efficiency: annualised cost about 45% lower, 0.22 vs

0.42 $/m3
Better water quality, lower SDI
7
6
5
4
SDI
3
2
1
0
Jun-97 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May98

Microfiltration Membranes
MF life time <5 years with fast advance in

membrane technologies
1995-2002: Pressure driven

CMF (Siemens Memcor)
2006: Vacuum driven immersed

CMF-S (Siemens Memcor)
Submerged Microfiltration Membranes

General View
Membrane module
Membrane construction
CMF-S
membranes
0.1 m
Membrane aeration
2 min/20 min
Step by Step Implementation

Evolution of Recycled Water Production
Cubic Meters in Millions
70.0
Million m3
61.7
60.0
62 Million m3 produced in 2010
50.0
40.0
33.7
30.0
20.0
13.4
22.7
23.0
1998
1999
26.9
27.0
2000
2001
38.2
17.8
10.0
0.0
0.3
1994
1995
0.0
1996
1997
2002
2003
2010
Fast extension of the project

3
extensions in 1997, 2001 and 2006

On-going extension to reach 190,000 m3/d
Major Technical Challenges
Maintain High Recycled Water Quality

Deterioration of influent quality
(secondary effluent)
+50% increase in TOC

+30% increase of conductivity
+100% increase of turbidity
(impact on membrane fouling)
High variations
Monthly Average Water Quality Data

of the Recycling Plant (2009 to 2011)
Parameter
Units
Influent
Title 22 Water
Barrier Water
Permit
Measured
Permit
Measured
Permit
Measured
Turbidity
NTU
4-30
1-2.4
0.5
0.05-0.6
(0.092)
pH
pH
units
6.8-7.2
6.58.5
6.5-7.3
7.7-8.0
TOC
mg/L
20
8.3-66
20
8.1-14
0.14-0.27
(0.19)
TSS
mg/L
30
12-43
20
1-17
<1
BOD
mg/L
30
5-40
20
<3-5
<3
TDS
mg/L
800
7301100
300
31-132 (83)
Monthly Average Water Quality Data

of the Recycling Plant (2009 to 2011)
Parameter
Units
Influent
Title 22
Permit
Measured
High ammonia up to 45 mg/L
Almost total
Turbidity
NTU disinfection
4-30
High chlorine demand
pH
pH Residual chlorine-4 mg/L
6.8-7.2
units
TOC
TSS
BOD
TDS
Title 22 Water
Barrier Water
Permit
Measured
Permit
Measured
1-2.4
0.5
0.05-0.6
(0.092)
6.58.5
6.5-7.3
7.7-8.0
0.14-0.27
(0.19)
<1
<3
300
31-132 (83)
Barrier
mg/L Water
20
8.3-66
20
8.1-14
Better or equal to drinking water
mg/L
30
12-43
20
1-17
TOC < 0.3 mg/L
mg/L
30
5-40
20
<3-5
Trace organics and metals almost
730not detected
(only
ng/L)
mg/L
- cafeine10-20
800
1100
Barrier Product Water: Conductivity
Barrier Product Water: TOC
Elimination of Trace Organics (in ppt)
Chevron
Low Pressure BF
Chevron
High Pressure BF
Carson
Industrial RO
Water
ExxonMobil
Industrial RO Water
Hardness < 0.3

mg/L
Silica < 1.5 mg/L
TDS < 60 mg/L
Hardness < 0.05

mg/L
Silica < 0.1 mg/L
TDS < 5 mg/L
Ca 1 mg/L
Mg 1 mg/L
Ammonia 4 mg/L
Silica 1 mg/L
TDS 35 mg/L
EC 50 mho/cm
TOC 0.7 mg/L
Ammonia 1.9 mg/L
Silica 1.0 mg/L
Memcor Classic CMF pressurized

membrane system
Source: Walters et al., 2013
Industrial Water Quality

Specifications for Satellite Facilities
Typical Energy Consumption
Pumping
for distribution
Wastewater
conveyance
0.23
kWh/m3
22%
0.17
kWh/m3
16%
0.64
kWh/m3
62%
Source: Walters et al, 2013
MF/RO
Treatment
Example of RO Quality
Key Objectives of Water Reuse in

West Basin
Reduce Local Dependence on Imported Water
80% in 1990s, 66% in 2010

Despite increasing water demand
Evolution from imported water wholesaler to
global reuse leader

Provide Reliable Water Resource for Industry
Prevent Seawater Intrusion
Environmental Protection
Reduced discharge into the Santa Monica Bay

Energy savings of 1,8 kWh/m3 for reclaimed water
irrigation vs. imported water
5,600 m2 of solar power generation capacity
10% of ELWRF peak energy demand

356 tons annually of avoided CO2 emissions
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facilities
Chevron El Segundo Refinery
Largest Single User of Recycled Water in

California
Chevron investment: US$35 million

19,000 m3/d of reclaimed water
80% recycled water (from 1,041,000 m3 used / month)
Applications: cooling towers, landscape irrigation and dust
control
In 2010 :
On-site advanced RWTP
2X reclaimed water uses
Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facilities
Seawater Intrusion Barrier
Currently 153 Injection Wells

Originally 100% potable water injected
1995 50% recycled water
2006 75% recycled water
Future 100% recycled water
Water Quality Performance, 100 % Compliant

TOC Typically 0.2 mg/L
Total N Typically 3 mg/L
Organics 99.5% Non-Detect
THM 1 g/L
Trace metals Mostly Non-Detect
Coliforms < 2.2 MPN/100 mL
Meets ALL
Federal & State
DW Requirements
Lessons Learned in West Basin
Recycled water provides a reliable resource of water when

potable supply is uncertain and is less expensive than
comparable potable water
Match water quality with the intended use helps market growth
Numerous economic, environmental and social benefits are
well recognised
SINGAPORE EXPERIENCE IN
WATER REUSE
Singapore NEWater Factories

Kranji NEWater Factory
NEWater capacity to meet 40% of

Singapores water needs by 2020
Bedok Expansion
7 mgd to 18 mgd
(32,000 m3/d) (82,000 m3/d)
Ulu Pandan NEWater
Factory completed in
2007, 32 mgd
(145,000 m3/d)
Legend
NEWater pipeline
NEWater Factory
Service Reservoir
Bedok NEWater
Factory
Source: Lim and Seah, 2013
Kranji Expansion
9 mgd to 17 mgd
(41,000 to 77,000 m3/d )
Changi
NEWater
Factory
completed in
2011, 50 mgd
(227,000 m3/d)
Kranji NEWater Recycling Plant

Dec 2002 (start-up) : Construction
by Veolia (42,000 m3/d)
RO LFC1 of Hydranautics
2007: New extension by Veolia
1st stage 16,000m3/d
2nd stage 26,000 m3/d
Capex 7.4 M $
MF: CMF-S Memcor
RO: Saehan (Korea)
RO Hydranautics
(2 stages)
CMF-S of Siemens Memcor (6 cells)
Example of RO Plant Design for

Bedok and Kranji Recycling Plants
Hydranautics low fouling RO membranes LFC1
Capacity
32,000 m3/d
40,000 m3/d
Kranji NEWater Recycling Plant

Treatment Performance
Ulu Paladan NEWater Recycling

Plant
End 2006 (start-up) : DBOO Keppel Seghers (148,000 m3/d)
Pr-traitement filters ABF 300 m (16 units)
MF Asahi Kasei: 80 modules Microza MF UNA-620A, 0.1 m
RO Hydranautics ESPA2+,
2 stages, (700 modules)
UV (Wedeco, 60 mJ/cm
UV
MF
Microza
RO Hydranautics
(2 stages)
Lessons Learned in NEWater

Factories
Strong government support, effective public education

and fast growth of production of high-quality recycled
water for industrial indirect potable reuse (2%)
Implementation of new membrane technologies
Public-Private
Partnerships
WATER REUSE FOR GOLF IRRIGATION
Water Reclamation Plant

Golf Course of Calafell, Spain
18-hole golf course
Sand
filtration
MF
RO
Target salinity
<1500 S/cm
Capacity: 4,700
m3/d
Disinfection
requirements:
<200 E.coli/100 mL
Golf course Calafell
Water Raclamation Plant

Treatment Train
Calafell Golf Course Plant
Hydro-Clear
Pulsed bed
MF Memcor M10
RO DOW Filmtec
Start-up 2004
AGBAR (Sorea):
10 year contract
12,000 m3/d
Capex 2.7 M
Opex 0.8 /m3
Water Raclamation Plant

RO Treatment
Output
N of plants
Av. System throughput
Filtering area
Number of modules
Membrane type
Membrane material
Service pressure
57 m/h
3
17.04 l/m/h
3344.4 m
90
Filmtec BW30-365FR
Polyamide
12 bar
Challenges of High Variations of

Wastewater Salinity
1200
10000
Critical
parameter:
conductivity
<1,500 S/cm
COD
Conductivity of
raw sewage
7500
Conductivity of
secondary effluent
800
5000
400
2500
Conductivity, S/cm
Concentration of organics in raw

sewage, mg/L
1600
<1,500 S/cm
BOD
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Time of operation, number of weeks (Jan 2005 to May 2007)
120
Influence of salinity on membrane

Impacts
of High Variations of
performance
Wastewater Salinity on RO
High salinity leads to significant decrease in membrane flux

combined with increase in salt passage above 2.5%
Lessons Learned in Calafell
Efficient pretreatment (sand filtration) is required for

secondary effluents to ensure reliable operation of MF
The more efficient the pretreatment, the better the
control of fouling of RO membranes and the less the
use of energy and chemicals
Membrane Autopsies 2001-2006. Main cause of failures detected.
12%
2%
Plant recovery & Anti-s calant
dosage issues
Dose of chemicals (flocculant,
coagulants)
51%
Issues on cleaning pr ocedures
30%
Oxidation pr ocess es
Deficient pretr eatment

5%
INDUSTRIAL REUSE FOR REFINERIES
Panipat Refinery Reclamation Plant

(India): Process Flow Diagram
Panipat Refinery Reclamation Plant

Reverse Osmosis III
Reverse Osmosis II
Reverse Osmosis I
Mixed Bed Ion

Exchanger
Ultrafiltration
Sand filter
Panipat Reclamation Plant - Reverse

Osmosis Process Configuration
Panipat Reverse Osmosis Process Design

R e ve rs e O s m o s is - M a jo r P a ra m e te rs
RO I
P e rm e a te flo w / ra c k [m 3 /h ]
Racks
R e c o ve ry [% ]
F e e d p re s s u re [b a r]
2
A ve ra g e flu x ra te [l/m h ]
D e s ig n te m p . [C ]
F e e d T D S [m g /l]
P e rm e a te T D S [m g /l]
C o n c e n tra te T D S [m g /l]
R O II
Racks
R e c o ve ry [% ]
A ve ra g e flu x ra te [l/m 2 h ]
R O III
Racks
R e c o ve ry [% ]
2
A ve ra g e flu x ra te [l/m h ]
L F C 3 L o w F o u lin g C o m p o s ite M e m b ra n e s
113
6
80
1 4 .6
1 6 .9
15
1975
35
9733
L F C 3 L o w F o u lin g C o m p o s ite M e m b ra n e s
119
6
90
1 6 .6
2 8 .0
15
111
2
988
S W C 3 S e a W a te r C o m p o s ite M e m b ra n e s
5 5 .3
2
65
3 0 .6
1 7 .7
15
9938
35
28329
Panipat Reclamation Plant Reverse Osmosis Pass I
T w o s ta g e s - tw o p a s s e s
Panipat Reclamation Plant Reverse Osmosis Pass II
Panipat Reclamation Plant - Reverse

Osmosis III (Brine Concentrator)
Panipat Reclamation Plant

Removal of TDS, COD and Silica
Panipat Recycling Plant

Performance
Removal of TDS and Silica in R.O. and Mixed Bed Ion Exchange
Panipat
Parameter
R.O. Permeate
Raw water
Concentration Concentration
Demineralised water
Removal
Concentration
Removal
[mg/l]
[mg/l]
[%]
[mg/l]
[%]
TDS
1133
12
99.0
0.05
99.996
Silica
12.8
0.090
99.2
0.007
99.94
O&M Cost Type

Power
Chemicals
Man Power
Maintenance,
Admin., etc.
Total Operating Cost
1)1.41
kWh/m3; 2)1.07 kWh/m3
Unit
Reclamation Plants
PRE-WRP PNC-WRP
0.1601)
0.1542)
/m3
0.110
0.022
0.003
0.141
0.031
0.004
/m3
0.295
0.330
Key Benefits and Challenges of

Industrial Water Reuse
Benefits
Challenges
Lower energy and water
Economic benefits from water
consumption, as well as lower
recycling have to outbalance
wastewater production
investment and operating costs
Support economic and social
Fluctuating raw water quality.
development
Stringent reclaimed water quality
Reduction of the threat of severe
targets
rationing during droughts
Needs for efficient and reliable
Conservation of energy avoiding
wastewater treatment and reclamation
pumping at long distance
processes
Long term sustainable water
Disposal of the RO brines
management to secure water supply
Flow Equalization
and protect the environment
Zero liquid discharge target in the
Economic feasibility of the project
future
to ensure continuity and reliability
To build infrastructure to secure
Reduction of costs by the key
distribution and continuous supply
benefits mentioned above
List of Participants up to 20 May 2013

No.
Name
Organization
Email
Dr. Hazim Qiblawey
Qatar University
hazim@qu.edu.qa
Dr Ibrahim Abu Reesh
Qatar University
abureesh@qu.edu.qa
Abdulla Eisa Rasheed
Water plant, Ras Laffan
abdulla.eisa@rlpc.co
Islam Alaaeldin M. Qunnaby
QEERI
iqunnaby@qf.org.qa
Asim Riaz
Ras Laffan Operating Company WLL
asim.riaz@rlpc.co
Dr. Hassan M. Abdel-Rehem
QEERI
habdelrehem@qf.org.qa
Dr. Ashraf Hassan
QEERI
ahassan@qf.org.qa
Abbas Atta
Ras Laffan Power Company
abbas.atta@rlpc.co
Dr. Mohamed Darwish
QEERI
darwish738@gmail.com
10
Ahmad M. Kayvani Fard
Qatar University
ahmad.kayvani@gmail.com
11
Yehia Manawi
ConocoPhillips
200600466@qu.edu.qa
12
Dr. Abdelhakim Hassabou
QEERI
ahassabou@qf.org.qa
13
Abdelwahab Aroussi
Qatar University
aaroussi@qu.edu.qa
14
Misam Jaffer
QEERI
mijaffer@qf.org.qa
15
Kabalan, Lara
Qatar University
l.kabalan@ucl.ac.uk
16
Amrish Rathi
Pall Corporation, UAE
Amrish_Rathi@europe.pall.com
17
Mohammed S. Showkath
QEERI
mshowkath@qf.org.qa
18
Petar Krndija
CNAQ
petar.krndija@cna-qatar.edu.qa
19
Dr. Ahmed Abdel-Wahab
TAMQ
ahmed.abdel-wahab@qatar.tamu.edu
20
Dr. Dong Suk (Shane) Han
TAMQ
21
Dr. Ahmed Khodary
TAMQ
22
Dr. Bahngmi Jung
TAMQ
23
Deema Almasri
TAMQ
24
Maria Orillano
TAMQ
25
Raghavendran Sivasubramanian
TAMQ
26
Syed Mustafa
TAMQ
27
Muhammad Anas
TAMQ
28
Mustafa Aly
TAMQ
29
Don Blewett
CNAQ
blewett.don@gmail.com
30
Stirling, Allan
CNAQ
allan.stirling@cna-qatar.edu.qa
31
James Noronha
Raslaffan Power Company Qatar
james.noronha@rlpc.co
32
Gireesan Amayoor
Raslaffan Power Company Qatar
gireesan.amayoor@rlpc.co
33
Mogensen, Kristian
Maerskoil
Kristian.Mogensen@maerskoil.com
34
Dr. Seetharamaswami Mruthini
Qatar Petroleum
mruthini@qp.com.qa
35
Anibal Troconis
Qatar Petroleum
troconisleanez@qp.com.qa
36
Aisha Alabdulla
Qatar Petroleum
as_alabdulla@qp.com.qa
37
Dr. Jamel Orfi
King Saud University
orfij@KSU.EDU.SA
38
Khaled Mahmoud
QEERI
kmahmoud@qf.org.qa
39
Basem Shomar
QEERI
bshomar@qf.org.qa
40
Joshua Jonathan Oswald Accola
QEERI
jaccola@qf.org.qa
41
Bassel Daher
QEERI
bdaher@qf.org.qa
42
Mary Katebah
ConocoPhillips
Mary.A.Katebah@conocophillips.com

Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute

Qatar Foundation, Qatar

International Training Course

Qatar Environment & Energy Research Institute

"Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse"

May 26 to 28, 2013

Qatar Environment and Energy Research Institute (QEERI)

Membrane Desalination and Water Reuse

May 26 to 28, 2013

Sustainable Water Cycle: Why we Need Desalination and Water Reuse?

9:00 10:30 Reverse Osmosis Fundamentals

RO Separation Basic Principles

10:30 10:45 Coffee Break

Integrated Water Resource Planning

12:00 13:00 Lunch Break

Source Water Quality Issues and Considerations

13:45 14:00 Coffee Break

15:15 15:30 Round Table Discussion

Day 2 (Monday 27 May 2013)

9:30 10:30 Energy Use in Desalination and Water Reuse

Energy Footprint of Water Reuse and Desalination

Example of Typical Water Reuse Plant Energy Use Breakdown

10:30 10:45 Coffee Break

Construction Costs (Capex)

12:00 13:00 Lunch Break

Comparison of Total Cost of Water Reuse and Desalination

14:30 14:45 Coffee Break

Concentrate Disposal Alternatives

Day 3 (Tuesday 28 May 2013)

What Do We Monitor in RO Systems?

Operations Monitoring Methods and Equipment

10:30 10:45 Coffee Break

Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant, USA Challenges and Solutions

12:00 13:00 Lunch Break

Milestones in Membrane Applications for Water Reuse

14:30 14:45 Coffee Break

26-28 May 2013

Nikolay VOUTCHKOV and

Overview of Desalination and

Sustainable Water Cycle: Why we Need Desalination

Status, Trends and Market Development

Objective of the Training Course: How to Succeed in

ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES

Why We Need Alternative Resources?

Increasing water scarcity

Increasing impacts of climate change

Sustainable Water Cycles

The Role of Alternative Resources

Why Do We Need Alternative Resources?

Desalination of seawater and brackish water

Production of freshwater mostly for domestic

Other Sources: Rainwater harvesting

Water Reuse & Desalination Market

Source: Global Water Intelligence

Water reuse, Mm /d (+181%)

Why Do We Need Alternative Resources?

Oceans & seas

4,430 km3 (2000)

Fresh water 2.5%

Fresh water available,

10,000 to 14,000 km3

Source: UNESCO, 2003

Status and Trends in Water Reuse

Status and Trends in Water Reuse