Dow Liquid Separations

FILMTEC
Membranes
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange
WATERTECH Expo '94 November 9-11, 1994 Houston, Texas

by: Scott S. Beardsley - The Dow Chemical Company Steven D. Coker - The Dow Chemical Company Sharon S. Whipple - The Dow Chemical Company

The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange

Introduction
Straight ion exchange (IX), reverse osmosis/ion exchange (RO/IX), and double-pass reverse osmosis (RO/RO) are all viable options when designing a new water treatment plant (1-6). The break-even point in total dissolved solids above which it is more economical to use one of these technologies over the others depends on a number of factors which will be addressed in this paper. The economic factors affecting the break-even point include chemicals, resins, membranes, energy, operating labor, maintenance, and capital-related items. In this paper we will concentrate on the choice of technology for a new water treatment system. A follow-up paper will consider in more detail the factors impacting the decision to retrofit RO ahead of an existing IX system. In some instances technical considerations will outweigh economics in determining the water treatment technology of choice. For example, in some high purity water applications, double-pass RO has produced water that is substantially lower in organics and particles. Therefore, this process may be preferable to IX or RO/IX even though its production cost is higher than these other alternatives. It should be noted that The Dow Chemical Company markets both reverse osmosis elements and ion exchange resins. It is our intention to provide an objective study utilizing conservative economic analysis without bias for one technology over another. It is also our intention to show the impact of the latest advances in membrane and resin technology on the total cost to produce water. This article updates the papers written in 1982 and 1987 (4,7) on the economics of reverse osmosis and ion exchange. This updated paper is different in that we also included the impact of system size, the cost of raw water and waste water treatment, uniform particle size (UPS) versus gaussian sized resin (Gaussian), and cellulose acetate (CA) versus thin film composite membrane (TF). Since 1987 the cost of chemicals and energy has not changed significantly. Higher active surface area elements (400 active square feet) and higher rejection of salt using FILMTEC FT30 thin film composite membranes have lowered the total cost to produce water from a RO/IX system. The use of UPS resins rather than Gaussian resins has also lowered the total cost of water for straight ion exchange. The cost of both IX resin and RO elements are lower than in 1987 which lowers their periodic replacement costs. And finally the capital estimates for all the water treatment technologies considered were significantly lower than in 1987. The net effect of all these changes on the break-even point above which it is more economical to use RO/IX than straight IX was significant, increasing from 75 ppm in 1987 to 130 ppm in 1994.

Design Basis
The assumptions used in this economic evaluation are listed in Tables A, C, D and E. The water treatment systems were sized to produce three different quantities of mixedbed quality water. The flow rates were two hundred fifty thousand (250 Mgpd), five hundred thousand (500 Mgpd), and one million gallons per day (1000 Mgpd). Identical storage facilities for product water were assumed for each product water flow rate and for all cases studied. One train was used for the 250 Mgpd system size, two trains for the 500 Mgpd size, and four trains were used for the 1000 Mgpd size.

Table A
Bases and Assumptions for Cost Analysis Water Analysis, ppm as Calcium Carbonate
Case 1: Ca Mg Na TDS 31.0 32.5 15.8 HCO3 SO4 Cl NO3 TDS TDS TDS TDS 55.5 SiO2 (as SiO2) 5.0 11.8 10.5 Temperature 55F 1.5 pH 7.6 79.3 160 320 480 $0.05/KWH $1.75/1,000 lbs $0.16/lb $0.038/lb (100% basis) $1.45/lb $0.02/lb $0.05/1,000 gallons $0.05/1,000 gallons 10 years, SL 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd 360 days/year < 0.01 ppm sodium < 0.01 ppm silica > 10 megohm-cm 0.5-1.0 megohm-cm

79.3 Case 1 x 2 Case 1 x 4 Case 1 x 6 Energy Steam Caustic Soda Sulfuric Acid Scale Inhibitor Lime Feed Water Waste Disposal Depreciation of Capital: System Sizes: Case 2: Case 3: Case 4: Costs:

System Operating Rate: Product Water Purity: Mixed-bed polished water

Double-pass RO

Four feed water qualities, varying only in the quantity of total dissolved solids (TDS) were utilized in the study. The TDS levels were 80, 160, 320, and 480 ppm (as CaCO3). The quality of the feed water can vary significantly depending on the geographic location, and can affect any system design as well as the need for pretreatment systems, especially where reverse osmosis is contemplated. Surface water sources typically require more pretreatment while ground water sources typically need less. The feed waters used in this study have a high hardness ratio, high alkalinity, and no problems with organics, colloidal particles, or turbidity. Capital was included in the study for pretreatment. Minimal pretreatment was considered for the ion exchange system and moderate pretreatment for the RO systems. A raw water inlet temperature was assumed to be 55F, a national average which may vary depending on the geographic location. Unlike previous studies, we did not heat the feed water for this analysis since there are many systems that do not utilize preheating to decrease the feed pressure required for reverse osmosis systems. Neutralization facilities were included for both the RO/IX and IX systems. The facilities were more extensive in the ion exchange plant because of the cation/anion regenerations and associated concentrated wastes. Primary demineralizer regenerant wastes would be combined and batch treated utilizing lime for neutralization, if acidic, and sulfuric acid, if alkaline. RO concentrate normally requires no neutralization. Neutralization of the ion exchange polisher wastes is incorporated into both systems.

The costs of the most dominant operating factors, energy and caustic, were set at $0.05/KWH and $0.16/lb (100%), respectively. The caustic price reflects a high purity grade specification. The cost of feed water to the RO or IX system and the cost of waste disposal have been considered at $0.05/1000 gallons each. Labor and maintenance costs were also considered in the evaluation. Operating labor was considered minimal at one-eighth to one-quarter man per shift for the relatively continuous RO operations depending on system size. For straight IX, with more batch-type operations, the operating labor was doubled. Maintenance costs were set at 5% of equipment costs.

The initial direct fixed capital (DFC) costs were estimated by obtaining equipment cost estimates from two water treatment system manufacturers, based on defined system criteria provided by the authors. The estimates were then factored to represent a reasonable installed capital cost, which includes piping, instrumentation, auxiliaries, land, and buildings. The base estimates used in this study are listed in Table B for purchased, preassembled (not installed) equipment, including ion exchange resin and membranes. Capital for neutralization, pretreatment, and storage are not included in these totals but were estimated separately. A 10-year straight-line depreciation based on total direct fixed capital, and taxes and insurance at 2% of DFC were assumed.

Table B
Purchased Equipment (Preassembled) Capital Estimates *
Case 1 80 $0.24 $0.45 $0.83 Case 2 160 $0.29 $0.53 $1.00 $M Case 3 320 $0.33 $0.62 $1.16 Case 4 480 $0.40 $0.74 $1.38

Feed TDS, ppm as calcium carbonate Straight ion exchange (IX) 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd Reverse osmosis/ion exchange (RO/IX) Thin film composite 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd Cellulose acetate 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd Double-pass reverse osmosis (RO/RO) Thin film composite/thin film composite 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd Cellulose acetate/thin film composite 250,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 1,000,000 gpd

$0.31 $0.55 $1.00 $0.36 $0.66 $1.21

$0.31 $0.55 $1.00 $0.36 $0.66 $1.21

$0.31 $0.55 $1.00 $0.36 $0.66 $1.21

$0.31 $0.55 $1.00 $0.36 $0.66 $1.21

$0.33 $0.62 $1.18 $0.39 $0.74 $1.41

$0.33 $0.62 $1.18 $0.39 $0.74 $1.41

$0.33 $0.62 $1.18 $0.39 $0.74 $1.41

$0.33 $0.62 $1.18 $0.39 $0.74 $1.41

*Estimates are the average of figures provided by Glegg Water Conditioning and U.S. Filter/Illinois Water Treatment

Three-Bed Ion Exchange System

A three-bed ion exchange system utilizing a strong-acid gel cation bed, a vacuum degasifier, a strong-base gel anion bed, and a mixed-resin polishing bed was used in the design comparisons. A flow diagram in Figure 1 depicts the ion exchange system utilized in this study. Table C summarizes the bases and assumptions for the ion exchange computer projections and the subsequent cost analysis. The degasifier was used to remove the carbon dioxide from the acidic cation effluent in order to reduce the quantity of anion resin and also the amount of caustic regenerant. Inclusion of the degasifier is logical due to the high level of alkalinity in the feed water. In order to size the ion exchange demineralizer it is necessary to provide water for regeneration and rinse requirements as well as account for outages associated with regeneration cycles. Thus the average feed water flow was 209 gpm for each train which was designed to yield 250,000 gallons per day. The exhaustion times of the cation and anion beds ranged from 20 to 21 hours with 4 hours for regeneration. In all cases the mixed-resin polishers in the three-bed ion exchange system were regenerated every 30 days rather than upon exhaustion. Comparisons were made utilizing two different types of ion exchange resins. One type of resin was standard gel resins with a gaussian particle size distribution. The other type of resin was gel resins with a uniform particle size distribution. The computer projections of the primary beds used co-current regeneration as this is the predominant regeneration scheme used in the United States. The proposed system utilized realistic regenerant levels

Figure 1
Three-bed ion exchange flow diagram - 250,000 GPD
D E G A S

SAC

SBA

MB SAC/SBA

Storage

Case 1 2 3 4

Case 1 2 3 4

Gaussian Single Beds SAC Resin SBA Resin Exhaust Volume Volume Time ft3 ft3 hours 80 49 20 160 85 20 321 161 20 481 240 20 UPS Single Beds SAC Resin SBA Resin Exhaust Volume Volume Time ft3 ft3 hours 74 49 20 147 70 20 294 133 20 441 199 20

Gaussian Mixed Bed SAC Resin SBA Resin Volume Volume ft3 ft3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 UPS Mixed Bed SAC Resin SBA Resin Volume Volume ft3 ft3 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25

Regn Freq. days 30 30 30 30 Regn Freq. days 30 30 30 30

Above equipment plus necessary regeneration equipment, minimum pretreatment equipment, and waste neutralization equipment

Table C
Bases and Assumptions for Cost Analysis Three-Bed Ion Exchange System
Operation Sequence Pretreatment Sand filters Carbon beds Demineralized Water Train Cation resin bed Degasifier Anion resin bed Mixed resin bed
Demineralized Water Storage Waste Neutralization (Waste IX regenerants) Equipment efficiency 250,000 gpd - One (1) train 500,000 gpd - Two (2) trains 1,000,000 gpd - Four (4) trains Operating efficiency Regeneration Co-current Cation regenerant Anion regenerant Regenerations Time Resin life Cation Anion

Specification

Strong acid - gel Removes carbon dioxide Strong base - gel Strong-acid cation - gel Strong-base anion - gel

Neutralize to pH 7.0 85% 209 gp 417 gp 834 gpm 85% H2SO4 NaOH, 120 F As needed 4 hours 5 years 3 years

and produced water low in sodium and silica with a resistivity of approximately 10 megohm-cm. Sulfuric acid was used to regenerate the cation resins. The primary cation beds were regenerated with 2%, 4% and 8% acid in a stepwise fashion. The anion beds were regenerated with high purity caustic soda at a temperature of 120F to maintain a low level of silica leakage. The elevated temperature regeneration sequence included preheat, regeneration, and slow rinse on the anion bed.

Figure 2
Thin film composite reverse osmosis/ion exchange flow diagram-250,000 GPD
Cart. Filter Array 1 RO Storage MB SAC/SBA Storage

Array 2

Concentrate

Reverse Osmosis/Mixed-Bed Ion Exchange System

The RO/IX treatment systems are shown schematically in Figures 2 and 3. Since an RO/IX system is nearly a continuous operation, the average inlet RO flow rate is 232 gpm per train with the outlet flow to the IX being 174 gpm or 250,000 gpd of permeate. The feed flow rate increases to 463 gpm for the 500,000 gpd and 926 gpm for the 1,000,000 gpd systems. A 5-micron cartridge filter is required ahead of the RO system as a polishing filter. The thin film composite (TF) reverse osmosis section consisted of a 5-2 array utilizing 42 high surface area, spiral wound, low pressure RO elements to produce 250 Mgpd (see Figure 2). The 500 Mgpd and 1000 Mgpd system sizes used twice and four times the number of RO elements and pressure vessels, respectively. Feed pressures of 241 to 248 psig were required for operation in the TDS range of 80 to 480 ppm as CaCO3. The addition of a high quality antiscalant ahead of each RO system was used to control the formation of calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate scale in all four cases. Acid addition was used only in Case 4 in order to keep the Langelier Saturation Index (LSI) of the RO concentrate below + 1.5.

Mixed Bed Thin Film Composite RO System SAC SBA Array 1 Array 2 Feed Resin Resin Total Total Pressure Volume Volume Case PV Elements PV Elements (psig) ft3 ft3 1 5 30 2 12 241 24 39 2 5 30 2 12 242 24 39 3 5 30 2 12 245 24 39 4 5 30 2 12 248 24 39

Regn Freq. hours 224 110 55 22

Above equipment plus necessary regeneration equipment for mixed bed, minimum pretreatment equipment, and waste neutralization equipment

Figure 3
Cellulose acetate reverse osmosis/ion exchange flow diagram-250,000 GPD
Cart. Filter Array 1 D E G A S

Array 2

RO Storage

MB SAC/SBA

Storage

Concentrate

Case 1 2 3 4

Mixed Bed Cellulose Acetate RO System SAC SBA Array 1 Array 2 Feed Resin Resin Total Total Pressure Volume Volume PV Elements PV Elements (psig) ft3 ft3 6 36 3 18 532 29 47 6 36 3 18 533 29 47 6 36 3 18 536 29 47 6 36 3 18 540 29 47

Regn Freq. hours 198 173 137 105

The cellulose acetate (CA) reverse osmosis section used 54 spiral wound, high salt rejection RO elements in a 6-3 array to produce 250 Mgpd (see Figure 3). Multiples of this train size were used for the 500 Mgpd and 1000 Mgpd system sizes. The feed pressures for the RO systems were 532 to 540 psig depend-

ing on the feed water TDS. Acid addition to a feed pH of 6.0 was utilized in all cases in order to obtain a slightly negative LSI and to minimize the hydrolysis of the CA membranes over their three year life. A high quality scale inhibitor was added for control of calcium sulfate scale.

A degasifier was used with the CA reverse osmosis system to remove the substantial amounts of carbon dioxide generated by acid addition. The degasifier was added to optimize the sizing of the mixed-bed polisher following the reverse osmosis trains. A system recovery of 75% was used in all cases. Higher recovery levels are theoretically possible at lower TDS levels, however, in order to optimize the total cost to produce water recoveries of 70 to 80% are typically utilized. The IX portion for the TF and CA membrane systems is a mixed-resin bed polisher containing strong-acid cation and strong-base anion resins. The mixed-bed is required to maintain the high quality water (almost total removal of Na+ and SiO2) utilized in power plants today. Regeneration with H2SO4 and NaOH occurs at weekly intervals for the low TDS case and increases to every 1 to 4 days for the high TDS case. Waste ion exchange regenerants are neutralized to pH 7.0 Table D summarizes design parameters and assumptions that were used for the RO and IX computer projections in the RO/IX system. These projections of product quality and flow rate were run using current reverse osmosis and ion exchange computer design programs.

Table D
Bases and Assumptions for Cost Analysis Reverse Osmosis/Ion Exchange System
Operation Sequence Pretreatmen Flocculation clarifier Sand filters Reverse Osmosis Train Pretreatment Specification

Acid addition Antiscalant addition 5-Micron cartridge filter Thin film composite, spiral wound Cellulose acetate, spiral wound Three years 75% in two stages 248 psig (Thin film) 540 psig (Cellulose acetate) 55F Cellulose acetate units only Strong-acid cation - gel Strong-base anion - gel

Membranes Type Life Recovery Feed pressure Temperature Degasifier Ion Exchange Polishing Mixed-bed Demineralized Water Storage Waste Neutralization Waste IX regenerants

Neutralize to pH 7.0

Double-Pass RO System
The flow schematics for the doublepass RO systems are shown in Figures 4 and 5. The two RO passes operate in series: the product of the first pass becomes the feed for the second pass. A cartridge filter is used ahead of the high pressure pump for the first pass. Each RO pass consists of two stages or arrays with a high pressure pump ahead of each pass. The concentrate from the first pass goes to drain, whereas the concentrate from the second pass is recycled back to the suction of the first pass pump. Comparisons are made with two different types of RO elements in the first pass of the double-pass RO system. The performance of RO elements with CA membrane is compared with the performance of RO elements with TF membrane. All evaluations of the double-pass RO system utilized RO elements with TF membrane in the second pass. An overall recovery of 75% was chosen in order to be consistent with the RO/IX option discussed previously. As mentioned earlier this overall recovery is achieved by recycling the second pass concentrate to the first pass feed inlet. The only waste from the system is the first pass concentrate.

Figure 4
Thin film composite double-pass reverse osmosis flow diagram - 250,000 GPD
Cart. Filter First Pass Array 1 Second Pass Array 1

Storage Array 2 Array 2

Recycle Concentrate

Case 1 2 3 4

First Pass -Thin Film Composite Feed Pressure Number of Pressure Vessels Elements (psig) 8 48 224 8 48 226 8 48 229 8 48 232

Second Pass -Thin Film Composite Feed Pressure Number of Pressure Vessels Elements (psig) 6 36 223 6 36 223 6 36 223 6 36 223

Overall Recovery (including recycle) 75%

Figure 5
Cellulose acetate/thin film composite double-pass reverse osmosis flow diagram 250,000 GPD
Cart. Filter First Pass Array 1 Second Pass Array 1 D E G A S

Storage

Array 2

Array 2

Recycle Concentrate

Case 1 2 3 4

First Pass - Cellulose Acetate Feed Pressure Number of Pressure Vessels Elements (psig) 10 60 560 10 60 562 10 60 565 10 60 568

Second Pass - Thin Film Composite Feed Pressure Number of Pressure Vessels Elements (psig) 6 36 223 6 36 223 6 36 223 6 36 223

Overall Recovery (including recycle) 75%

Table E contains additional bases and design assumptions that were used for computer projections of the RO/RO option. These projections provided estimates of permeate water quality and confirmed proper hydraulic balance of the RO system. Neutralization of final concentrate should not be required for any of the cases considered in this evaluation. It should be noted that the water quality from the RO/RO option is not equivalent to mixed-bed polisher quality. Due to feed pH requirements, the RO/RO system with cellulose acetate membranes resulted in substantial levels of carbon dioxide in the product water. This is also true to a much lesser degree with the thin film composite membranes. A degasifier was added downstream of the cellulose acetate RO/RO system in order to allow a comparison between the two types of membranes. The final product water from the RO/RO option had a resistivity of about 0.5 to 1.0 megohm-cm.

Table E
Bases and Assumptions for Cost Analysis Double-Pass Reverse Osmosis System
Operation Sequence Pretreatment Flocculation clarifier Sand filters Reverse Osmosis Train Pretreatment Specification

Acid addition Antiscalant addition 5-Micron cartridge filter Thin film composite, spiral wound Cellulose acetate, spiral wound Three years in first pass Five years in second pass 75% overall 7-3 in first pass 4-2 in second pass 5-3 in first pass 4-2 in second pass 568 psig in first pass 223 psig in second pass 232 psig in first pass 223 psig in second pass 55F Cellulose acetate units only

Membranes Type Life Recovery Arrays (for 250 Mgpd system) Cellulose acetate/thin film composite Thin film composite/thin film composite Feed pressure Cellulose acetate/thin film composite Thin film composite/thin film composite

Temperature Degasifier Demineralized Water Storage Waste Neutralization (Minimal)

Neutralization if necessary

Discussion of Results
The results of this study are summarized in Figures 6 through 10 and Tables F through J showing first the base cases and then the effect of caustic pricing and power pricing. We need to point out that the cost curves presented here only apply when using the set of assumptions as listed. The cost curves and break-even points are likely to change when significant changes in the assumptions occur. For example, in most real world designs the component sizing for an ion exchange system would change rather than adding multiple trains of a fixed size. Also many ion exchange systems would be designed with two 100% trains (or more), with one train in service and the other in standby or regeneration instead of one 100% train as in this study.

Figure 6
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange - 250,000 gpd Base Cases
$5.00 $0.16/lb NaOH $0.05/KWH Energy 3 YR Membrane Life Quality > 10 Megohm-cm IX - GAUSSIAN IX - UPS $4.00 RO/RO - CA/TF*

$4.50 Total Cost To Produce Water, $/M gal

$3.50 RO/IX - CA/UPS RO/RO - TF/TF* $3.00

RO/IX - TF/UPS $2.50

$2.00 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

*Quality 0.5-1.0 megohm-cm

Feed Water Total Dissolved Solids, ppm as CaCO3

Figure 7
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange - 500,000 gpd Base Cases
$4.50 $0.16/lb NaOH $0.05/KWH Energy 3 YR Membrane Life Quality > 10 Megohm-cm RO/RO - CA/TF* $3.50 RO/IX - CA/UPS

$4.00 Total Cost To Produce Water, $/M gal

IX - GAUSSIAN IX - UPS

$3.00 RO/RO - TF/TF*

$2.50 RO/IX - TF/UPS

$2.00

$1.50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

*Quality 0.5-1.0 megohm-cm

Feed Water Total Dissolved Solids, ppm as CaCO3

Three-Bed Ion Exchange System

The base case results for the three system sizes are shown in Table F. As would be expected, the total cost to produce water for straight IX increases with increasing feed TDS. For UPS resins the cost increases from $2.05 at 80 ppm as CaCO3 to $3.62 per 1000 gallons of product water at 480 ppm as CaCO3 in the 1000 Mgpd case. The Gaussian resins show a similar trend, increasing from $2.05 to $3.79 per 1000 gallons as the TDS increases. The effect of increasing system size is to lower the total cost to produce water. When UPS resins are utilized, the total cost to produce water per 1000 gallons is $2.48 to $4.15 for a system size of 250 Mgpd varying with feed TDS. This cost decreases to $2.05 to $3.62 per 1000 gallons as system size increases. Table F shows the effect for UPS resins and Figures 6,7, and 8 compare the total cost of water for Gaussian versus UPS resin. The IX system designed to treat the 80 ppm feed water was sized to accommodate the hydraulic limitations of the resins rather than the operating capacity of the resins. This resulted in the system design being identical for both the Gaussian and the UPS resins which yielded the same total cost to produce water for both types of resins. The hydraulic limitations did not impact the system designs for the higher TDS waters which were able to take advantage of the higher operating capacity for UPS resins relative to Gaussian resins.

Table F
Total Cost to Produce Water Three Bed Ion Exchange System - Base Case 1,000,000 gallons per day
Case 1 80 $0.06 $0.00 $0.07 $0.16 $0.01 $0.30 $0.05 $0.32 $0.19 $0.06 $0.92 $0.94 $0.19 $2.05 $2.08 $2.48 45% 43% 49% $/1,000 Gallons of Product Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 160 320 480 $0.06 $0.01 $0.13 $0.23 $0.02 $0.45 $0.07 $0.32 $0.21 $0.06 $1.11 $1.05 $0.22 $2.39 $2.43 $2.84 47% 45% 50% $0.07 $0.01 $0.27 $0.42 $0.05 $0.82 $0.12 $0.32 $0.23 $0.07 $1.56 $1.16 $0.24 $2.97 $3.02 $3.45 53% 51% 54% $0.07 $0.02 $0.40 $0.63 $0.08 $1.20 $0.18 $0.32 $0.26 $0.07 $2.03 $1.32 $0.28 $3.62 $3.69 $4.15 56% 54% 56%

Feed TDS*, ppm as CaCO3 Chemicals and Energy Energy: Pumps Heating Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Caustic Lime Subtotal Resin replacement Labor Maintenance Raw water/waste disposal Total operating cost Depreciation (10-year) Taxes and insurance Total cost to produce water 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Operating costs, % of total 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd *TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

Figure 8
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange - 1,000,000 gpd Base Cases
$4.50 $0.16/lb NaOH $0.05/KWH Energy 3 YR Membrane Life Quality > 10 Megohm-cm RO/RO - CA/TF* $3.50 RO/IX - CA/UPS $3.00 RO/RO - TF/TF* $2.50 RO/IX - TF/UPS

$4.00 Total Cost To Produce Water, $/M gal

IX - GAUSSIAN IX - UPS

$2.00

$1.50 0 *Quality 0.5-1.0 megohm-cm 100 200 300 400 500 600

Feed Water Total Dissolved Solids, ppm as CaCO3

The operating cost increase is primarily due to the cost of regenerant chemicals, however, as the TDS load increases the quantity of resin also increases. This increases the resin replacement costs. The cost of raw water and waste water disposal per 1000 gallons of product water is relatively stable as feed TDS increases and as system size increases at $0.06 to $0.07. Capital is a significant factor in the total cost to produce water as the TDS increases, representing 44% to 57% of the total cost to produce water via ion exchange. The effect of caustic pricing is shown in Figure 9 for the 1000 Mgpd system size. High purity caustic was utilized in the study and is reflected in the relatively high cost. The effect is obviously more significant for the IX system than for the thin film composite RO/IX system. Increasing feed TDS magnifies this effect for the IX cases whereas there is minimal impact for the RO/IX.

Figure 9
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange - Effect of Caustic Pricing
$4.50 $0.05/KWH Energy 3 YR Membrane Life Quality > 10 Megohm-cm

$4.00 Total Cost To Produce Water, $/M gal

$.24/lb NaOH $.20/lb NaOH $.16/lb NaOH $.12/lb NaOH

$3.50 Ion Exchange $3.00

$2.50 RO/IX System $2.00

$1.50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Feed Water Total Dissolved Solids, ppm as CaCO3

Table G
Total Cost to Produce Water Reverse Osmosis (Thin Film) / Ion Exchange - Base Case 1,000,000 gallons per day
Case 1 80 $0.19 $0.00 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.00 $0.02 $0.27 $0.02 $0.12 $0.21 $0.22 $0.08 $0.92 $1.10 $0.23 $2.25 $2.34 $2.68 41% 40% 43% $/1,000 Gallons of Product Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 160 320 480 $0.19 $0.00 $0.05 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.04 $0.31 $0.02 $0.12 $0.21 $0.22 $0.08 $0.97 $1.10 $0.23 $2.29 $2.38 $2.72 42% 41% 44% $0.19 $0.00 $0.08 $0.03 $0.00 $0.02 $0.07 $0.39 $0.02 $0.12 $0.24 $0.22 $0.08 $1.08 $1.10 $0.23 $2.40 $2.50 $2.87 45% 44% 47% $0.19 $0.01 $0.08 $0.03 $0.00 $0.04 $0.14 $0.49 $0.02 $0.12 $0.28 $0.22 $0.08 $1.22 $1.10 $0.23 $2.54 $2.63 $3.04 48% 47% 50%

Reverse Osmosis/Ion Exchange System

Figures 6 through 8 also show the RO/IX system water production costs to be directly proportional to the feed water TDS. However the effect of increasing feed TDS is much less for RO/IX when compared to IX economics. When reviewing the total operating costs in Tables G and H for the RO/IX systems it is observed that the costs of antiscalant, caustic, sulfuric acid, and labor increase with increasing feed TDS; while the cost of energy, membrane and resin replacement, and maintenance are relatively constant in this TDS range. The capital costs as shown by depreciation expenses are also relatively unaffected by TDS compared to the straight IX system.

Feed TDS*, ppm as CaCO3 RO - Chemicals and energy Energy: Pumps Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Antiscalant IX - Chemicals and Energy Energy: Pumps Heating Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Caustic Lime Subtotal Resin replacement Membrane replacement Labor Maintenance Raw water/waste disposal Total operating cost Depreciation (10-year) Taxes and insurance Total cost to produce water 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Operating costs, % of total 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd *TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

10

When the TF/IX system is compared to the CA/IX system, part of the increased cost to produce water is associated with the degasifier. Since the cost of the degasifier is a function of the amount of carbon dioxide to be removed, increasing feed water TDS and acid consumption by the CA/IX system is reflected in a higher total cost to produce water. Figure 10 shows the effect of power pricing on the total costs to produce water for thin film composite and cellulose acetate (CA) membrane systems. Power pricing has a significant effect on the total cost as would be expected whereas the effect is minimal on the IX system. The CA/IX system total cost is especially sensitive to power pricing since this design operates at higher feed pressure than the thin film composite system. The effect of power pricing is to increase the crossover point of 130 ppm TDS as CaCO3 to about 180 ppm TDS when the power pricing is $0.12/KWH for the thin film composite membrane system, but the cellulose acetate crossover point increases to about 500 ppm TDS for $0.12/KWH.

Table H
Total Cost to Produce Water Reverse Osmosis (Cellulose Acetate) / Ion Exchange - Base Case 1,000,000 gallons per day
Case 1 80 $0.38 $0.01 $0.03 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.03 $0.49 $0.02 $0.13 $0.21 $0.29 $0.08 $1.22 $1.46 $0.30 $2.99 $3.11 $3.47 41% 40% 42% $/1,000 Gallons of Product Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 160 320 480 $0.38 $0.03 $0.05 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.03 $0.52 $0.02 $0.13 $0.21 $0.29 $0.08 $1.26 $1.46 $0.30 $3.03 $3.14 $3.51 42% 41% 43% $0.38 $0.05 $0.08 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.04 $0.59 $0.02 $0.13 $0.24 $0.29 $0.08 $1.37 $1.46 $0.30 $3.13 $3.25 $3.65 44% 43% 45% $0.39 $0.08 $0.08 $0.03 $0.00 $0.01 $0.05 $0.63 $0.02 $0.13 $0.28 $0.29 $0.08 $1.44 $1.46 $0.30 $3.21 $3.32 $3.76 45% 44% 47%

Feed TDS*, ppm as CaCO3 RO - Chemicals and energy Energy: Pumps Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Antiscalant IX - Chemicals and Energy Energy: Pumps Heating Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Caustic Lime Subtotal Resin replacement Membrane replacement Labor Maintenance Raw water/waste disposal Total operating cost Depreciation (10-year) Taxes and insurance Total cost to produce water 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Operating costs, % of total 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd *TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

Figure 10
The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange - Effect of Power Pricing
$4.50 $0.16/lb NaOH 3 YR Membrane Life Quality > 10 Megohm-cm $4.00 Total Cost To Produce Water, $/M gal Cellulose Acetate/Ion Exchange Ion Exchange $3.50

Power Pricing Top - $0.12/KWH Mid - $0.07/KWH Btm - $0.05/KWH

$3.00

$2.50 Thin Film Composite/Ion Exchange $2.00

$1.50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Feed Water Total Dissolved Solids, ppm as CaCO3

11

Double-Pass Reverse Osmosis System

The change in total cost to produce water for the TF/TF double-pass reverse osmosis system is minimal as the feed TDS increases from 80 to 480 ppm as CaCO3 as shown in Table I. There is a increased sensitivity for the CA/TF double-pass system on total cost because of increased acid consumption as the feed TDS increases as noted in Table J. Energy and membrane replacement costs are the major contributors to the operating costs of these systems (about 31% and 18% for TF/TF, respectively; 41% and 14% for CA/TF, respectively), whereas chemical costs are relatively low in comparison. Capital related costs for the double-pass reverse osmosis systems represent 50% to 56% of the total cost to produce water for the RO/RO systems.

Table I
Total Cost to Produce Water Double Pass Reverse Osmosis (TF/TF) - Base Case 1,000,000 gallons per day
Case 1 80 $0.37 $0.00 $0.04 $0.40 $0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.09 $1.17 $1.16 $0.25 $2.57 $2.63 $2.94 45% 45% 48% $/1,000 Gallons of Product Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 160 320 480 $0.37 $0.00 $0.05 $0.42 $0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.09 $1.19 $1.16 $0.25 $2.59 $2.65 $2.95 46% 45% 49% $0.37 $0.00 $0.09 $0.46 $0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.09 $1.23 $1.16 $0.25 $2.63 $2.69 $2.99 47% 46% 49% $0.37 $0.01 $0.09 $0.47 $0.21 $0.24 $0.23 $0.09 $1.24 $1.16 $0.25 $2.65 $2.70 $3.01 47% 46% 50%

Feed TDS*, ppm as CaCO3 RO - Chemicals and energy Energy: Pumps Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Antiscalant Subtotal Membrane replacement Labor Maintenance Raw water/waste disposal Total operating cost Depreciation (10-year) Taxes and insurance Total cost to produce water 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Operating costs, % of total 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd *TDS (Total Dissolved Solids)

Table J
Total Cost to Produce Water Double Pass Reverse Osmosis (CA/TF) - Base Case 1,000,000 gallons per day
Case 1 80 $0.62 $0.01 $0.04 $0.67 $0.21 $0.24 $0.31 $0.09 $1.52 $1.57 $0.33 $3.42 $3.50 $3.83 45% 44% 47% $/1,000 Gallons of Product Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 160 320 480 $0.62 $0.03 $0.05 $0.70 $0.21 $0.24 $0.31 $0.09 $1.55 $1.57 $0.33 $3.45 $3.53 $3.86 45% 44% 47% $0.63 $0.05 $0.09 $0.77 $0.21 $0.24 $0.31 $0.09 $1.62 $1.57 $0.33 $3.52 $3.60 $3.92 46% 45% 48% $0.63 $0.08 $0.09 $0.80 $0.21 $0.24 $0.31 $0.09 $1.65 $1.57 $0.33 $3.55 $3.63 $3.95 47% 46% 48%

Feed TDS*, ppm as CaCO3 RO - Chemicals and energy Energy: Pumps Chemicals: Sulfuric acid Antiscalant Subtotal Membrane replacement Labor Maintenance Raw water/waste disposal Total operating cost Depreciation (10-year) Taxes and insurance Total cost to produce water 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd Operating costs, % of total 1,000,000 gpd 500,000 gpd 250,000 gpd

12

Conclusions
This economic evaluation considers all of the major factors contributing to the total cost of water including chemicals, resins, membranes, energy, operating labor, maintenance, and capital. Also covered in this study is the effect of system size, new advancements in membrane and resin technology, and CA versus TF membrane technology. Major conclusions to be drawn from this study apply to new water treatment systems and are summarized below: 1. The break even point above which it is more economical to use RO/IX versus straight IX moved from 75 ppm as CaCO3 in 1987 to 130 ppm in 1994 primarily as a result of lower cost of both membranes and resin and lower overall capital estimates. Although the break-even point is higher, most waters demineralized in the U.S. are above this level. 2. Capital continues to have a significant effect on the total cost of water for all options considered ranging from 44% to 60%. 3. The capital cost estimates were significantly lower than they were 5 years ago for all water treatment schemes considered with the reduction being in the range of 25% to 40%.

4. The cost of raw water and waste disposal will vary greatly throughout the U.S. and must be considered on a case by case basis. It was considered in this study but the impact on the total cost of water was minimal representing about 2% to 3% of the total cost of water. 5. The RO/IX option and the RO/RO option involving CA membrane both had a significantly higher total cost of water than their counterparts using TF membrane. This was primarily due to the costs associated with higher pressure operation, higher rates of acid addition and the need for a degasifier with the use of CA membrane. 6. New technology including higher surface area and higher salt rejection RO elements and uniform particle size IX resin lowered the total cost of water for the options considered.

3. Printz, J. and Wainwright, R., "Comparing Ion Exchange and Reverse Osmosis in the Electric Utility Industry," paper presented at the American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, April 2628, 1982. 4. Little, D. and Lefevre, L., "The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange," paper presented at the Water Supply Improvement Association, 10th Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI, July 27, 1982. 5. Pittner, G., Levander, R., and Bossler, J., "Unique Double-Pass Reverse Osmosis System Eliminates Ion Exchange for Many Deionization Applications," ULTRAPURE WATER, September/October 1986. 6. Whipple, S., Ebach, E. and Beardsley, S., "The Economics of Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange," paper presented at the Ultrapure Water Conference and Exposition, Philadelphia, PA, April 13-15, 1987.

References
1. Lefevre, L., "Water Demineralization Using Reverse Osmosis and Ion Exchange," Technical Data Sheet Volume 8, Number 2, Dow Chemical USA, 1978. 2. Coulter, B. and Jones, G.D., "The Application of Reverse Osmosis to Mexican Waters," paper presented at the First Mexican Conference, Mexico City, Mexico, February 20-22, 1980.

Acknowledgments
The authors greatly appreciate the cooperation of Christine T. Wilson of Glegg Water Conditioning, Inc., and Robert D. Governal of Illinois Water Treatment Company in providing capital equipment estimates. For more information on reverse osmosis membranes and ion exchange resins, contact The Dow Chemical Company at 800-447-4369.

13

Dow Liquid Separations Offices For more information call Dow Liquid Separations: Dow Europe Dow Deutschland Inc.
Liquid Separations IndustriestraBe 1 77836 Rheinmunster Postfach 20 77836 Rheinmunster Germany Tel. (7227) 91-0 Fax (7227) 91 38 08

Dow Pacific Dow Chemical Pacific Ltd.

Liquid Separations 47th Floor, Sun Hung Kai Centre 30 Harbour Road, Wanchai GPO Box 711 Hong Long Tel. 852-879-7261 Fax 852-827-5909

Dow North America The Dow Chemical Company

Liquid Separations P.O. Box 1206 Midland, MI 48641-1206 Tel. 1-800-447-4369 Fax 517-832-1465

Internet
http://www.dow.com/liquidseps

Dow Pacific Dow Chemical Japan Ltd.

Liquid Separations Tennoz Central Tower 2-24, Higashikanagawa 2-chrome Shinagawa-ku, TOKYO 140 Japan Tel. (813) 5460 2100 Fax (813) 5460 6246

Dow Latin America Dow Quimica S.A.

Liquid Separations Rua Alexandre Dumas, 1671 Sao Paulo - SP - Brazil CEP 04717-903 Tel. 55-11-546 9348 Fax 55-11-546 9918

Notice: No freedom from any patent owned by Seller or others is to be inferred. Because use conditions and applicable laws may differ from one location to another and may change with time, Customer is responsible for determining whether products and the information in this document are appropriate for Customers use and for ensuring that Customers workplace and disposal practices are in compliance with applicable laws and other governmental enactments. Seller assumes no obligation or liability for the information in this document. NO WARRANTIES ARE GIVEN; ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. Published October 1995.

*Trademark of The Dow Chemical Company

Form No. 609-00182-1095-WC+M CH 172-162-E-1095