Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NANOFlLTRATlON OF A HIGH SALINITY
GROUNDWATER ON THE
HOPI RESERVATION
Wilbert OdemNorthern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ
Contract No. 14253-CR-81.19540
Water Treatment Technology Program Report No. 3
May 1995
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBureau of Reclamation
Denver OfficeTechnical Services Center
Environmental Resources TeamWater Treatment Engineering and Research Group
Ei
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
kbln reportq burden for this collection of mformsuon as ertmated 10 average I hour per response. m&ding the tme for rewewng instructions., searching l rmmg data yx~rc~~3atherlng and malntarnlng thedata needed. and completing and rewewng the collection of mformat~on. Send comments r
?arding this burden Stlmate Or any other aspect of this
:ollecf~On Of infOrmatIOn, lncludlng wggntronr for reducmg thas burden. to Warhmgton Headquarters Smwces. DirCROrate or Infmation Opcratlbnr and Repon%. 1215 Jeffer~nhuts Hughway. Suite 1204. Arhngtm, VA 222024302. and 10 the Office of Management and Budge?, Papwwork Reduction Project (OX44ll88). Washington, DC 2OSO3.
I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
Nanofiltration of High Salinity Groundwateron the Hopi Reservation Contract No.
1425-3-CR-81-19540i. AUTHOR(S)
Wilbert Odem
r. PERFORMING ORGANlZATlON NAME(S) AND ADDRESS
Northern Arizona UniversityDept. of Civil and Environmental EngineeringP.O. Box 15600Flagstaff, AZ 86011
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER
). SPONSORING/MONlTORlNG AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS
Bureau of ReclamationDenver Federal CenterP.O. Box 25007Denver, CO 80225-0007
Il. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
10. SPONSORlNG/MONlTORlNGAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Water TreatmentTechnology ProgramReport No. 3
IZa. MSTRIBUTION /AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Available from the National Technical InformationService, Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road,Springfield, Virginia 22161
12b. DISTRISUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
Commercial nanofiltration membranes were evaluated using a pilot scale testingapparatus for treatment of a high salinity groundwater used as a drinking watersource at the Hopi Junior/Senior High School. Based on short term testing results(pressure requirements and permeate quality) two of the membranes were selectedfor longer term testing in the laboratory and on-site. Both of these membranesprovide satisfactory treatment results which indicate that in a full scale systemeither membrane would produce drinking water that meets Federal and Staterequirements for total dissolved solids.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Nanofiltration/drinking water/salinity/uN" Aquifer/HopiTribe water resources
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
4616. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF AESTRACO F R E P O R T OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UL UL UL UL.-_. -- -- __ _ __ _ _
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)Prexrlbcd by ANSI Std. 239-18298-102
NANOFlLTRATlON OF A HIGH SALINITY
GROUNDWATER ON THE
HOPI_. RESERVATION
Wilbert OdemNorthern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ
Contract No. 14253-CR-81-19540
Water Treatment Technology Program Report No. 3
May 1995
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORBureau of Reclamation
Denver OfficeTechnical Services Center
Environmental Resources TeamWater Treatment Engineering and Research Group
Bureau of ReclamationMission Statement
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protectwater and related resources in an environmentally and economically soundmanner in the interest of the American public.
U.S. Department of the InteriorMission Statement
As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interiorhas responsibility for most of our nationally-owned public lands and natural.resoumes. This includes fostering sound use of our land and water resources;protecting our fish, wihilife, and biological diversity; preserving theenvironmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places;and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. TheDepartment assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to ensurethat their development is in the best interests of all people by encouragingstewardship and citizen participation in their care. The Department also hasa major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and forpeople who live in island territories under U.S. Administration.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this report regarding commercial products orfirms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not tobe construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau ofReclamation.
The information contained in this report was developed for the Bureau ofReclamation: no warranty as to the accuracy, usefulness, or completeness isexpressed or implied.
‘I% pIDject was funded under Contract No. 14253-CR-81-19540 through the Bureau ofReclamation’s Water Treatment Technology Program. I would like to express myappreciation to Stan Hightower for his assistance throughout this project. In addition Iwould like to thank Tony Laban and the Facilities Management staff of the Hopi Juniorand Senior High School for their cooperation and patience during the on-site testing. TheHopi Tribe’s Natural Resources and Water Resources staff have also been very generouswith their time and information
2
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7
1 .1 Background ........................................................................................... 71 .2 Purpose of Study ................................................................................... 1 1
2.0 Methodology ......................................................................................................2 .1 Preliminary Work ..................................................................................2.2 Phase One ............ .;.. .............................................................................2 .3 Phase Two ............................................................................................2.4 On-Site ..................................................................................................
1 21 21 2131 6
3.0 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................... 1 6
3 .1 Phase One Testing ................................................................................. 1 63.2 Phase Two Testing ................................................................................ 203.3 On-Site Testing ..................................................................................... 20
4.0 Preliminary Design Estimates ............................................................................ 2 3
4 .1 Design One ........................................................................................... 2 54.2 Design Two .......................................................................................... 2 54.3 Brine Disposal ...................................................................................... 2 54.4 Pretreatment ......................................................................................... 2 5
5.0 Discussions and Meetings ................................................................................. 265.1 Meeting with High School Teachers ..................................................... 26
5.2 Meeting with Offtcials ......................................................................... 26
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 27
Title Page .......................................................................................................... 1Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 2Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3Glossary ............................................................................................................ 5Summary ........................................................................................................... 6
Bibliography .................................................................................................... 28
Appendices ...................................................................................................... 29Appendix A - Phase One Testing Results ............................................. 30Appendix B - Phase Two Testing Results ............................................ 3 8Appendix C - On-Site Testing Results ................................................. 4 1Appendix D - Water Quality Analysis for Preliminary Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
Estimates
Page
3
CONTENTS Contd.
List of FiguresPage
Figure 1 - Location of Study Site. .................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 - Extent of Navajo (“N”) Aquifer On The Hopi and Navajo Reservations. ......... 1 0
Figure 3 - Fmnt View Schematic of the Membrane Testing Apparatus. ........................... 1 4
Figure 4 - Side View Schematic of the Membrane Testing Apparatus. ............................. 1 5
Figure 5 - Results of Phase One Testing, 6/7/94 & 6/14/94. ............................................ 1 7
Figure 6 - Results of Phase One Teqting, 6/28/94. ........................................................... 19
Figure 7 - Results of Phase Two Testing, g/9/94. ............................................................ 2 1
Figure 8 - Results of On-Site Testing, g/22/94. ............................................................... 2 2
figure 9 - Con~ptul Design of a Full Scale Production System. .................................... 24
List of Tables
Table 1 - Water Quality of the Hopi High School Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._................. 9
4
GLOSSARY
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
anDBSAMCL.NN FntuO&MpsiR OSD1SRTDSTOCu v
At+Ba”ca’+C-3cl-Q2
C rFez+Fe*Ii+HCG-Hz0
HZso4
K+wMn2+Na’NiNQ-Si@so,”
centimetersDaniel B. Stephens and Associatesmaximum contaminant levelNewtonsnanofi.ltrationIlephelometric turbidity unitoperations and maintenancepounds per square inchreverse osmosissilt density indexsalt rejectiontotal dissolved solidstotal organic caxbonultraviolet
CHEMICAL FORMULAS
ahminum ionbariumcalcium ioncalcium carbonatechloride ionchloxinechromiumferrous ionferric ionhydrogen ionbicarbonate ionwatersulfuric acidpotassium ionmagnesium ionmanganese ionsodium ionIliCkdnitrate ionsilicasulfate ion
5
SUMMARY
Commercial nanofiltration membranes were evaluated using a pilot scale testing apparatus fortreatment of a high salinity groundwater used as a drinking water source at the Hopi Junior/SeniorHigh SchooL Based on short term testing results (pressure requirements and permeate quality) twoof the membranes were se&ted for longer term testing in the labomtory and on-site. Both of thesemembranes provided satisfactory treatment results which indicate that in a fuU scale system eithermembrane would produce a drinking water which meets Federal and State standards for TDS.
Hopi Tribal oflick& have expressed interest in the results of this testing. This information will beused to help determine their response to the water quality problems at the school. Officials of theBureau of Indian Affairs, which is responsible for factities at the high school, also have expressedinterest in the results.
Preliminary estimates for a full scale system indicate that the system costs, instahation costs, andfirst year checkout and monitoring will cost approximately S 125,000, or about $2.50 per installedgallon per day, based on a 50,000 gallon per day need. Operation and maintenance costs areestimated at approximately $0.95 per 1000 gallons. Assuming a 20-year project life, the totalcosts are approximately $1.29 per 1000 gallons.
1 .O INTRODUCTION
Included in the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water Treatment Technology Pmgram’s objectives is thedevelopment of effective and economic treatment of impaired quality water for rural America.According to the Program Plan the program wiJl emphasize ‘substantial participation by the non-Federal desalting and water treatment communities and by academia’. The Program Plan alsoemphasizes the importance of technology transfer to communities that can benefit from informationdeveloped through Program-sponsored research.
1.1 Background
Three water supply wells at the Hopi Junior and Senior High School serve the needs of the schooland of the adjoining teachers: community. The school is located approximately 7 miles (11.3 km)east of the town of Polacca on the Hopi Reservation, or about 150 miles (241.4 km) northeast ofFlagstaff, Arizona (Figure 1). Appmximately 500-600 students attend the school andapproximately 150 residents live in the teachers’ community. Additionally, the water is used forlandscaping and fields maintenance at the school. The three wells feed into an elevated storagetank located behind the school. The water from these wells is high in TDS (total dissolved solids),with high concentrations of sodium, chloride, and sulfate. The water quality does not represent ahealth threat, but has presented problems due to objectionable taste and corrosion of pipes andwater heaters, and has caused problems with maintenance of the school football field
Dulaney (1989) stated that the Navajo, or “N”, Aquifer has two chemically distinct types of water:1) a calcimn bicarbonate type of water found in the north and west portions of the aquifer system,and 2) a sodium-chloride-sulfate. type of water near the east and southeast of the aquifer system(where the high school wells are located). Dulaney suggested that the high salinity associated withthe sodium-chloride-sulfate waters may be due to mixing with either the overlying “D” Aquifer orthe underlying “c” Aquifer. A report by the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (1989) on waterquality issues on the Hopi reservation presented mean water quality data for water from the “N”Aquifer, the “D” Aquifer, ‘the “C” Aquifer, and the alluvial aquifer. Data from the high schoolwells more closely resembles mean water quality from the “D” Aquifer, a lower quality source thanthe “N” Aquifer. However, ranges of data show that the high school water chemistry falls withinmaximum values presented for the ‘?\I” Aquifer (CERT. 1989). Daniel B. Stephens & Associates(DBSA) compiled the Report of Year Two Activities EPA 106 Water Quality AssessmentPmgnun for the Hopi Tribe. In this report DBSA addressed the problem of high sahnity in thethme high school wells and one in the nearby community of Polacca. A summary of water andanalyses for the three high school wells was presented and is shown in Table 1. Figure 2 shows amap of the “IV Aquifer on the Hopi and Navajo Reservations.
DBSA suggests two reasons for the lower quality “N” Aquifer water observed in these wells: 1) anatural mixing of waters from the “N” Aquifer and the “D” Aquifer due to either faulting in thearea, or more likely, to the correlation of the high salinity wells with the south-southeast boundaryof the ‘N” Aquifer, or, 2) mixing of waters from the two aquifers due to poor construction of thehigh school wells. DBSA identified four possible mitigation options for addressing natural ormanmade degradation of “N” Aquifer water quality at the Hopi High School:
7
J
aFigure 1. Location of Study Site.
TABLE 1. Water Quality of the Hopi High School Wells.
parameter Avg. Concentration Concentration Range(mgn) (WV
ArsenicBaIiWIlcadmiumchlumiumFlUOlideLeadMercuryNitrateSelenium’SilverAlkalinity (as CaCOs)CalciumChlOlide
CopperHardnessIronMagnesiumMang-PotassiumPHSilica (as SiOdsodiumSulfateTDS
E.C. (Wcm)
< 0.02c 0.1< 0.005< 0.02
2.58< 0.02c 0.001
0.14< 0.005< 0.02286.2
4.88463.8
0.1215.40.21 .2
< 0.051.628.744.43
532.0171.0
1420.8c 0.06
2435
260 - 4451.4 - 8.0230 - 760
0.4 - 2.0
0.8 - 2.88.4 - 9.1
3.66 - 5.36258 - 81080 - 365
1060 - 2180
1550 - 3140
9
8 .* , 1, , ., : . C,’ , , . . , I, , , I, 2 I , , , .,.,..p,,,. a,,
,.,..,,,,,,I,.., I ,,,. ‘I.,
.,,,a,,,,‘,, ,,,, 111#1.#..,,,,,,,, * ,,,,,,,,,, r,,. ,,,,,,,: ,I. ,,,,,, ##,. .
.,,,,,,,,, J . ,,*, ..##.8#.,.. . ,,,,, I ,I,. #I,,,,,,
..,..I ,,,,,, *r,,rr,..,.r,
qJ> L-y%27 ,,a Q&yCi,,%$gyi!fg),,I,111, ?llilll. “&h P,,,,.,,\,,,,,,I. 4I,#,#,,., \,,,,.,,‘l.. , , , , , , , , , ,\,,,I ,,,,,, .#.,.ll#,,/~\
ApproxhMo Bomdwy 01 lhoonflrwd:~, : :’1. tjft+o Bmdrlono A~fs!;;;;;;;;;;;;;,!,~.. . . . . . . . . . . ...,;.,I,
.,,..,I
a . . ,
4,l,4,..,
,,.,,#.‘I,
,.,,....1.
. . . .I I,
. . I I . , . :
, .‘,
, . . I
I , I .
, ., , ,.3s,,..
.,I .,r.,.r .,..,. ,,.,,,,,
.:< :::
\ 2’./‘- Approjtlrnale Boundar; o f C.onfhed.:!
/Newlo Sandslone Aqullsr : ,a
,
‘/
3,:,i i ., , . . .,.,.. . ,. . . ,.. 8. . ..I
r
/::
/r;:,;tr/: .::.I’: : :
‘&., *.*..:.“”.I.:.. ,: .., ,. . .,. ,. .,,. . . .
:, . ..I..,.*,.,.I.,.,.I. .,.,I.,.I,.,
. . ,., . .. ..- ;,,
Figure 2. Edcnt of Navajo (66Npp) Aquifer On The flop1 & Navajo Reservation.
* Down-hole geophysical and water quality studies to attempt to identify the sourceof saline water,
8 Rehabilitation of existing wells;8 Dlilling of new wells;* Installation of a water treatment (reverse osmosis type treatment system).
Down-hole testing has been completed for Well #3 with results inconclusive as to the amount ofseepage that may be occurring from the “D” to the “N” Aquifer. At this time the Hopi Tribe isconsidering the three remaining options for mitigating the salinity problem.
1.2 Purpose of Study
The purpose of the present study is to investigate the technical feasibility of using nanofiltration totreat the water supplied by the three wells at the Hopi High School. This project was proposed inresponse to the Bureau of Reclamation’s Request for Proposals for a preliminary research study ofpossible desalination demonstration projects under the Water Treatment Technology Program. Aprevious study by researchers at Northern Arizona University (Speidel, 1993) contained data thatsuggested that nanofiltration technology might provide a more cost effective approach to treatmentthan reverse osmosis. Nanofiltration is typically used to remove chemical compounds greater thana molecular weight of 500 Daltons. The advantage it offers over reverse osmosis is loweroperating pressures, less strict pretreatment requirements, and a less concentrated reject brinewhich may alleviate disposal problems. Continued progress in membrane development hasproduced commercially available membranes that approach reverse osmosis rejection capabilities,but operate at lower pressures typical for nanofiltration. This study identified and testedcommercially available nanofiltraiion membranes for heating the groundwater supplied by thewells at the Hopi High School.
1 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Preliminary Work
Prior to the actual testing of the membranes initial work had to be performed as described in thefohwing tzisks:
* determination of source water quality;
* identification and acquisition of candidate membranes:
* constructfon of pilot-testing apparatus.
The membranes selected for evaluation were as follows:
FilmTec NF90FilmTec NF45Desalination Systems Desal-5Desalination Systems DKHydranautics PVD 1Fluid Systems TFCS (two tested for replicability evaluation - identified as 5956 and 5957)Purification Products Company NF 500
These membranes were chosen on the following bases: 1) commercial availability; 2) availability ofthe appropriate size membranes (diameter and length) to allow testing with our apparatus. Othermembranes from other manufacuturers or distributors have been identified after the project testingperiod. It may be desirable to do preliminary testing of these membranes prior to final membraneselection.
2.2 Phase One
Short term testing of the nanofiltration membranes was carried out in Phase One evaluations. Eachmembrane was tested over a 24-hour period in which the feed water was made up in the laboratoryusing the source water chemistry as a recipe. Table 1 contains water quality information for theHopi High School wells obtained from the DBSA report. We used worst case water quality datafor our laboratory recipes, knowing that though this doesn’t reflect typical water quality at the highschools, it was prudent to put the system under the most rigorous conditions. Analyses are stillneeded for strontium, total and dissolved iron, and hetemtrophic plate count. These will beobtained prior to full scale design Both reject and product streams were recycled back into thereservoir after passage through the membranes. Samples were obtained at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24hours. The samples were analyzed for the following parameten:
0 Feed Water: Electrical conductivity, pH, flow, pressure, Cl, SO,‘-. Ca”,Mg”;
12
2) Permeate: Electrical conductivity, pH, flow, pressure, Cl. Sod”, Ca”.Mg2+;
3) Reject: Flow, electrical conductivity.
Analyses of anions was conducted on a Wescan Ion Chromatograph or a Dionex IonChromatograph equipped with a conductivity detector. Cations were measured on a Perkln ElmerAtomic Absorption Spectrophotometer equipped with a flame furnace or a Hach DR 3000Spectmphotometer. Temperature and pH were measured on a Coining Model 340 pH meter.Electrical conductivity was measured on an Orion Model 160 Conductivity Meter using an OrionModel 012210 Conductivity Probe.
Flow was maintained at approximately three gal/mm, (11.4 liters/rnin) per membrane at 10%recovery. The two best performing membranes were retested under Phase One conditions withadditional specific ions analyses performed. Additionally, each membrane was tested to determineproduct recovery versus pressure variation.
Figures 3 and 4 show schematic diagrams of the membrane testing apparatus. The apparatusconsisted of the feed reservoir, 5 pm cartridge pie-filters, the high pressure pump, four membranepressure vessels, flow meters for the permeate and reject streams, pressure gauges associated witheach pressure vessel, and associated valves and tubing. The influent water was introduced fromthe reservoir and delivered to the membranes by the high pressure pump. Pressure gaugesupstream from each pressure vessel measured infIuent pressure to the membranes. Both thepermeate and reject streams were recycled back to the reservoir.
2.3 Phase Two
The two best performing membranes (based on water quality of permeate and pressurerequirements) from the Phase One testing underwent longer term testing to evaluate possibleperformance changes over time. The coniiguration of the testing apparatus and feed reservoir werethe same as in Phase One testing (Figures 3 and 4). The reject and product streams were againrecirculated back into the feed reservoir.
Phase Two testing was conducted over a tenday time period. Flow was maintained atapproximately three gaVmin (11.4 liters/min) and the membranes operated at 10% recovery.Samples were taken at 0.5, 1, 2,4, 8, and every 24 hours thereafter. The samples were analyzedfor the following parameters:
1) Feed Water: Electrical conductivity, pH, pressure, temperature, flow,Ca2’, MgZ’, Na’, SO,‘-, and Cl.
2) Permeate: Electrical conductivity, PH. pressure, temperature, flow.Ca2’, Mgl’, Na’, SO,‘-, and Cl.
3 ) Reject: Electrical conductivity, pH. flow.
1 3
FRONTMEW
0.5000x3TO PSI GAGE AND -FLOW METERS 1r
35.0000
TO MANIFOLD:
47,sooo
ii
‘0 0
0 0 iii
0 0
0 0 ii
0 0
0 0
.
P0 0ElII
40 0
46,SOOO
Y 1.500
I- lo5000
PRESSURE GAGE'85,0000x4
-LOW MFTER!
FROM
FROM
62,
-PUMP
(8
AANIFOLD
'EED TANK
Figure 3. Front View Schematic of the Membrane Testing Apparatus.
LEFT SIDE VIEW
T O iFEEDTANK
FROMMEMBRANES
MANIFOLD-.TO MEMBRANESAND PSI GAGE
4
FROM ZFEEDTANK
TO MANIFOLDI -
I1 I
$3.0000x4
MEEMEETO
BRANES X4FLOW METERS
37.0000-PUMP
4
‘87.00 0
Figure 4. Side View Schematic of the Membrane Testing Apparatus.
2.4 On-Sip3
The original proposal described testing only up through Phase Two evaluations. However, duringthe course of the project., communicafion was maintahd with the Hopi Natural Resources andWater Resources agencies. Arnold Taylor, Director of Natural Resources, and Nat Nutongla,Head of Water Resources, were kept informed of the project’s progress. We explored with themthe possibility of testing the membranes on site at the high school and were put in touch with TonyLaban, Facilities Manager at the Hopi High School. Mr. Laban, who works for the Bureau ofIndian Affairs, arranged for us to have access to the pump house at Well #l. We were able toinstall the testing apparatus with modiftcations to the facility’s electrical and plumbing connections.Therefore, with much help from the tribal officials and facilities’ management staff at the school,we were able to accomplish on-site testing, which was additional to the original project scope. itshould be noted that this testing was done at no additional cost to the Bureau of ReclamationApproximately ten trips to the Hopi Reservation (ca. 300 miles, 482.8 km, round trip) wererequired for the setup and testing.
The two membranes tested in Phase Two were evaluated, along with one more membrane chosenfrom the original group of membranes. The tests were run for three days under conditions similarto Phase Two testing, i.e. approximately three gallons per minute, with 10% recovery. Additionaltesting was done on one of the membranes with the testing equipment reconfigured to run in seriesas opposed to in parallel. Three membranes of the same make were used to more closely simulatefull scale operations. Samples were analyzed for the same parameters as in Phase Two testing.
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Phase One Testing
The Phase One testing occurred on 6/7,6/14, and 61’28. As described in the methodology sectionthis work consisted of membrane evaluation over a 24hour period. Measured parameters includedflow (influent, permeate, reject), system pressure, conductivity, SO,‘-, CT. Ca”. Mg2’, permeaterecovery, and salt rejection. The runs conducted on 6/7 and 6/14 included all eight membranes,while the 6/28 run was a replicate run for the two best performing membranes as determined by thetwo previous tests.
Results for the 6/7 and 6/14 runs are shown in Figure 5 and Appendix A. Also included are datasheets for all of the runs. The figures and the following synopsis of the data are based on the 24hour sample taken for each membrane. All of the membranes exceeded 90% rejection of SO4’-.The FtiTec NF90 and the PPCM NF-500 rejected greater than 95% of the influent Mg”. whilethe Mg2* rejection by the other membranes was as follows: Ruid Systems membranes (5956 and5957) greater than 90%; the DeSal DK approximately 88%; the Hydranautics PVDl80%; theDeSal DL less than 65%; and the FrlmTec NP45 approximately 55%. Similar rejections wereobserved for Ca2* rejection except for the PPCM NF-500 membrane which had about a 60%
16
SULFATE REMOVAL W-14 MAGNESIUM REMOVAL W-14 ,
-bllhmtCoclc6t74a4.&Ul4-u6.4 -bnc~l6a6fu-2?.4loo
CALCIUM REMOVAL M-14-~~2lm.6nczzo
lPVD1 IDK q 3NFB ZIDLq W67 RNFW
*units=mgA~units=uSkm
C H L O R I D E R E M O V A L M - 1 4%6umtcarr:6l7=l6%6,6ll4rols.6
TDS REMOVAL 6i7-14--,6/u-~
removaL Inspection of the calcium data from earlier PPCM samples, however, showsapproximately 90-95% rejection, which is probably a more accurate estimation of the rejection.
Rejection of chloride showed the greatest disparity among the membranes. The FiiTec NF90rejected 95% of the chloride, while the PPCM NFSOO and the Fluid System membranes rejected85% and 75%, respectively. The DeSal DK, the Hydranautics PVDl, the FihnTec NF45, and theDeSal DL membranes rejected approximately 55%. 42%. 15%. and 5% of the chloriderespectively. Total dissolved solids removal, as measured by conductivity, showed similar patternswith removals as follows: FiiTec NF90 - 95%, PPCM NF-500 - 86%. Fluid Systems (5956 &5957) - 79%. DeSal DK - 63%, Hydranautics PVDl - 50%, FiiTec NF45 - 30%, and the DeSalDL - 30%.
The pressures required for the different membranes to achieve an approximate 10% recoveryvaried from membrane to membrane. The following initial pressures were recorded for thedifferent membranes at the beginning of the runs (24~hr pressures were influenced by temperatureeffects and therefore are not used for comparison): FiiTec NF45 - 136 psi (93.8 N/cm’); FilmTecNF90 - 108 psi (74.5 N/cm*); PPCM NF-500 - 106 psi (73.1 N/cm3); Desal DL - 105 psi (72.4N/cm’); Hydranautics PVDl - 80 psi (55.2 N/cm*); Desal DK - 102 psi (70.3 N/cm’); FluidSystems TFCS (5956) - 139 psi (95.8 N/cm*); Fluid Systems TFCS (5957) - 141 psi (97.2N/cm*). Initial startup temperatures were the same for every test. approximately 20” C + 1”(-68” F-J
Testing was also conducted to evaluate recovery and conductivity variation with changes inpressure. The influent startup temperature was the same for all of the membranes. All of themembranes showed an initial decrease in permeate conductivity as pressure increased. But at somepoint, typically between 120 - 140 psi (82.7 - 96.5 N/cm*). the conductivity of the permeate beganto increase. These data are included in Appendix A with the other Phase One information.
On 6/28 Phase One testing was again conducted on the FilmTec NF90 and the PPCM NP-500membranes for replication purposes. Figure 6 and Appendix A show the results of this run. Bothmembranes rejected almost 100% of the influent SO,*-, Mg2’, and Ca2’. The FiiTec NF90removed almost 100% of the influent Na’ and greater than 95% of the CT, while the PPCM NF500rejected approximately 83% and 89% of these ions, respectively. Total dissolved solids rejectionwas almost 98% for the NF90 and approximately 92% for the NF-500. Both membranes againshowed excellent rejection capabilities. Higher pressures were observed for both membranes. Thiswas likely due to iron oxide fouling caused by inappropriate fittings supplied by a local distributor.‘lhe fittings were subsequently changed and membrane cleaning with an acid solution wasperformed
Based on permeate quality and on operating pressures, the FilmTec NF90 and the PPCM NF-500are the best performing membranes as determined by this short term testing. Though theHydranautics membrane operates at pressures 20% lower than these two membranes, the permeatequality is substantially lower. Therefore, these two membranes were chosen to undergo the PhaseTwo long term testing.
18
SULFATE REMOVAL 6128influent Concentration = 290.5 mgil
lC0
A
#NFW SBNFSXI
CALCIUM REMOVAL 6128lnfluent Concentration = 24.5 mg/i
:PNFW LBNFSW
SODIUM REMOVAL 6128lnhent Concentration = 300.0 m@l
100
MAGNESIUM REMOVAL 6/28Muent Concentration = 16.3 mg/l
lrn
CHLORIDE REMOVAL 6128lnftuent Concentration = 714.1 mgil
I i”NFQ3 SBNFSOO
T.D.S. REMOVAL 6l28lnttuent Concenldon =3410 &km
Figurt6. ResultsofP!mseOneTesthg#28#4
3.2 Phase Two Testing
The Phase Two testing was begun on WV94 and lasted for ten days. Specific ion analyses wereperformed through the 24-hour sample. Thereafter only pH. conductivity, temperature, pressure,and flows were measured, except for the Xl-day sample which received the full suite of analyses.Figure 7 and Appendix B show the results of this nm. A small increase in conductivity of theNP90 permeate (72 to 119 us/cm) and no significant increase in the conductivity of the NP-500was observed, suggesting little increase in the specific ion concentrations. During this longer termtesting temperature again increased, stabilizing between 37” and 38” C (-99” F). This temperatureincrease was accompanied by a corresponding decrease in operating pressure, from 100 psi to 89psi (68.9 to 61.4 N/cm’) for the PPCM NF-500 and 128 psi to 99 psi (88.3 to 68.3 N/cm2) for theFilmTec NF90. However, as noted above, the permeate quality did not deteriorate for the NF-500membrane and only decreased slightly for the NF90 membrane.
At the ten-day sample a total dissolved solids rejection (as measured by conductivity) of 93% wasmeasured for the PPCM NF-500 membrane and 97% for the FilmTec IW90. The last sample forwhich specific ions were measured, the 24hour sample, showed rejections similar to the otherPhase One tests. lhe NF90 membrane rejected slightly more of the Cl, Na’. and TDS, while bothmembranes rejected almost 100% of the Ca2’, Mg2’, and SO,‘-.
Pressure measurements showed that the membrane cleaning performed after the 6/28 run hadmixed results. The PPCM NP-500 membrane appears to have recovered completely, with aninitial pressure reading of 100 psi (68.9 N/cm2) for an approximately 10% recovery. This iscomparable to the initial pressures observed in the first run on 6/7, approximately 106 psi (73.1N/cm2) for the same recovery. However, the FilmTec NF90 membrane cleaning doesn’t appear tohave been as successful, with an initial pressure reading of 128 psi (88.3 N/cm2) for anapproximate 10% recovery. This is a decrease from the 6/28 initial reading of 138 psi (95.1N/cm’), but still greater than the 108 psi (74.5 N/cm’) recorded on the 6/7 run. Normally wewould simply replace the slightly fouled membrane with a new one, but as the NP90 is stillconsidered developmental, we were not able to obtain any more membranes until November 1994,which was too late to run the tests again. However, the results ate still useful in interpreting themembrane capabilities, as the fouling did not appear to be excessive.
Both membranes performed as well in the longer term testing as they did in the short term tests.The FilmTec NE90 produces a higher quality permeate, while operating at a similar pressure.
3.3 On-Site Testing
On-site testing was conducted at the Hopi High School using three membranes: FilmTec NF90,PPCM NF-500, and Fluid Systems TPCS (5956). Ideally we would have been able to run the testfor ten days. However, at the time we were conducting the tests hvo of the three wells were out ofservice for testing and repairs. Additionally, we had to dispose of the test water by simply drainingit into an adjoining field., which may have caused some misperceptions about wasting water in thisarid climate. Therefore, our extended run lasted slightly over two days. Figure 8 and Appendix Cshow the results of this run Samples were taken at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0.4.0, and 52.0 hours and analyzedfor the same parameters as in Phase One and Phase Two testing. In addition to using the actual
2 0
SULFATE REMOVAL 819bduentConcenlralion=44Z.4m~
1w
CALCIUM REMOVAL 819lnflut3nt Concentration = 13.4 mgA
1oD
:mNFW SNPSOD
SODIUM REMOVAL W9-=wm
lQ1
jllNFW BNFFXX)
MAGNESIUM REMOVAL 8l9Influent Concentration = 7.8 mg/l
rw
wmBcm5ii4ho
0
lmNFS0 :CBNFEW
CHLORIDE REMOVAL 819lnnuentconcentra tion=10592mgfl
T.D.S. REMOVAL 819hlfbentco-on=364o~un
IIINFW SNFSm
Figure 7. Rmuits of Phase Two Tat&, W9/94
SULFATE REMOVAL 9122lnfluent Concentration = 164.7 mg/I
CALClUlU REMOVAL 9122influent Concentration = 10.0 mgIl
1W
0
SODIUM REMOVAL 9/22lnftuentConcentration=760.0 mgA
1oD
0
MAGNESIUM REMOVAL 9122Influent Concentration = 0.80 mgA
0
CHLORIDE REMOVAL 9122lnfluent concentration = 386.4mgA
T.D.S. REMOVAL 9122bdhmtConcentration=247O~cm
Figure6. Resultsof0nateTesun&snask
gmundwater we were able to avoid the temperature effects that affected the laboratory testing. Thetemperature remained at about 22°C (71.6” F) throughout the test.
The 52-hour samples were used to evaluate rejections for each of the membranes. The NF90membrane achieved close to 100% rejections of Mg”, Na’, S04“, and TDS. Rejection of Ca2+ wasonly 90%, however the influent Ca” concentration was low, so any measureable amount in thepermeate (in this case 0.9 mg/l) wilI make the rejection appear somewhat low. This also occurredfor Mg2’ and Ca 2+ rejection by the PPCM NF-500 membrane (0.25 and 1.1 mg/l respectively), butwhich calculates as only a 68% and 90 % rejection The PPCM NF-500 rejected almost 100% ofthe SO,‘- and Na’, and approximately 98% of the Cl- and TDS. The Fluid Systems TFCSmembrane rejected almost 100% of the Mg”, 91% of the SO,‘-, 75% of the Cl- and Ca2’, about70% of the Na’, and more than 80% of the TDS.
All of the membranes requited higher pressures to achieve a 10% recovery during the on-site teststhan in the lab tests. The reason for this is not known at this time, but these pressures are still wellbelow those used for reverse osmosis membranes. Further membrane testing on-site with newmembranes would allow examination of this disparity in operating pressures. The on-site testswere very informative for a number of reasons. These tests provided confirmation of laboratorydata, showing that the two best perfonning membranes also performed well in the field The testsalso showed that laboratory simulation of the treatment process provides a reasonable estimation ofon-site performance. It was also very informative to be able to interact with the people who areinvolved in this issue and to become aware of the various perspectives. These people included theHopi Natural Resources and Water Resources staff, the Hopi High School facilities staff and BIApersonnel, and the teachers, staff and students of Hopi High School.
In summary, it appears that the two membranes identified in the laboratory testing (FiiTec NF90and PPCM NF-500) also performed well in the on-site evaluations. The FilmTec NF90 produces ahigher quality product water, achieving a higher Cl- and TDS removal than the PPCM NF-500.Both membranes operate at similar pressures, so there appears to be no economic basis withrespect to energy consumption to choose one over the other. Therefore, looking purely at permeatequality it would appear that the FilmTec NP90 would be the preferred membrane.
4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ESTIMATES
Prelimhary design estimates were solicited from two firms based on the two best performingmembranes. Summaries of these designs are presented below. Figure 9 shows a conceptual designfor a full scale system. The designs were based on a product water flow of 50,000 gallons per dayusing a water analysis performed on a 10/06/87 sampling. The pilot scale testing used the high endof concentrations observed to look at worst case influent water quality. The preliminary designsare based on a more ‘typical’ water quality analysis. This water quality analysis is presented inAppendix D.
2 3
Mf CRON FILTERm
AU!WUbIIOlbI:50,000 gaLlday60 - 70% Rtcovcry
- P R E S S U R E G A U G E X 5, 7 ip= P R E S S U R E G A U G E X 5HIGH-
HIGH-PRESSUREPRESSURE
M E M B R A N EM MODULE X7
I I I I I
1
PRODUCTR E J E C T -
Figure 9. Conceptual Dedgn of rr Full Scale Production Sydem.
4.1 Design One
A summary of the design components is as follows: twelve nanofiltration elements, three highpressure membrane vessels, one high pressure pump, 5 urn pre-filtration cartridges, and associatedpiping, gauges, and valves. The estimated cost for this system is $62,750, excluding installation,start-up, operator training, and any applicable taxes. Membrane replacement is expected every&tee years at a cost of $13,500. No estimates were provided for product recovery or permeate orreject quality.
4.2 Design Two
A summary of the design components is as follows: two booster pumps, 5 um pre-filtrationcartridge, high pressure pump, 35 membranes, five pressure vessels, electric control panel. andassociated piping, valves, gauges, and flowmeters. Provision was also made for a water softener ifneeded. ‘lhe estimated cost of this system is $83,220 and does not include installation and start-upcosts. Addition of a water softener would add approximately $7,000 to the system costs. Fullinstallation by the vendor is offered ‘at a cost of $15,000. The estimated product water quality is296 ppm 510 % and the reject stream would be approximately 13,000 ppm.
4.3 Brine Disposal
The requests for preliminary design estimates did not include the issue of brine disposal. This willbe addressed prior to any full scale design implementation and will need to be discussed with theappropriate Hopi Tribe agencies in order to comply with tribal regulations. Some of the candidateapproaches that may be investigated include discharge to sewage lagoons, spray irrigation,discharge to lined and unlined evaporation ponds, discharge to infiltration ponds, and discharge towetlands with salt tolerant plants.
4.4 Pretreatment
Other than 5 pm cartridge ii&ration, pretreatment was not addressed in this report. Also, not allwater quality parameters required for determining pretreatment were measured, i.e. S3’, dissolvedand total iron, HPC (heterotrophic plate count), turbidity, and SD1 (silt density index). These needto be considered in any follow-on design of a demonstration pilot plant and/or full-scale system.
2 5
5.0 Discussions and Meetings
Meetings were held with users of the water and with appropriate tribal and agency representativesto discuss the water treatment testing. Results of these meetings and discussions axe presentedbelow.
5.1 Meeting with High School Teachers
The high school’s teachers live in the community adjacent to the high school and are connected tothe high school’s water system. They have expressed concern about the water quality and manyuse bottled water and individual treatment systems. ‘Ihe project PI gave a presentation anddemonstration for the teachers. A number of the teachers later filled water containers with productwater from the pilot scale treatment system.. There was strong interest by the teachers in findingsome resolution to the water quality problems they were experiencing.
5.2 Meeting with Officials
A meeting was held on-site attended by representatives of the Hopi Tribe, the Bureau of IndianAffairs, the Bureau of Reclamation. the high school’s facilities management staff, and NorthernArizona University. Arnold Taylor, Manager of the Hopi Tribe’s Department of NaturalResources, indicated that his Water Resources group was actively investigating solutions to thehigh school’s water quality problems. Alternatives included redrilling of the production wells,establishment of a new well field in a different part of the N Aquifer, and on-site treatment.Stanley Hightower of the Bureau of Reclamation discussed funding for the project with Mr. Taylorand with the representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who oversees facilities operations atthe high schooL The result of the meeting and discussions was that there appears to be sufficientinterest by all parties to investigate possible funding for the full scale system if it is shown that itcan successfully address the water quality problems at the high school.
2 6
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATiONS
8 Short and long term laboratory testing identified two nanofiltration membranes thatsignificantly reduced the TDS. sodium, chloride, and sulfate levels of the feed water.
* Additional pilot-testing conducted on-site at the high school showed that the twomembranes achieved significant reductions in the above parameters with the actual groundwater from the high school wells. Projections based on the on-site testing indicate that at80% recovery the final product water would have an electrical conductivity of 275-325US/WI (-250-300 mg/l TDS).
* Test data and information provided by the two design companies indicate the productionsystem will require the nanofihration system and a pretreatment system similar to theconceptual design shown in Figure 9. The capital cost of this system. including installationand civil works is estimated to be $83,000 to $105,000.
8 The 0 & M costs for this water, including membrane and cartridge replacement andelectrical power is approximately $0.95/1000 gallons or $17,340 per year. This does notinclude the capital costs of approximately $105,000 and the costs for monitoring andcheckout for the first year by Northern Arizona University of approximately $20,000. Thecapital costs and first year checkout costs amount to approximately $2.50 per installedgallon per day (based on 50,000 gpd production). Assuming these costs are covered byappropriate grants and/or matching funds and don’t require amortization, over a 20-yearproject life this will raise the cost of the treated water to approximately $1.29 per 1000gallons.
* Based on meetings with Tribal officials and the Bureau of Indian Affairs representativethere appears to be sufficient interest to investigate funding for the full scale system.
l Design of a pilot demonstration facility or full-scale system should be preceded byadditional analysis of pre-treatment needs, which would include at a minimum analysis ofwell water for S3’. HPC, SDI, total and dissolved iron, and silica. Longer term on-sitetesting may also be beneficial for evaluation of pre-treatment needs. Additionally, brinedisposal options would have to be investigated for both technical and regulatory viability.
2 7
Bibliography
Council of Energy Resource Tribes, 1989. HODS Water Ouality Management Promam.CERTm-89-2594; Project No. 106-2594-O.
Daniel B. Stephens and Associates, 1993. Renort of Year Two Activities EPA106 Water OualityentProgTam,
Dulaney, Alan R., 1989. . The Geochemists of the “N” Aquifer Svstem. Navaio and Hopi IndianResemadom, Northeastern Arizona. Master’s Thesis, Northern Arizona University, 1989.
Speidel, Harold, 1993. Personal Communication.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Research and Laboratory ServicesDivision, 1992. Desaltiwz Technolopv Pnxram. FY 92-98.
28
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Phase 1 Testing Results
30
R u n ofW7lB4
MEMBRANE: MFG. mntec
PEEDWATERT-v-- Ww 4 1 9 . 1PH 9.03Conducibity (uSJcrn) 2940
MOOEU NF90
~ OwNIca 21.0Mg 19.6Nanh
PERMEATEHOUR
0.51 . 0204.08.0
24.0REJECT24hr
HOUR
0.51 . 0204.08.0
24.0RWECT24hr
TEMP.(;yy)
zx281933.336.836.8
ca :
2803.401.400.200.100.2014.60
PH
9.229.559.368.959.538.948.72
COND. PRESS.WJN (psi)
8419 1 0 8 . 0 1 0 7 . 083.8 105.088.8 1020111.2 85.0ll6.5 84.0
84.0
MS
1.400.602100.500.700.70
Na
n / a 1 . 5n / a 1 . 7nh b / dn/a 23.0n/a 23.1n/a b/d
21.10 n/a 395.6
RunafWB4
MEMBRANE: MFG. Desal MODEU DL
FEEDWATER m (WUTempetmture (de9 c) 1 9 . 1 ca 21.00
PH 9.0 Mg 19.60ConductMy (us/cm) 2940 Nanla
PERMEATEHOUR TEMP. PH
0.51.0204.08.0
24.0REJECT24hr
FG23:2026.2028.9033.50
Ei
8.698.818.788.588.798.638.76
COND.
‘~~’1640169317511922
PRESS.(pri)105.0194.0101.097.075.0720720
HOUR ca
0.5 6.701 . 0 6.7020 5.304.0 5.208.0 6.60
24.0 8.30REJECT24hr 23.40
‘wd=blbwddlctlon. m=llU-
3.70 d a 404.5 727.24.70 da 406.2 610.25.60 d a 77.0 881.76.10 nla 220.4 645.47.70 n/a 46.8 1130.07.00 n h Wd 983.3
31.20 nla 6115 1137.9
m0n8 (mu4so4 494.60
Cl 1015.60
ww (9m)PERM. REJECT
0.28 rtw0.27 n t a0.28 n/a0.29 nta0.28 2300.26 2.40240 n/a
cl
28.4025.00210.30247.5084.4039.90
1128.40
Anions (mcm)so4 494.60
Cl 1015.60
FLOW/ (9PmPERM. REJECT
0.33 n/a0.37 nh0.38 nh0.400.33 z0.36 280280 n/a
C l
Run of 6m94
MEMBRANE: MFG. mntec MODEU NF4!5
FEEDWATERTemperature (deg C)wconductivity (uskJn)
cations mmca 21.06Mg 19.66Na nia
Aniins (mgil)so4 494.66
cl 1015.6019.19.0
2940.0
PERMEATEHOUR
flow @pm)PERM. REJECTTEMP.
(deg cl21.3623.3026.2029.0033.7036.8036.70
COND. PRESS.0-m (PO1799.0 105.oo1831.0 135.oo1869.0 132.061919.0 128.061901.0 85.001997.0 82.003370.0 82.00
0.51.0204.08.0
24.0REJECT24hr
8.678.808.778.598.818.718.81
0.330.360.380.400.290.30220
n/an/anfan/a
n/a
HOUR ca MS Na SO40.5 8.30 5.40 nla 321.31.0 9.10 5.00 n / a 181.720 9.10 7.00 n / a 175.04.0 10.20 7.4o n i a 20.48.0 7.70 8.20 n/a Wd
24.0 8.00 8.70 n/a Wd
Cl884.1765.1849.5729.4694.4858.41055.7REJECT24hr 26.40 24.80 n/a 391.3
Run of 817194
MEMBRANE: MFG. PPCM MODELS NF500
FEEDWATER catbft8 (man)Temperahm(degC) 19.1 ca 21.00w 9.0 Mg 19.60conduc8uity (us/cm) 2940.0 Na n/a
Anions (IngIl)so4 494.60
Cl 1015.50
PERMEATEHOUR COND. PRESS.
OJ~~) [email protected] 106.0216.0 105.02w.O loiL0248.0 98.0343.0 75.0381.0 72.03410.0 72.0
PERM. REJECT(dy;*21.3023.3026.3029.3033.5036.9036.70
PH
0.51.0204.08.0
24.0REJEC724hr
9.059.139.008.798.978.758.79
0.300.310.330.350.260.263.20
n/aIdanlan/a320320nla
303.8150.3232.3150.31154.6
HOUR ca0.5 1.601.0 18.6020 2104.0 0.508.0 1.70
Ma0.201.000.600.100.20
Nan!anian/anhn/an/a
3.96.3
36.266.826.8
W d24.0 8.20 020REJECT24hr 38.40 13.00 n/a 306.9
l W-brbrdlstbSW-lld-
MEMBRANE: MFG. Fiuid Svs. MODEIS SE5957
~0~ OW)ca2260Mg 27.40Nan/a
FEEDWATERT-w-u= (deg ClwCunducdvity (us/an)
MO~U OWUso4 440.40
cl 969.60
PERMEMEHOUR CON0
(u=m
z-i842.0881.0922-O929.0
PRESS.(psi)141.0149.0139.0137.0129.0128.0128.0
N a SO4
Fmvv (9pm)PERM. REJECT
0.30 1.500.32 1.490.32 1.490.35 1.480.35 1.600.34 1.600.34 1.60
Cl
n/a 47.10 270.00nta 32.10 197.70n/a 55.70 418.30n/a nla n/an/a 3230 279.00n/a 27.60 220.00n/a 395.8 911.70
PH
9.199.279.189.169.028.008.96
M9
2902102702503.402.4032.20
0.51.02 04.0
248.:REJECT24ir
23.8025.0029.6033.7036.9037.29
HOUR ca
0.5 2401.0 2.202.0 1.304.0 0.308.0 0.40
24.0 0.90REJECT24hr 9.80
Runofww94
MEMBRANE: MFG. Fluid Svs. MODEU SE!5956
~ OWUca2260Mg 27.40Nanla
FEEDWATERPmsmJre (psi) 30.0Tern-m (de9 C) 19.6Ffw (gpm) 3.0PH 9.06conductivity (us/cm) 4390
PERMEATEHOUR
0.5
;o”4.08.0
24.0REJECT24hr
Egi
24.0025.0029.7033.6037.2037.20
HOUR ca
0.5 2401.0 29020 2.504.0 3.908.0 0.40
24.0 1.40REJECT24hr 14.80
‘~=b*av~,rd=nu-
Anions (mgll)so4 440.40
Cl 969.60
FLOW (9PmPERM. REJECTPH
9.249.139.179.179.018.858.98
M9
3.202504.501.603.10210
COND.w&y’
E-i961:o932.0949.04310
PRESS.(psi)139.0138.0137.0135.0126.0127.0127.0
0.30 1.600.31 1.660.32 1.550.35 1.550.32 1.700.32 1.600.32 1.60
Na Cl
49.7038.1058.40
&34.10
313.50241.00620.20
2z70243.20676.80
n/anfan/an/anJanfa
20.80 n/a 380.8
MEMBRANE: M F G Hvdranautics MODW m
FEEDWATER ~ MWT-P=-~ Veg Cl 19.6 ca22.60PH 9.06 Mg 27.40CanductMy(uS/an) 4390 Narda
mw8 (m@)804 440.40
Cl MO.60
PERMEATEHOUR lEMP.
idea clPH
FLOW mmPERM. REJECTCOND.
kWCtTl)PRESS.(psi)80.0079-W78.00n.0076.0076.0076.00
0.5
24.08.0
24.0REJECR4hr
2220’ 9.2024.00 9.1325.10 9.1420.80 9.1333.50 9.1637.30 9.0637.30 8.98
HOUR ca s
0.32 4.800.34 4.800.35 4.800.37 4.600.48 4200.48 4.200.48 4.29
Na cl
0 . 5 7.00 6.501.0 3.40 3.3020 6.00 6.70
4.0 8.80 6.808.0 4.80 7.70
24.0 4.90 5.60REJECR4hr 13.20 24.60
dada
n/a
14.00 589.1017.00 661.8020.70 894.90
n/a rda11.50 624.5011.50 558.00335.8 79260
Run of 6mW
MEMBRANE: MFG. Desal MOOW DK
FEEDWATER
TmWre VW C)PHconductivity (UWan)
Cdfk8 (ma4ca 22.60Mg 27.40Nan /a
AIW~ (mgH)so4 440.60
Cl 969.6019.69.06
PERMEATEHOUR
0.51.02 04.08.0
24.0REJECR4hr
now mmPERM. REJECTPRESS.
(psi)1020101.0loo.008.096.096.096.0
E25:o29.833.637.237.3
PH
9.109.119.009.139.149.018.97
COND.WzQn)
14511470154915381560
0.32 3.400.340.36 E0.38 3.300.44
:I::z2 8 0
HOUR ca Mg Na cl
0.5 280 3.40 n/a 40.0 374.201.0 1.40 4.60 n/a nh 349.002 0 3.00 3.10 n/a d a 872.804.0 3.10 3.80 da n/a d a8.0 1.50 3.40 l-da 11.5 328.80
24.0 0.90 3.30 Ilk 11.5 438.30REJECTZ4hr 13.60 28.80 nh 366.6 821.40
Runof
REJECT24hr
MEMBRANE:
15.60
MFG. PPCM
18.30
FEEDWATERTemperature (deg C) 20.6w 9.01Conducfkily (US/~) 3410
PERMEATEHOUR TEMP. PH
(deg cl0.5 2210 8.861.0 23.80 8.8420 24.70 8.704.0 26.50 8.798.0 28.60 a62
24.0 33.20 8.37REJECT24hr 33.80 8.68
HOUR ca . M9
0.5 0.14 0.121.0 0.13 0.1020 0.19 0.144.0 0.21 0.168.0 0.25 0.18
24.0 0.15 0.10
MODELS NF500
m.m~ (mgll)Ca 24.50Mg 18.30Na300
COND. PRESS.wm W)238.0 119.0236.0 117.0237.0 115.0255.0 1120267.0 110.0262.0 111.03770.0 111.0
N a
47.90 15.5046.10
440.00
8.7540.00
390.0
31.0041.30 43.8037.10 31.5046.10 5.25
Runof#28/94
MEMBRANE: MFG. Film&c
FEEDWATERTemperatum(degC) 2 0 . 6PH 9.01conductivity (us/an) 3410
PERMEATEHOUR lEMP: PH
t-9 cl0.5 2210 a951.0 23.80 9.3120 24.70 9.234.0 26.50 9.218.0 28.60 9.24
24.0 34.20 8.61REJECT24hr 33.80 8.64
HOUR ca M9
0.5 0.200 0.081
MODEU NF90
catIon mmCa 24.50Mg 16.30Na 300.0
COND.(gfg)
78:lO8o.w83.2086.4081.203970.0
PRESS.(psi)138.0135.0133.0131.0130.0134.0134.0
N a so4
1.08 7.551.0 0.037 0.025 1.11 0.582 0 0.025 0.013 1.16 14.004.0 0.050 0.025 1.18 18.808.0 0.140 0.038 1.20 7.80
24.0 0.061 0.038 1.10 5.20REJECT24hr 16.50 20.00 407.50 315.0
Afws OW)so4 290.50Cl 714.10
~cnv mmPERM. REJECT
0.31 3.600.32 3.600.33 3.500.34 3.500.36 3.800.31 3.400.31 3.40
Cl
46.3043.1060.0067.3072007200760.00
hm= (man)so4 290.50Cl 714.10
mvv (9pm)PERM. REJECT
0.32 2100.34 2000.35 1.900.37 1.900.39 1.800.37 1.800.37 1.80
cl
17.800.715230
:::24.80927.00
Run of 6/7/94Pfl88surevariatioflRsults
FILMTEC NF90PRESSURE RECOVERY CONOUCTMlY ‘RESSURE RECOVERY CONWCTMW
70 0.16 1062 70 025 1905’.80 0.19 109.8 80 0.32 190290 024 103.1 90 0.37 1824
1 0 0 029 98.3 100 0.42 17551 1 0 0.34 87.7 310 0.48 17021 2 0 0.39 63.8 120 0.53 16661 3 0 0.42 83.5 130 0.59 16421 4 0 0.48 82.7 140 0.65 1628150 0.52 87.5 150 0.71 1644
DESAL - DL
PPCM NF500 FILMTEC NF45RECOVERY CONDUCTMM PRESSURE
0.18 288 70025 3 2 1 80
0.3 284 900.37 252 1 0 00.42 2 4 1 1 1 00.48 2 3 1 1 2 00.53 228 1300.59 225 1400.63 237 150
RECOVERY02
0250280.330.370.390.420.42
0.4
CON0UCTMl-f195819181878184618431874201024102480
PRESSURE7 08090
loo1 1 0
~ :z
~ 140 150
Run of 611494pft?ssuRvariation~
FLUID SYS. SE5957RESWRE
708090
1 0 01 1 01 2 01 3 01 4 0150
RECOVERY CONDUCTMTY0.16 8600.18 1016021 902025 898028 8690.31 6 5 10.34 6 5 10.37 956
0 . 3 8 1010
HYDRA. PVDI‘RESSURE RECOVERY CONDUCTVllY
70 0.36 21608 0 0.41 20709 0 0.51 2010
1 0 0 0.59 1949110 0.67 18881 2 0 0.75 18731 3 0 0.81 1873140 0.89 19061 5 0 0.98 1961
F
1I
‘RESSURE708090
1001101 2 01 3 01 4 0150
PRESSURE708090
1001 1 0120130140150
FLUID SYS. SE5956RECOVERY CONDUClMlY
0.16 9 8 10.19 1026OZ 9 9 1026 950028 9250.31 9290.35 9630.37 12260.38 12Z
DESAL DK IRECOVERY CONDUCl-Ml’Y
025 15630.3 1683
0.36 16710.41 15790.48 15020.52 14430.58 14280.62 14600.68 1554
Run of 6128194
pPC!d NF600 ’ IFlLMTEC NF90PRESSURE
700090
l o o710120130140150
RECOVERY0.150.180.210.260.290.320.380.410.46
PRESSURE RECOVERY70 a1780 0.1990 0.24
100 a29110 0.32120 0.39130 0.42140 0.48750 0.52
CONOU-
250242
CONOUC’T’IWW130.7118.7106.798.892.588.6
6604.884.4
Run of 8/9/94-Pfessumvukbionr8sults
PPCM NF500 FILMTEC NF90PRESSURE RECOVERY
70 0.18a0 0.2490 a3
100 0.35110 0.4120 0.48130 0.53140 0.58150 asi
CONOUCllVlTY PRESSURE RECOVERY CONOUCllVlTYii 70 0.16 114.5
80 0.19 134.3259 90 0.22 119.2247 100 0.29 105.4237 110 0.34 102.5231 120 0.38 97.8
130 0.42 93.6140 0.48 93.4
P5 150 0.52 92.5
Appendix B
Phase 2 Testing Results
38
Run of 8msM
MEMBRANE: MFG. PPCM MODElAt NF500
FEEDWATERT-W-J= (WI ClPHConductivity (us/cm)
20.28.6
3640
Cations (mgil)Ca 13.40lug 7.80Na 546.0
PERJUEATEHOUR
0.51.02.04.08.0
24.0REJECT 24 hr
48.072.096.0
120.0144.0168.0192.0216.0240.0
REJECT 240 hr
HOUR Ca MS Na SO4 CI
0.5 0.263 0.113 45.80 87.7 199.001.0 0.088 0.063 45.40 38.3 131.302 0 0.100 0.063 39.50 26.5 104.904.0 0,113 0.075 38.50 24.3 108.008.0 0.100 0.630 42.80 12.5 64.50
24.0 0.050 0.100 44.80 21.4 76.10REJECT 24 hr 13.80 8.20 600.0 506.5 3267.50
21.6021.90
5::27.3031.0032.6035.7037.3037.9037.7037.8037.7037.9038.5036.10
PH
8.908.988.908.988.808.448.638.718.808.328.628.908.719.029.109.09
COND.(u-m354.0224.0221.0214.0243.0250.03970267.0261.0252.0249.0242.0240.0248.0247.0247.04120
PRESS.(PM
100.0100.0100.096.0092.0089.0089.0086.0087.0087.0087.0086.0088.0089.0089.0089.00
Anions (mg/l)s o 4 4 2 2 . 4 0
C l 1 0 5 9 . 2 0
FLOW @pm)PERM. REJECT
0.300.300.290.280.290.280.280.280.280.280.280.270.260.260.260.27
3.103.703.003.002.902.902.902.802.802.802.80
z-22:802.702.60
Run of 8/09194
MEMBRANE: MFG. Film&c MODEIS NF90
FEEDWATERTemperature (de9 CPHConductivity (us/cm)
20.08.6
caths mmCa 13.40Mg 7.80Na 546.0
PERMEATEH O U R
0.51.02.04.08.0
24.0REJECT24hr
48.072.096.0
120.0144.0168.0192.0216.0240.0
RWECT24Ohr
HOUR ca
0.5 b/d1.0 b/d2.0 b/d4.0 b/d8.0 b/d
24.0 b/dREJECT24hr 10.40
TEMP.(deg cl21 so21.8022.70.’24.2027.4032.2032.5035.5037.3038.0038.0037.6037.5037.8038.5036.70
PH
9.089.089.179.078.858.89
‘8.748.838.748.588.768.798.829.009.049.29
M9
0.050.010.030.030.010.015.85
COND.wm
72.369.172.978.091.794.03990108.9111.9114.3173.5108.2110.1119.2121.1119.14130
PRESS.(psi)
128.0128.0129.0124.0117.0100.0100.097.097.097.097.098.098.099.099.099.0
PERM. REJECT
0.26 2 . 5 00.26 2.500.27 2.500.27 2.400.27 2.500.26 2.500.26 2.500.27 2.400.27 2.500.27 2.500.27 2.500.26 2.400.25 2.50
0 . 2 5 2.500.25 2.500.25 2.50
N a Cl
13.8 5.9 17.412.3 30.3 22.913.3 3.8 20.714.1 n/a n/a16.2 3.5 60.216.8 4.4 33.5
916.0 372.9 868.1
Anions (mg/l)S O 4 4 2 0 . 5 0
Cl 1059.20
FLOW (gpm)
Appendix C
On-Site Testing Resu Its
MEMBRANE: MFG. PPCM MODE!3 NF500
FEEDWATER Cations (mgll)Temperature (deg C) 21 .l C a 10.0PH 8.6 Mg 0 . 8condudivity (us/cm) 2 4 7 0 N a 760.0
Anions (mg/l)SO4 164.7
Cl 386.4
PERMEATEH O U R TEMP.
(deg clPH COND. PRESS.
(us/cm) @SO
fiovv him)PERM. REJECT
0 . 3 0 2.800.30 2.800.30 2.800 2 9 2.700.29 2.70
Cl
9 2 011.507 . 9 06 . 0 08 . 2
0.5 -2220- 8.75 58.31.0 21.90 7.85 6 6 . 72.0 22.60 8.05 33.24.0 22.40 8.08 4 6 . 6
52.0 n/a n/a n/a
HOUR C a fw N a
0 . 5 1.10 0.10 3.301.0 1.10 0.10 3.702 . 0 1.20 b/d 1.304 . 0 1 2 0 b/d 0.60
52.0 1.00 0.25 4.63
140.0137.0140.0140.0140.0
S O 4
0.910.960.690.5715.90
Run of g/22/94
MEMBRANE: MFG. Fluid Svstems MODEL# 5956
FEEDWATERTemperature (deg C) 21 .lPH 8.63Conduct&ii (us/cm) 2 4 7 0
PH
Cations (mgll)C a 1 0 . 0M g 0 . 8N a 7 6 0 . 0
Anions (mgll)SO4 164.7
C l 3 8 6 . 4
PERMEATEHOUR TEMP.
0.5
1.02 . 04 . 0
52.0
w&
2 2 2 022.3022.60
n/a
aw (gpm)P E R M . REJECTCOND. PRESS.
wm 0563.0 181.0588.0 182.0491 .o 181.0389.0 179.0453.0 185.0
8.457.877.888.03n/a
026 2.300 2 6 2.300 . 2 7 2.300 . 2 6 2.600 2 4 2.30
HOUR Ca Mg Na
0.5 12.50 2.501.0 5.00 b/d2.0 5.00 bid4 . 0 5.00 b/d
52.0 2.50 b/d
Cl
305.0 168.0270.0 37.40267.5 2 6 2 0220.0 27.10235.0 14.70
9 7 . 8 0110.4086.005 9 . 8 098.10
Runof amsd
MEMBRANE= MFG. FilmTec
FEEDWATERT=nperatum Ww ClP Hconductivity (us/cm)
PERMEATEHOUR
0.51.02.04.0
52.0
HOUR ca Mg
0.5 0.90 bid1.0 1.10 W d2.0 1.00 W d4.0 1.10 W d
52.0 1.10 W d
21.18.632470
F&i21.9022.6022.50
n/a
PH
0.078.030.208.35n/a
MODEIS NF90
catbns mmca 10.0Mg 0.8Na 760.0
COND.Wy)
ii-f:33:225.9
PRESS.(Psi)
158.0
160.0 150.0150.0
n/a
Na SO4
0.50 0.640.60 0.552.60 0.433.80 0.364.30 0.49
FLOW (cm)REJECTPERM.
0.29 2.800.29 2.600.28 2.800.27 2.70n/a n/a
Cl
4.504.503.502.603.50
AnIons owvs o 4 164.7
Cl 386.4
NF70 NF500
Run of g/22/94Pressure variation results
PRESS708 09 0100110120130140150160170180190200
( RECOVERY) ( RECOVERY)REJECT PERM PRESS REJECT PERM
4.70 0.09 70 4.20 0.124.50 0.10 8 0 4.00 0.134.36 0.13 90 3.80 0.164.10 0.15 100 3.60 0.193.96 0.18 110 3.40 0.213.70 0.19 120 320 0243.46 0.21 1 3 0 290 0283.10 0.25 140 2.70 0.30280 I 0.28 iSO 250 0133260 0.30 160 230 0.37230 0.32 170 210 0.391.90 0.34 180 1.80 0.421.60 0.38 190 1.50 0.451.10 0.39 200 1.10 0.48
Appendix D
Water Quality Analysis for Preliminary Design Estimates
45
Inorganic Chemical Analysis
Lab Name and Address:Western Technologies, Inc.3737 Easst Broadway Road
P.O. Box 21387Phoenix, AZ 85038
Hopi JrfSr. High School - Well No. 3 1 O/06/87
Contaminant Name Analvsis Results (me/l)
RrseniCBariumcadmiumalromiumFhlOlide
MercuryNitratesseleniumSilveri4lkahityCalciumChlOliCk
CopperHardnessIronMagnesiumManganeseP HsbdilmlSulfateTDS
4.02co. 1co.005CO.02
2 .9<0.02CO.001co. 1CO.005CO.02260
8760CO.05
2 80 .37
CO.058 .9
810320
2180<o.os
4 6
