Project Feasibility Study for the Overseas Expansion of ...

Project Feasibility Study for the Overseas Expansion of

Quality Energy Infrastructure in FY2018

(Reduction of RO Concentrate by applying Japanese Demineralization

Technology onto Wastewater Reclamation Process in the United States)

REPORT

March 2019

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc.

Zeolite Inc.

CONTENTS

Frequently Used Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................. 1

１．Policies and measures for wastewater treatment in the United States .................... 2

２．Grasp the state of treatment of RO membrane concentrate wastewater ................ 38

３．Concept of proposed system and confirmation of superiority ................................... 41

４．Business model and estimate of project cost ............................................................. 85

５．Finance and economic evaluation ............................................................................... 90

６．Governmental supports ............................................................................................... 92

７．Estimate of CO2 emissions reduction and environmental impacts ......................... 97

８．Risk analysis .............................................................................................................. 104

９．Project potential in the United States and the strategy ......................................... 105

１０．Technological superiority of Japanese companies and estimate of profit for

Japanese participants ....................................................................................................... 108

１１．Report Meeting ........................................................................................................ 111

1

Frequently Used Abbreviations and Acronyms1

ANSI American National Standards Institute

AOP advanced oxidation processes

ASR aquifer storage and recovery

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand

COD chemical oxygen demand

CWA Clean Water Act

DBP disinfection by-product

DO dissolved oxygen

DOC dissolved organic carbon

DPR direct potable reuse

EDC endocrine disrupting compounds

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

GAC granular activated carbon

HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

IPR indirect potable reuse

IRP integrated resources plan

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MBR membrane bioreactor

MCL maximum contaminant level

MF microfiltration

NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PPCP pharmaceuticals and personal care product

PCR polymerase chain reaction

POC particulate organic carbon

RO reverse osmosis

SAT soil-aquifer treatment

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SRT solids retention time

TDS total dissolved solids

TMDL total maximum daily load

TOC total organic carbon

TrO trace organic compounds

TSS total suspended solids

TWM total water management

UF ultrafiltration

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1 EPA “2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse” (2012)

2

１．Policies and measures for wastewater treatment in the United States

１－１ Water reclamation for potable use

（１）Overview

On the reclamation of wastewater, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines three types

of water reclamation systems for potable reuse, De Facto Reuse, Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) and

Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR).2

Table 1 Water reclamation systems for potable use3

De Facto Reuse A situation where reuse of treated wastewater is practiced but is

not officially recognized (e.g., a drinking water supply intake

located downstream from a wastewater treatment plant [WWTP]

discharge point).

Direct Potable Reuse（DPR） The introduction of reclaimed water (with or without retention in

an engineered storage buffer) directly into a drinking water

treatment plant. This includes the treatment of reclaimed water at

an Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility for direct

distribution.

Indirect Potable Reuse（IPR） Deliberative augmentation of a drinking water source (surface

water or groundwater aquifer) with treated reclaimed water,

which provides an environmental buffer prior to subsequent use.

2 EPA “2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse” (2012) 3 EPA “2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse” (2012)

3

Figure 1 Potable Water Reuse4

4 Texas Water Development Board “Direct Potable Reuse Resource Document” (2015)

4

For the water reclamation project in the countries and areas where dilution by De Facto Reuse is not

expected, various combinations of technologies have been developed. EPA says treatment train is to

be investigated considering situation of each site.

The degree of coordination and cooperation that can be achieved may vary from project to project

and from state to state. Therefore, states committed to achieving integrated water resources planning

goals may choose to adopt laws that consolidate regulatory programs to the extent possible or

improve the coordination and cooperation among programs of different state agencies for the

purpose of facilitating this planning framework.5

Especially in the States of Arizona, California, Florida and Texas, there have been various initiatives

towards water reclamation; therefore, EPA has developed the guideline for wastewater reuse, including

potable reuse6.

The guideline also mentions that local governments or water related departments should make much

clearer investigation of technologies, development of laws with responsibility towards implementing

DPR or IPR of wastewater reclamation treatment. Now the states of California and Texas have been

taking initiatives to organize and systematize the technology information towards future state laws and

regulations.

Potable water standard in the United States is based on Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and

wastewater standard on Clean Water Act (CWA). SDWA is the federal law managed by US EPA. Both

public and private water systems have been obliged to supply water with compliance of water standard

set by EPA and local governments. CWA is also the federal law regulating the wastewater emissions

and its standards. It has set up the limitation by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, uder

which pollutant discharge is allowed by expanding from each emission source to the area. The

standards are regulated more strictly in the area where it is hard to restore or sustain, which is decided

by each state in depending on the purpose of water usage. On water reclamation, US EPA supports

States and local governments to make their own regulations and guideline, and makes out guidelines

for water reuse. States and local governments have responsibilities for water reuse and water quality

standards, hence there is no regulations under the federal government.

Situation in the State of California has been affecting on the water reclamation projects including

potable use in the other states of United States. Therefore, it is slso important for the F/S to focus on

the laws and technology information under the California State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB).

5 EPA “2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse” (2012) 6 EPA “2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse” (2012)

5

History of IPR begins by the projects of the SWRCB in the Orange County, San Francisco, in which

penetration of recycled water and injection of surface water into groundwater in 1965 and 1976

respectively, for the purpose of avoiding seawater damage into groundwater. From the introduction of

law on groundwater recharge using recycled water in 1978 by the California Department of Public

Health (CDPH), revision of the law has been developed for the purpose of recharging reclaimed water

into aquifer.

SWRCB has clarified that definition of IPR includes that there is environmental buffer to keep

recycled water for equal or more than two months as groundwater or environmental water7.

Among the operating IPR projects, the combination of secondary and tertiary treatment followed by

RO membrane treatment as advanced treatment can be found out more than oznone treatment.

And, there are many IPR projects in which potable water is supplied directly or through chrorination

after the storage in the aquifer (soil-aquifer treatment). The case of Namibia is DPR without soil-

aquifer treatment.

Figure 2 Examples of potable reuse schemes8

7 SWRCB“A Proposed Framework For Regulating Direct Potable Reuse In California” (2018) 8 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017)により作成

RO membrane

Ozone

Soil-aquifer treatment

6

Table 2 Pioneering potable reuse schemes (DPRand IPR)9

Type Site Situation

IPR Montebello Forebay,

United States of

America

Potable reuse was first implemented in the 1960s using surface

spreading followed by SAT, where wastewater after secondary

treatment, chlorination and media filtration is infiltrated through

the vadose zone into the aquifer at the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel

Coast Spreading Grounds. The recharged groundwater blended

with native groundwater is subsequently recovered, disinfected

and fed into the drinking-water distribution system.

IPR Orange County,

United States of

America

Potable reuse was introduced with development of Water Factory

21 in 1976. The scheme included injection of treated wastewater

into a coastal aquifer. Water Factory 21 was replaced by the

Groundwater Replenishment System in 2007. Following

treatment by conventional biological wastewater processes, MF,

RO, AOP (UV/H2O2), stabilization and final chlorination,

wastewater is injected into the coastal aquifer to provide a

seawater intrusion barrier and percolated from several lakes into

groundwater used as a source of drinking-water that is often not

chlorinated after withdrawal.

DPR Windhoek, Namibia The first DPR scheme was introduced in the 1960s. The current

scheme combines biological treatment, ozonation, dissolved air

flotation, media filtration, activated carbon adsorption and

ultrafiltration (UF) of wastewater, with the product water blended

with drinking-water produced from surface water/groundwater

and fed into the drinking-water distribution system.

（２）Methods of water treatment

The followings show the important water reclamation ways.

Table 3 Important water reclamation ways10

Primary

treatment

Primary treatment is essentially a physical treatment process which removes

suspended solids.

It removes some organic nitrogen, phosphorus and heavy metals but only

9 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017) 10 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017) etc.

7

provides limited removal of microbial pathogens.

Secondary

treatment

Secondary treatment involves biological digestion and is commonly based on

some form of ASP or trickling filters.

It removes organic materials by digestion and should reduce biochemical

oxygen demand and suspended solids by 85% or more

Particle bound chemicals are removed and concentrations of microbial

pathogens are reduced.

Nitrification and denitrification processes, in particular, can greatly improve

water quality for downstream processes such as advanced oxidation and

chlorination by removing ammonia and nitrate, respectively.

Tertiary

treatment

Tertiary treatment is an expensive component of wastewater treatment,

especially as it involves the cultivation of fastidious bacteria and the sequential

use of oxic, then anoxic conditions, usually requiring multiple tanks and

pumping systems.

SAT (soil-

aquifer

treatment)

From a technical point of view, perhaps the most basic and robust potable reuse

treatment is groundwater infiltration, which is also known as SAT. Soil-aquifer

treatment is a low technology process where treated wastewater percolates from

spreading basins through soil which provides nutrient, microbial and chemical

attenuation.

Soil-aquifer treatment requires availability of unconfined aquifers, vadose zones

with no constricting layers and soil that allows for infiltration while being fine

enough to provide filtration. Subsequent aquifer storage also results in reduction

of microbial pathogens and some chemical contaminants.

Oxidative

processes

Many potable reuse treatment schemes utilize an oxidative process for

attenuation of organic contaminants.

The most common oxidative processes, ozonation and AOP, can be extremely

effective but by-product formation must be carefully monitored and controlled.

Operational and energy costs are high. Advanced oxidation processes enhance

degradation of chemical contaminants through increased production of

hydroxyl radicals from hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and UV light or ozone and

UV light.

Advanced oxidation is effective against a wider range of organic chemicals and

at higher reaction rates than standard oxidation processes. Using processes such

as biological active carbon (BAC) following oxidative processes can be very

effective for reducing many organic transformation compounds produced by the

oxidation step, although some substances such as bromate are generally not

8

effectively removed.

Activated

carbon

adsorption

Adsorptive activated carbon can remove the vast majority of organic

contaminants. However, breakthrough from the activated carbon can occur as a

function of molecular structure or contaminants, water quality, the type of

activated carbon, and the operational parameters employed.

The use of activated carbon can be relatively expensive and will require periodic

replacement or reactivation.

Activated carbon also can serve as a support structure for the growth and

retention of biological organisms resulting in formation of BAC which may be

operated as a stand-alone process or preceding absorptive granular activated

carbon (GAC).

Low

pressure

membrane

filtration

Low pressure membrane filtration includes MF and UF with pore sizes ranging

from 0.1–0.2 microns for MF to 0.01–0.05 microns or less for UF.

Membrane filtration is being used with increasing frequency in drinking-water

and wastewater reuse schemes as effective barriers for pathogenic protozoa and

to a lesser extent the smaller viral pathogens.

In potable reuse schemes membrane filtration can be used to provide

consistently low turbidity water that reduces fouling of subsequent processes

such as NF and RO.

High

pressure

membrane

filtration

High pressure desalting membranes such as RO and NF are extremely effective

physical barriers for all pathogens and most organic contaminants.

Most RO membranes can remove upwards of 99% of salinity from water and

hence are expected to provide an even greater removal of microbial

contaminants.

Nanofiltration is not as effective in removing salinity but will remove substantial

amounts of higher valent ions like calcium, magnesium and sulfate.

Figure 3 Membrane filtration pore sizes11

11 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017)

9

（３）Processes after treatment

The following are the important process after the water treatment itself. Especially, it is the most

important to investigate the level of LRV (Log Reduction Value) for each pathogen.

Table 4 Important process after the water treatment

Environmental buffer12 A key element of IPR is an environmental buffer. The

environmental buffer, either an aquifer or a surface water

reservoir, provides a number of potential benefits, including

contaminant attenuation, dilution and blending, and time to

detect and respond to failures before final treatment and

distribution. Environmental buffers also provide storage

capacity to hold water during periods when production exceeds

demand.

Engineered storage buffer13 An ESB is a storage basin or system that provides sufficient

time, termed the failure and response time, to interrogate and

respond to any faults, including exceedances of critical limits in

operational monitoring of the treatment train. Storage times in

ESBs are likely to be of the order of hours to days.

LRV LRV (Log Reduction Value) is a measure of the ability of a

treatment processes to remove pathogenic microorganisms.

LRV is determined by taking the logarithm of the ratio of

pathogen concentration in the influent and effluent water of a

treatment process.

Removal Survival LRV

――――――――――――――――――

90% 10% 1

99% 1% 2

99.9% 0.1% 3

99.99% 0.01% 4

99.999% 0.001% 5

Treatment of LRV 1 (removal by 90%) followed by treatment of

LRV 2 (removal by 99%) means LRV 3 (removal by 99.9%).

12 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017) 13 WHO “Potable Reuse / Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water” (2017)

10

（４）Public acceptance14

Nevada Initiative includes to develop indirect potable reuse (IPR) as a viable water management

strategy for the community within 5 years, and has been conducting the followings:

Project development

Community outreach

Nevada regulations

Pilot testing technologies

Demonstration project

Hydrogeologic investigations

Funding

In the processes shown above, experts are helping guide and critique their regional work organized by

National Water Research Institute.

Table 5 Public engagement in the City of Reno

Phase 1 Agency meetings

Regional staff Krishna Pagilla, PhDs

3 PhD candidates

Access to university system resources

Boards and commissions

Authorizing public

Phase 2 Pilot testings Optimization of Ozone-BAC

9 month field pilot testing

Xylem, Stantec, American Water and

Washoe County

Demonstration project UNR and NWII

Xylem provides treatment equipments

14 Rick Warner (Washoe County, NWII Board Chair, WEF President) “Water Reuse in the United

States / A New Era”, Water Environment Federation (2017)

11

１－２ Situation of IPR/DPR in the United States

（１）Overview

The figure below shows IPR and DPR projects in the United States. There have been many RO-based

projects in the western part of United States including the State of California, which was one of the

pioneering states to promote IPR. The IPR projects in California were implemented for the purpose of

supplying potable water through both emitting treated water into reseavoir and soil-aquifer treatment

in the groundwater. The State Water Resources Control Board has investigated on the adequate

regulations and controls to conduct DPR, followed by the result that DPR is feasible in the state. Based

on that, the State of California has started to investigate regulations towards DPR project.

In contrast Ozone-based treatment project is hardly found in the western area, then we can understand

that RO-based treatment is valid for IPR.

In the State of Nevada there has been no commercial project of IPR or DPR based on membrane

technology. Currently demonstrarion project utilizing Ozone + BAC treatment is carried out in the

South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility.

Figure 4 IPR/DPR projects and RO applications in the United States15

15 EPA “2017 Potable Reuse Compendium” (2017)

RO applied

12

（２）Water reuse in the five states

In particular focus is water reuse in the five states of Nevada, California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona

("five states").

As shown in the figure below, the States of California and Florida are estimated to dominate the market

of water treatment of United States by 79% (amount of reclaimed water).

In the State of Texas which is expected to have third largest market of water reclamation, the treatment

has been conducted on the premise that the treated water is deluted, therefore, the requirement level

of treatment against pasogens is not high (“Texas” approach).

Both the States of Nevada and Arizona are investigating guidelines and regulations for water

reclamation taking the framework of California into consideration as the model (“California”

approach). Urban population and functions tend to move from California to Phenix (Arizona) and Las

Vegas (Nevada), which means the situation of California tends to spread to those two states. Those are

the reason why the focus of the F/S are on the followers of California (Arizona and Nevada), in

addition to the three states which will have top three market of water reclamation (California, Florida

and Texas).

Figure 5 Outlook of water reclamation capacity in the five states of the United States (m3/day)16

16 BlueField Research

13

Figure 6 Five states focused in water reuse

① Levels of LRV

Comparing the pathogen concentrations typically measured in treated effluent to conventional

surface water sources forms the basis for high-level pathogen removal requirements. Although there

are various approaches taken by each state for log reduction values (LRV), virus, Cryptosporidium,

and Giardia are ubiquitous in potable water reuse regulatory/guidance documents. Bacteria are also

included in many of these documents, however the advanced treatment processes necessary to

achieve LRVs for other pathogens are capable of also addressing the bacteria LRV. Attenuation of

pathogens through environmental buffers is not well characterized and IPR projects may have

limited travel time and/or mixing, complicating the distinction between IPR and DPR. Table below

compares the regulatory approach for the removal of pathogen and other contaminant for potable

water reuse applications.

The requirement levels of pathogens removal would be almost the same between Califoania and

Nevada. However, the State of Nevada has not experienced conducting IPR nor DPR to date, and it

depends on groundwater as potable water much more than California, especially the northern part of

the state. Therefore, the investigation to introduce IPR in the State of Nevada is supposed to be made

carefully.

California

Nevada

Arizona

Texas

Florida

14

Table 6 Pathogens Log Removal and Contaminates Guidelines or Regulatory Requirements for

Potable Water Reuse

State Virus

[log removal]

Giardia

[log removal]

Cryptosporidium

[log removal]

Bacteria

[log removal] Contaminants

Nevada 12 10 10 not specified MCLs, Secondary

MCLs

Arizona (“California”

approach) 12 10 10 9

MCLs, Secondary

MCLs, CECs

Arizona (“Texas”

approach) ≥8 ≥6 ≥5.5 not specified MCLs

Texas ≥8 ≥6 ≥5.5 not specified MCLs

Florida not specified not specified not specified not specified MCLs, Secondary

MCLs, TOC, TOX

California (Groundwater

spreading and injection) 12 10 10 9(4)

MCLs, Secondary

MCLs, CECs

California (Surface

Water Augmentation) 12 10 10 9(4)

MCLs, Secondary

MCLs, CECs

Note: MCLs: Maximum Contaminant Levels

CECs: Contaminants of Emerging Concern

TOC: Total Organic Carbon

TOX: Total Organic Halide

② Treatment methods for potable reuse

There are two advanced treatment approaches commonly considered for potable water reuse: RO-

based and granular activated carbon (GAC)-based. A combination of various advanced treatment

processes are utilized in both of these approaches to address the advanced removal requirements

outlined by individual states to ensure the safety of potable water reuse water.

a. RO-based treatment

RO-based treatment has traditionally been the most commonly implemented potable water reuse

approach and is often referred to as Full Advanced Treatment (FAT). This scheme provides robust

barriers, primarily in RO and ultraviolet advanced oxidation process (UV/AOP), for the removal and

15

destruction of organics, pathogens, and CECs. Fewer processes are utilized in this approach compared

to the GAC-based treatment approach; however, the equipment is more expensive from both a capital

and lifecycle cost perspective and even more so at inland locations where the RO concentrate disposal

requires costly handling processes (i.e., crystallization or deep well injection) as opposed to coastal

locations where ocean disposal is feasible.

The Colorado River Municipal Water District project in Big Spring, Texas is the quintessential

example of an RO-based potable water reuse facility. The combination of membrane and advanced

oxidation treatment processes provide approximately 15 percent of the source water to a conventional

drinking water treatment facility. This approach, shown in Figure 1 below, is also utilized for IPR

projects in California and elsewhere.

Figure 7 Example of FAT Treatment Train Using Reverse Osmosis (DPR in Big Spring, Texas

includes blending and additional treatment at the downstream conventional WTP)

b. GAC-based treatment

The GAC-based treatment process is a multiple barrier scheme with a variety of treatment and removal

mechanisms including oxidation, physical removal, and adsorption. This GAC-based treatment

approach, shown in Figure 2 below, is capable of achieving target water quality parameters for

pathogens and CECs; however, it does not remove total dissolved solids (TDS).

Figure 8 Example Potable Water Reuse Treatment Train Using Ozone and Biofiltration

16

③ Five states

The followings presenting a summary of water reuse regulatory considerations and implementation in

the United States. Of particular focus is water reuse in the five states of Nevada, California, Texas,

Florida, and Arizona ("five states").

a. California

California has been implementing IPR projects since the early 1970s based on draft regulations. IPR

regulations for groundwater recharge were finalized in 2014. Three different types of IPR projects

have been approved in California. The first involves spreading (percolation) of a "tertiary" reclaimed

water, with long running projects using this approach within Southern California. The second is the

injection of a purified reclaimed water directly into the groundwater aquifer. A primary example is the

100 million gallons per day (mgd) Orange County Water District Groundwater Replenishment System

(GWRS). The augmentation of surface water bodies (such as a reservoir) with purified reclaimed water

is new to California, with the City of San Diego’s project beginning construction in 2019. All three of

these approaches to potable water are considered to be IPR because they incorporate an environmental

buffer (e.g., groundwater aquifer or surface water reservoir). Potable water reuse projects that do not

have an environmental buffer, or projects that have a very small environmental buffer, are classified

as DPR projects.

California has seven actively producing potable water reuse projects, with a total capacity of 206 mgd.

The California health criteria for these types of projects are summarized. In 2010, Senate Bill (SB)

918 directed the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) to investigate the feasibility of

developing uniform water recycling criteria for DPR, convene an Expert Panel to study the technical

and scientific issues, and provide a final report to the California State Legislature by December 31,

2016. In 2013, SB 322 further required that the SWRCB convene an Advisory Group comprised of

utility stakeholders to advise the SWRCB and its Expert Panel on the development of the feasibility

report. SB 322 also amended the scope of the Expert Panel to include identification of research gaps

that should be filled to support the development of uniform water recycling criteria for DPR. Based

on the recommendations of the Expert Panel, the SWRCB DDW released its final report on the

feasibility of DPR in California in December 2016. The report is titled "The Feasibility of Developing

Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse.” The SWRCB found that developing

regulations for DPR projects was feasible and that a common framework across the various types of

DPR will help avoid discontinuities in the risk assessment and management approach. The SWRCB

noted that further research demonstrating reliability is necessary in order to finalize regulatory criteria

17

for DPR in California.

The report provides recommendations on topics that must be addressed in order to successfully adopt

uniform water quality criteria for DPR that are protective of public health. The SWRCB developed

Draft criteria to guide future DPR regulations in April 2018, in parallel with conducting necessary

research.

In 2017, the California legislature passed State Assembly Bill (AB) 574 in response to the feasibility

report. AB-574 defined a roadmap for DPR in California (AB-574, 2017). The bill defined the two

forms of DPR as “raw water augmentation” and “treated drinking water augmentation.” In addition,

the bill requires the SWRCB to adopt uniform water recycling criteria for “raw water augmentation”

by December 31, 2023. The bill requires the state board to establish and administer an expert review

panel to review the criteria.

b. Texas

As a state, Texas has implemented numerous water reuse projects. Texas has a successful track record

of two operational DPR facilities (Big Spring and Wichita Falls) and a third facility in the design phase

(El Paso Water). The Big Spring DPR system is a permanent installation that has been operational

since 2013, whereas Wichita Falls modified the temporary DPR system in 2015 (commissioned in

2014) for surface water augmentation (IPR), as planned. El Paso Water is now moving ahead with the

design of its own DPR project, which will be the first "treated water augmentation" project in the

United States, in which the purified water will be conveyed directly to the potable water distribution

system.

The Big Spring and Wichita Falls projects were approved by Texas regulators on a case-by-case basis

in accordance with the innovative/alternative treatment clause in 30 TAC (Texas Administrative Code)

290 regulatory document that allows “any treatment process that does not have specific design

requirements” listed in that chapter to still be permitted. The Texas Water Development Board

(TWDB) commissioned a technical team to develop a resource document to support water utilities,

consultants, and others who are considering future DPR projects in Texas. The "Direct Potable Reuse

Resource Document" (TWDB, 2015) provides information on issues utilities need to address for DPR,

how to address these issues, and a timeline for consulting with regulators about a project and site-

specific considerations.

DPR projects in Texas must be designed to meet all existing requirements for drinking water standards.

Additionally, monitoring of unregulated constituents (i.e., CECs) is encouraged by the Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), but not mandated. TCEQ's approach is to understand

the pathogen concentrations in the source water to the advanced water treatment facility (AWTF), then

require a multiple-barrier treatment system to provide the necessary pathogen reduction to meet

18

acceptable risk standards.

TCEQ adopted its pathogen risk standards for potable water reuse in general accordance with the

approach taken in existing federal drinking water regulations, which is to achieve a goal of less than

1 in 10,000 annual risk of infection from each pathogen group. Similar to California's and the NWRI's

subsequently published approaches, the specific pathogen concentration targets are based on the

literature underpinning current federal drinking water regulations, which defines the concentration

target for enteric virus, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium as 2.2 x 10-7 MPN/L (Regli et al, 1991), 6.8x10-

6 cysts/L (Regli et al, 1991), and 3.0 x 10-5 oocysts/L (Haas et al, 1999), respectively.

LRV targets for each project are determined by calculating the difference between the target

concentrations listed above and actual values measured in the treated effluent, which is considered the

"source water" for the potable water reuse project. In addition, the TCEQ has defined minimum

"benchmark" LRV targets of 8-log virus, 6-log Giardia, and 5.5-log Cryptosporidium.

In all cases, LRV credits can only be achieved in accordance with drinking water guidance, such as

the EPA's Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for UV systems, the EPA's Membrane Filtration

Guidance Manual for membrane systems, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

(LT2) Toolbox Guidance Manual, and others.

In effect, the TCEQ has developed a system of source water characterization analogous to the existing

"binning" process for Cryptosporidium under the LT2. The TCEQ's approach, however, also

acknowledges the substantially more impaired water quality of typical wastewater effluent compared

to conventional surface water sources by extending the source water characterization to all three

pathogen groups and imposing minimum treatment requirements that go beyond that required for

conventional source waters.

c. Florida

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has clear regulations on IPR (Chapter

62-610 Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application and drinking water regulations Chapter 62-

550 Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring, and Reporting). A guidance document is currently being

drafted to support the development of future DPR regulations in Florida (expected completion in early

2019). In additional to standard primary and secondary MCLs, the FDEP requires IPR projects to

attain a total organic carbon requirement of 3 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (or less) and to attain a total

organic halides (TOX) result of <0.2 mg/L.

d. Arizona

19

Non-potable water reuse is ubiquitous in Arizona, particularly for irrigation (agriculture or

landscaping) and has been successfully utilized for industrial applications. The first reclaimed water

regulations were promulgated in the state in 1972. IPR is allowed by use of groundwater recharge or

surface water augmentation with water that meets SDWA requirements. The City of Scottsdale has

been implementing a non-potable and IPR system since 1998. DPR had been specifically prohibited

until the DPR prohibition was repealed in 2017.

A guidance framework document was published in 2018 to lay the foundation for the development of

future DPR regulations in Arizona. Final DPR requirements are expected to be added to the Arizona

Administrative Code in the near future (possibly 2019). The approach for regulating potable water

reuse in Arizona is expected to allow for either the risk-based approach similar to Texas to establish

lower LRV requirements, or the “California” approach for fast-tracked projects that will follow the

12/10/10 approach for pathogen log reduction values (note that RO is not anticipated to be a required

technology in Arizona due to the recognition of RO concentrate disposal challenges).

e. Nevada

Adopted Regulation R101-16 describes reclaimed water in Nevada. Approved uses include non-

potable water reuse (landscape and food crop irrigation) and IPR (groundwater recharge via injection

or surface spreading) with reuse categories A through E defined by level of treatment and approved

uses.

Water in Nevada intended for IPR must meet reuse category A+ (NAC 445A.2761.1). A 12-log LRV

for virus is required from raw sewage to the point of extraction from the aquifer. 10-log LRV for

Cryptosporidium and Giardia is required from raw sewage to the zone of saturation. Nevada

regulations share many similar requirements to the California IPR regulations. Specific to Washoe

County, non-potable reclaimed water service is described in Washoe County Ordinance No. 1535.

20

Figure 9 Location of Washoe County and maincities of the northern part of Nevada

Reno is the capital of Nevada and is located in the northwestern part of the state in Washoe County.

The WaterStart program was initiated to spur economic development in Nevada through collaboration

and investment in water projects and technologies. Although the Reno area does not necessarily face

the magnitude of water scarcity challenges as other areas in the state of Nevada. Most water used in

this area is derived from the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack. This source is susceptible to drought

(low snowfall) and therefore non-potable water reuse for irrigation has been implemented to preserve

this surface water supply.

Moving from non-potable water reuse to potable water reuse has been spurred by the development of

IPR regulations. Due to Reno and northern Nevada’s inland location, RO-based treatment presents

substantial challenges without innovative methods for higher recovery systems and innovate

concentrate management.

The Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) is the primary water provider for the approximately

400,000 residents in the cities of Reno and Sparks and greater Washoe County. The primary drinking

water sources are the Truckee River and groundwater. The TMWA provides approximately 11,000

acre-feet of water annually (3,000 acre-feet from the Truckee River and 8,000 acre-feet from Honey

Lake).

Washoe County

Clark County

Washoe County

Reno

Nevada

21

Figure 10 Truckee River (left) and Honey Lake (right)

Water reclamation facilities in Washoe County are as follows:

Table 7 Water reclamation facilities in Washoe County

Name Capacity Owner Operation

STMWRF (South Truckee Meadows

Water Reclamation Facility)

1.8 MGD

(3.0 MGD)

Washoe County In Operation

RSWRF (Reno/Stead Water

Reclamation Facility）

1.1 MGD

(1.5 MGD)

Washoe County -

Lemon Valley (CDP)

〃

TMWRF (Truckee Meadows Water

Reclamation Facility)

31.5 MGD

(40 MGD)

Washoe County – Reno

and Sparks

〃

Cold Springs Wastewater Treatment

Facility

0.13 MGD

(0.35 MGD)

Washoe County 〃

Verdi Meadows Wastewater

Treatment Plant

0.023 MGD

(0.028 MGD)

Verdi Meadows Utility

Company

Plan

Boomtown Wastewater Facility 0.14 MGD

(0.18 MGD)

Washoe County –Verdi

(CDP)

〃

Gold Ranch 0.010 MGD

(0.010 MGD)

Washoe County – Gold

Ranch (CDP)

〃

Lemmon Valley Wastewater

Treatment Plant

0.22 MGD

(0.3 MGD)

Washoe County 〃

22

STMWRF (South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility)

Washoe County Community Services Department (CSD) provides stormwater management,

wastewater treatment (average of 5 mgd), and reclaimed water. The CSD serves approximately 16,000

customers, which represents a small percentage of the overall Washoe County population. The CSD

operates three wastewater treatment facilities however only the South Truckee Meadows Water

Reclamation Facility (STMWRF) produces reclaimed water for non-potable irrigation. Approximately

800 million gallons of Class A reclaimed water are produced from this 4.1 mgd facility every year

(since 2000). STMWRF is an activated sludge plant followed by clarification, sand filtration, and

chlorine contact basins for disinfection. During irrigation season, reclaimed water is conveyed to the

distribution system. During the winter, treated effluent is stored in an open-air reservoir.

RSWRF (Reno/Stead Water Reclamation Facility)

The City of Reno and the City of Sparks are the primary wastewater treatment providers in Washoe

County. The City of Reno operates the Reno/Stead Water Reclamation Facility (RSWRF). The

RSWRF effluent (average of 1.5 mgd) is utilized for non-potable irrigation as well as discharge to

Swan Lake, a wildlife conservation area. Like STMWRF, RSWRF is an activated sludge plant

followed by tertiary filtration and disinfection.

TMWRF (Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility)

The City of Sparks operates the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility (TMWRF), jointly

owned by the Cities of Sparks and Reno. The TMWRF has a treatment capacity of 39.8 mgd. The

TMWRF is a tertiary treatment plant with unit processes that include primary clarification, secondary

treatment (activated sludge process with EBPR), fixed-film nitrification (nitrification towers) and

denitrification (fluidized bed reactors) processes, granular media filters, sodium hypochlorite

disinfection, and sodium bisulfite dechlorination. The final effluent is discharged year-round to the

Truckee River via Steamboat Creek.

Carson City Water Resource Recovery Facility

Other utilities in Northern Nevada include the City of Carson City and the City of Winnemucca. The

Carson City Water Resource Recovery Facility is a 6.9 mgd tertiary facility comprised of primary

treatment followed by activated sludge (bioreactors, secondary clarifiers), tertiary filters, and chlorine

contact basins for disinfection. Treated effluent is reused at local golf courses and parks during the

23

irrigation season, and stored in a reservoir during the winter.

Winnemucca Wastewater Treatment Facility

The Winnemucca Wastewater Treatment Facility is a 3.5 mgd plant comprised of preliminary and

secondary treatment (bioreactor and clarifiers) for denitrification. According to its permit, effluent is

used for agricultural crops, not for human consumption.

24

Figure 11 Water reclamation facilities in Washoe County17

17 Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission

25

（３）Reference projects in the States of Nevada and California

The following four projects are to be references for the F/S.

Table 8 Reference projects

1. Orange County – California The first project in which treated water is

injected into groundwater (in the beginning, as

the barrier against seawater intrusion)

The world largest IPR project

2. Chino – California The latest IPR project (completed in May 2017)

RO membrane is used

High recovery ratio (over 94%)

3. Henderson – Nevada “South Nevada” model

Water resource is mainly surface water

RO membrane is not used

4. Reno – Nevada “North Nevada” model

Water resource is mainly groundwater

Demonstration project of the Ozone + BAC

treatment is implemented

Figure 12 Location of reference projects

Chino - California

Orange County - California

Henderson - Nevada

Reno - Nevada

26

Those reference projects are identified and selected from the viewpoints shown below:

Table 9 Features of the reference projects

Project Groundwater

injection

RO-based High-

recovery

RO

IPR

1. Orange County – California ○ ○ × (coast) ○ (largest)

2. Chino – California ○ ○ ○ (inland) ○ (latest)

3. Henderson – Nevada × × － ×

4. Reno – Nevada ○ × (O3) － ○ (demo)

① Orange County – California

Orange County is located in the southern part of Los Angeles and north of San Diego. Partly because

of that location between two large urban areas, the population is more than 3.2 million in 2018 and

increasing by 0.7% The populations of Los Angeles and San Diego are 10.28 million and 3.34,

respectively, and the growth rates are 0.5% and 0.8% annually, respectively, in 2018.

Figure 13 Location of Orange County

Colorado River

27

Water Factory 21 was established in Orange County, California in 1976 as the first project utilizing

direct injection of recycled wastewater as a seawater intrusion barrier. The Orange County Water

District (OCWD) obtains water from the Santa Ana River, the Colorado River, the State Water Project

(Delta conveyance), local precipitation, and recycled water from the Orange County Sanitation District

(OCSD). Starting in 2004 and completed in 2008, the OCWD upgraded their recharge system by

superseding Water Factory 21 with the unveiling of a 70 MGD Groundwater Replenishment System

(GWRS) – the world’s largest advanced water treatment system for potable reuse.

During construction of the GWRS, the Interim Water Factory operated from 2004-2006 and produced

5 MGD of reclaimed water utilizing MF, RO, and UV-AOP with hydrogen peroxide. This water was

blended with 8 MGD imported water before being used for groundwater replenishment and seawater

intrusion prevention. At the GWRS, influent water flows from the OCSD Plant 1 to the GWRS. After

treatment, the GWRS pipelines initially distributed 35 MGD of purified reclaimed water from the

OCWD’s facility located in Fountain Valley to groundwater recharge basins (Kraemer, Miller, and

Miraloma) located in Anaheim. The purified water flows year-round through a 13-mile long pipeline

before reaching and percolating through recharge basins that provide up to 75% of the drinking water

supplied to the northern and central parts of the OCWD. The other 35 MGD was pumped into the

Talbert Gap seawater intrusion barrier injection wells. The plant completed an expansion to 100 MGD

in 2015. The expansion included the addition of two 7.5 million gallon equalization tanks to help

increase production due to limited availability of wastewater from OCSD Plant 1. The facility is

planning a future expansion to 130 MGD and is evaluating alternatives for providing additional

wastewater flows for both the current and expanded facility. At 70 MGD, the GWRS served

approximately 600,000 people. With the completed expansion, the GWRS will produce enough water

to sustain a population of 850,000 people.

The GWRS treatment process utilizes MF, RO, UV-AOP with hydrogen peroxide as part of the

advanced purification process follow by decarbonation and lime addition. The MF process has a 90%

recovery rate at the GWRS; backwash from the process is sent to OCSD Plant 1 for treatment and

returned to GWRS. Each MF cell experiences backwashing every 22 minutes to prevent high-pressure

buildup. Additionally, each microfiltration cell receives a full chemical cleaning every 21 days. The

RO process has an 85% recovery rate and the resulting brine is distributed to the OCSD ocean outfall.

MF and RO are followed by UV trains each consisting of six low pressure, high output UV reactors

in series, each with 72 lamps. Following UV disinfection, the water is stabilized to pH levels between

8.5 and 9 by partial degasification and lime addition.

Table 10 Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS)

Capacity 270 thousand m3/day (71 MGD)

Treatment train raw water

28

MF

UF

UV + decarbonator

Injection to groundwater

Figure 14 Process flow diagram18

In the inland area of North Nevada water demand depends on groundwater much more than Southe

Nevada or California, then it is required to minimize the risk against polluting the groundwater

resources. Therefore, it is necessary for the F/S project to apply technologies much more than advances

than in Orange County.

18 EPA

29

② Chino - California19

Coastal utilities typically discharge their treated wastewater to a receiving stream in close proximity

to the ocean or directly to an ocean outfall. Leveraging the permitting and capital costs associated with

these discharges of other waste flows is an economical approach to implementing potable water reuse

for these utilities.

Multiple utilities in Southern California have contributed to a large concentrate interceptor pipeline as

a regional approach to cost effectively discharge the concentrate from several treatment facilities in

the area that utilize RO for either brackish groundwater, desalination, or as part of an IPR treatment

process. Even in this scenario, utilities have an incentive to minimize their concentrate flows to

manage the cost of purchasing/utilizing interceptor or outfall capacity.

An example of this concept is the Chino II Concentrate Reduction Facility Project.

Figure 15 Location of Chino

This groundwater treatment system relies on a combination of RO and ion exchange to address TDS,

nitrates, and volatile organic compounds in the groundwater sources. Brine is discharged to the Santa

Ana Regional Interceptor pipeline which ultimately discharges to an ocean outfall. The total facility

raw water flow rate is 20.5 mgd with both RO and ion exchange treatment. All water treated at this

facility is supplied from the more than 800 groundwater wells in the system.

Expansion of the overall treatment process in Chino resulted in the total brine flow projected to exceed

the allotted capacity in the brine interceptor. The RO concentrate system was designed to reduce the

19 Carollo Engineers

Colorado River

30

2.5 mgd waste stream from the facility with a total system recovery of 94 percent. Key constituents in

the RO concentrate that were considered when selecting the treatment approach included calcium,

silica, sulfate, alkalinity, and TOC.

The pellet softening system targets the removal of calcium with the added benefit of producing calcium

carbonate pellets that are easily dewatered and result in a revenue stream that can be sold for a variety

of uses (e.g., concrete block manufacturers and specialty mineral suppliers). The clarifier stage

removes magnesium and SiO2 that can scale downstream filters and secondary RO. Media filtration

removes carryover particulates prior to the secondary RO system that benefits from the removal of

scaling minerals. The consumption of electricity for the concentrate treatment process is

approximately 1,350 kilowatts at peak treatment. The cost of the project cost was $50 million and it

has been online since May 2017.

Table 11 Chino II Concentrate Reduction Facility Project.

Capacity 20.5 MGD

Treatment train Raw water (groundwater)

RO

Ion exchange

Demineralization

Potable water

Brine treatment

Recovery ratio Before installation of demineralization :83.5%

After installation of demineralization : more than 94%

Power

consumption

1,350 kW (demineralization, maximum)

Cost CAPEX (demineralization) 50 million USD

OPEX 6.8 million USD/year

31

Figure 16 Overall Treatment Process Flow Diagram for Chino II Desalter with Flow Rates from

Each Process

Figure 17 Chino Concentrate Reduction Facility Schematic

Low-Pressure RO High-Pressure ROPre-Treatment

Chino Desalter II

High-Pressure ROPre-Treatment

Low-Pressure RO

32

This F/S uses the results of Chino project for the reference regarding technology and cost.

There is strong restriction in the inland area of Nevada that emitting brine cannot be disposed to ocean.

Table 12 Comparison between Chino project and the F/S

Step

Project

Demineralization

(1)

Water softening

treatment

Demineralization

(2)

Brine treatment

Chino Low-Pressure RO Pellet Softener

Clarifier

Media Filtration

High-Pressure RO Release

F/S Low-Pressure RO Crystellizer High-Pressure RO

ELS1

ELS2

Evaporator

33

③ Henderson - Nevada

City of Henderson is located in the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, Clarke County, Nevada. It has the

second largest population next to the City of Las Vegas. Population density and growth rate in the Las

Vegas metropolitan area is very high.

Colorado River is also the states border between Nevada and Arizona, and Hoover Dam in the Mead

Lake has been operated for the power and water supply projects. The City of Henderson is very near

from the dam.

Figure 18 Location of the City of Henderson

In the South Nevada, Return-Flow Credits project has been operated to satisfy water demand

increasing along with population growth. For the project wastewater and water reclamation facilities

of Henderson are used for keeping the water flow.

More than 600 thousand tons of treated water by advanced methods are disposed daily for keeping the

water flow, which dominates more than 40% of water supply.

That is, the characteristics of the water usage in the City of Henderson is hydrological circulation that

does not depend on much groundwater. In the sewage treatment facility there is no membrane

treatment.

Colorado River

Hoover Dam

34

Table 13 Water reclamation facility in the City of Henderson

Capacity Maximum design capacity 32 MGD

Current Capacity 22 MGD

Treatment train Raw water

Screen

Adjusting tank

Aeration tank

Sedimentation tank

UV

Disposal

Irrigation

Future plan of waste treatment is as follows:

There is no plan of introducing advanced treatment in the next 25 years under the new

masterplan of the city;

There is no motivation to introduce RO membrane because of expensive electricity cost;

Water quality of the Mead Lake has getting worse (TDS is about 600 ppm); and

Quality of disposed water remains class D (for irrigation), but there is no requirement to

introduce advanced treatment that meets class A or A+.

Therefore, there is no feasibility to introduce the project after the F/S for the time being. However,

TDS of supplied water is very high (approximately 600 mg/L), then there would be concern it is not

enough to continue water treatment by using current facilities.

35

④ Reno - Nevada

City of Reno is a city in the U.S. state of Nevada, located in the western part of the state, approximately

22 miles (35 km) from Lake Tahoe. It is the county seat of Washoe County, in the northwestern part

of the state. The city sits in a high desert at the foot of the Sierra Nevada and its downtown area (along

with Sparks and other suburbs) occupies a valley informally known as the Truckee Meadows.

Reno is the third-most populous city in Nevada after Las Vegas and Henderson and the most populous

city in the state outside the Las Vegas Valley. Reno is part of the Reno–Sparks metropolitan area,

which consists of all of both Washoe and Storey counties.

Different from the Southern Nevada, Reno is very far from Colorado River, and extremely dry inland

area.

Figure 19 Location of Reno

Reno depends on groundwater as potable water resources, and hencethe city has been investigating to

implement IPR project.

There are four water reclamation plants in Reno, and in the socond largest plant South Truckee

Meadows Water Reclamation Facility that has capacity of 3.8 MGD, the demonstration project for the

advanced water treatment has been operated:

Second treatment water is kept in the reservoir followed by usage for irrigation or agriculture.

36

Tertiary treatment water is used as raw water for the following demonstration project:

Table 14 Treatment process of the Reno demonstration project

No. Treatment Stakeholder

1 Pre-treatment (incl. tertiary treatment) Xylem (US)

2 IPR by Ozone-BAC Xylem (US)

3 UV-AOP (under construction) Trojan (Canada)

Capacity 8 GPM

Investment About 7.5 million USD

Demonstration period 7 years

(source: Northern Nevada Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Study)

Figure 20 Demonstration facilities (1)


37


38

２．Grasp the state of treatment of RO membrane concentrate wastewater

In the previous chapter, we confirmed policy trends related to water recycling / sewerage regeneration

processing in the United States, and it was confirmed that IPR and DPR using RO membranes in the

US are being studied in many cases. Among them, the treatment method of RO concentrated water

differs greatly between coastal area and inland area, which can result in considerable impact on cost

as well.

２－１ Processing method

Concentrated water discharged from the RO membrane when using RO membranes in IPR and DPR

is generally discharged to rivers and sea areas in coastal areas. However, when discharged to the river

in the inland area, the ion concentration of the river water increases and there is a problem that it is

difficult to take the drinking water in the downstream part of the river. In other words, considering the

water quality of intake in the inland area, it becomes difficult to discharge the RO membrane

concentrate in the river, and in order to adopt the RO membrane, it is essential to reduce the

concentration of the concentrated water.

As shown in the figure below, in the RO membrane, the pressurized feed water is concentrated on the

RO membrane surface, and the treated water flows to the central collecting pipe and is used as

permeated water. Meanwhile, in the case of seawater, the concentration of concentrated water is about

35% recovery to fresh water and about 75% recovery rate, concentrating rate is 1.5 times to 4 times

concentration on the membrane surface, and ionic components (chloride ion, total hardness,

evaporation residue) etc. are drained to the concentrated water side. This concentrated drainage is an

issue.

As mentioned above, in the United States there is a case (Chino City) where the recovery rate of the

RO membrane is enriched to 97% or more, and as shown below, ZLD (Zero Liquid Discharge) using

the Evaporator, Lime softener, Crystallize has been achieved.

39

Figure 23 RO membrane treatment

※ Evaporator： Equipment with the function of evaporating solids or

liquids

※ Lime Softener： Add lime water (calcium hydroxide) and remove hardness

(calcium and magnesium) by precipitation.

※ Crystallizer： Crystallization by condensation, crystallization by

condensation, crystallization by cooling, crystallization by

chemical reaction or equilibrium transfer.

ZLD (Zero Liquid Discharge)： To reduce the risk of water pollution to realize water

circulation and to reduce waste water treatment to zero

liquid waste from the viewpoint of regeneration and reuse

of wastewater.

In the case of Chino City (Figure 16, Figure 17), crystallization is performed using ion exchange resin,

pellet softer, clarifier, etc. to achieve ZLD. In these systems, it takes time to transport chemicals in

stock (alkaline agent, lime, carbon dioxide) indispensable for device reaction from the outside, and

such consumable chemical cost is a heavy burden.

２－２ Application in this study

In this study, it is investigated that monovalent ions are concentrated through an electrolyzer systems

(ELS) as an effective utilization of RO membrane brine to achieve Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD), and

valuable chemicals such as HCl, NaOH, NaClO and the like are produced by electrolysis (EL) and

40

utilized.

We aim for Zero Chemical Charge (ZCC) concept by on-site production and consumption without

these ZLDs or transporting water treatment chemicals from outside.

41

３．Concept of proposed system and confirmation of superiority

３－１ Purpose

In Chapters 1 to 2, it turned out that there are many areas where RO membrane processing has already

been introduced or has a plan to be evaluated in the introduction of IPR / DPR in the western United

States.

Based on this, we propose a system that can demonstrate Japanese technological superiority, and

examine its feasibility and effectiveness quantitatively. Although the effectiveness of RO membrane

treatment can be fully understood from the results in the United States, it is considered that it is a task

to eliminate concern about RO membrane concentrated water treatment in the inland area.

At present, UNR (Nevada University of Reno) and NWII (Nevada Water Innovation Institute) are

being engaged in demonstration projects of advanced treatment by using Ozone + Biologically Active

Carbon (O3+BAC) as IPR at Reno City 's wastewater treatment facility STMWRF (South Truckee

Meadows Water Reclamation Facility). In this survey, we will consider the acceptability of RO

demonstration at the site.

① Features of the proposed technology having the advantages of Japanese technology

In this survey, we propose and examine a new technology combining RO membrane treatment and

electrolysis that produces chemicals on-site to the IPR/DPR facility to the US, to actually operate

Japanese technology in the United States or the other overseas in the future on the premise that

deployment becomes possible.

② Trends in the United States

There are a large number of examples adopting RO membranes in the IPR/DPR business in the United

States, mainly in the western United States, including California where IPR projects have been

promoted advancedly. California's IPR project aims to drink water from groundwater recharge

dependent on soil adsorption and geological filtration, as well as discharging regenerated water to a

reservoir. In September 2016, following a two-year deliberation by The State Water Resources Control

Board, the report on DPR has been announced, and it is concluded that it is possible by appropriate

regulation and control on the use of sewage-derived regenerated water. Based on that, the state is

considering concrete regulations for realizing DPR .

42

Since there is almost no case of ozone treatment on the west side, it is understood that the treatment

by the RO membrane method is suitable for IP

③ Research policy

The inland IPR/DPR in the western United States will be possibly compared with ozone + bio activated

carbon, which is demonstrated in Reno City. Although it may be inferior in terms of cost (initials and

running), (1) it is possible to greatly reduce the volume of RO membrane concentrated water, (2)

considering that the underground water quality of the future can be maintained by underground

infiltration of RO membrane treated water. The ZLD method of concentrated water in RO membrane

treatment proposed in this survey will be an effective solution.

④ IPR business in RO membrane processing in the US

In the United States, the world's largest IPR in Orange County, California, carries out treatment of

378,500 m³/d (100 MGD), and the effectiveness of RO membrane treatment has been recognized.

However, at the same facility, there are aspects that are realized by permitting release of concentrated

water in the RO membrane treatment.

In this survey, a processing system corresponding to the inland western part of the United States was

examined.

⑤ ZLD + ZCC at RO membrane in Reno City or inland west US

In this survey, we examined the ZLD + ZCC system consisting of four kinds of RO membrane

treatment + electrolysis technology.

Thanks to Japan's technological superiority and new technology, we realized volume reduction by over

98% recovery (ZLD) and local generation and local consumption (ZCC) of chemicals by electrolyzing

and producing valuables from RO membrane concentrate, which has never been realized.

⑥ Results of examination in this survey

Following features are selected as the water quality condition.

43

IPR: 98.13 m3/h

TDS: 500 mg/L

Ａ． ZLD flow

Outline of solution flow in B 'plan (Figure 24), which was selected as a suitable method, is explained

as below; treated water of RO1st is sent to underground infiltration, and concentrated water is sent to

CR (crystallizer). Part of the scale component is precipitated and separated by CR and the concentrated

water is sent to ELS1 and RO2nd. The concentrated water removed multi-valent ions by mED and is

sent to ELS2 and the water remaining multi-valent ions to RO2nd.

Acid and alkali are produced in EL and used in this process. Sending RO2nd treated water to

underground infiltration, and sending the concentrated water from RO2nd to RO3rd. Sending treated

water of RO3rd to underground infiltration, and sending concentrated water to EVA (evaporator).

Figure 24 Outline of B’ plan

44

Ｂ．Chemicals specification produced by EL in B’ plan

Table 15 Examples of HCl and NaOH quality produced through electrolysis

Chemicals HCl NaOH

Raw water Flow rate

(m3/H)

Concentration

(mg/L)

TDS

(mg/L)

Flow rate

(m3/H)

Concentration

(mg/L)

TDS

(mg/L)

TDS500 1.8 338 6,490 0.9 1,017 8,270

The quality of chemicals is listed in Tables 15 and 16. As an option, sodium hypochlorite is able to

produce (Table 16).

Table 16 Examples of NaOCl quality produced through electrolysis

Chemicals NaOCl

Raw water Flow rate

(m3/H)

Concentration

(mg/L)

TDS

(mg/L)

TDS500 2.7 1,894 7,380

Ｃ．CAPEX・OPEX

The typical CAPEX and OPEX of B’ plan are listed in Tables 17 and 18.

Table 17 CAPEX

CAPEX

Flow rate: 100 m3/H

TDS:500 mg/L

B’ Plan ZLD

(Efficiency: 98%)

RO 1.26M$

CR（Crystallization） 0.13M$

EVA（Evaporator） 1.34M$

45

ELS1 0.42M$

ELS2 0.34M$

Others 0.78M$

Total 4.26M$

Table 18 OPEX

OPEX

Flow rate: 100 m3/H

TDS:500 mg/L

Plan B’ ZLD

(Efficiency: 98%)

RO 0.112$/m3 0.423M$/MGD

CR（Crystallization） 0.023$/m³ 0.087M$/MGD

EVA

（Waste: 40ton/month） 0.185$/m³ 0.700M$/MGD

ELS1 0.01$/m³ 0.038M$/MGD

ELS2 0.095$/m³ 0.359M$/MGD

Other 0.175$/m³ 0.661M$/MGD

Power Consumption 0.098$/m³ 0.371M$/MGD

Total 0.600$/m³ 2.639M$/MGD

46

３－２ Four types of plan review

We adopted 4 plans describe here, aiming at ZLD (Zero Liquid Discharge) and ZCC (Zero Liquid

Discharge) in sewage regeneration treatment process. Among them, as a conclusion, we selected the

B 'plan was selected.

A plan (Figure 25 Outline of A plan)

Features: Supplying water to low-pressure RO membrane treatment, high pressure RO membrane

treatment, and NF membrane treatment, and then supply the NF membrane treated water to EL.

Underground penetration is 96% as efficiency, and it is possible to generate sufficient amount of

chemicals as well.

Background: Concentrating water efficiently by two-stage RO membrane treatment, water

production of monovalent ions with NF-treated water with NF membrane, conducting electrolysis

by EL.

Evaluation: In the NF membrane treated water, the separation characteristic of divalent ions has

not reached the level required by this system, and so actual operation is difficult at present.

Figure 25 Outline of A plan

47

B plan (Figure 26 Outline of B plan)

Features: In order to raise the subsurface penetration rate efficiently, investigate a crystallizer

for the need to raise the recovery rate of high pressure RO membrane treatment. In addition, it

conducts underground infiltration of 96% in a mechanism that concentrates and returns divalent

ions to raw water.

Background: Since the background that we could not satisfy the water quality requested by EL

in A plan, we introduced ELS1 with selection system that can efficiently concentrate

monovalent ions. Furthermore, a crystallization process was introduced to prevent scaling due

to calcium to each device and membrane.

Evaluation: Because of the return water from ELS1, high load was imposed on low pressure RO

membrane treatment and calcium precipitation in EL was concerned, it was judged not to be

suitable for long-term stable operation.

Figure 26 Outline of B plan

48

C plan (Figure 27 Outline of C plan)

Feature: Construct a system that can generate valuable materials with low pressure RO

membrane treatment and a simple configuration of ELS1. All chemicals generated by EL can be

used externally, with 80% results for underground penetration.

Background: Considering the case where valuable materials are generated with the highest

priority. Although the mechanism is simple, the rate of underground penetration which is the

original purpose is decreasing.

Evaluation: It is unknown whether generated acid, alkali, etc. are used as valuables without

excess or deficiency, it is judged difficult from the direction of local generation and local

consumption.

Figure 27 Outline of C plan

B’ plan (Figure 28 Outline diagram of B’plan)

Features: Efficiency of underground penetration is the best, achieving 98%. In addition,

valuable materials are generated and consumed locally in the processing process or requiring

the necessary amount.

Background: To reduce the scale of the low-pressure RO membrane treatment that was an issue

and to improve the quality of water supplied to the EL, the crystallization treated water is

49

supplied to the ELS1, and the concentrated water of the ELS1 is returned to the raw water

feeding to medium pressure RO processing without returning to RO1st is solved.

Evaluation: Although the load of RO2nd is heavy and the treated water efficiency decreases,

introduction of RO3rd is expected to lead to the merit of introducing ELS1 and 2.

Figure 28 Outline diagram of B’plan

Explanation of symbols:

A : Raw water of RO1st

B : treated fresh water at RO1st

C : Concentrated wastewater at RO1st

D : raw water for crystallization

E : outlet water for crystallization

N : acidic water produced by EL

O : alkaline water produced by EL

H : treated fresh water at RO2nd

J : Concentrated wastewater at RO2nd

K : treated fresh water at RO3rd

L : Concentrated wastewater at RO3rd

Z : Total fresh water

R : Na/Ca molar ratio of D

50

３－３ Estimation result of plans

Comparison of proposed plans is summarized in Table 19. In this survey, we adopted the B' plan as

the ZLD + ZCC plan with high applicability and versatility.

Table 19 Comparison of proposed plans

Plan Features Evaluation Score

A plan The NF membrane is installed as the

second stage of the RO2nd stage

treatment, and the concentrated water is

supplied to the ELS to produce

chemicals.

The separation characteristics of

divalent ions in the NF film have not

reached the level required by this

system.

poor

B plan Ca is removed at CR, a part of the

concentrated water is concentrated with

ELS1 supplied to ELS2, and chemical is

generated by electrolysis. ELS1

desalinated water is reprocessed at RO1st

in addition to souce water.

Although the treated water efficiency is

high, the load on RO1st is large and the

Ca load in ELS2 is large, so it was found

that it is not suitable for long-term

stable operation.

fair

C plan Supply concentrated water generated by

RO to ELS1 + ELS2, and all chemicals

generated by electrolysis are used

externally.

It is doubtful whether the generated

acid, alkali, hypochlorous acid, etc. can

be used as valuables without excess or

deficiency.

poor

B' plan Ca is removed at CR, the RO1st brine is

again concentrated with ELS1, and

chemicals are generated by electrolysis in

ELS2. ELS1 diluted water is treated at

RO2nd + RO3rd.

Although the load of RO2nd is large and

the recovery efficiency decreases,

introduction of RO3rd is expected to

attain high efficiency. There is

limitation for source water quality.

good

CR（Crystallization）、ELS1（Electrolyzer）、ELS2（Electrolyzer）

51

Figure 29 Detailed flow of B 'plan

In the trial calculation of the B 'plan, we describe here, the purpose and effect of the principal

constituent devices, the explanation of the outline processing flow, the reaction in crystallization, the

raw material water quality used for investigation, and the calculation method of EL electrolysis cell

characteristic value.

We also examined the potential use of chemicals and equipment synthesized in this survey.

Detailed flow of B 'plan is illustrated in Figure 29.

ELS1

ELS2 ELS2’

Feed Tank

Treated Tank

Feed Tank

52

３－４ Estimated result of B’ plan

① Cost

Table 20 CAPEX

Flow rate：100 m3/H

TDS:500 mg/L

B’ Plan ZLD

(Efficiency: 98%)

RO 1.26M$

CR 0.13M$

EVA 1.34M$

ELS1 0.42M$

ELS2 0.34M$

Other 0.78M$

TOTAL 4.26M$

Table 21 OPEX

Flow rate: 100 m3/H

TDS:500 mg/L

B’ Plan ZLD

(Efficiency: 98%)

RO 0.112$/m³ 0.423M$/MGD

CR 0.023$/m³ 0.087M$/MGD

EVA（Waste: 40ton/month） 0.185$/m³ 0.700M$/MGD

ELS1 0.01$/m³ 0.038M$/MGD

ELS2 0.095$/m³ 0.359M$/MGD

other 0.175$/m³ 0.661M$/MGD

Power Consumption 0.098$/m³ 0.371M$/MGD

TOTAL 0.600$/m³ 2.639M$/MGD

53

② Power consumption

Table 22 Power consumption

③ Detailed specification

Raw water condition : TDS500mg/L, 100m3/H, 24h/d

Electricity : ¥10/kWh

RO1st (low pressure)

CAPEX : 0.75M$

OPEX (inlet 100m3) : 0.257M$/MGD

Power consumption (kW) : Feed pump, 5.5kW×3, 556L/min×25m

RO1st high pressure pump, 15kW×3, 556L/min×80m

RO type : TMG 20-400

RO effective area :4,440m2（120pcs）

Others : CAPEX included

4 units

Vessel (3m):10pcs/Unit

RO membrane:30pcs/unit

RO pieces :120pcs

Flow rate: 100 m3/H( 0.634 MGD)

TDS:500 mg/L

Plan B’ ZLD

( Efficiency 98%)

RO 89.4kW

CR 4.5kW

EVA 72kW

ELS1 63.4kW

ELS2 10.5kW

Others

（Injection pump, Chemical pump） 5.5kW

Total 245.35kW

54

OPEX included RO membrane exchange fee

Crystallizer

CAPEX : 0.13M$


Power consumption (kW) : Blower, 1.5kW×1, 65L/min×0.78MPa

Recycle pump, 1.5kW×1, 200L/min×25m

Slurry, 1.5kW×1, 150L/min×12m

Others : －

ELS1（Electrolyzer）

CAPEX : 0.42M$


Power consumption (kW) : ELS1 Feed pump, 1.5kW×1, 520L/min×10m

ELS1 treating pump, 0.4kW×1, 200L/min×8m

ELS1 condensation pump, 1.5kW×1, 45L/min×20m

ELS1, 60kW×1

Current efficiency : 90%

Flow rate : 25m3/h

Service life : 7-8 years

Power consumption : 0.6kWh/ton

Power supply : max DC10V

Current : max 0.1A/cm2

Others : OPEX included

Membrane exchange fee

ELS2（Electrolysis）

CAPEX : 0.34M$


Power consumption (kW) : ELfeed pump, 0.75kW×1

Feed pump 1, 0.4kW×1

Feed pump 2, 0.4kW×1

EL、9.0kW×1

Current efficiency : 90%

Service life : 3-4years

Power supply : max DC10V

55

Current : max 0.2A/cm2

Others : OPEX included electrodes exchange

RO2nd (Middle pressure)

CAPEX : 0.28M$


Power consumption (kW) : Feed pump, 3.7kW×1, 520L/min×20m

RO2nd high pressure pump, 11kW×1, 520L/min×200m

RO type :TM720-400

RO effective area :1998m2（54pcs）


2 Units



RO pieces:54pcs


RO3rd (High pressure)

CAPEX : 0.24M$

OPEX(inlet100m3) : 0.049M$/MGD

Power consumption (kW) : Feed pump, 2.2kW×1、130L/min×20m

RO3rd high pressure pump, 11kW×1、130L/min×200m

RO type :TM820C-400

RO effective area :740m2（20pcs）


2 Units



RO pieces :20pcs


EVA（Evaporator）

CAPEX : 1.34M$

OPEX(inlet100m3) : 0.700M$/MGD

Power consumption (kW) : EVA, 72kW

Others : OPEX included gel type waste disposal for 40 ton/month.

56

Others

CAPEX : 0.78M$


Power consumption (kW) : Electricity in mechanics:<1kW

Injection pump, 5.5kW×1, 1650L/min×12m


Chemical pump unit

Control panel

Mechanical room

Construction

Transfer fee

others

OPEX included

Cartridge filter

Water analyzing fee

TOTAL

CAPEX : 4.26M$

OPEX(inlet100m3) : 2.268M$/MGD (0.53M$/year）

Power consumption (kW) : 245.35kW (0.371M$/MGD)

57

Table 23 Summary of RO membrane with required pump specification.

58

３－５ Summary

Based on the technical characteristics of the B 'plan, we conducted an investigation and examined the

profitability and treated water quality. Specifically, in order to compare with the HERO ™ process

(described below), the concentration of alkali and acid to be used and the amount of water should be

determined based on the capability of ELS1 and ELS2 with their cost on the premise that it satisfies

the total amount required for the process.

* The HERO™ process prevents all scale/fouling factors (hardness, alkalinity, silica precipitation,

organic fouling, biofouling) by ion exchange resin, degasser, high pH operation, and the entire

RO system technology to maximize recovery. HERO: High Efficiency Reverse Osmosis

（１） Conclusion

Examples of performance results based on trial calculations of the proposed B 'plan shown in Figure

30 are shown in Tables 24 and 25. The types and concentrations of the chemical solutions produced

by the electrolysis are shown in Tables 26 and 27. We examined 4 plans of A, B, C, and B’ by this

survey as shown in Figs. 25-28. The comparison of the proposed plans is shown in Table 19 of section

3-3.

① In the comparison between Capex and Opex between conventional chemical purchasing method

and electrolyzer (ELS1 + ELS2) introduction method in RO + CR system, in the region where

TDS is 500 or more and chemical price is 400 yen / kg or more, recovery period Was almost 20

years, and the profitability of the proposed method was confirmed (chemical purchasing cost>

onsite manufacturing cost).

② In the B 'plan, there is concern about a decline in the recovery rate of treated water, but feasibility

is high within a limited range. By installing RO3rd, the recovery rate can be improved and a result

of 98% or more can be expected.

59

Figure 30 Flow diagram of B’ plan

Table 24 Example result of power consumption estimation

ELS1

ELS2

60

Table 25 Example result of mass balance estimation

Table 26 Chemical quality of HCl and NaOH produced through electrolysis

Chemical

type

HCL NaOH

concentration amount

(㎥/H)

concentration

(mg/L)

quality

(TDS)

amount

(㎥/H)

concentration

(mg/L)

quality

(TDS)

TDS250 1.8 169 3245 0.9 462 4135

TDS500 1.8 338 6490 0.9 1017 8270

TDS1000 1.8 676 12980 0.9 1848 16540

TDS1500 1.8 1014 19470 0.9 2772 24810

Table 27 Chemical quality of HCl and NaOH produced through electrolysis

Chemical type NaOCl

concentration amount (㎥/H) concentration (mg/L) quality (TDS)

TDS250 2.7 861 3690

TDS500 2.7 1894 7380

TDS1000 2.7 3442 14760

TDS1500 2.7 5164 22140

※ Purity level is expressed based on TDS.

※ It is possible to produce NaOH and NaOCl at the same time, however, its process is not applied

for this survey.

61

（２）Main devices constituting the B 'plan

The main devices and roles that make up B 'plan are described below (Table 28).

① RO (Reverse osmosis): Low pressure type (removal rate: 97%) in the first stage (RO1), medium

pressure type (removal rate: 97%) in the second stage (RO2), high pressure type (removal rate:

99.5%) (RO3) are used to separate ionic substances, and fresh water is obtained. The valuable

substances are recovered from the concentrated water obtained from the first stage RO1. This is

an indispensable device. At this time, TMG 20-400 manufactured by Toray Industries, Ltd. was

selected as the low pressure RO1 for concentration by the reverse osmosis membrane. Operation

with high recovery at low pressure and membrane area are large and efficient treatment water

volume can be ensured. Selection of RO membrane and selection of high pressure pump in B

'plan are as shown in Annex Table 6. Selection of pumps, power consumption and installation

area in each TDS are described Annex Tables 3 to 5.

② CR (Crystallization): CaCO3 is removed by alkali addition (then NaHCO 3 is formed) in CR

apparatus. It is also an essential device regardless of source water.

③ ELS (Electrolysis): In order to reliably proceed the crystallization reaction, high concentration

of alkali is produced by ELS device. On the other hand, produced acid in EL is used to maintain

the water quality after crystallization at an appropriate pH (about 10), regular cleaning of EL

cathode chamber, RO equipment and so on. Excess chemicals can be used for other purposes,

and it is an indispensable device regardless of the quality of source water.

62

Table 28 Plan Features and strengths Role of processing equipment

Figure 31 Example of B’ plan flow diagram

63

As the flow rate, concentration and substance amount of each point, for example, in A, the flow rate

is expressed as VA (m3/h) concentration CA (g/m3 = mg/L) and the substance amount Q (g/h) when

specifying Na ion at point A, the component included in VANa (m3/h) concentration CA

Na is described

as the component contained in the sample.

Q = V × C

As the amount of water, the following holds.

VG = VE－VF＋VW

VZ =V B－VM＋VH＋VK

VF = VE－VG ＋ (a part of water N)

VN = 2VW/3

VO = VW/3

CECa = CD

Ca/2 (assumption in trials a and c) or CDCa/3 (assumption in trial calculation b)

The branching rate of E water as F water is determined by the amount necessary and sufficient for

preparing the alkali amount NaOH required for crystallization by EL. In the trial calculations in this

survey, this was taken as 1, and all E water was taken as F water.

VE = VF

The separation factor in RO1 was set at 4.

The following is established as the material balance.

QA = QB ＋ QC

VA = VB + VC

VA×CA = VB×CB ＋ VC×CC

In electrodialysis, the concentration of the substance permeating the membrane is q times (q = 3 - 5

for monovalent ions, Ca is 1.5). q depends on substance.

CY = q CX

On the other hand, the concentration of substances that do not penetrate the membrane hardly

changes.

64

CW = CF

（３） Outline of processing flow

The outline of the flow diagram in the B 'plan is described below.

① Add an appropriate amount of acidic water (adjusted with a pH meter) in order to lower a part

of the water E after crystallization to pH 8 or less, and supply it to the ELS1 diluting chamber

② Branch a part of the water F, dilute it with RO1 treated water and make it water X, and supply

it to the ELS1 concentrating chamber (chamber where salt concentration increases by dialysis).

If using the water produced by branching a part of the concentrate instead of the water F,

pathogens existed in RO1 concentrate will not remain in the water. There is a fear that

pathogenic bacteria may remain in demineralized water of mED, but it can be separated by RO2.

③ In mED, bicarbonate ion exists under neutral condition. In the concentrating chamber, the

concentration of only monovalent ions increases (Na+, Cl-, HCO3-ion, etc. Ca ions also

concentrates at moderate rate in spite of divalent ion, refer to Table 29), and in the desalting

chamber the concentration of only divalent ions (SO42- ions etc.) is maintained. The desalting

chamber water is used as a part of raw material of water G (RO2 inlet solution).

④ The concentrate water subjected to the electrolytic treatment with ELS1 is supplied to the

diaphragm type electrolysis cell, ELS2. 1/3 of the concentrate is supplied to the cathode

compartment (alkaline water is synthesized by electrolysis) and 2/3 is supplied to the anode

compartment (synthesis of acid water by electrolysis). This is to suppress the migration of protons

to the cathode compartment (due to concentration polarization and electrophoresis) by the pH

reduction of the anode compartment. The proton transport rate is specifically large among the ion

and can be avoided by the recombination reaction (neutralization reaction) of protons and

hydroxyl ions by keeping it below the appropriate decomposition rate (33%). Salt decomposition

rate can only be raised to around 33%. Tables 29 and 30 show the iInfluence of impurities for ion

exchange membrane electrolysis.

65

Table 29 Influence of impurities for ion exchange membrane electrolysis①

Table 30 Influence of impurities for ion exchange membrane electrolysis②

66

⑤ In the electrolytic chamber of EL, water N which is acidic water and water O which is alkaline

water are generated. Ca ion concentration should be 100 mg/L or less. By using a neutral

diaphragm, it can be inferred that the effect of clogging due to precipitation of hardness

component in the membrane is relatively unlikely. The hardness component also precipitates on

the cathode, but its effect on the electrolytic performance is moderate. If the voltage rises, the

performance intermittently recovers by washing with acidic water (acidic water N produced in

the anode chamber).

⑥ Acidic water N supplies the amount of water to be supplied to RO2 water to be reduced to about

pH 10. This is to keep the silica ionic and to improve the removal performance of RO2. It can

be used when it is necessary to neutralize the pH of the final concentrated water and or to adjust

the pH of the feed water of RO1.

⑦ Water K is mixed with RO1 concentrated water C to become water D before crystallization.

CaCO3 is precipitated and separated by the equation (1) shown later. In order to proceed with

the reaction, the target of pH of water L is 10.3 or higher. In order to proceed the equilibrium

reaction (1), it is necessary to set Na/Ca> 1 as the water D quality.

⑧ Although hypochlorous acid can be produced by ELS, it is not a main target product in this

investigation, so it will not be manufactured here. However, when it is expected to be used in

the preceding and succeeding water treatment processes, it can be synthesized by ELS. The pH

of the anode chamber is around 2, and generation as chlorine gas as free chlorine is assumed.

（４） Reaction in crystallization (CR)

The substances involved in the Ca separation reaction in crystallization are listed in Table 31. The

precipitation of CaCO3 is based on the following equilibrium equation (1). The relationship between

pH and existing ion form oc carboneous ions is shown in Figure 32.

Ca(HCO3)2 + NaOH = CaCO3↓+ NaHCO3 + 2H2O (1)

67

Figure32 Equilibrium relationship between pH

and carbonate compound

Table 31 Solubility

（５） Calculation method of EL characteristic value

① Cell voltage

The cell voltage V is expressed by equation (2).

V = V 0 + Σ η + Σ IR (2)

(V0: the sum of the equilibrium electrode potential difference and the membrane potential of

oxidation/reduction reaction, Σ η: the sum of each electrode reaction overvoltage η, Σ IR: sum of

voltage loss IR due to solution, membrane, electrode substrate resistance)

In this case η is estimated to be about 0.3 V and 0.2 V for the anode and the cathode, respectively,

depending on the electrode material. It is presumed that the substrate resistance is negligibly small and

the membrane potential is negligibly small.

Conductivity σ (S/cm) was obtained in the RENO analysis result with chloride ion concentration of

15 mg/L (0.015 w/v%) and TDS = 250 having 0.4 mS/cm. A similar relationship (3) holds even in raw

water.

σ = 18.1 × C (w / v%) (3)

At 300 mg/L, σ is 20 times, and resistivity ρ (Ω cm) is 1/20. Among the EL cell voltages, the solution

resistance voltage loss VIR (V) is defined as the current density j (A/cm2) and the inter-electrode

distance d (cm),

68

VIR = j d ρ = j d / σ (4)

Here, d is fixed at 0.2 cm. The resistance loss due to the diaphragm is added to this, but it is not

considered that the resistance loss is smaller than the solution resistance one. The j is set within the

range of 0.05 to 0.3 A/cm2 in ordinary industrial electrolysis (other than salt electrolysis), and constant

current operation is performed. It is necessary to set the cell voltage to 10 V or less.

The theoretical decomposition voltage V0 of water electrolysis is 1.23 V at room temperature,

assuming that the pH of the anode chamber and the cathode chamber is neutral, but in practice the pH

of each solution is about 2, 12 respectively, and considering this gives,

V0 = 1.23 + 0.059 × 10 = 1.82 V (5)

An overvoltage of 0.5 V (constant for simplicity) is added to this. The voltage loss of the separator is

added. In order to suppress corrosion of materials used, it is necessary to set the cell voltage to 10 V

or less.

The current value required for electrolysis was conditioned on decomposition of one-third of the inlet

concentration of EL (salt decomposition percent is 33%).

③ Current efficiency

Assuming that the current efficiency of the target substance is Ce (%), the power consumption unit Pc

(Wh/g) is expressed by the equation (5).

Pc = 100 n F V / (3600 Ce M) (6)

(M: molecular weight of product substance, n: electron number, F: Faraday constant)

Current efficiency is important from the viewpoint of economy, and it is a characteristic greatly

dependent on the cell structure. In addition, side reactions for non-current efficiency decrease product

purity, and in some cases post-treatment for product separation cannot be ignored. In this FS case, the

current efficiency is 90% and the salt decomposition percent is 33%. The liquid flow rate on the anode

side was doubled, and it is assumed that there is no side reaction and the current efficiency was

equivalent inboth the anode chamber and the cathode chamber.

69

（６） Calculation result (assuming that introduction of ELS and comparison with

purchasing chemicals, other systems such as RO are equivalent)

As described in the summary of this FS, Capex and Opex were compared between the conventional

chemical purchasing method in the RO + CR + EVA system (like as HERO) and the method in which

the electrolytic device (ELS) was introduced in the same manner.

① Reason for price calculation

a. Capex

Capex is assumed to be proportional to the flow rate, that is, 1000 m3/h is calculated as 10 times

100 m3/h. In the following results, 100 m3/h was described.

The required area, current value and pump capacity of the electrode were selected to have the

ability to synthesize the minimum amount of NaOH necessary for completion (50-67% as a result)

of the reaction in the crystallization process.

ELS includes equipment costs of accessories, tanks and pumps. Plumbing expenses, installation

costs are not considered.

b. Opex

Operating conditions were designed assuming that the required area, current value and pump

capacity of the electrode can be synthesized by electrolytic EL for the minimum amount necessary

for completion of the reaction in the crystallization process.

As an introduction merit when ELS is introduced, on the premise of introducing the crystallization

process, wherein it is necessary to prepare alkali for CaCO3 removal, and to prepare acid for pH

adjustment of raw water of ELS1 and periodic RO2 and RO3 cleaning. Each marketing +

transportation cost are used as a parameter within the range of ¥ 300 to 500/kg corresponding to

the usage amount. Here, it is assumed that all the chemicals synthesized by electrolysis are

effectively used.

On the premise of introducing the crystallization process, merit is expected that used chemicals

are reduced as waste, though the merit price was negligible.

② Raw water quality used for FS

The parameter range of the water to be analyzed is the water quality range of the area expected to be

70

installed, that is, TDS is 250, 500, 1,000 and 1,500 mg/L, the raw water flow rate is 100, 300, 500 and

1,000 m3/h.

Table 32 shows the water quality studied and the water quality and Na/Ca ratios targeted for trial

calculation, wherein SS-1 and SS-2 were mainly used.

Table 32 Source water to be evaluated

③ Selection of target water quality

The relation between the Na/Ca ratio of the source water and the Na/Ca ratio R at the entrance of the

crystallizer and the analysis range were examined. When the Na/Ca ratio of the source water becomes

large, the Na/Ca ratio at the inlet of the crystallizer also increases.

In the B' plan, most of the CR exit water is sent to the ELS1 and the demineralized water of the ELS1

is not returned to the RO1st but is supplied to the RO2nd. For this reason, the load of RO1st becomes

small (there is no reprocessing process), the water quality of RO2nd supply water is improved, and

stable operation can be expected, whereas the RO2nd water volume increases, the concentrated RO2nd

or introduce RO3rd.

Figure 33 shows the results of R (corresponding to removal performance) in CR using RO1st treated

water usage (parameter for analysis) in ELS1 as a parameter for source water A of different Na/Ca

ratios. The closer condition to the upper side of Figure 3 is, the higher the amount of precipitated Ca

in crystallization is. If the Na/Ca ratio is 0.8 or more, Ca precipitation of 50% or more can be achieved.

Based on the above, the Na/Ca ratio of source water is set to 1.33, 1, so that the removal rate in

crystallization is 0.5 and 0.67, the water supply amount and TDS at each flow lines are calculated

using the concentration rate at ELS1 as parameters.

Water qualityRENO

Tap waterUS

InlandSNWSdata

Simulated Solution-1



Carollo AMTAdata

Na (mg/L) 20 90 89 40 40 40 39Cl (mg/L) 15 92 93 75 75 75 75Ca (mg/L) 10 68 76 30 40 67 113

Alkalinity (mg/L) 120 135 140 140 140 214Ratio of Na/Ca

in Source2.00 1.32 1.17 1.33 1.00 0.60 0.35

71

Figure 33 Variation of R value at CR with Na/Ca ratio in source water

a. When the Na/Ca ratio is larger than 2, nearly complete removal of Ca in crystallization (R = 1,

provided that saturated soluble part cannot be removed) is achieved, and if necessary the alkali to

be used besides CR Can be generated. Use of this FS process with raw water having Na / Ca ratio

of 2 or more is easy. However, it can be said that the proportion occupied by the basin and the

water purification plant where such raw water is obtained is small.

b. When the Na / Ca ratio is 0.8 to 2, R = is 0.4 to 1, and removal of more than half of Ca in

crystallization is achieved. A part of Ca corresponding to the remaining solubility precipitates in

ELS1 and ELS2 cathode and diaphragm, but it is washed with acid generated by EL. As the

removal efficiency of Ca in the crystallizer is increased (corresponding to increasing the

concentration of NaOH), the required power, ELS device scale tends to increase. It is necessary

to confirm the optimum system operating condition while considering acid washing in the EL.

c. When the Na / Ca ratio is 0.8 or less, R = 0.4 or less, and the Ca separation in CR remains less

than half. The merit of introducing the crystallizer is small, and it is supposed that this FS process

cannot be applied.

③ ELS1 condensation ratio of condensation chamber (outlet/inlet)

Figure 34 shows the RO1st treated water usage relative to the ELS1 enrichment rate. The usage rate

can be reduced by increasing the concentration ratio. On the other hand, as shown in Figure 35, the Ca

concentration of the concentrated water, that is, the EL raw material water increases remarkably, and

the load on the EL increases. In consideration of these trends, the present FS calculates the

concentration rate to be 3-5 times. The goal was to set the concentration of Ca supplied to EL to control

72

at 100 mg/L or less.

Figure 34 Relationship between RO1 treated water usage and concentration ratio in ELS1

concentrating compartment

Figure 35 Relationship between Ca concentration and concentration ratio in ELS1 concentrating

compartment

④ Simulation Result

a. In the case that Na / Ca ratio is 1.33 (SS-1), the CR separation rate is 50%

In simulated solution-2 (SS-1) having 140 as alkalinity, by mixing with alkaline solution (NaOH and

Na2CO3) from EL at the CR entrance, the Na/Ca ratio increases from 1.33 to about 2. The ratio here

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 20 40 60 80

Na/Ca ratio in source water A

0.8

1.0

1.3

RO

1tr

eat

ed

wat

er M

(m

3/h

)

Condensation ratio from water X to Y in ELS1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80

Na/Ca ratio in source water A

0.8

1.0

1.3

Co

nd

en

sed

Ca

con

c. in

Y (

g/m

3)

Condensation ratio from water X to Y in ELS1

73

is defined as the ratio in the source water that does not contain Na ions contained in the alkali from

EL originated from the carbonate, that is, it is assumed that bicarbonate explained in (3)-7 in ELS1

done not contribute as alkaline component.

Table 33 shows changes in power consumption versus EL current density. Depending on the current

density of EL, the larger the voltage, the larger the current density. However, it is smaller than the

power consumption of ELS1 among the total power consumption.

Table 33 Change of EL power consumption with the current density based in the case of Na/Ca

ratio=1.33 (SS-1) and CR separation rate=50%

In Table 34, the depreciation period of ELS1 + ELS2 purchasing equipment was calculated as power

consumption and expendable item cost as Opex for each TDS. Figure 36 shows the result of power

consumption. As the TDS increased, the power consumption simply increased, and the power

consumption per treated water amount was represented by one straight line (Figure 37). For Capex

(Figure 38), it increased simply as the TDS increased and the depreciation period was indicated as a

parameter within the range from 300 yen/kg to 500 yen/kg for the drug unit price (Figure 39). As TDS

increases, the depreciation period is 28.1 years at TDS = 500 and 12.5 years at TDS = 1,500, when not

considering expenses related to dehydration treatment and waste treatment, improving profitability.

74

Table 34 FS result based on Na/Ca ratio=1.33 (SS-1) and CR separation rate=50% in the case of

400 yen/kg for chemicals and 10¢/kWh.

Figure 36 Dependence of electric power consumption on TDS

TD S m g/L 250 500 1000 1500

ELS1 P C (100m 3/h) kW 21.3 42.6 85.1 127.5

ELS2 P C (100m 3/h) kW 21.5 22.8 25.7 28.6

Total P C (100m 3/h) kW 42.8 65.4 110.8 156.2

Electricity total cost yen/year 3,752,758 5,729,887 9,702,307 13,678,763

C onsum ables for ELS1 yen/year 17,792 35,487 70,877 106,268


Expense total cost yen/year 3,815,840 5,855,329 9,952,469 14,053,643

C hem icals cost (A cid & A lkali) yen/year 4,424,347 8,808,051 17,575,458 26,342,865

M erit - Expense yen/year 608,508 2,952,722 7,622,989 12,289,222

C A P EX of ELS1 & ELS2 yen 68,116,251 85,982,070 121,713,709 157,445,347

R ecover period of ELS1 & ELS2 year 103.0 28.1 15.5 12.5

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

PC

(kW

)

Volume rate

1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

75

Figure 37 Dependence of unit electric power consumption per 1m3 on TDS

Figure 38 Dependence of Capex on TDS

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

kWh

/m3

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

Cap

ex (億円

)

Volume rate1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

(10＾

8

yen

)

76

Figure 39 Dependence of depreciation period on TDS

b. In the case that Na / Ca ratio is 1.33 (SS-1), the CR separation rate is 67%

In Table 35, the depreciation period of ELS1+ELS2 purchasing equipment was calculated as power

consumption and expendable item cost as Opex for each TDS.

Figure 40 shows the result of power consumption. As the TDS increased, the power consumption

simply increased, and the power consumption per treated water amount was represented by one

straight line (Figure 41). For Capex (Figure 42), it increased simply as the TDS increased and the

depreciation period was indicated as a parameter within the range of 300 yen/kg to 500 yen/kg for the

drug unit price (Figure 43). As TDS increases, the depreciation period is 13.6 years at TDS = 500 and

8.9 years at TDS = 1,500, when not considering expenses related to dehydration treatment and waste

treatment, improving profitability.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg400 ¥/kg500 y¥kg

回収期間（年）

TDS (mg/L)

Re

co

ve

r pe

riod

(ye

ars

)

77

Table 35 FS result based on Na/Ca ratio=1.33 (SS-1) and CR separation rate=67%

in the case of 400 yen/kg for chemicals and 10¢/kWh.


TD S m g/L 250 500 1000 1500

ELS1 P C (100m 3/h) kW 33.0 65.7 131.7 197.4

ELS2 P C (100m 3/h) kW 14.6 17.1 22.5 27.8

Total P C (100m 3/h) kW 47.6 82.9 154.3 225.2






M erit - Expense yen/year 3,670,462 8,314,705 17,739,003 27,106,941



0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

PC

(kW

)

Volume rate

1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

78



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

kWh

/m3

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

Cap

ex (億円

)

Volume rate

1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

(10＾

8

yen

)

79


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg

400 ¥/kg500 y¥kg


TDS (mg/L)

Re

co

ve

r pe

riod

(ye

ars

)

80

c. In the case that Na / Ca ratio is 1 (SS-2), the CR separation rate is 50%

In Table 36, the depreciation period of ELS1+ELS2 purchasing equipment was calculated as power

consumption and expendable item cost as Opex for each TDS. Annex Table 12 examined the

profitability with respect to the EL current density.

Figure 44 shows the result of power consumption. As the TDS increased, the power consumption

simply increased, and the power consumption per treated water amount was represented by one

straight line (Figure 45). For Capex (Figure 46), it increased simply as the TDS increased and the

depreciation period was indicated as a parameter within the range of 300 yen/kg to 500 yen/kg for the

drug unit price (Figure 47). As TDS increases, the depreciation period is 21.1 years at TDS = 500 and

10.8 years at TDS = 1,500, it is shown that profitability improves.

Table 36 FS result based on Na/Ca ratio=1 (SS-2) and CR separation rate=50% in the case of 400

yen/kg for chemicals and 10¢/kWh.

TD S m g/L 250 500 1000 1500

ELS1 P C (100m 3/h) kW 27.0 54.7 107.6 161.3

ELS2 P C (100m 3/h) kW 29.8 32.3 35.6 39.7

Total P C (100m 3/h) kW 56.8 87.0 143.2 200.9






M erit - Expense yen/year 1,077,469 4,690,689 11,500,975 18,435,956



81



0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

PC

(kW

)

Volume rate1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

kWh

/m3

82



0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0 500 1000 1500 2000

TDS (mg/L)

Cap

ex (億円

)

Volume rate

1,000 m3/h

500 m3/h

300 m3/h

100 m3/h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg400 ¥/kg

500 y¥kg


TDS (mg/L)

(10

^8 y

en

)

Re

co

ve

r pe

riod

(ye

ars

)

83

⑤ Summary of calculation results

a. The depreciation period depends on the current density of EL, the more the depreciable period

decreases with the current increase, and if it raises from 0.05A/cm2 to 0.2A/cm2, the depreciation

period will be almost half (20 to 10 years). According to UNR, it was said that device profitability

would be judged in 5-10 years.

b. The larger the TDS, the higher the power consumption (processing cost per m3), which is ranged

from 0.6 to 1 kWh/m3 at TDS 500 and from 2 to 3 kWh/m3 at 1,500.

c. Capex monotonically increased with increasing TDS, which is ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 billion yen

at TDS 500 and from 1.0 to 1.04 billion yen at 1,500.

d. Among the Opex, the power consumption of the ELS1 increases according to the TDS, while the

power consumption of the EL does not increase significantly to the TDS. This is because the

larger the raw material salt concentration, the lower the resistance loss in electrolysis and the cell

voltage is reduced.

e. Though the ratio of ELS1 and ELS2 power consumptions is very large in total Opex, it was found

that there are merits of introduction.

f. The greater the TDS, the shorter the period of depreciation. This is because the amount of

production of valuable chemicals increases. It can be depreciated in 14 to 27 years at TDS 500,

and in 8 to 12 years at TDS 1500.

g. Since the depreciation period varies depending on the chemical price, the evaporation processing

cost, and the waste disposal cost, it is necessary to grasp the local price for each installation area.

h. The greater the Na/Ca ratio in the source water quality, the more Capex increases, but the period

of depreciation decreases (contrast between ④-a and ④-c)

i. The larger the Ca removal rate in CR, the more Capex increases or the depreciation years decrease

(contrast between ④-a and ④-b).

j. The chemical composition is an acid and an alkali which contain almost no multi-valence ions

84

except that Ca ions with around 100 mg/L. As the TDS concentration increases, chemicals with

higher concentration are produced. The chemical production at 100m3/h in the range of 500 to

1,500 of TDS, NaOH concentration: from 0.9 g/L to 2.8 g/L, amount: from 0.9 kg/h to 2.6 kg/h,

HCl concentration: from 0.3 g/L to 1.0 g/L, amount: from 0.8 kg/h to 2.3 kg/h. Since on-site

generated chemicals are in low concentrations. (There is no regulation, which is a major

difference from high-level purchased chemicals and merit, according to UNR comment).

k. The precipitation amount of CaCO3 in CR is in the range of 4 kg/h to 11 kg/ h.

85

４．Business model and estimate of project cost

４－１ Project cost

Project cost both in the phase of demonstration and commercial projects are estimated as follows, in

which we can find the effect of scale merit.

Table 37 Project cost

Project phase Treated amount of raw water CAPEX

(million USD)

OPEX

(million USD/MGD)

Demonstration

project

100 m3/h (0.634 MGD) 4.26 2.639

Commercial

project

1,000 m3/h (6.34 MGD) 35.55 2.615

４－２ Cost comparison

① CAPEX

Estimate of CAPEX for the commercial water reclamation project (20 MGD) is carried out as follows.

Judging only from the cost, Ozone-BAC treatment has advantage. However, the adequate cost must

be investigated considering TDS level, brine disposal etc.

Table 38 Comparison of CAPEX (20 MGD)20

Treatment method Cost (million USD) Applicability

of this F/S

Ozone-BAC 91 △

RO Treatment of brine: ocean disposal 120 ×

Treatment of brine: evaporator (mechanical) 172 ○

Treatment of brine: evaporator (ponds) 303 △

20 EPA “2017 Potable Reuse Compendium” (2017)

86

Figure 48 Comparison of CAPEX21

CAPEX estimated in this F/S is 35.55 million USD with capacity 6.34 MGD, which is compatible to

the other treatment.

Figure 49 Comparison of CAPEX with this F/S (red line)22

② OPEX

Estimate of OPEX for the commercial water reclamation project (20 MGD) is carried out as follows.

There are some restrictions against application in North Nevada, the same with CAPEX.

21 Schimmoller, L; Kealy, M.J.: Fit for Purpose Water: The Cost of Over‐treating Reclaimed Water (WRRF 10‐01). The Water Research Foundation (formerly the WateReuse Research Foundation): Denver, CO, 2014. 22 Schimmoller, L; Kealy, M.J.: Fit for Purpose Water: The Cost of Over‐treating Reclaimed Water (WRRF 10‐01). The Water Research Foundation (formerly the WateReuse Research Foundation): Denver, CO, 2014.

87

Table 39 Comparison of OPEX (20 MGD)23

Treatment method Cost (million USD/y) Applicability

of this F/S

Ozone-BAC 4.2 △

RO Treatment of brine: ocean disposal 5.9 ×

Treatment of brine: evaporator (mechanical) 10.9 ○

Treatment of brine: evaporator (ponds) 6.3 △

Figure 50 Comparison of OPEX24

OPEX estimated in this F/S is 16.58 million USD with capacity 6.34 MGD, which is much expensive

than the other treatment.

23 EPA “2017 Potable Reuse Compendium” (2017) 24 Schimmoller, L; Kealy, M.J.: Fit for Purpose Water: The Cost of Over‐treating Reclaimed Water (WRRF 10‐01). The Water Research Foundation (formerly the WateReuse Research Foundation): Denver, CO, 2014.

88

Figure 51 OPEX with this F/S (red line)25

Treatment cost of RO brine is estimated as follows. In this F/S, evaporator is supposed to be applied.

Table 40 Costs of RO concentrate management options for potable reuse treatment26

Treatment option Typical cost (USD/kgal) Applicability of this F/S

Deep well injection 0.21 ×

Brine line to ocean 0.35 ×

Land application, spray 0.35 △

Evaporation ponds 0.48 ○

Zero Liquid Discharge(ZLD) 2.38 To be investigated

25 Schimmoller, L; Kealy, M.J.: Fit for Purpose Water: The Cost of Over‐treating Reclaimed Water (WRRF 10‐01). The Water Research Foundation (formerly the WateReuse Research Foundation): Denver, CO, 2014. 26 EPA “2017 Potable Reuse Compendium” (2017)

89

４－３ Business model

The characteristics on technology of this F/S is to implement both physicochemical demineralizing

process utilizing RO membrane and separating process utilizing electrolysis, which is not just

combination of technologies but also contribution to gain recovery rate of RO membrane and to reduce

RO concentrate. Chemicals necessary for the treatment process are also produced on-site.

We can find innovative aspects in those technologies, hence taking intellectual properties by project

participants and partner companies is to be planned in the nexr step, in Japan or United States.

Table below shows the scenario of business model.

Table 41 Action in each business phase

Phase１

2019-

Basic study on technologies

Patent application

Public announcement

Phase 2

2020-

Showcase (demonstration project) by collaborating with US parners or end-

users

Phase 3

2021-

Demonstration project (continued)

Taking approvals or certifications

Making out proposals

90

５．Finance and economic evaluation

○ Economic Evaluation

CAPEX and OPEX of this F/S project is estimated as follows:

Table 42 CAPEX and OPEX

Basic conditions Capacity: 100 m3/h

TDS: 500 mg/L

CAPEX 4.6 million USD

OPEX 0.600 USD/m3 (2.639 million USD/MGD)

With conditions including above, pay-back years are estimated by setting combinations of conditions

of Na/Ca ratio of raw water (1.33 or 1.0), Separation by crystallizer (CR) (50% or 67%), TDS of raw

water (500 or 1,500) as in the table below:

Table 43 Pay-back years

Scenario Raw water Pay-back years Sensitivity

analysis

1 Na/Ca ratio =1.33

CR separation = 50%

TDS = 500 28.1 Figure 52

TDS = 1,500 12.5

2 Na/Ca ratio =1.33

CR separation = 67%

TDS = 500 13.8 Figure 53

TDS = 1,500 9.0

3 Na/Ca ratio =1

CR separation = 50%

TDS = 500 21.5 Figure 53

TDS = 1,500 10.8

Figure 52 PBY vs. TDS

(Scenario 1)


(Scenario 2)


(Scenario 3)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg400 ¥/kg500 y¥kg


TDS (mg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg

400 ¥/kg500 y¥kg


TDS (mg/L)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Chemical PRICE300 ¥/kg400 ¥/kg

500 y¥kg


TDS (mg/L)

91

UNR (University of Nevada, Reno) and NWII (Nevada Water Innovation Institute) have provided the

comments on the economics of this F/S as follows:

Capex is “competitive”.

Opex may be expensive. However, it may be inevitable in the condition of producing Class

A+ water, which is almost the same level with water quality required in DPR.

Sensitivity analysis for Capex and Opex is recommended.

10 years for pay back would be regarded economic.

Furthermote, there was the following comment:

In the existing IPR projects there is possibility of TDS increase in the aquifer, which is

thought to be due to the balance of water usage between winter and summer.

Hence we can suppose that TDS = 1,500 is within the probable range. In this canse, pay-back years

are estimated as 9.0 – 12.5 years, which are to be regarded economic.

○ Finance

In the economic evaluation shown above, simple estimate way of pay-back years is implemented,

without considerations of financing (Debt-Equity Ratio, loan rate, loan period, etc.).

Therefore, in the stage of phase 2 (showcase and demonstration project), it would be necessary to carry

out detailed economic evaluation taking financing conditions into consideration.

92

６．Governmental supports

◎ U.S. Federal Government

The Bureau of Reclamation has been supporting demonstration projects making use of adequate

technologies for various water-related problems.

The American West faces serious water challenges. Wide-spread drought, increased populations, aging

infrastructure, and environmental requirements all strain existing water and hydropower resources.

Adequate and safe water supplies are fundamental to the health, economy, and security of the country.

Through WaterSMART, Reclamation will continue to work cooperatively with states, tribes, and local

entities as they plan for and implement actions to increase water supply through investments to

modernize existing infrastructure and attention to local water conflicts.

The Bureau of Reclamation is making funding available through its WaterSMART Program for water

and energy efficiency grants. These grants will be awarded to projects that will result in quantifiable

and sustained water savings and support broader water reliability benefits.

About $24 million will be available through this funding opportunity. Funding is provided in two

groups. Funding Group I projects receive up to $300,000 and can be completed within two years.

Funding Group II projects may receive up to $1.5 million for a phased project up to three years.

Applicants must provide at least a 50 percent cost-share.

States, Tribes, irrigation districts, water districts and other organizations with water or power delivery

authority located in the western United States or United States Territories are eligible to apply for this

funding opportunity27.

Bureau of Reclamation also announced that Reclamation is awarding $35.3 million for six authorized

Title XVI water reclamation and reuse projects in California. The funding will be used to improve

flexibility during water shortages and diversify the water supply.

Table 44 Six projects in California awarded by the Bureau of Reclamation28

Applicant Project Award (USD)

City of Escondido Membrane Filtration Reverse Osmosis Facility

Project

5,000,000

City of San Diego Pure Water San Diego Program 9,000,000

City of San Jose South Bay Water Recycling Phase 1B

Infrastructure Improvements

2,545,471

27 https://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=64444 28 https://globalwatersecurity.org/content-hub/2019-02-08/Bureau-of-Reclamation-

awards-$353-million-to-six-water-reclamation-and-reuse-projects-in-California

93

Applicant Project Award (USD)

Elsinore Valley

Municipal Water District

Horsethief Canyon Wastewater Reclamation

Facility Expansion and Upgrade Project

2,693,455

Hi-Desert Water District Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Project 8,668,500

Padre Dam Municipal

Water District

East County Advanced Water Purification Program 7,392,351

◎ State of California

State of California is managing and operating Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) and

providing supports for R&D and project implementation. Under that program, recycled water projects

are receiving a 1% financing commitment through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)29.

WRFP also provides grants to assist public agencies with the construction of pilot projects for new

potable reuse. The applicant must demonstrate that the pilot project will develop new information that

does not currently exist and increase the body of knowledge regarding technologies that help the

understanding of how potable reuse can effectively be achieved through the innovative application of

current and new technologies. Eligible pilot projects may receive grant funds in the amount of up to

35% of actual eligible pilot study construction costs incurred up to a maximum of $1 million.

◎ State of Nevada

WaterStart, NPO under the Nevada Governor’s Office of Economic Development, are supporting

projects related to water, after gathering proposals from water technology companies to solve

immediate demands for innovation.

•Water quality pressure management in distribution systems

•Method for cleaning of water mains (trunk and reticulation) with limited impact on water quality

•Sediment formation reduction in drinking water networks

•Reducing the impact of surge/water hammer on the water network

•Early notification of contaminants entering reservoirs/tanks

•Prediction of trihalomethanes (THMs) concentration in drinking water supplies

•Improving field crew training in real-time (including virtual and/or augmented reality techs)

•Increasing water use efficiency in cooling towers

•Alternatives to conventional evaporative cooling

29 California Control Boards

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/docs/1percent

_wrd_projects.pdf

94

•Alternatives for and/or reduction of chemical use in cooling towers and domestic supply lines (often

destructive to chillers and pumps)

•Treatment processes for improving water quality in swimming pools, saunas, and other water features

•Improving reliability and operation of drip irrigation systems

•Non-invasive monitoring systems to detect water leaks in electrical rooms

• Reduction of in-site disinfection byproduct formation for groundwater recharge applications

(TTHMs)30.

The table below shows the supporting programs by the federal and local governments.

Table 45 Supporting programs by the federal and local governments

Government Program Budget

USEPA Water Infrastructure

Finance Iinnovation Act

(WIFIA)

$20 million: Minimum project size for large

communities.

$5 million: Minimum project size for small

communities

(population of 25,000 or less).

USDA Rural

Utilities Service

Water & Waste Disposal

Loan & Grant Program

Loan/grant based on 50 percent of the State's

percentage of national rural population, 25

percent of the State's percentage of national rural

population with incomes below the poverty level

and 25 percent of the State's percentage of

national nonmetropolitan unemployment.

USDA Rural

Utilities Service

Individual Water and

Wastewater Grants

Maximum grant to any individual for WATER

service lines, connections, and/or construction of

a bathroom is $3,500.

Maximum grant to any individual for SEWER

service lines, connections, and/or construction of

a bathroom is $4,000.

Lifetime assistance to any individual for initial or

subsequent grants may not exceed a cumulative

total of $5,000.

Bureau of

Reclamation

Cooperative Watershed

Management Program:

Up to $100,000 per project over a two‐year

period.

30 WaterStart

https://waterstart.com/work-with-us/rfps/

95

Phase II Applicants must contribute at least 50% of the

total project costs.

Bureau of

Reclamation

Cooperative Watershed

Management Program:

Phase I

$50,000 per year for a period of up to two years

with no non‐Federal cost‐share required.

Bureau of

Reclamation

WaterSMART Drought

Response Program:

Drought Resiliency

Projects

Up to $300,000 per agreement for a project that

can be completed within two years or up to

$750,000 per agreement for a project that can be

completed within three years. Applicants must

provide a 50% non‐Federal cost‐share.

Bureau of

Reclamation

WaterSMART Drought

Response Program:

Drought Contingency

Planning

Varies

Bureau of

Reclamation

WaterSMART Grants:

Water and Energy

Efficiency Grants

Up to $300,000 for smaller projects or up to $1

million for larger projects. Applicants must

provide a 50% non‐Federal cost‐share.

Bureau of

Reclamation

Title XVI Water

Reclamation & Reuse

Program

In 2017, six projects received a total of

$20,980,129 for planning, design and/or

construction activities; 13 projects received a

total of $1,791,561 to develop new water

reclamation and reuse feasibility studies; and four

projects received a total of $847,701 for research

to establish or expand water reuse markets,

improve or expand existing water reuse facilities,

and streamline the implementation of clean water

technology at new facilities.

CoBank Rural Water and

Wastewater Lending

>$500,000

Bureau of

Reclamation

Water Purification

Research Program

Public/Private ‐ ‐ Public ‐ Private

Partnerships (P3)

‐‐Performance Based

Infastructure

Delivery & Service

96

Model

The Water

Research

Foundation

Private (subscribers) and

other funding

(state and federal)

Border

Environment

Cooperation

Commission

(BECC)

Technical Assistance

(TA) Fund

Varies

Border

Environment

Infrastructure

Fund (BEIF)

Border Environment

Infrastructure Fund

(BEIF)

Funding levels vary by annual congressional

appropriation; grant amounts are based on a

financial analysis of the project, utility and

community that takes into consideration eligible

projects costs and the availability of other

funding. BEIF grants cannot exceed $8 million.

North American

Development

Bank (NADB)

North American

Development Bank

(NADB) Loans

Any project, regardless of community size or

project cost, is eligible for financing and other

forms of assistance from NADB, if it meets all

three of the eligibility criteria. See

http://nadbank.org/programs/loans.asp#financing

for financing details.

North American

Development

Bank (NADB)

Community Assistance

Program (CAP)

Max $500,000. The project sponsor must

contribute at least 10% of the total project cost.

USEPA & Border

Environmental

Cooperation

Commission

(BECC)

Project Development

Assistance Program

(PDAP)

Varies

97

７．Estimate of CO2 emissions reduction and environmental impacts

Nevada uses several sources to generate electricity including natural gas, renewables, coal, and a small

amount from fuel oil or other gas. The combination of energy resources a utility uses to create

electricity is known as a resource mix, or portfolio. Currently, more than two-thirds of the State’s

electricity is produced by natural gas fired power plants; renewables comprise most of the remaining

amount; coal still remains as Nevada phases out its coal power plants.

Nevada has seen a significant increase in renewable energy production, and continues to develop its

abundant renewable energy resources such as geothermal and solar for use both within the State and

for exportation. Nevada has nearly doubled its renewable energy production during Governor

Sandoval’s administration beginning in 2011.

The Governor’s Office of Energy closely tracks the renewable energy generated in Nevada, whether

that energy is used in Nevada or exported to neighboring states. Renewable energy is defined in NRS

704.7811 as biomass, geothermal, solar, wind and waterpower. Waterpower is further defined as power

derived from standing, running or falling water which is used for any plant, facility, equipment or

system to generate electricity if the generating capacity is not more than 30 MWs.

Figure 55 Net Electricity Generation by Source in the State of Nevada (August 2017)31

In the charts below you will see Nevada’s renewable nameplate capacity, expressed in megawatts

(MW) and renewable electricity generation, expressed in megawatt-hours (MWh) numbers.

Awareness of the difference between nameplate capacity and electricity generation is critical to

improving reliability, lowering costs, and enhancing the integration of renewable resources.

Nameplate capacity is the maximum rated electric output a generator can produce under specific

conditions, and generation is the amount of electricity a generator produces over a specific period of

31 State of Nevada Governor’s Office of Energy “2017 Status of Energy Report”

98

time. The difference is due to the fact that many generators do not or cannot operate at their full

nameplate capacity all the time.

Figure 56 Renewable Power in the State of Nevada (Left: Capacity, Right: Generation) (2016)32

Energy consumption is the amount of energy used in a process, organization, or society. The chart

below on the left shows the breakdown of energy consumption in Nevada by percentage. About 88%

of the fuel for energy in Nevada consumes comes from outside the State.

Figure 57 Energy Consumption (Left) and Expenditures (Right) in the State of Nevada (2015)33

32 State of Nevada Governor’s Office of Energy “2017 Status of Energy Report” 33 State of Nevada Governor’s Office of Energy “2017 Status of Energy Report”

99

The table below shows the programs relating to this F/S project. Currently there is no financial support

program, however, there is a possibility that those programs are changed after June 2019, based on the

new policy by the new governer Steve Sisolak. 34

Table 46 Energy-related programs in the State of Nevada35

AB5 / Property Assessed

Clean Energy (PACE)

Financing mechanism that enables low-cost, long-term funding for

energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

Revolving Loans for

Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy (NRS

701.545)

Funded from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

of 2009, the fund provides short term low-cost loans to developers of

eligible projects in Nevada. These loans serve as a bridge financing

option for various costs associated with these projects. Eligible

applicants may receive a minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $1

million. Loan terms are up to 15 years with an interest rate of 3% or

less.

RPS (Renewable

Portfolio Standard)

Nevada’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), NRS 704.7801, was

adopted by the Nevada Legislature in 1997. The RPS establishes the

percentage of electricity sold by an electric utility to retail customers

that must come from renewable sources.

Specifically, electric utilities are required to generate, acquire, or save

with portfolio energy systems or energy efficiency measures, a certain

percentage of electricity annually.

AB223/SB150 AB223/SB150 requires that NV Energy’s overall energy efficiency

plan be cost effective, not necessarily every single program or

component that is included in the plan. AB223/SB150 requires that at

least 5% of the total budget for energy efficiency programs be directed

to programs targeting low-income households. These households need

energy efficiency assistance the most.

Performance Contact

Audit Assistance Program

(PCAAP)

Program to assist energy audit.

Reduction of energy consumption by implementing the F/S project is to be estimated as follows:

34 NWIC (August 2018) 35 NWIC (August 2018)

100

Table 47 Scenarios to estimate energy reduction

Scenario Water treatment method (1) Brine treatment

(2) Procurement of

chemicals

Reference Conventional RO Evaporator (①) + Landfill

(②)

Purchase HCl, NaClO

and NaOH from out of

the project boundary

(③)

Project Zero Liquid Discharge

(ZLD)

Evaporator (①) + Landfill

( ② ) (Treated amount is

smaller than reference)

Zero (③’)

The difference of the brine emission is as follows, in the condition of TDS 500 and flow rate

1,000m3/H:

Table 48 Brine emissions

Scenario Recovery rate Brine emissions

Reference 75% 250 m3/H

Project 98% 20 m3/H

(1) Evaporator

Electricity consumption for 1m3 in the evaporator:

72kWh × 24H × 80% ÷ （2m3/H × 24H）＝28.8kWh/m3

（1kWh＝3.6MJ）

○ Conventional RO

Electricity consumption in a day:

28.8kWh/m3 × 250m3/H × 24H ＝ 172,800kWh/day

172,800kWh/day × 3.2 MJ/kWh ＝ 552,960MJ/日・・・①

○ ZLD

Electricity consumption in a day:

28.8kWh/m3 × 20m3/H × 24H ＝ 13,820kWh/day

13,820kWh/日 × 3.2MJ/kWh ＝ 44,236 MJ/日・・・①'

101

Reduction of CO2 emission is estimated by using CO2 emission efficiency in the State of Nevada 0.37

t-CO2/MWh:

(172,800 – 13,820) kWh/day ÷ 1,000 × 0.37 t-CO2/MWh

＝ 58.8 t-CO2/day

Reduction ①－①' ＝ 508,724 MJ/day and 58.8 t-CO2/day

(2) Landfill

Distance from the plant to the landifill site: 200km;

Disposal amount: 10m3;

Fuel consumption: 10km/L (diesel fuel);

Calorie of diesel fuel: 1L=38.2MJ/L

○ Conventional RO:

Amount of brine:

（250m3/H × 24H） ÷ 30 (concentrate) ＝ 200m3/day

Times of disposal:

200m3/day ÷ 10m3 ＝ 20 times/day

Distance of disposal:

20 times/day × 200km × 2 ＝ 8000km/day

Consumption of fuel:

8000km/day ÷ 10km/L ＝ 800L/day

800L/日 × 38.2 MJ/L ＝30,560MJ/日・・・②

○ ZLD

Amount of brine:

（20m3/H × 24H） ÷ 30 (concentrate) ＝ 16m3/day

Times of disposal:

16m3/day ÷ 10m3 ＝ 1.6 times/day

Distance of disposal:

1.6 times/day × 200km × 2 ＝ 640km/day

Consumption of fuel:

640km/day ÷ 10km/L ＝ 64L/day

102

64L/day × 38.2 MJ/L ＝2445MJ/day ・・・②'

Reduction of CO2 emission is estimated by using CO2 emission efficiency of the diesel fuel 0.0686

tCO2/GJ:

(30,560 – 2,445) MJ/day ÷ 1,000 × 0.0686 t-CO2/GJ

＝ 1.93 t-CO2/day

Reduction ②－②' ＝ 28,115 MJ/day and 1.93 t-CO2/day

(3) Procurement of chemicals

Distance from the plant to the landifill site: 200km;

Fuel consumption: 10km/L (diesel fuel);

Calorie of diesel fuel: 1L=38.2MJ/L

○ Conventional RO

HCL

HCL consumption:

18m3/ H × 338mg/L ＝ 6.084kg/H

6.084kg/H × 24H ＝ 146kg/day

146kg/日 ÷ 35% ＝417kg/day ・・・ⓐ

35% ＝ 350,000 mg/L ＝350kg/m3 ・・・ⓑ

ⓑ ×10m3/time ÷ ⓐ ＝ 8.39day/time ・・・©

Diesel fuel consumption:

200km × 2 ＝ 400km/time

400km/time ÷ 10km/L ＝ 40L/time

40L/time ÷ 8.39 day/time ＝ 4.77L/day

4.77L/day × 38.2 MJ/L ＝182MJ/day ・・・Ⓐ

NaOH

NaOH consumption:

9m3/ H × 924mg/L ＝ 8.316kg/H

8.316kg/H × 24H ＝ 200kg/day

200kg/day ÷ 24% ＝833kg/day ・・・ⓐ'

25% ＝ 250,000 mg/L ＝250kg/m3 ・・・ⓑ'

103

ⓑ' ×10m3/time÷ ⓐ' ＝ 3.00 day/time ・・・© '

Diesel fuel consumption:

200km × 2 ＝ 400km/time

400km/time ÷ 10km/L ＝ 40L/time

40L/time ÷ 3.00 day/time ＝ 13.33L/day

13.33L/day × 38.2 MJ/L ＝509MJ/day ・・・Ⓑ

Ⓐ＋Ⓑ＝691MJ/day ・・・③

○ ZLD

0 MJ/day ・・・③'

Reduction of CO2 emission is estimated by using CO2 emission efficiency of the diesel fuel 0.0686

tCO2/GJ:

(691 – 0) MJ/day ÷ 1,000 × 0.0686 t-CO2/GJ

＝ 0.0474 t-CO2/day

Reduction ③－③' ＝ 691 MJ/day and 0.0474 t-CO2/day

Table 49 Reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emission

Reduction of energy consumption Reduction of CO2 emission

(1) Evaporator 508,724 MJ/day 58.8 t-CO2/day

(2) Landfill 28,115 MJ/day 1.93 t-CO2/day

(3) Chemicals 691 MJ/day 0.0474 t-CO2/day

Total 537,530 MJ/day

60.8 t-CO2/day

22,200 t-CO2/year

104

８．Risk analysis

The general framework of risk analysis is shown in the table below.

The risk analysis itself is to be conducted after identifying and deciding important project components

including financial plan.

Table 50 Framework of risk analysis

Political risks Commercial risks Macro-economic risks

Change of law risks

Quasi-political risks

Investment risks

Commercial viability

Completion risks

Environmental risks

Operating risks

Revenue risks

Input supply risks

Force majeure risks

Inflation

Interest rate risks

Exchange rate risks

On the political risks, the risk against change of guidelines or regulations on IPR projects is to be

focused, including LRV or applied category (A+) for the treated water.

On the commercial risks, so as to minimize them, the followings are to be implemented in the next

phase:

CAPEX estimate based on the detailed data and project conditions;

OPEX estimate based on the detailed data and project conditions;

Identification and selection of project participants;

Financial plan based on the project participants’ and financer’s interests or decisions;

Cash-flow analysis based on CAPEX, OPEX and financial plan; and

Conditions and procedures of applying the advanced technologies (phase 2).

On the macro-economic risks, general risks are to be investigated.

105

９．Project potential in the United States and the strategy

The State of California has a plan to start DPR operation until the end of 2023, which means there will

be requirements to decrease RO brine from 2020 to 2025.

The figure below shows the market outlook of water reclamation in the important 5 states.

Figure 58 Market outlook of water reclamation in the important 5 states 36

Carollo’s case study evaluation of how the technologies could be implemented in the five states is

described below. Participation in this project by these utilities is for illustration only, and does not

represent an endorsement of the technology by any of these utilities or cities.


106

Figure 59 Cities which have probabilities

Table 51 Cities which have probabilities

City Characteristics and background

Nevada - Reno (Target of the

F/S)

Technology evaluation has been carried out manly by UNR

(University of Nevada, Reno) and NWII (Nevada Water

Innovation Institute). There is requirement of minimizing RO

concentrate emission and procurement of chemicals because of

inland area.

Florida - City of Altamonte

Springs

The City of Altamonte Springs operated a GAC-based potable

water reuse pilot facility in 2016/2017 (pureALTA). The

treatment processes included ozone, biologically active filtration,

ultrafiltration, and granular activated carbon filtration. These

processes were selected over an RO-based treatment approach

due to concerns about the cost of implementing RO, particularly

for RO concentrate disposal.

Altamonte Springs is north of Orlando, situated more than 50

miles from the Atlantic coast of Florida. Although Florida is a

peninsula, the distance for central communities make the cost of

constructing an ocean outfall cost prohibitive unless a regional

interceptor approach was developed for multiple utilities. For this

project, the evaluation of implementing an RO-based potable

Surprise - Arizona

El Paso - Texas

Altamonte Springs - Florida

Clovis - California

Reno- Nevada

107

City Characteristics and background

water reuse treatment process would rely on either evaporation

ponds, deep well injection, or zero liquid discharge for disposal

of the concentrate.

California - City of Clovis The City of Clovis is located near Fresno, approximately 100

miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. The City has operated a Title

22 reuse facility for nonpotable water uses since 2010. Potable

water reuse has been considered as a future water source for their

system. Similar to the other case study locations, the location and

climate for this facility is conducive to evaporation ponds for RO

concentrate disposal.

Texas - El Paso Water Utilities The El Paso Water Utilities operated a RO-based pilot in 2015.

The pilot included pre-ozone, MF/UF, RO/NF, UV/AOP, and

GAC. The full-scale facility is currently in the preliminary design

phase (by Carollo). Similar to Altamonte Springs, the location

and climate for this facility is conducive to evaporation ponds for

RO concentrate disposal.

Arizona - City of Surprise The City of Surprise is located northwest of Phoenix and has

operated a recycled water system that produces A+ water for

agricultural irrigation, groundwater recharge, landscape

irrigation, and dust control. Similar to the other case study

locations, the location and climate for this facility is conducive to

evaporation ponds for RO concentrate disposal.

108

１０．Technological superiority of Japanese companies and estimate of profit for

Japanese participants

１０－１ Comparison of technologies between Ozone-BAC and RO

As mentioned above, in the South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility at the City of Reno,

the demonstration project has been implemented by applying Ozone-BAC treatment technology. NWII,

the project manager, compares the characteristics between conventional RO and Ozone-BAC methods:

Table 52 Comparison of technologies between Ozone-BAC and RO37

In the stage of investigating and comparing the applied technologies for future IPR project including

demonstration by NWII, the major premise is pathogens of the treated water meets the standard of

Caltegory A+ and the other water quality data is acceptable.

NWII indicates that TDS may be equal or worse than the raw water in the aquifer. On the other hand,

this F/S shows the pay-back period will become better in accordance with TDS.

Therefore, we can result that our technology advantage may be high under the situation of closed

environmental buffer.

１０－２ Cost comparison between the conventional RO and the F/S

The table below shows the cost comparison between conventional RO and advanced RO (This F/S) in

the candidate sites. CAPEXs in the projects in which F/S technology is applied are bigger than

conventional by 2.7 – 5.7 times, however, it is probable the F/S project is accepted where high recovery

37 Vijay Sundaram PE, Lin Li, Tatiana Guarin, Lydia Peri PE, Rick Warner PE and Krishna Pagilla

PhD, PE “Overcoming Challenges in Ozone-Biofiltation Treatment Systems for IPR Applications”

(2019/1/30)

109

and brine minimization are required.

Table 53 Cost comparison between conventional RO and the F/S

City Typical Disposal cost of the

conventional RO treatment

(USD/day)

Disposal cost of the

proposed ZLD/ZCC RO

treatment (USD/day)

Ratio

Nevada - Reno (Target of the

F/S)

Ozone + BAC -

Florida - City of Altamonte

Springs

1,500 4,240 2.8

California - City of Clovis 240 749 3.1

Texas - El Paso Water Utilities 1,284 7,252 5.7

Arizona - City of Surprise 569 3,873 4.3

１０－３ Identification of the Japansese portion

Technological superiority of each project element equipment is as follows:

Table 54 Technological superiority of each project element

Process Superiority of Japanese technology Japanese portion

RO1st (low-pressure) High recovery rate by 75% Toray product

Crystallizer Drastic reduction of scaling components followed

by supplying to RO2nd, RO3rd and ELS1

Procurement from

foreign companies

ELS1 Concentration of specific ions Japanese

technology

ELS2 Production of chemicals used in the F/S process

which contribute to reduce waste

Japanese

technology

RO2nd

(middle-pressure)

Stable operation under the condition of wide-

randged pH

Toray product

110

RO3rd

(high-pressure)

Total recovery rate by more than 98% Toray product

１０－４ Profit for Japanese participants

The investment outlook of the water treatment in the State of California which is supposed to be one

of the largest market in the United States is shown in the table below:

Table 55 Investment outlook of IPR/DPR in California38

Year Investment

(million USD)

2023 350

2024 380

2025 606

Profit for Japanese participants in the future projects in the western part of United States is to be

estimated as follows:

Trend of investment is similar in the 5 states studied in this F/S with California.

Percentage of Japanese portion in the investment = 90%

Target of the market share of IPR/DPR = 10%

Profit for Japanese participants =

39, 161 and 164 million USD in the year 2023, 2024 and 2025, respectively.


111

１１．Report Meeting

The final report meeting was held in the University of Nevada, Reno and NWII on January 31st, 2019.

Date January 31st 2019 8:30～12:30

Place University of Nevada, Reno

Table 56 Summary of discussions

Project details In the existing IPR projects there is possibility of TDS increase in

the aquifer, which is thought to be due to the balance of water

usage between winter and summer.

There is interest to make sodium hypochlorite as the bi-product.

Profitability Capex is “competitive”.

Opex may be expensive. However, it may be inevitable in the

condition of producing Class A+ water, which is almost the same level

with water quality required in DPR.

Sensitivity analysis for Capex and Opex is recommended.

10 years for pay back would be regarded economic.

Futute collaborations Shared understanding on the F/S results.

It should be investigated whether pilot testings are implemented

only in Japan or both in UNR and Japan.

Plant tank should be within the size of container.

Project Feasibility Study for the Overseas Expansion of ...

Documents