Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript: Large or Small, New or Retrofit MBR Design Considerations are key_ Wallis-Lage

paper_Wa

Large or Small, New or Retrofit: MBR Design Considerations are Key

Cindy Wallis-Lage, Brad Hemken, Mark Steichen, Christine deBarbadillo* *Black & Veatch, 8400 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO USA 64114
(e-mail: wallis-lagecl@bv.com, hemkenbe@bv.com, steichenmt@bv.com, debarbadilloc@bv.com)

Abstract The consideration and use of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology is advancing rapidly around the world as the need for high levels of treatment and small footprint technologies increases and the confidence with the MBR technology grows. Until recently, this technology was typically limited to small scale satellite/scalping type facilities. Now MBRs are being designed for plants as large as 117,350 m3/d average flow. While many issues are the same regardless of size, the design of a large scale MBR facility has increasing complexity due to the complications of solids treatment, flow variation, and end of the line reliability issues. There are several MBR manufacturers in the marketplace today, each with a varying range of experience both in number of facilities and size of facilities. Several manufactures have developed new systems which economize the cassette design in order to accommodate larger scale plants. Keywords: MBR; membranes; design issues; aesthetics; energy

INTRODUCTION The benefits of MBRs - small footprint, excellent effluent quality, stable operations, and the potential for neighbor friendly aesthetics have catapulted the MBR technology from small, satellite reuse facilities to large end-of-the-line treatment plants. The number and size of MBR plants has steadily increased in the last few years due to the following: an increased confidence in the MBR technology, an increasing number of manufacturers, and a reduction in costs. Currently there are roughly a handful of MBR plants in operation with average flows greater than 18,930 m3/d: the largest MBRs are in Brescia, Italy with a capacity of 41,640 m3/d and in Muscat, Oman with a capacity of 56,800 m3/d. However the pattern is changing, and there are several MBR plants under design over 37,850 m3/d with the largest scheduled to be in operation around 2010 at a capacity of 117,350 m3/d average daily flow. There are numerous drivers behind the use of MBRs at a larger scale. Many land locked facilities which must expand or upgrade are in need of small footprint technologies that can provide nutrient reduction. Inherent in the design of the biology for a membrane bioreactor is complete nitrification. Denitrification can easily be provided with the use of pre-anoxic zones or potentially post-anoxic zones to effect a Bardenpho process if stringent nitrogen limitations dictate its use. Recently, biological phosphorus removal has been successfully implemented in conjunction with MBRs. Some research has indicated that longer SRT facilities reduce nano-pollutants including some endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC). Consequently, depending on the SRT selected, an MBR offers the potential to remove more nano-pollutants than conventional high rate activated sludge basins and may allow municipalities a stronger position to meet future EDC related effluent standards. The flexibility to achieve various levels of nutrient removal, the exceptional overall organic and solids effluent quality, and its small footprint requirements, make MBRs a very viable treatment technology for large scale municipal applications.

DESIGN ISSUES Similar to the scale up of MBRs from the small industrial/commercial applications to small satellite reuse facilities, there are lessons to be learned in the scale up from small satellite reuse facilities to large municipal applications. Below are several design issues which must be closely evaluated when designing large scale municipal applications. Flow variation Many small scale MBR plants are purposely base loaded in order to optimize the membrane design, e.g. the peak day flow is limited. While this design approach has worked well for satellite facilities, most large scale plants are end of the line facilities and the plant must accommodate the flow fluctuation from both diurnal flows and storm flows. Because the membrane sizing is hydraulically driven, alternatives to increasing the number of membranes should be considered if the peak flow is more than twice the average flow as the economical upper flow limit for membranes in most MBRs is approximately 1.5 to 2 times the average flowrate. Designing membranes to accommodate higher peak flows typically results in flux rates at the average flow which are below the optimized point and significantly increases equipment cost. O&M costs are also increased due to increased air scour requirements. To allow membrane optimization, equalization should be considered. There are two options for equalization: external and internal. External equalization consists of a separate basin ahead of the MBR basin. The external equalization basin easily satisfies design requirements, but if the driver behind the selection of an MBR is footprint, an additional facility may be difficult to incorporate on space constrained sites. Internal equalization, e.g. sidewater depth variation within the aeration tanks, can be used if the variation isnt too large. Most plants will be limited to approximately 2 to 4 feet of variation before the aeration blowers are significantly impacted unless less efficient positive displacement blowers are used. Typically internal equalization is best suited for dampening the diurnal pattern because the level variation required to effectively manage storm flows tends to be significant and could adversely impact the blower design. For some facilities a combination of both external and internal flow equalization provides a cost effective solution with the external equalization basin used for off-line storage to handle storm events and internal equalization used to handle the daily diurnal variation. Pretreatment Effective screening is critical on MBR projects to protect the membranes from damage and to maximize membrane life. Consequently, with all MBRs, influent fine screens using 1 3 mm omni-directional openings are required. This level of screening results in a significant increase in the cost of screening as well as the screenings produced. In addition, the screenings produced typically require washing and compacting which increases both capital and O&M costs. For large scale facilities, opportunities to reduce the fine screenings production should be considered. A common solution is to provide dual screening- an upstream larger opening screen, (typically 6 - 9 mm) to remove large debris in combination with traditional means of screenings handling and disposal and a downstream fine screen. This reduces the amount of screenings to be washed and compacted. Fine screenings disposal to the solids processing facilities is an alternative handling approach to eliminate compacting equipment and disposal containers. Grinders must be used on the screenings to protect downstream solids processing equipment. One concern with this method of screenings disposal is the organic loss which may adversely impact nutrient removal in the liquid

stream in plants with low organic influent concentrations. Another alternative is to locate the fine screens after primary clarifiers if they are included in the treatment process. Screening requirements are a key differentiator between the membrane manufacturers. Hollow fiber membrane manufactures require 1 2 mm fine screens whereas the plate membrane manufacturers only require 2 - 3 mm. This range in size seems small but the capital and O&M cost impacts can be significant. In addition to normal O&M impacts associated with the screening equipment, there are impacts on the membrane life and subsequently, the warranty of the membranes. Primary Treatment With increasingly larger MBRs the natural engineering tendency is to consider the addition of primary clarifiers (PC) to reduce the load to the MBR similar to the benefits when designing large conventional activated sludge treatment plants. However, it is important to completely evaluate the impact of adding PCs. The principal driver for using a PC would be load reduction in order to (1) reduce the power requirements associated with the aeration, and (2) reduce the biological tank volume. The aeration power requirements are a combination of process air and membrane scour air, with the volume of scour air often equal to or exceeding the process air requirements. With a reduction in organic load, the process aeration requirements would reduce; however, the scour air requirements would not change. Consequently, the actual power reduction would only be associated with the process air and would be a much smaller fraction of the overall aeration power compared to a conventional plant. It is important to note that the most significant process air demand is from nitrification which is virtually unaffected by the addition of PCs. With PCs the MBR biological tank volume may be governed by HRT rather than by the SRT, MLSS concentration, and/or oxygen uptake rates which are the parameters which typically govern the basin volume. Consequently, significant volume reduction may not be realized. The addition of PCs also adds some additional treatment issues. First, the large surface area of PCs generates significant odors which must be controlled. Second, inclusion of a PC results in a two sludge system which may improve or adversely impact solids processing as discussed below. Reliability Historically, MBR technology has been used for satellite or scalping plants which often incorporate a bypass should there be operating problems. However with large scale endof-the-line plants, the MBR system must be able to treat all influent flows and consistently produce acceptable water quality. As a result, sufficient reliability must be installed to allow for one or more biological or membrane basins to be out of service and still maintain sufficient capacity to treat the influent flow under all conditions. As a result, membrane tanks must be designed for N plus 1 in order to guarantee sufficient operating capacity at all times. The key factor is to determine the design condition which applies to the redundancy evaluation. With equalization, it is reasonable to require a spare membrane tank only during a peak day condition. It is also prudent to consider having two spare membrane tanks at average day or maximum month conditions for those membrane manufactures that require taking a train out of service for cleaning. In addition, the biological tanks and membrane tanks should not be individually tied together, so that any biological tank or any membrane tank could be taken out of service and not impact adjacent processes.

Flexibility Growth within a service area is always difficult to project. Consequently, owners are faced with either excess treatment capacity which ties up capital or insufficient treatment capacity which can limit growth or at a minimum result in continuous construction. The optimum answer is to match capacity with growth. The MBR process is highly compatible with phasing as the basins can be constructed but not populated with the membranes until the flows dictate their installation. This allows for a reduction in the initial equipment costs yet allows for a quick expansion of the hydraulic capacity. The additional tankage can either be kept dry or used in other functions, e.g. WAS storage or flow equalization. Solids Handling For small plants which either return solids to the collection system or dewater and landfill, the single sludge production of an MBR has been highly successful. However, with large scale plants, solids handling and solids stabilization typically occur on site. On-site treatment options to produce Class B solids are limited when dealing with a stable activated sludge waste. In this case, it may be prudent to consider the addition of primary clarifiers in order to expand the stabilization alternatives available, e.g. anaerobic digestion. For Class A solids production, the use of dewatering and heat drying are very compatible with the single sludge production from an MBR. Consequently, when evaluating large facilities, it is critical to consider both the liquid and solids streams together to determine the best processing scheme. One of the benefits of an MBR in a small scale application has been the flexibility in solids handling. In many plants, solids have been wasted directly from the biological basins to the designated solids processing stream. For some plants this is as simple as wasting back to the collection system to allow for solids treatment at a regional facility. For other plants, solids are dewatered and taken to landfill. The key being that no additional WAS storage or thickening was required. With the large facilities, WAS storage and WAS thickening may become required to better integrate the liquid and solids stream processes, especially if on-site stabilization is used. To minimize site impacts and reduce costs, thickening should be provided prior to storage when possible. One option for thickening may be to use membranes. This could be accomplished with a dedicated membrane thickening tank or could be integrated in with the effluent membranes by using the redundant set of membranes. The tank used for membrane thickening could be alternated periodically. The target thickened solids concentration would range between 2.5 and 3%. Scum and Foam Management MBRs have the potential to generate and trap scum and foam. While scum and foam do not have any adverse impact on effluent quality, they can become an unsightly nuisance. Design approaches vary in the location to remove scum/foam. One alternative is to have separate scum/foam removal and locate it in the aeration tank and/or the membrane tank. Another alternative is to combine the scum/foam removal with solids wasting by wasting from the surface. This ensures a constant removal of scum/foam as well as provides sufficient carriage material should the scum/foam disposal point be solids processing, i.e. thickening or dewatering. It is important to note that the ability to waste solids from the RAS line should still be provided. Should a serious foam event occur, the solids concentration associated with surface wasting could be significantly less than the basin MLSS concentration or the RAS solids concentration. Consequently, insufficient solids

may be wasted which results in an increased SRT and potentially exacerbation of the foaming problem. While chemical addition is not the preferred method of foam control, it is prudent to have flexibility to chlorinate the RAS return line and provide chlorinated water surface spray on the aeration basins. In addition, anti-foam chemicals can be used. However, chemical addition should be an intermittent and rarely required means of controlling foam. Membrane Manufacturer The membrane type, size and configuration can all be important factors in determining operation conditions and effluent quality. While there are significant differences in size and configuration, the systems can generally be categorized into two membrane types: hollow fiber and flat sheet as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. MBR Vendors and Membrane Type Flat Panel Manufacturer Hollow Fiber Zenon Kubota

Siemens Mitsubishi Koch Toray Huber Norit

When dealing with large scale facilities, 37,850 m3/d average and greater, the layout of the membrane equipment is critical with respect to capital cost of the facility and O&M ease. Scale up of some manufacturers equipment could result in a significant number of membrane cassettes while others have developed new systems which economize the cassette design and more readily accommodate large scale plants. Utilization of existing basins vs the construction of new membrane basins also result in a membrane preference. With all of the manufacturers, the membrane surface area has significantly increased in their latest cassette design which reduces the footprint of the membranes. In addition, a reduction in the scour air for the membrane cassettes has also decreased which reduces O&M. The reduction in the number of cassettes also results in a direct savings in valves and piping. The overall treatment volume (biological tank plus membrane tank) is similar for all manufacturers; however the split between the systems varies based on membrane type. For hollow fiber membrane manufacturers, the biological tanks ahead of the membrane tanks are larger when compared to the layout with a plate membrane manufacturer due to the compact installation of the hollow fiber cassettes. The plate membrane manufacturers distribute the cassettes over a larger floor space which increases the membrane tank size but can allow an increased utilization of scour air for process air requirements. Energy Optimization A key area of focus within the MBR industry is energy reduction and optimization. Currently the energy requirement for an MBR typically exceeds that of a conventional activated sludge plant by a factor of 1.5 to 3. As a result, for the MBR technology to reach

the next level of technology excellence, the energy requirements must reduce. To that end, several design elements which could reduce energy requirements are listed below. Provide a membrane design which maintains a constant and reasonable flux using equalization. Reduce the solids recycle flow rate by operating with higher MLSS in the membrane tank compared to the activated sludge basin. Energy reduction is two-fold: (1) reduction in pumping and (2) increased alpha which improves oxygen transfer efficiency. Adjust the air scour rate based on flux to allow lower air flow at lower flux. Provide membrane performance enhancers - metals or polymer to reduce the overall membrane footprint and, therefore, air scour. Utilize high OTE aeration devices in the biological basins. Select reasonable SRTs in order to minimize endogenous respiration and associated aeration demand. An example of the beneficial impact of equalization and adjusted air scour rates is provided in Table 2 based on using hollow fiber membranes. Table 2. Energy and Footprint Impact Based on Equalization* No Equalization Diurnal Equalization

Peak Day and Diurnal Equalization

Membrane Surface 151,600 118,440 99,490 Area, m2 Air Scour, m3/h 60,590 35,460 19,860 * Example Assumptions: Peak flow to average flow ratio of 1.5 Flux: 42 Lmh at peak hr, 33 Lmh at PD, 23 Lmh avg Air scour based on 10/10 operation above avg flux, 10/30 operation below avg flux

CASE STUDY All of the issues discussed above were considered recently in the design of the Peoria, Arizona MBR which is a greenfield MBR with a capacity of 49,200 m3/d. MBR technology was selected for Peorias Butler Drive WRF to provide superior effluent quality for aquifer recharge. Effluent quality design requirements are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Treatment Objectives for Case 2 MBR Plant Parameter Monthly Average Turbidity 0.5 NTU Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 5 mg/L Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (cBOD5) 5 mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN) 8 mg/L Fecal Coliform,TKNcol/100 ml Non-detect THM < max contaminated level The City of Peoria purchased 40 acres for the Butler Drive WRF. An adjacent 80 acres was also purchased by the Citys Parks Department for a regional park. The water reclamation facility was designed to be compatible with a regional park. The small footprint of an MBR facility provided an attractive benefit. As shown in Figure 1, the architecture and landscaping was designed to be a good neighbor.

Figure 1. Rendering of Butler Drive WRF MBR.

Below is a brief discussion of the approach used for the key design elements at the Butler Drive WRF. Flow Equalization The Butler Drive WRF is an end-of-the-line facility serving the southerly portion of Peoria. Design hydraulic peaking factors are as follows: Max month / AD 1.15 Peak day / AD 2.0 Peak hour / AD 2.5 The membranes were designed for a maximum hydraulic capacity equal to maximum day flow. The difference between peak hour flow and the maximum daily flow rate is equalized in the aeration and membrane basins via additional 0.6 metres of depth. MBR controls vary flow output of the permeate pump in unison to maintain the aeration basin water depth at 5.5 metres. Permeate pump flow is capped at maximum daily flow capacity. Peak hour flow is equalized in the remaining two feet of aeration basins sidewater depth. Preliminary Treatment Two stages of screening are provided at the Butler Drive WRF. Six millimeter screens are provided at the influent pumping station and one millimeter band screens are provided prior to the MBR process. Channel grinders and vortex grit removal chambers are provided between the two sets of screens. The channel grinders are provided to homogenize the flow prior to grit removal and the fine screens. Redundancy Design for the Butler Drive WRF includes redundant items for all critical process and pumping equipment. Four activated sludge basins are provided and sized to provide adequate treatment with three basins under average design loadings. With regard to

membrane redundancy, ten membrane basins are provided with space for eight membrane cassettes each. Sixty cassettes (six in each basin) will be used to provide the hydraulic capacity to treat the initial average flow of 37,850 m3/d and peak flow of 75,700 m3/d hydraulic capacity. At 37,850 m3/d the operating flux is 17 lmh and at maximum day it is 34 lmh. At N-1 basins the peak day flux is 41 lmh. Shelf spares are also provided for critical membrane system components. Solids Processing/Scum Removal Waste activated sludge is the single sludge stream generated at the Butler Drive WRF. The waste solids will be pumped directly from the aeration basins to dewatering centrifuges. Dewatered solids will be hauled to an area landfill for ultimate disposal. The elevated solids retention time and mixed liquor concentration (10,000 +/- mg/l) allow solids to accumulate in the secondary process over several days. This provides the benefit of operating without an intermediate solids holding basin which reduces cost and operating complexity. The Butler Drive WRF includes a combination of surface wasting at two points and a spray system in channels with chlorinated water. The scum/foam removal is combined with solids wasting from the surface of the aeration basin to ensure a constant removal of scum/foam as well as provide sufficient carriage material. Expansion Flexibility The initial 37,850 m3/d facility will have the infrastructure in place to treat the buildout flow of 49,200 m3/d. In the initial operation period, the plant will treat solids contained in the influent from another upstream water reclamation facility in Peoria. The volume required to handle solids at the initial flow of 37,850 m3/d is also appropriate for the future flow requirements. With this design approach the City was able to delay solids processing facilities at their other treatment plant. When the Butler Drive WRF is expanded to 49,200 m3/d, solids at the other facility will be treated on-site and no longer discharged to the Butler Drive WRF collection system. Consequently, the initial aeration basins will have sufficient volume to treat 49,200 m3/d without the additional solids load from the other facility. Membrane capacity will be increased by adding cassettes to the membrane basins. Each of the 10 membrane basins has space for 8 cassettes. At the initial capacity of 37,850 m3/d each basin will have 6 cassettes. One additional cassette per basin will be added to increase capacity to 49,200 m3/d. This will still leave 12.5 percent spare cassette space at the ultimate design capacity. CONCLUSIONS MBR plants are no longer limited to small satellite facilities as illustrated by the growing number of plants over 18,930 m3/d . The largest design is 117,350 m3/d . While there are numerous similarities in the designs of small and large MBR plants, there are new design issues to be resolved related to end of line reliability, on-site solids stabilization, and flow variation. Several of the manufacturers have evolved their membrane cassette configurations to increase the membrane surface area which significantly reduces the number of cassettes. This design revision also significantly reduces O&M both in cleaning and in air scour requirements for membrane maintenance. Other energy reduction enhancements such as equalization and membrane performance enhancers should be employed. The Butler Drive WRF is an excellent example of a large end-ofthe-line MBR.