MBR vs CAS Analysis by GE for STP Concven

STP

1. Imagination at work.
Henning Keutgen, Area Sales Manager
February 05, 2014, Yas Island, UAE
MBR vs. Conventional Treatment

2. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Objective
Compare MBR to CAS for different scenarios
2

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014

3. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Historical context
•MBR started as niche technology

•MBR has seen 2 decades of innovation & cost reduction

•A perception remains in some regions that MBR technology
is more costly than conventional alternatives
LEAPmbr workshop | 05 February 2014 GE Water & Process Technologies 3

Test the perception that MBR is more expensive than CAS

4. Treatment Process PFDs

5. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Methodology – design basis
•Greenfield wastewater treatment plant
•Evaluate CAPEX, OPEX, LCC for entire liquid train
•Treatment capacity 5 mgd (18,925 m
3
/d)

5

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
Parameter
Concentration (mg/L) Average Load
(kg/d)
Max. Month
Load (kg/d)
Average Max. Month
TSS 210 284 3,974 5,375
COD 430 580 8,138 10,976
BOD 190 257 3,596 4,854
TKN 40 54 757 1,022
TP 7 9.5 132 179
Influent characteristics*:
* Values based on Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 2003

6. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Methodology – definition of cases
Six unique cases with varying temperature, peaking factor,
effluent requirements, and pre-treatment

6

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
Case
Effluent
BOD/SS/TN/TP
Min Month
Temp (°C)
Hourly Flow
Peaking Factor
Pretreatment
1 20/20 12 2.0 Screening
2 20/20/10 12 2.0 Screening
3 10/10/10/0.2 12 2.0 Screening
4 10/10/10/0.2 12 2.0 Screening & Primary Treatment
5 10/10/10/0.2 25 2.0 Screening
6 10/10/10/0.2 12 4.0 Screening
Design cases:

7. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Methodology – design
Analysis considers the entire liquid treatment process
(pretreatment, primary treatment, secondary treatment,
tertiary treatment, disinfection)
BioWin® process simulation software used to size and
configure biological reactors and determine process aeration
and chemical addition rates
Unit process and equipment sizing based on meeting
treatment objectives with one unit out of service
MBR system design based on LEAPmbr

7

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014

8. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Methodology – costing
Earthwork and concrete volumes calculated for each unit operation based
on site layout for each case
Equipment costs for common equipment based on similarly-sized projects;
for major equipment different between cases, vendor quotes were received
Unit costs for general construction items (e.g.: excavation, backfill, bedding,
concrete, handrails, etc.) obtained from industry sources (e.g.: RS Means)
and based on northeast USA
Costs for equipment installation, process piping, electrical works, and
general site work were calculated as a percentage of project costs
O&M costs consider labor, electricity, chemicals, equipment maintenance,
fine bubble diffuser replacement, membrane replacement, UV lamp
replacement

8

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014

9. Results

10. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Case 5 analysis
Design Basis:

Effluent quality: BOD<10,
TSS<10, TN<10, TP<0.2
Min Temp: 25°C
Peak Hour: 2x

10

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
Conventional site plan (2.9 ha) MBR site plan (2.0 ha)
Process Flow Diagram:

11. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Case 5 analysis - CAPEX
8% CAPEX savings on MBR versus CAS
11

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
CAS

MBR
Smaller
bioreactor

Remove
Secondary
Clarifier

Remove
Tertiary
Filter

Add Fine
Screen

Add
Membrane
System

8%
Savings

12. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Case 5 analysis - OPEX
9% additional NPV OPEX for MBR versus CAS
12

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
CAS

MBR
Labor

Energy

Chemicals

Equip
Maint

Membrane
Replacement

9%
Cost

13. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Case 5 analysis – Life cycle cost
4% life cycle cost savings on MBR versus CAS
13

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
CAS

MBR
CAPEX
Savings

OPEX
Costs
4%
Savings

CAPEX

OPEX

CAPEX

OPEX

14. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Capital cost
MBR CAPEX lower for
enhanced nutrient
removal and water
reuse applications
Result is the same for
cold climates, warm
climates, with primary
clarification, and for
plants with high
peaking factors

14

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
TSS < 20
BOD < 20
NH
3-N < 1
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 1 &
TN < 10
TSS < 10
BOD < 10
NH
3-N < 1
TN < 10
TP < 0.2
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 3
with
Primary
Clarifier
Case 3
with
T
min 25°C
Case 3
with
Peak 4X
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

15. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Operating cost
MBR OPEX is higher
for all cases
Differences mostly
attributed to
power, chemical,
and membrane
replacement
Membrane
replacement is
responsible for a
small relative
portion of the NPV

15

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
TSS < 20
BOD < 20
NH
3-N < 1
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 1 &
TN < 10
TSS < 10
BOD < 10
NH
3-N < 1
TN < 10
TP < 0.2
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 3
with
Primary
Clarifier
Case 3
with
T
min 25°C
Case 3
with
Peak 4X
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

16. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Life cycle cost (CAPEX + OPEX)
•Life cycle cost is
lower for MBR
compared to CAS
for enhanced
nutrient removal
and water reuse
applications
•Lower CAPEX for
MBR is off-set by
higher OPEX
16

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014
TSS < 20
BOD < 20
NH
3-N < 1
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 1 &
TN < 10
TSS < 10
BOD < 10
NH
3-N < 1
TN < 10
TP < 0.2
Temp 12°C
Peak 2X
Case 3
with
Primary
Clarifier
Case 3
with
T
min 25°C
Case 3
with
Peak 4X
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

17. © 2014 General Electric Company.
Conclusions
•MBR can be more cost-
effective when tertiary
treatment is required.
•MBR is more cost-effective
than CAS followed by tertiary
membranes.
•O&M costs for MBR typically
greater than CAS; however,
overall lifecycle cost for MBR
for many scenarios is lower
due to lower capital costs.
•CAS is more cost-effective than
MBR if tertiary treatment is not
required.

17

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014

18. © 2014 General Electric Company.
References
Young, T.; Muftugil, M.; Smoot, S.; Peeters, J. (2012). “MBR vs.
CAS: Capital and Operating Cost Evaluation”. Singapore
International Water Week Proceedings; Singapore.

Young, T.; Muftugil, M.; Smoot, S.; Peeters, J. (2012). “Capital
and Operating Cost Evaluation of CAS vs. MBR Treatment”.
WEFTEC Conference Proceedings; New Orleans, Louisiana.

18

GE Water & Process Technologies LEAPmbr Workshop | 05 Feb. 2014