MUNICIPAL SEWAGE DEWATERINGOne year experience with the membrane filter press Minimizing sewage treatment costs with the help of the membrane filter press ©. Lutz, Riedlingen L. Mayer, Senden In April 1990 Lenser commissioned a membrane filter press at the municipal sewage treatment plant in Donau Riedlingen. The filter has been in operation for more than one year. The digested sludge is being dewatered by two filter presses. One press operates with conventional chamber filter plates and one press, which was converted, operates with Lenser membrane filter plates. A detailed comparison of the performance of the two filter presses during the first 12 months of operation has been compiled. The comparison clearly illustrates the membrane technology consistently produces filter cakes with higher dry solids content and increases capacity. 1. General Conditions ‘The municipal sewage treatment plant in Riedlingen was commissioned in 1978 with a capacity of 60,000 EGW. Approximately 50% of the influent to the plant originates from a day and a slaughter house. The plant was built with two 1200mm filter presses each having 60 chamberplates originally but expandable to 90 plates. They were designed for filtration at 15 bar feed pressure. Preconditioning of the sludge is done with lime and ferric chloride but the high organic content of the sludge makes it more difficult than normal to dewater. The dewatered cake, until four years ago, was used for agricultural fertilizer. Four year ago Riedlingen was no longer allowed to use the filter cake as fertilizer. It required transportation to a sanitary landfll for final disposal With the regulations and costs pertaining to dty solids content and the increase in plant influent, it became obvious that additional capacity was required. The dewatering to 40% cake-dryness fo 2000 tons of dry solids per year would have required each filter press to cycle 4 times per day 240 days per year. This did not allow sufficient time for maintenance and other plant functions, Expansion of the dewatering capacity of the plant was required. Due to the rising costs and strict regulations associated with land fill disposal, it was decided to retrofit one filter press with membrane plates and use the chamberplates to expand the other filter press. 1.1 Waste Disposal Costs In 1991. ‘Transportation costs range between 7DM and 24DM per ton of filter cake depending on the site location. The sanitary land fill requires a minimum dry solids content of 35% and a shear strength modulus of rigidity of 6OKN/M2 The land fill costs vary in proportion to the dry solids content of the filter cake as follows: S0DM/ton with dry solids more than 45% 58DM/ton with dry solids up to 45% 68DM/ton with dry solids up to 39% 81DM/ton with dry solids up to 35% LENSER ASIA PTE LTD2. Description of Dewatering Installation Both filter presses are equipped with a calendered monofilament cloth sealed aat the edges. Since the chamberplate press is equipped with a grooved drainage surface, it requires an underlying support cloth to give adequate drainage. This is not necessary on the piped surface of the membrane plates. Both presses are 1200mm for 15 bar filtration pressure and the plate stack length is 6500mm. Sludge is fed from the digesters to a holding basin. During this transfer, lime solution and ferric chloride are injected into the pipe. Both filter presses are fed from the same sludge holding tank. The conditioning agents are adjusted to dosages that result in 2 39-42% cake dry solids content using a 2 hour filtration time in the chamber filter press. Although the required for the membrane filter, since they are both fed from the same tank, it is not currently possible to individualize the conditioning dosages. 2.4 Chamber Filter Press The chamber filter press is, equipped with GFK chamber plates producing a cake thickness of 30mm. By retrofitting one of the filters with membrane plates it was possible to use the best chamberplates from both filters to expand the non-membrane filter to 96 chambers. The filter area and cake volume of the two filter presses are approximately the same. The chamber filter press is fed with a 30m°/hr diaphragm pump having @ discharge pressurre of 15 bar. 2.2 Membrane Filter Press The membrane filter press uses a “mixed pack” design where chamberplates are alternated with membrane plates. The membrane plates are detachable for economical replacement in case of accidental damage. The membrane material is EP-Thermoplastic Rubber. EP material is highly elastic and helps compensate for unequal cake formation and therefore differences in chamber filing, Membrane Filter Data: * filter Elements Lenser type KMZ1200R-EP membrane plates * Mixed with Lenser type K12000/8 chamber plates * Cake Thickness 30mm * No. of Chambers 96 * filter Area 220 m? * Cake Capacity 2.96 m? To install the membrane technology a few processes were changed and a few auxiliary pieces of equipment were added. * to control the filter process a new computer was installed * the existing feed pump was replaced with a new pump * a squeeze system was installed LENSER ASIA PTE LTD2.2.4 Feed Pump System To feed conditioned sludge to the membrane filter a speed controlled progressive cavity pump with @ capacity of 45 m*/hr and 7 bar pressure was installed. The flow rate is continually monitored and totalized. The pump feeds the filter in four pressure steps and during that time the flow rate is controlled by the feed pressure. The end of the feed step occurs when: * @ minimum total volume of 16m® has been pumped to the filter * a feed pressure of 7 bar has been achieved * the flow rate is less than 17 m®/hr 2.2.2 Squeeze System Water is used as the squeeze medium and it is fed with a 12 m°/hr progressive cavity pump having a discharge pressure of 15 bar. The pump is speed controlled and operates in four pressure steps. Total squeeze time is 15 minutes with 10 minutes being used to elevate the pressure to 15 bar. The squeeze step is terminated after 15 minutes and when the squeeze water flow rate is less than 4 m?/hr. Squeeze water is evacuated from the membranes by reversing the direction of rotation of the pump. Emptying the membranes takes approximately 5 minutes, The schematic shows the general components of the membrane system. 3. Operating Results During the first 12 months the results of the operations were calculated and recorded. Since the two filters were in operation side by side under identical conditions, it was possible to prepare a direct comparison. 3.1. Process and Disposal Cost Comparison chamber ‘membrane filter filter 4. Filterpress cake thickness (mm) 30 30 no. of chambers Q 96 96 filter area (m?) 220 220 chamber volume (m?) 2.98 2.96 max. operating pressure (var) 16 16 2. Sludge Conditioning sludge dry solids incl % 5% to 7% lime & ferric chloride dry solids/year (tons) 1940 LENSER ASIA PTE LTD3. Operation fitter time (min) 120 40 filter pressure (ban 15 7 sludge input (m) 25 24 squeeze time (min) squeeze pressure (bar) time for core blow & cake discharge (in) 20 20 cycle time (nin) 140 75 4, Results cake solids content ~ 40 50 shear strength (kN/m?) 45 110 cycles per day oO 4 6 throughput (m3 /day) 100 126 5. Disposal costs filter cake {tons/yn) 4850 3880 transport and disposal (OM/ton) 73.50 65.50 disposal costs (oM/yn) 356.475 253.140 ‘SAVINGS (omy 102.335 3.2. Savings ‘The dry solids content of the membrane filter is 10% better than the chamber filter press. The filter cake is also more consistant in dryness while the chamber filter press emits cakes with substantial moisture in the center feed area. The reduction in filter cake for disposal is approximately 20% for the one year perod. The savings is more than 100,000DM per year. The membrane filter handled 80% of the sludge therefore the savings are 80% of that amount. Amortization of the investment is less than three years. Additional savings optimized resulting in a decrease in lime addition. As the disposel costs continue to increase in the future, the savings will also increase. ‘Summary ‘Sludge dewatering with a membrane filter press results in substantial savings for the ‘municipality. In addition to the monetary savings in disposal costs the membrane filter offers other advantages. * Reduction in feed pump maintenance costs by using a low pressure pump. * Reduction in energy costs due to the reduced size and running time of the feed pump. + Improved cake release due to uniformity of dryness. * Reduction in conditioning agents required. * Increased shear strength of filter cake. * No discharge of wet cake areas due to even compression. * Increase control of the filtration procedure producing increased capacity by individually optimizing the feed and squeeze cycles. LENSER ASIA PTE LTOOL1 Ald WiSV H3SNST * One Serna One 91 Na/ook NG Beams dNnd Gaa4 — OOLNG dnd 3z343N0s LNSWASVa YOOTs LSuIs YOO14s GNOOASFilter elements vs other systems 05.02/03 Filter press versus belt press Filter Press. Belt Press 1. Process discontinuous continuous 2. Installation faster and cheaper ‘more expensive 3. Solids ‘System for cake handling Need continuos running belt release below is required conveyor, high electricity Mechanical, relatively low consumption and high in price, maintenance costs and continuously smell pollution. - Dripping of filter. cake. Very untidy and unclean. High corrosion. “4, Operation Need feed pump system, Constant pumping, higher in kw however, due to decrease KW consumption than filter volume, the actual press. KW decreases too. 5. Drive During one cycle based Depending on size up to 50 kW on three hours, needs per hour. a total of 0.02 kW per hour (closing / opening of hydraulic unit). 6. Filter cloth Lifetime of filter cloth Cannot be replaced. In case up to 2-3 years. of damage 15.000,- DM 1 Cloth approx. DM 120,- Time required 15 min per cloth 15 hrs. ‘to changeFilter elements vs other systems 05.03/03 7. Maintenance Besides hydraulic pack, Due to various electrics, costs change of O-ring once drive, control, motor, gear a year, average costs etc. up to DM 20.000,- approx. DM 300,- . per year. No maintenance on filter press. 8. Lifetime There are presses in Average lifetime can be operation for more 8 years, however, depends than 100 years upon corrosion. 9. Smell Because of closed Permanent smell. system, smell only when cake is released. 10. Quality No change. Constant change of of cake permeability and constant elongation of cloth. 11. Dryness of cake up to 65 % up to 30 % 12. Operation Only shifting. Constant supervision needed. 13. Breakdown None Depending on age, weekly problems. 14, Spare parts Hydraulic, gaskets, Motors, gear boxes, bearings, in stock some electrical parts, 2 emergency plates, spare rollers, total approx. DM 5.000,- guiding device, one cloth, one belt ete. ‘total approx. DM 50.000,-Filter elements vs other systems 05.01/03 Comparison centrifuge, belt press and membranes based on waste water: Dry solid content Bolt press Pieralisi centrifuge Sharpless centrifuge Membranes Polymer flocculant Belt press Pieralisi centrifuge Sharpless centrifuge Membranes 23-28 % 16-25 % 18-31 % 25-35 % up to 65 % depending on slurry 3-16 g/kg cake 15-25 gikg cake 8-24 gikg cake 4-9 alka cakeens LENSER ASIA PTE LTD 450/452 ALEXANDRA ROA R008 INCHCAPE rouse SINC eu (65) 472 2228 FAX (65) 472 0485 LENSER MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY IN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENTINTRODUCTION Many different processes are in use around the world to treat municipal sewage and collected rain water prior to discharge to a natural waterway. These different processes however, have certain goals in common. Namely, to protect the environment from contamination by reducing the discharge of total suspended solids (TSS) and of materials that exhibit a high biological oxygen demand (800). The “products” of a municipal treatment plant are a liquid that is tow in suspended solids, low in 80D, and bacteria free for discharge to @ natural waterway; and a solid that is either suitable for a sanitary landfill or for incineration. In man’s recent efforts to protect his environment, both “products” have come under close scrutiny. itis in the latter product, in the handling of the solids, that Lenser will play a key role for many years to come. The entire treatment system, however, is an integrated process and a basic understanding of the entire process Is necessary in order to comprehend the new Lenser technology. There are no “typical” systems and the degree of treatment as well as the method of treatment differ with the prevailing laws, the industry discharging within the district, and with the real estate available: PRIMARY TREATMENT Many treatment systems are “combined”, meaning they collect and treat both sewage and collected rain water from storm sewers. The typical first step in municipal sewage treatment plants is to treat the influent for removal of large objects and send and gravel. These solids are normally collected from the “grit* removal area and taken to a landfill without further treatment. The influent flow to a municipal plant will vary significantly. It is not unusual to see average influent BOD values of 200 - 300 ppm and influent suspended solids values of 250 ~ 300 ppm. The next step in a treatment system after removal of the large solids and the heavy sand and gfit is typically “Primary Clarification". In the primary clarifier a 1 - 10 hour retention time is provided in a quiescent zone which allows most of the solids, both biological and inorganic, to settle to the bottom where they are removed in a 1% ~ 2% diy solid content slurry. This material is referred to as “Primary Sludge”. ‘Sometimes certain bacteria are introduced to the primary clarifier from a subsequent step start to feed on the natural nutrients in the waste stream. Most treatment systems treat the Primary Sludge as part of the sludge treatment system which will be addressed in detail as a separate topic. Primary clarification typically removes approximately 70% of the influent 60D and TSS. Some municipal plants only have primary treatment and in such a case the effluent from the primary clarifier would most likely be treated with chlorine to kill bacteria and then discharged to the recipient waterway. SECONDARY TREATMENT ‘Most systems today include secondary treatment. In this case the effluent from the primary clarifiers is sent to aeration basins, Regardless of the particular method and mechanics ‘employed, the purpose of aeration basins is to introduce oxygen (air) to the bacteria rich environment and to furnish sufficient time for the bacteria to feed, or assimilate, on the pollutant Nutrients. The liquid after aeration is referred to as “mixed liquid” and may contain approximately 5000 mg/l TSS in the form of bacteria. This mixed liquor is sent to a “secondary clarifier”. ‘The secondary clarifier provides a quiescent zone and retention time sufficient to allow the solids to settle and the effluent (overtiow) is typically 90% free of the original influent BOD and TSS. In a secondary treatment plant this effluent would typically either be exposed to an ozone chamber or be chlorinated to kill bacteria and then be discharged to the recipient waterway. LENSER ASIA PTE LTDThe sludge from the secondary clarifier will be handled in one of several methods. At least a portion of this bacteria rich material will be sent back to the primary clarifier and/or the aeration basin to “seed” the colonies of bacteria. This portion of the secondary sludge is referred to as Return Activated Sludge (RAS). The remaining portion of the sludge from the secondary clarifier, if any, Is referred to as Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) and will typically be treated in the sludge treatment system which will be addressed separately. TERTIARY TREATMENT ‘Although not currently common in most areas of the world, some treatment systems employ a “tertiary treatment” process where the effluent (overflow) from the secondary clarifiers is sent to ‘a second aeration basin where filamentous nitrifying bacteria are introduced and permitted to multiply in the oxygen rich environment in order to remove nitrogen, in the form of nitrites and nitrates, from the stream. This secondary mixed liquor is sent to 2 tertiary clarifier where the effluent is now 98%-99% free of the original BOD and TSS. It would typically be chlorinated and discharged to the recipient waterway. A portion of the tertiary sludge would be returned to the secondary aeration basin to seed the colony of nitrifying bacteria and the remainder would be handled by the sludge treatment system. It should be noted that in many systems upstream of any clarifier, chemicals such as polymers, ‘alum, fertic chloride, etc. may be added to assist in processes such as coagulation, settling, and/or treatment of phosphates. These chemicals, if they exist, will effect the sludge treatment system and must be recognized. SLUDGE TREATMENT ‘Sludge handling and treatment system designs vary substantially. The primary goal Is normally to separate the solids from the liquid so that the solids may be safely and economically disposed of either by incineration or by land filing. The liquid is usually returned to the primary treatment. system. ‘The sludge accumulated from the primary clarifier and the Waste Activated Sludge accumulated ‘rom the secondary clarifier normally contain both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Since both sludges historically are considered difficutt to filter, sometimes the sludges will be “digested” in order to reduce the volume of slurry to be filtered. This digestion process, if it is employed, can ether take place in an anaerobic environment where the bacteria are deprived of oxygen, of it can take place in an aerobic environment where the bacteria are exposed to atmospheric conditions. It is important to realize that digestion systems are not always employed. In such cases the sludge would simply be filtered mechanically. SLUDGE DIGESTION In many geographic areas of the world where energy is considered an expensive resource, ‘municipal treatment systems will include an anaerobic sludge digestion process as part of the sludge handling system. In such systems, the primary sludge and the Waste Activated Sludge are combined in an oxygen deprived environment. The anaerobic bacteria assimilate the available Nutrients and in the biological process give off methane gas and heat. The complete anaerobic digestion process normally takes between 20 and 30 days. During this time the methane gas is normally collected and used on site to fuel electrical generators and to provide a heat source for the plant. It is not uncommon that such a cogeneration facility can be completely energy independent. LENSER ASIA PTE LTDFollowing the anaerobic digestion process, the sludge is sometimes sent to a mechanical thickener prior to filtration (dewatering). Because of the dangers related to the production of methane in anaerobic digestion, in some areas, digestion of the sludge is either carried out in an aerobic condition or it is non-existant. In such cases it is not uncommon that the sludge from the primary clarifier will be sent to a primary thickener for physically concentrating the sludge. Polymers or other coagulants may be Used in the primary thickener to assist in settling the solids. As well, it is not uncommon that. the Waste Activated Sludge from the secondary clarifier will be concentrated in a secondary sludge thickener. Because of the biological nature of the Waster Activated Sludge, it is not ‘uncommon that the WAS thickener will be a flotation thickener. In such a case, air and polymer may be injected into the sludge prior to the flotation thickener to assist in concentrating the floating solids. In treatment systems which do not utilize anaerobic digestion, the Primary Sludge and the Waste Activated Sludge will be combined in varying proportions and then dewatered filtered). At this point in both aerobic and anaerobic systems, the biological processes are essentially complete ‘and the sludge must now be physically separated into a solid fraction for disposal and a liquid fraction for recycling to the primary system. It is in this final step, the physical separation of the solids from the liquid, that Lenser membrane filtration technology plays an important role. All of the steps upstream which inherently vary form plant to plant and from system to system. however, have an impact on the final physical filtration results. SLUDGE DEWATERING The dewatering (filtration) technologies and equipment available and currently being employed vary significantly. Typically, for various reasons, some sort of mechanical dewatering either is, or will be required, as the use of sludge as an agricultural fertilizer is becoming less. and less acceptable. Of course, in some geographic areas where the climate is suitable and where there is sufficient real estate available, sludge drying beds may be used. ‘Although countless brand names of available designs and devices exist, basically in the sewage sludge dewatering “industry” four different basic methods are employed. These four can be divided into two groups, continuous and non-continuous operation devices. It is also important to realize that in almost all cases, because of the nature of sewage sludge, some sort of pre- ‘treatment just prior to dewatering will be required to assist in the physical separation of the solids and the liquid regardless of the specific mechanical dewatering device. CONTINUOUS OPERATING DEWATERING DEVICES The first continuous operating separation device employed is the centrifuge. The centrifuge uses centrifugal force to continually separate the solids having one specific gravity from the liquid having a different specific gravity. Although there are exceptions, a centrifuge typically produces a “tooth paste” type material having a dry solids content rarely exceeding 10%-15% by weight. It hhas been attractive in the past because, other than maintenance, it requires little or no operator attendance and it operates continuously. The next continuous operating separation device employed in sewage dewatering is the rotary vacuum filter. This device employs cake filtration, ie. a separation of the solids from the liquid by passing the liquid though a media which retains the solid particles. The driving force is a vacuum inside a rotating drum or inside a series of rotating discs. The accumulated solids are scraped from the surface of the media on each rotation. LENSER ASIA PTE LTO‘Again, although there are exceptions, the rotary vacuum filter in sewage sludge dewatering rarely produces a dry solid content in excess of 10%-15% by weight. An exception would occur, of course, if excessive dosages of lime were added to pretreat the sludge prior to filtration, therefore artificially increasing the dry solid content. The rotary vacuum filter again, was, and still is, a continuous device requiring litle or no operator attention except for maintenance. The next continuous operating device, and probably the most common, is the belt filter press, This device uses cake filtration by passing the sludge through a continuous travelling belt (media). The belt fiter press uses gravity drainage in the first stage, may use a vacuum in the second stage, and then passes the belt with solids on the surface through a series of rollers which exert pressure in the final stage to further dewater the cake prior to continuous discharge by rotation past a scraper blade. Infierently with sewage sludge, rather large amounts of polymer must be added to the sludge to pre-condition if for dewatering on the belt filter press. Although there are exceptions, the cake emitted from a belt filter press will rarely exceed 20% dryness by weight. It has the same continuous operation appeal as the centrifuge and the rotary vacuum filter, i.e. other than maintenance it operates continuously with little or no operator labour required. Because of the appeal of the continuous dewatering devices, they have previously dominated the sewage sludge dewatering area in many geographic locations. NON-CONTINUOUS OPERATING DEWATERING DEVICES The improvements during the past few decades in the mechanization and automation of the non: continuous filter press have resulted in an improved positioning of this device. In a filter press, the slurry is forced through a media by pump pressure, therefore building @ cake on the surface of the media. When the filter cycle is complete, the flow to the machine is stopped and the cake is removed from the device. The main advantage of the conventional chamber filter press ‘over the continuous devices is that, with proper ore-conditioning, the cake emitted from the filter press will contain far less moisture than any of the continuous devices. The disadvantage has been that because of long cycle times required to form the cake in the chamber, capacities have been limited, requiring uneconomical installations of multiple numbers of filter presses. Where incineration is employed or in areas where available land fill sites are limited, the conventional chamber filter press has been, and continues to be, the preferred device of sewage sludge dewatering because of its production of a drier cake requiring less energy to incinerate or less space in the land fill LENSER MEMBRANE FILTER PRESS TECHNOLOGY In most industrialized areas of the world where environmental concerns continually increase in importance, more and more strict requirements are being adopted regarding land disposal of sanitary wastes as well as industrial wastes. Maximum moisture contents as well as minimum rigidity values are becoming common for the acceptance of material at the disposal sites. As well, less and less sites are becoming available and higher disposal costs are being imposed. Equally of concer, many treatment plants that were built to handle a certain capacity ten or twenty years ago, now are faced with increased capacity requirements as well as with the higher costs of solids disposal. Recent developments as a result of research and development by Lenser are assisting in providing solutions to both the problems of capacity and to the problems of rising disposal coast. LENSER ASIA PTE LTD‘The membrane filter press differs from the conventional chamber filter press in the method of dewatering. The conventional chamber fiter press relies strictly on the pressures exerted by the feed pump to force the liquid through the media thus depositing the solids on the surface of the filter media. As this process of feeding progresses, the forming cake continually becomes thicker and offers increased resistance to flow. Therefore, as the feed cycle progresses, the pressure required from the feed pump increases and thus the throughput continually decreases. The final cake thickness is dictated by the chamber depth and, in the case of sewage dewatering, is Usually limited to 30 to 35mm. With this cake thickness, feed pump pressures of approximately 12-15 bar (150-225psi) are typically requited to form a suitable filter cake and feed cycles of 4-8 hours are not uncommon. It is obvious that the efficiency of the chamber filter press; the flow throughput per unit of filtration area, decreases with time. With a membrane filter press the sewage is dewatered in two steps: through feed pump filtration In the first step and then through inflation of the flexible membranes in the second step. Filtration in the membrane filter press is, at first, the same as in the conventional chamber filter press, However, the feed step is terminated after reaching a feed pump pressure much lower than in the chamber filter press, approximately 5-7 bar (75~100psi). At this point the filtration rate and therefore, the filter efficiency, is still at an acceptable value. It is at this time that air pressure or water pressure Is introduced behind the flexible membranes of the membrane plates. By squeezing the cake over the entire surface of the plate and between each plate, additional residual moisture is forced from the cake resulting in a dty and firm filter cake in a drastically reduced cycle time. Experience has shown that the filtration time of the membrane filter press is approximately 30%- 50% less than the conventional chamber filter press. The solids content in the filter cake produced from the membrane filter press is determined by many factors such as the composition of the raw sludge, i.e. primary, secondary, digested, combined, etc., and by the method of pre- conditioning, i.e. lime and ferric chloride, polymers, etc. The final solids content results however, from the fact that the filter cake is produced essentially only from squeezing and squeeze duration. ‘SUMMARY By utllizing a series of flexible inflatable membrane plates instead of chamber plates in a filter press, the time consuming feed cycle can be considerably reduced and accompanied by an inflation step where the liquid is squeezed from the filter cake. Invariably the results are: * an increase in cake dryness * an increase in cake rigidity * a decrease in cycle time * improved cake release and discharge * a decrease in pre-conditioning agents required New filter presses are being supplied with Lenser membrane filter plates for installation in sewage treatment facilities in many areas of the world. Equally important, existing conventional ‘chamber filter presses are being converted to membrane filter presses by changing the chamber plates to membrane plates, installing an inflation system, and modifying the existing control system. The dectease in disposal costs and transportation costs and the decrease in pre- conditioning costs can result in paybacks of less than one year. Existing facilities faced with increased capacities may be able to eliminate the need for a new filter-press by converting an existing chamber filter press to a membrane filter press. ‘As the final step in the treatment of sewage continues to gain importance and concem in future years, Lenser membrane filter press dewatering technology will play an important role. LENSER ASIA PTE LTD