Commissioning of large WWTP with

flat sheet MBR technology: The

Arenales del Sol case
Posted on 4th February 2012

Authors:
Roman Gasull Technical Director at engineering COMPANY INTEGRAWATER
and an MBR consultant, specialising in water and WASTEWATER TREATMENT

design and MBR applications

Hector Rey Process Specialist at engineering company PROINTEC and specialist
lecturer in Mathematical Modelling for various professional institutions.

Introduction

Figure 1: Arenales del Sol WWTP

The Arenales del Sol WWTP, located in Alicante in the Mediterranean region of
Spain, combines biological treatment with nutrient removal with a submerged MBR
system FITTED with flat sheet (FS) ultrafiltration membranes, with an average
treatment capacity of 10,000 m3/d (10 MLD). The plant provides high quality
treatment to highly variable seasonal sewage inflow due to the nature of this popular
coastal region, where second homes and golf courses attract visitors during the
summer months and winter and Easter vacation periods.
This seasonal feature became a major challenge during the commissioning of this
relatively large MBR plant in a short space of time and with very little contingency,
demanding specific OPERATIONAL strategies.

Figure 2: Specification Arenales del Sol WWTP

Typical commissioning challenges of an MBR

Many WWTPs fitted with MBR technology have experienced severe difficulties
during the COMMISSIONING and start-up phases of the project, specifically
because OPERATIONAL problems are normally manifested as failure to meet the
hydraulic load, rather than achieve the required level of purification. This demands
that membrane fouling and clogging is minimised as much as possible, through
removal of fine solids and reduction of EPS or dissolved organic carbon levels in the
sludge. Also, the variation of operational parameters such MLSS concentration, peak
fluxes and aeration volume are known to exacerbate fouling and clogging, as well as
the sludge floc structure.

Figure 3: Actual MBR process parameters

Various challenges arise during MBR commissioning, including:

rapid membrane fouling due to insufficient biomass concentration, unhealthy micro-organism

populations, excessive EPS formation or membrane blocking

overflowing tanks from heavy foaming events (with subsequent biomass loss) or membrane
clogging

under-spec treated water quality prior to the biological conditions reaching the design values,
and specifically the MLSS concentration

impaired treatment from incomplete tasks from COMMISSIONING , such as clean WATER
TESTING , PID control adjustment, etc

membrane clogging or ragging due to unscreened seeding sludge

membrane damage due to abrasion from construction materials, such as metal shards from
thread tapping not removed from the MBR tanks

sludge settling due to blower failure

membrane over- or under-aeration due to incomplete PID blower testing or incorrect blower
design.

All the activities planned for the commissioning of this WWTP aimed to minimise or
avoid the above, by applying knowledge available from a number of published case
studies.

Figure 4: The MBR tanks at Arenales del Sol WWTP

Commissioning requirements, hollow fibre versus flat

sheet systems
Sludge seeding in biological and MBR tanks can become challenging in medium to
large municipal WWTPs. Typically, the anoxic and oxic reactor volumes are usually
too large and unchambered to be filled with rather concentrated sludge from other
WWTPs in a single step. Equally difficult and EXPENSIVE is to truck in excess
recirculation sludge from other secondary decanters to achieve a high MLSS
concentration in the MBR tanks.
On-site biomass augmentation is thus unavoidable for any medium to large MBR
plant, and the target MLSS concentration will depend on the membrane configuration:
5-8 g/l (or 10-12 g/l for short periods) for an HF configuration compared with 12 to
15 g/l for the FS. It follows that target biomass conditions are more rapidly attained
for HF systems. Moreover, as often observed in MBR literature, FS membranes
experience major fouling at lower MLSS from small pin-floc structures causing rapid
pore blocking more rapidly. At higher MLSS levels and correspondingly larger flocs,
the sludge-scouring air mixture provides greater higher shear and so an improved
cleaning efficiency at higher MLSS concentrations (up to 18 g/l) than at lower.
In the case of HF systems, the initial MLSS concentration is not considered as
important during COMMISSIONING , since they demonstrate good best filtration
performances at sludge seeding concentrations (2 to 6 g/l).

Figure 5: Typical flux versus MLSS in sMBR

Figure 6: Clean WATER TESTING

It was important to reduce the RISK of initial fouling at the low MLSS
concentrations to avoid downtime for chemical cleaning. However, since the existing
WWTP was not meeting effluent discharge standards, the new plant had to be ready
for work with full flow treatment warranties in a shortened time. Given the time
constraints the project was under, a minimum MLSS concentration of only 6-7 g/l was
deemed necessary prior to operation with the FS MBR membranes.

All ancillary equipment to the MBR (blowers, PUMPS , PLC, etc) was fully tested
with clean water.

Fouling control strategies during start-up: Biomass

development
Biological degradation of the sludge in the reactors is required not only to meet
effluent discharge standards but also to avoid membrane fouling by excessive
unoxidised BOD levels. Time restrictions ASSOCIATED with the commissioning
required both a stable biomass and a ready-for-business MBR system at the design
conditions of 12.5-15 g/l within 8-10 weeks.
Unfortunately, since only about 30% of design inflow was being RECEIVED at the
time, there was a shortage of carbon for natural bio-augmentation. Biomass
augmentation was thus achieved using the anoxic and oxic tanks in one (of two) of the
treatment lines in an sequencing batch mode, with supernatant being regularly
withdrawn so as to increase the MLSS without decharging the solids (thus increasing
the SRT).
The plant was fed both with untreated sewage PUMPED from the existing plant at a
reduced loading rate and sugar cane residues as an additional carbon source.
Additionally, small volumes of hydrophyliced bacteria were added in the first few
days to rapidly increase the available micro-organism population in the tanks. This
strategy allowed for a controlled seeding process while closely examining biomass
species under the microscope.
All sludge fed into the new plant was mesh filtered in the new rotary drum screens
(punch-hole, 1mm) for failsafe OPERATION of the membranes.
Modelling software (WEST) was used to simulate biomass growth in the biological
tanks. As it turned out, WEST predictions were quite accurate in assessing the actual
biomass growth rate during start-up. The time EMPLOYED in seeding and
concentrating the sludge was used to calibrate the input data for the modelling
software.

Figure 7: Mathematically predicted versus measured trends in MBR tank regarding [MLSS]

Fouling control strategies during start-up: Flux

control
Flux control is crucial for fouling control. It is well known that if flux is maintained
below a certain critical value (known as critical flux), it is possible to ensure stable
operation with little or negligible increase in TMP for longer periods, and hence
reduce cleaning frequency. It is also true, however, that this critical flux is unique to
every MBR plant and process water CHARACTERISTICS , and it is usually only
ascertained through trial and error experimentation under design operational
conditions (in this case, 12.5 g/l at 22-28 LMH). Strict flux control
during COMMISSIONING stage is thus essential to avoid accelerated fouling,
particularly when using FS system configurations.
Flux values EMPLOYED prior to reaching the design conditions were kept
conservative, particularly at around 6-7 g/l MLSS when operation was kept well
below the critical flux. Average biomass temperature at start-up was slightly above
16C.
Since COMMISSIONING time was getting closer and filtration had to be resumed
promptly prior to the Easter vacation period, filtration was started with a low MLSS
of 6.5 g/l and a flux below 8 LMH, with a maximum allowed emergency flux of 10
LMH. The operational flux allowed at each of the COMMISSIONING phases (see
below) was chosen according to previous experiences with the chosen membrane
technology.

Figure 8: Operational flux at each of the commissioning phases

This filtration time prior to commissioning, even at these low fluxes (design flux was
22 LMH) allowed for both biomass concentration and biomass acclimatation while
reaching the more acceptable MLSS levels above 10 g/l. Again, the WEST modelling
software was employed to forecast biomass growth and hence inform the initiation of
full-flow start-up of the plant.

Fouling control strategies during start-up: Air

scouring control and optimisation
The beneficial effects of air scouring to control fouling at the membrane surface of
flat sheet membranes is well documented. Typically, it is assumed that there is a
linear relationship between membrane flux (Lwater/m2/h) and the air scouring rate
(Nm3/h/m2), within some limits above which this positive INFLUENCE of higher air
volume per unit membrane area is no longer observed. The designed air scouring
range for the membranes was from 0.42-0.6 Nm3/h/m2 typical for a double-deck
Toray system.
Initially, the MBR control system had been programmed so as to reduce the energy
consumption related to air scouring according to a flux/TMP related algorithm; that is,
employing the lowest air scouring rate possible so as to maintain a flux below the
critical flux value. This type of control assumed a steady sludge concentration within
the design limits (12-15 g/l), as opposed to the low solids concentration OPERATION
required at the start-up phase. For this reason, it was decided to re-program the
SCADA control software so that it would allow for an additional operational mode
with low MLSS, where the highest air scouring rate could be employed when [MLSS]
in the MBR tanks was below a critical value of 8 g/l.

Figure 9: MBR PUMPS

at Arenales del Sol

Also, during low or no inflow periods to the plant, the MBR would allow for
intermittent aeration every 30 minutes to maintain aerobic conditions, avoiding sludge
settling at the bottom of the tanks and between the membrane plates. When not in
operation, all membrane lanes were aerated for 2.5 minutes every 25 minutes. During
low inflow periods, the eight MBR lanes were OPERATED alternatively in pairs.
Finally, a submersible mixer was installed in each MBR lane not fitted with MBR
modules (until second COMMISSIONING phase) to keep biomass in suspension,
while a minimum 200% recirculation was maintained.

Fouling control strategies during start-up: Polymer

dosing
To minimise potential fouling at initial low MLSS, it was also decided to dose a
synthetic cationic polymer, (MPE 50, Nalco) designed to suppress membrane fouling.
This product has shown good results in increasing critical flux at other existing MBRs
worldwide at low temperatures, as per the MBR consultants experience, and also
suppresses foaming. It was not possible at the time of COMMISSIONING to evaluate
fully the beneficial effects of the addition of this polymer, since there was a
simultaneous temperature increase in the sludge at the time of dosing (see graph).
The dosage of MPE 50 was initiated at 4 g/l MLSS and was stopped shortly before
reaching 9 g/l. The use of this product was considered, however, a viable option to
reduce fouling orENHANCE flux and it was subsequently included in the plants

O&M guidelines as an emergency strategy to improve plants overall performance

during storm events, load changes or significant temperature decrease.

Figure 10: Flux versus TMP during startup (MBR line B1) at Arenales del Sol WWTP

Fouling control strategies during start-up: Foaming

Foaming is a common issue in biotreatment processes and there are a large number
of MANAGEMENT strategies, yet these are not always put into practice. Historically,
there have been many MBR plants installed without foaming removal or control
systems in their designs which subsequently experienced problems during foaming
events, with foam sometimes overflowing into the biological tanks.
The occurrence of foam at start-up and operational stages differs both in its origin and
also in its magnitude. The release of the hydrophilic AGENT the membranes are
coated with for preservation during storage may cause a very light and clear foam,
which disappears within hours once filtration conditions start. Another type of
foaming that can happen at the same time is of biological origin and can arise from
low temperatures, insufficient organic loads, a non-acclimatised biomass or excessive
chemical cleanings.
Foaming may be exacerbated when the biological process in the aerobic/anoxic tanks
and the MBR is interrupted due to the typical PID and equipment adjustments that
take place during start-up. As a result, extensive inactivation of micro-organisms will
lead to foaming due to proteinaceous DNA release from dead cells. Finally, foaming
occurrence during normal and stable OPERATION of MBRs is also common due to
the long SRTs, yet this foam type tends to be naturally controlled at large municipal
plants as long as foam is not trapped in the reactor.
At Arenales del Sol, foaming issues were taken into consideration when designing the
biological tanks, ensuring that there was always an overflow from anoxic tanks

through to the MBR chambers and into the recirculation chamber. Any foaming event
eventually ends up at the MBR lanes, where an overflow weir directs all recirculating
sludge (and foam) into a channel fitted with a simple foam removal system that
operates with two manually operated gates. All foam removed is accumulated in a
sump fitted with SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS , from where it can then be sent to the sludge
dewatering system, or back into the recirculation pipeline into the anoxic tanks.

Conclusions
The Arenales del Sol plant was, at the time of COMMISSIONING , under some of the
typical pressures found in municipal WWTPs in coastal regions. There was an
urgency to have the plant fully working at certain dates and there was no room for
error in either the water quality to be provided or in reliance on the existing plant
which could no longer provide efficient treatment.
The previous MBR knowledge of the contractor, MBR system integrators and
technical assistance ensured a rapid COMMISSIONING with minimal deviations from
the planned schedule over a period of eight weeks. The whole WWTP was designed
with a great amount of contingency equipment and fully orientated towards MBRs.
The WEST modelling software was helpful in forecasting potential biological process
pitfalls prior to the plant attaining design conditions and aided greatly in the planning
of sludge seeding and biomass acclimatation. It also provided useful strategies
for OPERATION , as the software was also used to simulate different inflow scenarios
throughout the year.
Finally, a great deal of care and planning was put into the COMMISSIONING and
start-up phases of the project, with various preventive fouling control techniques
enforced with the sole aim of reducing plant downtime for maintenance cleaning and
ensuring full flow treatment capability for the critical first few months.