Draft Technical Memorandum

MECHANICAL DEWATERING ALTERNATIVES

EVALUATION
City of Folsom – Utilities Department Date: Aug 14, 2013
Reviewed by: Rich Stratton, P.E.
Prepared by: Malar Perinpanayagam, P.E.

Objective
The objective of this technical memorandum (TM) is to identify suitable mechanical
dewatering alternatives for the City of Folsom (City). This TM covers an initial screening of
mechanical dewatering alternatives, further evaluation of the recommended alternative, and
recommendations for an interim plan until the permanent solution can be implemented.

Introduction
The Folsom water treatment plant (WTP) is owned and operated by City of Folsom Utilities
Department. It is designed to produce 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated drinking
water. The raw water feed to the plant comes from Folsom lake and generally has low turbidity,
but can experiences seasonal high turbidity events associated with rainfall in the watershed. The
WTP consists of following processes:

 Rapid mix
 Pretreatment: parallel processes of conventional flocculation(floc) /sedimentation
(sed) basin and Actiflo high rate clarification units
 Conventional sand/anthracite dual media filter
 Chlorine Contact Tank (CCT)
 Backwash Reclamation Basins
 Solids handling facilities: Sedimentation basins and sludge lagoons/drying beds.
The residual solids generated from Actiflo and dual media filter processes are thickened in
Floc/Sed Basins No. 1 through 4. The thickened sludge from Sed Basins 1 through 4 and
residual solids generated from Sed Basin 5 are discharged to sludge lagoons (lagoon) No. 1
through 3. Reclaimed backwash water (RBW) from the filters is recovered in Backwash
Reclamation Basins and deposits are discharged to Lagoon 1 through 3. Figure 1 shows
process flow diagram of the treatment plant.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 1

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 1. City of Folsom WTP process flow diagram

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 2

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

The current residual solids handling method releases odors that have resulted in complaints
from residents near the plant. To maintain the WTP odor free, the City selected mechanical
solids dewatering as an alternative to their residual solids management plan.
This TM discusses and evaluates the dewatering alternatives discussed with the City at the
kick-off meeting. The evaluation includes advantages and disadvantages, anticipated
performance, estimated capital cost and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. The TM
also covers further evaluation of the screw press alternative that was selected by the City at
the draft TM review meeting. The evaluation includes a conceptual layout of the dewatering
process and recommendations for an interim plan.

Background
Historically the City has used a contractor to periodically remove, dewater and dispose
residuals from the sludge lagoons. Since this process was expensive, the City started
implementing a residuals management plan based on Malcolm Pirnie’s Residuals
Management Evaluation and Plan report submitted in 2007. The plan was to implement non-
mechanical dewatering option by converting lagoons to sludge drying beds.
The proposed plan was to use first lagoon to receive 2 percent thickened sludge from Basins
1 through 4, second lagoon to drying bed and third lagoon to promote evaporative drying
process of dewatered sludge. Lagoon No. 1 is currently unlined to use as drying bed. In
early 2012, the City began to turn over the solids in one of the converted drying beds. A few
weeks later, the WTP received odor complaints from residents in the neighborhood of WTP.
To mitigate the odors, the City again capped the lagoons with a layer of water. In the
meantime, the City contracted HDR to perform an investigation as to the possible causes
and possible mitigation for the odors. In a TM dated February 22, 2013, HDR
recommended that conversion of the lagoons to drying beds not be implemented and the
mechanical dewatering be evaluated.
In meetings with the City in March 2013, the following dewatering alternatives were
identified for consideration in the initial screening evaluation:
 Mechanical dewatering
 Belt Filter Press (BFP)
 Centrifuge
 Screw Press (SP)
 Plate and Frame Filter Press (PFFP)
 Rotary Press (RP)
 Discharge to sewer after thickening waste streams

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 3

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Further, the City agreed to use plant historical data presented in Malcolm Pirnie’s Residuals
Management Evaluation and Plan in 2011 report and to add additional 25 percent to residual
solids production rate to account WTP’s design capacity. The City provided WTP’s data
from 2009 through 2012. This data was compared with the data presented in Malcolm Pirnie
report. The recent data was greater than what was presented in Malcolm Pirnie report and
used in this TM to calculate projected sludge production for evaluation.
The City suggested at the Kick-off meeting that the existing abandoned automatic back-
wash (ABW) filter building may be used to locate dewatering equipment and aqua ammonia
and chemical storage building which is not in service may be used to locate polymer storage
and blending. At the draft TM review meeting City decided to install dewatering equipment
outside of ABW filter building and build a canopy to cover the units, construct sludge
thickening tank in Lagoon No.1 and use aqua ammonia and chemical storage building to
install polymer storage and feed system.
The existing sewer connection from WTP has 100 gpm capacity.
The City requested the initial evaluation of these dewatering alternatives. Based on the
results of this initial screening and experience from site visits, the City selected screw press
alternative for further evaluation. The follow-up evaluation will refine the screw press
dewatering alternative capital and life cycle costs and also consider the constructability,
filtrate water quality, operation complexity and other non-economic factors.

Solids Production
The City provided HDR with monthly plant operating data [turbidity and Aluminum
Chlorohydrate (ACH)] from 2009 through 2012. This data was reviewed and compared to the
historical data presented in Malcolm Pirnie report 2007. The review resulted in to use flow data
from Malcolm Pirnie report and turbidity and ACH from recent plant operation data, and to add
25% to residual production to account build-out capacity. Table 1 provides solids production
estimated with seasonal fluctuation.

Table 1. Residual Production Estimate with Seasonal Fluctuations

Turbidity ACH ACH Polymer Polymer Total Sludge

Flow1 Turbidity2,3
Sludge Dose3,4, Sludge Load5 Sludge Production6
Month
mg/L as lb/day
MGD NTU lb/day lb/day mg/L lb/day
ACH

January 15 3.3 410 2.4 150 0.3 40 750

February 15 3.1 390 2.2 130 0.3 40 700
March 20 4.0 670 2.4 200 0.3 60 1,170
April 30 3.7 910 2.6 320 0.3 80 1,640
May 40 2.6 880 2.3 380 0.3 110 1,720
June 40 2.3 750 2.2 360 0.3 110 1,530

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 4

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Turbidity ACH ACH Polymer Polymer Total Sludge

Flow1 Turbidity2,3
Sludge Dose3,4, Sludge Load5 Sludge Production6
Month
mg/L as lb/day
MGD NTU lb/day lb/day mg/L lb/day
ACH

July 50 2.4 990 2.2 450 0.3 130 1,970

August 50 2.6 1,090 2.2 450 0.3 130 2,090
September 40 2.6 880 2.1 350 0.3 110 1,680
October 30 2.8 690 2.1 260 0.3 80 1,290
November 20 2.6 430 2.1 170 0.3 60 830
December 15 5.1 640 2.9 180 0.3 40 1,080
Annual Average 30 3.1 730 2.3 283 0.3 90 1,380
1 Flow data used by Malcolm Pirnie, 2007
2 Conversion: 1NTU raw water turbidity = 1mg/L dry solids produced (β = 1.0)

3 Monthly average of 2009 – 2012 data

4 Conversion: 1mg/L ACH added = 0.5 mg/L solids produced

5 Current polymer dosage

6 Includes 25% more residual production

Based on Table 1, the dewatering alternative will be designed based on following conditions:

 Minimum sludge production: 700 lb/day

 Annual average sludge production: 1,380 lb/day
 Maximum sludge production: 2,100 lb/day
See Attachment A for plant historical data and sludge production calculation.

Residual Sludge Thickening

Settled sludge from Sed Basins 1 through 4 has approximately 0.3% solids concentration which
is not ideal for mechanical dewatering since most of the mechanical dewatering technologies
are not efficient at this concentration. Sludge thickening will improve dewatering efficiency. In
addition, sludge thickening will reduce the amount of sludge to be dewatered and the
equipment size.

As in the current operation sludge from Sed Basins 1 through 5 will be continued discharging
to Lagoons No.1 through 3 and allowed to thicken. A remote controlled dredge will pump
thickened sludge from lagoons to a homogenization tank from which the dewatering equipment
will be fed. The dredge floats on the water and runs on a guide rail along the grid. The auger at
the front bottom of dredge excavates the thickened or settled sludge and directs to submersible
pump suction. The pump discharge (flexible pipe) will be connected to an outlet located at
shoreline, to discharge to homogenization tank. The dredge is movable from one lagoon to
another using a crane or forklift. Figure 2 shows illustrative image of dredge installation.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 5

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Attachment B provides product information for dredge with pump.

Figure 2. Remote controlled dredge with guide rail system (Liquid Waste Technology's dredge)

Dewatering Alternatives
Dewatering equipment removes water from thickened and conditioned sludge using an external
force to produce a sludge cake with a high solids concentration (15 to 30 percent solids). The
factors that influence selection of dewatering technologies include: type of solids being
processed, quantity and quality, continuous or batch process, and operation and maintenance
requirements (odor, noise, washwater, labor attention, chemical and energy consumption,
equipment repair and replacement and etc.). Performance of mechanical dewatering equipment
for water treatment residual solids may slightly vary depending on the raw water quality and
the chemicals being used in the treatment processes.

Disposal to Sanitary Sewer

The City is investigating the option to discharge thickened sludge (2% solids concentration) to
existing sewer which is connected to Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
(SRCSD). Table 2 summaries estimated flows and loads.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 6

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Table 2. Sludge Discharge to Sewer

Total Sludge Sludge Sludge Flow

Flow
Discharge2 Flow, (0.3% (2% solids)
Treated1
Month solids)

MGD lb/day gpd

January 15 750 29,976 4,500

February 15 700 27,978 4,200
March 20 1,170 46,763 7,100
April 30 1,640 65,548 9,900
May 40 1,720 68,745 10,400
June 40 1,530 61,151 9,200
July 50 1,970 78,737 11,900
August 50 2,090 83,533 12,600
September 40 1,680 67,146 10,100
October 30 1,290 51,559 7,800
November 20 830 33,173 5,000
December 15 1,080 43,165 6,500
Annual Average 30 1,380 54,800 8,300
1 Flowdata used by Malcolm Pirnie, 2007
2 Based on 2009-2012 data and includes 25% more residual production

To minimize impacts to the City’s sewer collection system, the sludge disposal should occur
during the low-flow periods. Impact of sludge thickening is analyzed in following section.

Sewer Impact Fee

SRCSD imposes a sewer impact fee to new sewer connections or expanding existing
connections. This sewer impact fee is one time charge imposed when the connection to SRCSD
is made. SRCSD Consolidated Ordinance version 2, effective date from February 23, 2013
provides the current sewer impact fee and sewer charges Table 3). Assume that the 0.3% solids
discharge from WTP will contain BOD of 6 mg/L and negligible TKN concentration.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 7

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Table 3. SRCSD Sewer Impact Fee for Industrial Users (Source: SRCSD Consolidated Ordinance)

Sewer impact fee for 2% thickened sludge at annual average condition:

Quantity Cost
Sludge flow 249,000 gal/month $10,707
Solids loading 41,400 lb/month $1,554,611
BOD loading 83 lb/month $1,043
Total (rounded) $1,566,000

Table 4 shows the estimated sewer impact fee for difference conditions:

Table 4. Sewer impact fee for different conditions

0.3% sludge 2% Thickened sludge
Parameter Annual average Max month Annual average Max month
Flow, gal/month 1,660,000 2,520,000 249,000 378,000
TSS, lb/month 41,400 62,700 41,400 62,700
BOD, lb/month 83 126 83 126
TDN, lb/month - - - -
Pathogens -
Calculated sewer $1,627,000 $2,464,000 $1,566,000 $2,372,000
impact fee (rounded)

Table 4 shows that there is no significant reduction in sewer impact fee by thickening the
sludge prior to discharge. However, this finding should be confirmed by SRCSD. Residual
sludge from Sed Basins 1 through 5 (0.3% solids) could be directly pumped to SRCSD sewer.
The City can negotiate and work on discharge schedule with SRCSD to discharge residual
sludge (0.3% solids) to sanitary sewer during off-peak hours. If a workable discharge schedule
cannot be found, annual operation and maintenance cost will also be performed to evaluate
impact of sludge thickening prior to sewer discharge.

New sludge pumps are required to pump sludge from Sed Basins to sanitary sewer. Two (1
duty and 1 standby) 100 gpm pumps are estimated for this purpose. Actual sewer impact fee

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 8

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

may be different from estimated fee. See Attachment C for sewer impact and discharge fee
calculation.

Sewer Rates
Table 5 provides monthly sewer rates for industrial users to use SRCSD sewer.

Table 5. Sewer Rates (Source: SRCSD Consolidated Ordinance)

Sewer discharge fee for 2% thickened sludge at annual average condition shall be calculated as
follows:

Quantity Cost (month)

Sludge flow 249,000 gal/month $79.30
Solids loading 41,400 lb/month $4,590.02
BOD loading 83 lb/month $15.94
Total (rounded) $4,700

Table 6. Sewer discharge fee for different condition

Discharge condition Sewer discharge fee

Annual average $5,135

0.3% solids
Max month $7,778

Annual average $4,685

2% solids thickened sludge
Max month $7,096

Belt Filter Press (BFP)

The belt filter press (BFP) uses mechanical pressure to solids/sludge which is sandwiched
between two tensioned belts. The belts are passed through a series of serpentine rollers to
mechanically filter and separate water from solids. The machine contains three liquid/solids
separation zones

 Gravity zone: water in the feed is allowed to freely drain through porous belts

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 9

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

 Wedge zone: solids are prepared for pressure application

 Pressure zone: medium and then high pressure are applied to the solids.
BFP performance highly depends on the solids being processed. Given that, solids loading rate
varies from approximately 200 to 500 lb/hr/meter belt width. Generally the BFP receives
sludge with solids concentration varies from 1 to 4 percent and produces cake with solids
concentration of 12 to 35 percent. Polymer consumption varies from 4 to 16 lbs/ton dry solids
being processed.

The BFP is open to the room and operates as continuous feed unit. Some installations have
hoods that can be located over the top of the units to collect foul air. The system may include
sludge feed pump, polymer mix and feed system, polymer sludge mixing device, BFP, belt
washwater booster pump, sludge discharge conveyor, and electrical control panel.

Belts have to be replaced with time due to tear and wear. The belts used in high pressure zone
have an estimated life of 2,000 to 3,000 hrs. Significant amount of water is required for
washwater and estimated amount varies from 25-30 gpm/meter of belt at 80 psi to 110
gpm/meter of belt at 130 psi pressure. Plant effluent can be used for washwater and a booster
pump may be required to deliver high pressure washwater.

Figure 3. Belt filter press schematic diagram –vertical option

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 10

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 4. Typical belt filter press schematic diagram –horizontal option (Source: EPA, 1986)

Manufacturers: Ashbrook Simon-Hartley, BDP, Siemens, Komline Sanderson

See Attachment D for Belt Filter Press product information.

Centrifuge
A centrifuge operates by allowing sludge to enter at a stationary tube where it is fed into a
rotating bowl that contains an accelerating inlet rotor. The rotor rotates at speeds up to 3,400
revolutions per minute (rpm) creating centrifugal forces that push solids to the outer wall of the
bowl. A conveyor rotates in the opposite direction of the rotor collecting the solids and
discharging them to a chute at the end of the bowl. The liquid that is separated from the solids
is called centrate. During the process of separation, the liquid is conveyed to the opposite end
of the equipment from the solids.

Figure 5. Typical centrifuge thickening and dewatering system (EPA Biosolids Fact Sheet, EPA 832-F-00-053,
Sep 2000)

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 11

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Polymer usage varies from 10 to 30 lbs per dry ton solids. Solids loading rate depends on
equipment size which depends on sludge residence time, pond volume, cake quality required,
and hours of operation.

Manufacturers: Westfalia, Andritz, Alfa-Laval, Hiller

See Attachment D for Centrifuge product information.

Screw Press (SP)

A screw press is comprised of a hollow cylindrical screen that is mounted horizontally (FKC
model shown in Figure 6) or at an angle (Huber model shown in Figure 7) and rotated at very
low speeds. An internal tapered screw conveyor “squeezes” water from the solids through the
perforations as it conveys it the length of the tube. Depending on the application, some models
are preceded by a rotary drum thickener. Low concentration solids (1% to 3%) are dewatered
(15% to 30%) by gradual application of pressure and polymer addition. The two products from
the screw press are filtrate and dewatered solids. Cake can be discharged to bottom pit or
conveyed overhead to dump into dumpster. Cake solids are generally between those obtained
from belt filter presses and centrifuges.

Residuals production throughput capacity in dry tons per day determines the sizing and quantity
of screw presses in any particular design. Equipment manufacturers size the equipment based
on the sludge quality and quantity, and operational requirements. Generally polymer
consumption for a screw press ranges from 20 to 40 lb/DT solids, sludge retention time is
approximately 4 hours and motor speed is as low as 0.3 rpm.

Figure 6. FKC Screw Press Schematic Diagram

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 12

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 7. Huber Screw Press Schematic Diagram

Manufacturers: Huber, FKC, BDP

See Attachment D for Screw Press product information.

Plate and Frame Filter Press (PFFP)

Plate and frame filter press (PFFP) consists of a set of recessed plates vertically arranged side
by side to create chambers. Often times it is referred as chamber filter press. The plates are
supported on a frame or from overhanging beam and the frame/beam connected to a stationary
feed head in one end and moving close head in other end. The sludge is pumped through the
center hole to fill chambers. As the pressure increases, free water from sludge drains through
the filter cloth and solids are retained in the chamber. Feed pumps must be capable to develop
high pressure in the range of 100 to 225 pounds per square inch (psi) to assist filtration process.
The feed pumps are shutdown once the terminal pressure is reached. Hydraulic rams (pressure
up to 3,000spi) applied to the close head further squeeze the chambers and filter water from
sludge. Once the terminal pressure is reached, clamps on the plates are released to discharge

The PFFP is one of the oldest solids separation methods that produce highest solids
concentration solids. It is widely used in industrial applications than in municipal. For large
application, automatic plate-shifting system is incorporated in the filter press to press plates and
filter cloths, sealing the edges of cloth, resist the filtration pressure developed by feed pump
and shift plates to discharge cake. In small application, the plates have to be manually clamped
and shifted to load slurry and to discharge cake.

The PFFPs are sized based on the volume of sludge to be processed. Additionally, seasonal
variation in sludge quantity and future sludge production should be taken into account in sizing
a PFFP. Selection of correct filter cloth is important to ensure release of cake, minimize

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 13

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

cleaning requirements and maximum service life. Solids concentration of cake produced is
independent of feed solids concentration. A schematic showing how a plate and frame press
operates is shown in Figure 6. A photo of the PacPress system is shown in Figure 7.

Manufacturer: PacPress, Siemens

See Attachment D for PFFP product information.

Figure 8. Schematic diagram of plate and frame filter press operation

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 14

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 9. PacPress plate and frame filter press Model 470

Rotary Press (RP)

The rotary press uses back pressure to produce sludge cake. The sludge is fed through the inlet
into the space between two parallel plated screen and rotor. The back pressure applied at the
discharge end pushes the sludge to dewater. Filtrate passes through the screen as the sludge
continues to dewater and travels around the channel. The dewatered sludge forms near to the
outlet. Frictional force developed by the slow moving screen along with controlled outlet
restriction further dewaters the cake to high solids concentration.

Multiple RPs can be mounted/connected to a single motor. It is a modular system and modules
can be added to meet high flow rates in near terms. On average, polymer consumption is 13 to
20 lb/DT and solids concentration in the cake varies from 12 to 28 percent.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 15

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 10. Rotary press schematic diagram

Manufacturers: Fournier, Prime Solutions

See Attachment D for Rotary Press product information.

Evaluation of alternatives
The following section compares the dewatering alternatives: BFP, centrifuge, SP, PFFP, and
RP. The information compares the alternatives in technology pre-screening are for the
following categories:

 General: advantages and disadvantages

 Performance (based on vendor provided information. It is limited for this submittal):
solids capture rate, solids concentration in cake, reliability and operator attention
required.
 Installation: foot print, building and auxiliary systems requirements
 Costs: capital, chemical and energy cost, and maintenance cost.
Table 7 shows the advantages and disadvantages of different dewatering alternatives discussed
in this TM.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 16

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013

Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of dewatering alternatives
Technology Advantages
Discharge to sewer  Existing connection can be used
 Easy to implement
Belt press filter  Low labor attention if the equipment is large
enough to process solids in one shift.
 Maintenance is relatively simple and can be
performed by plant maintenance crew.
 Quick start-up and shut down.
 Less noisy compared to centrifuge.
 Low polymer dosage rate is possible.
 Easy to control
 Suitable for thin sludge dewatering
 High volumetric capacity available by increasing
gravity drainage area.
 Very low speed device, (typically 3 to 10 rpm).
 A low vibration machine, and does not require
vibration isolation.
 Accidental damage is limited, and the Belt Press
can generally handle a large variety of foreign
material passing through it, without major
damage.
Centrifuge  Does not require belt washwater and easy to
clean
 .
 Large capacity in small space.
 With low capture or high polymer dosage rate, can
sometimes achieve higher cake solids than the
belt press filter.
 Lower overall operation and maintenance cost
compared to BFP.
 Requires small amount of floor space relative to
its capacity.
 Requires minimal operator attention once
operations are stable.
 Less odor emission.
 Can be loaded with higher loading than designed
(solid capture can be maintained by adding more
polymer).
Screw Press  Low speed and automated system allows for
unattended operation
 Low washwater requirements (once a day 3 to 5
min washing)
 Enclosed system, odor contained
 Low operational and maintenance cost
 Low energy cost
Rotary Press  Low speed, low vibration, low shear
 Uses less energy than centrifuges or BFPs
 Modular
 Small footprint
 Minimal start-up and shutdown time
 Minimal moving parts
 Odors contained
Plate and Frame  Can produce cake with high solids concentration
Filter Press  No operator attention required during filtration
process.
 Feed solids concentration does not influence cake
City of Folsom – Utilities Department
Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation
Draft Technical Memorandum
Disadvantages
 Expensive
 Requires washwater.
 May produce large amounts of aerosols.
 The belt press is not as clean as a
centrifuge externally, and requires more
labor for cleanup.
 There are potential nip point hazards,
which require proper guarding, safety
lanyard switches for emergency stop, and
handrails or similar devices to keep
personnel at a safe distance.
 Odor issue
 May require pre-screening and grinding to
prevent belt from sharp materials
 High power consumption.
 High Polymer consumption.
 Polymer mixing not in control. Centrate and
feed is obstructed from operator’s view to
monitor performance.
 Centrifuge is a high speed rotating
machine. As such, it requires careful
specialist maintenance and is not generally
suitable for overhaul by local personnel.
 Special structural requirements to
withstand dynamic loading and stationary
base.
 High noise and vibration level.
 Takes time to start-up and shutdown.
 Lower solids concentration in sludge cake
compared to centrifuge
 Limited WTP residuals experience
compared to centrifuge and BFP
 Slightly lower solids capture compared to
BFP or centrifuge
 Not many installations
 24/7 operation is preferred than intermittent
or as needed operation
 When one motors drives multiple units, if
motor fails all units will be out of service.
 Low solids capture rate
 Batch process
 Labor intensive (to load and unload press)
 Widely used for industrial application than
municipal wastewater applications.
17
August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

solids concentration.  High pressure feed pumps

 Proven technology  Mechanically complex process
 Relatively high capital cost
 Requires special support structure
 Partially enclosed system
 Periodic filter cloth washing is required. In
some application, wash media cloth with
acid clean solution is required to remove
scale deposits.
 Large quantity of inorganic chemical
usage.
 High noise level from feed pump.
 Requires grinder and pre-screening of
feed.

Table 8 describes the performance, environment and physical criteria of dewatering alternatives.

Table 8. Performance, Environmental and Physical Criteria of dewatering alternatives

Discharge to Discharge Plate and

Category Sewer w to Sewer Belt Filter Screw Rotary Frame
Criteria Centrifuge
\Technology Thickening w/o Press Press Press Filter
Thickening Press

Performance Solids
Up to
concentration in 2% 0.3% 20% 25% 20% >25%
40%
cake
Solids capture
NA NA >95% ~95% 90-95% >95% >98%
rate
Operator attention
High High High Low Low Low High
required

Reliability High High High High High Medium High

Maintenance Low Low Medium Medium Low High High

Foot print
Low Low Medium Medium Medium Low Medium
Environmental factors
Noise Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low

Odor
Low Low Medium Low Low Low Medium

Operator health
Low Low High Low Low Low High

Table 9 shows preliminary capital cost estimate of dewatering alternatives.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 18

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

It is assumed that following items are same for all dewatering alternatives:

 No redundancy is provided. When dewatering equipment fails, the residual sludge can
be temporarily stored in Lagoons No. 1 through 3 and treated once the unit is placed
back in service.
 Dewatering process can be operated for more hours to meet max month sludge
production.
 Dredge with pump to discharge residual sludge from lagoons to dewatering process
area
 The residual sludge dewatering facility shall be constructed on the existing concrete
pad at the northwest end of high service pump station. The structural modification,
utilities and site work are same for all alternatives except discharge to sewer.
 Homogenization tank
 Cake conveyor and container
 Pilot testing
 Contingency is 30% of CSI Divisions 1 through 16
 Engineering and Administration cost is 25% of construction cost

Table 9. Preliminary Capital Cost Estimate of Dewatering Alternatives (for Annual Average Condition)

Discharge Discharge
Plate and
to Sewer to Sewer Belt Filter Screw Rotary
Category \Technology Centrifuge Frame Filter
with without Press Press Press
Press
Thickening Thickening

Number of units 1 1 1 1 1

4 hrs/day, 7 10 – 12
days/week hrs/day, 7
Designed requirements days/week 6-8 hrs/ day, 4-5 days/week operation

Estimated cost $ 2,818,0001 $ 2,546,0001 $ 1,207,000 $ 1,279,000 $ 1,336,,000 $ 1,305,000 $ 1,284,000

Construction contingency $ 83,000 $ 15,000 $ 214,000 $ 226,000 $ 236,000 $ 231,000 $ 227,000

Construction cost $ 2,901,000 $ 2,561,000 $ 1,421,000 $ 1,505,000 $ 1,572,000 $ 1,536,000 $ 1,511,000

Engineering and
$ 103 ,000 $ 19,000 $ 355,000 $ 376,000 $ 393,000 $ 384,000 $ 378,000
administration cost

Total estimated project

$ 3,004,000 $ 2,580,000 $ 1,776,000 $ 1,881,000 $ 1,965,000 $ 1,920,000 $ 1,889,000
cost, $
1 Sewer impact fee for max flow (max month)

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 19

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Table 10 summarizes annual O&M cost and net present value (NPV) of dewatering alternatives.
See Attachment E for alternative cost opinion and Attachment F for alternative NPV calculation.

Assumptions:

 Life cycle analysis for 20 years

 Power cost: $0.20/kwh
 Polymer cost: $3/lb
 Water cost: $ 21.5/1,000 ft3
 Operator rate: $50/hr
 Cake disposal cost: $30/ton

Table 10. O&M Cost and NPV of Dewatering Alternatives

Discharge Discharge
Plate and
to Sewer to Sewer Belt Filter Screw Rotary
Description Centrifuge Frame
with without Press Press Press
Filter Press
Thickening Thickening

Capital Cost $ 3,004,000 $ 2,580,000 $ 1,909,000 $ 2,024,000 $ 2,114,000 $ 2,065,000 $ 2,031,000

Annual O&M Cost $ 19,000 $ 24,000 $ 97,000 $ 56,000 $ 42,000 $ 38,000 $ 70,000
NPV $ 3,389,000 $ 3,061,000 $ 3,841,000 $ 3,158,000 $ 2,994,000 $ 2,819,000 $ 3,471,000

Weighted score of alternative

Table 11 provides the weighted score of evaluation categories for each alternative.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 20

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Table 11. Weighted score of alternatives

Discharge
Discharge to Plate and
Weighted to Sewer Weighted Belt Filter Weighted Weighted Screw Weighted Weighte Weighted
Category Description Weight Range Sewer w Centrifuge Rotary Press Frame Filter
Score w/o Score Press Score Score Press Score d Score score
Thickening Press
Thickening
Solids concentration in cake 8% 2%-40% 2% N/A 0.30% N/A 20% 0.04 25% 0.05 18% 0.03 25% 0.05 40% 0.08

Solids capture rate 7% 90%-100% 100% 0.07 100% 0.07 95% 0.04 95% 0.04 90% 0.00 95% 0.04 98% 0.06

Performance Operator attention required 6% High 0.03 High 0.03 High 0.03 Low 0.06 Low 0.06 Low 0.06 High 0.03

Reliability 10% High 0.10 High 0.10 High 0.10 High 0.10 High 0.10 Medium 0.07 High 0.10

Maintenance 9% Low 0.09 Low 0.09 Medium 0.06 Medium 0.06 Low 0.09 High 0.03 High 0.03

Noise 5% Low 0.05 Low 0.05 Low 0.05 Medium 0.03 Low 0.05 Low 0.05 Low 0.05

Environmental Odor 6% Low 0.06 Low 0.06 Medium 0.04 Low 0.06 Low 0.06 Low 0.06 Medium 0.04
factors
Operator health (exposure to
4% Low 0.04 Low 0.04 High 0.01 Low 0.04 Low 0.04 Low 0.04 High 0.01
operation)

Installation Foot print 15% Low 0.08 Low 0.08 Medium 0.12 Medium 0.12 Medium 0.12 Low 0.08 Medium 0.12

Estimated cost (Equip, building &

$ 2,818,000 $ 2,546,000 $1,207,000 $ 1,279,000 $ 1,336,000 $ 1,305,000 $ 1,284,000
installation)

Construction cost $ 2,901,000 $ 2,561,000 $ 1,421,000 $ 1,505,000 $ 1,572,000 $ 1,536,000 $ 1,511,000

Cost
Project cost (capital cost) 15% $ 1,909,000 - $ 3,004,000 $ 3,004,000 - $ 2,580,000 0.06 $ 1,909,000 0.15 $ 2,024,000 0.13 $ 2,114,000 0.12 $ 2,065,000 0.13 $ 2,031,000 0.13

Annual O&M Cost 10% $ 19,000 - $ 97,000 $ 19,000 0.10 $ 24,000 0.09 $ 97,000 - $ 56,000 0.05 $ 42,000 0.07 $ 38,000 0.08 $ 70,000 0.03

NPW 5% $ 2,819,000 - $ 3,841,000 $ 3,389,000 0.02 $ 3,061,000 0.04 $ 3,841,000 - $ 3,158,000 0.03 $ 2,994,000 0.04 $ 2,819,000 0.05 $ 3,471,000 0.02

Total weighted score 100% 100% 0.701 0.771 0.63 0.77 0.79 0.73 0.70

1 This alternative does not include weighted score for cake solids concentration. This score is adjusted to balance the difference

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 21

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Recommended alternative
Based on general, performance, installation and cost criteria, the dewatering alternatives were
given weighted score as provided in Table 11. Belt filter press has highest NPV and lowest
weighted score. Plate and frame filter press is labor intensive to assemble, load, unload,
dissemble and wash the plates. Thickening the residual sludge prior to discharging to SRCSD
sewer does not have any positive impact on project cost. RP (not many installations) may have
some potential savings as it has low annual O&M cost. Screw press, centrifuge and discharging
to sewer without thickening are promising alternatives. The City visited and contacted
water/wastewater treatment facilities which installed and operate centrifuge, screw press, belt
filter press and rotary press.

Considering experience of plants that operate dewatering equipment and above discussion, the
City selected screw press for further evaluation to implement as a solution to their residual
solids management. The screw press is a slow moving equipment, nearly 0.3 – 3 rpm speed and
its noise level is approximately 75 dB. Pilot testing by FKC screw press was conducted to
verify screw press performance in early of June, 2013.

Further evaluation of dewatering technology covers recommended project, process flow

diagram, layout, project cost estimation and recommendation for interim plan.

FKC Screw Press Pilot Test

Pilot test was conducted to verify screw press performance and to obtain data related to design
and operating parameters. Pilot test used sludge from Lagoon/Pond No. 3 which receives
residual sludge from sed basins since last cleanup in October 2011. Five trail runs (TR) were
conducted changing feed, screw speed, polymer feed, etc. Successful trail runs were conducted
after changing one of the design and operating parameters. Steady state results were recorded.
SNF EMA20 PWG polymer (potable grade) was used and diluted to 0.5% concentration. Pilot
test trail runs and results are provided in Table 12.

Table 12. Pilot test trail runs and results

Parameter TR-1 TR-2 TR-3 TR-4 TR-51

Feed concentration 3.85% 3.85% 3.70% 1.25% 1.75%

Feed rate, gpm 0.95 1.36 2.12 1.35 1.82
Screw speed, rpm 0.30 0.50 0.75 0.30 0.30
Polymer dosage, active lb/dry ton solids 17.58 10.47 15.03 19.02 13.40
Cake solids concentration 19.35% 15.50% 14.00% 16.02% 15.75%
1 The feed contained 33% sand addition from sed basins.
Assumptions used in NPV and to develop weighted score are confirmed by the test. See
Attachment G for FKC pilot test report.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 22

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Following conclusions were derived from test results:

 Dewatered cake consists of 16 to 19% solids.

 Polymer consumption varies from 15 to 25 lb/dry ton solids. Additional jar test will
be required to select cost effective polymer.

 FKC screw press is capable of dewatering residual sludge with sand.

 Solids capture rate is approximately 90 to 92%.

Recommended Project
The screw press technology was selected for dewatering residual solids produced in the WTP.
The recommended project will consist of following components:

 A dredge to pump thickened sludge (approximately 2% solids) from lagoons to

homogenization tank.

 A homogenization tank with mixer or sludge recirculation pump to make and keep feed
sludge concentration uniform

 Two sludge feed pumps

 One screw press with auxiliary equipment

 Polymer blending and feeding system

 Sludge conveyor

 Auxiliary equipment and facilities to support dewatering process fully operational

Process Description
The Actiflo blowdown and filter backwash are sent to Sed Basins No. 1 through 4 and
Backwash Recovery Basins No. 1 through 3 respectively. The supernatant is being discharged
to headworks and the sludge is transferred to Lagoons No.1 through 3 to thicken. Settled solids
from Sed Basin No. 5 are discharged to Lagoons No. 1 through 3. This process will remain
same in the recommended project.

The residual waste discharged from sedimentation basin contains solids varying from 0.2 to
1.03%. The screw press operating hours shall be reduced by thickening the residual waste from
sed. basins to approximately 2% in the lagoons. A dredge with pump shall excavate the settled
sludge from bottom of lagoons and pump to dewatering process. The residual sludge contains
silt carryover from Actiflo process. The silt will be the first thing to settle in the lagoons and

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 23

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

may form layers. If thickened sludge is directly pumped from lagoons to screw press
flocculation tank, frequent polymer adjustment may be required to flocculate different solids
and content. To discharge uniform sludge to dewatering process and to minimize frequent
polymer adjustment in flocculation basin, a homogenization tank will provide enough mixing to
keep solids (including silt) in suspension and uniform solids concentration.

The sludge from homogenization tank will be pumped to screw press flocculation basin where
the polymer will be added. The screw press will dewater the flocculated sludge. The centrate
from screw press will be sent back to headworks of the plant. Conveyor connected to screw
press will discharge cake to dumpsters to haul away.

Figure 11 shows the process flow schematic diagram of sludge dewatering process.

The dredge will pump thickened sludge at high flow rate for about 30 to 45 min. The
homogenization tank shall be sized to hold enough sludge volume required to dewater in a day.
The dewatering process shall be designed to have dewatering capacity of approximately 400
lb/hr, with no redundancy unit. The screw press shall be operated for 5 to 7 hrs a day and 4 days
a week under annual average sludge flow condition. The screw presses shall run more or less
hrs to meet min and maximum sludge production conditions. As in the current operation,
lagoons can hold thickened sludge when screw press is out of service.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 24

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 11. Process flow schematic diagram

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 25

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Site layout for recommended project

The dredge shall be located in one of the lagoons – preliminary indications are that Lagoon 2
would be the best fit for the dredge. The dewatering and auxiliary equipment will be installed
on the existing concrete pad t northwest of high services pump station. The existing concrete
pad is approximately 50 ft long and 30 ft wide. The concrete pad thickness and underground
utilities are unknown, and will be verified in final design. The homogenization tank will be
installed northwest of screw press and outside of the concrete pad. The equipment will be
covered by a canopy to provide weather protection. Error! Reference source not found. and
Error! Reference source not found. show the proposed dewatering system location and a
preliminary site layout.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 26

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 12. Overall site plan for recommended project

City of Folsom – Utilities Department Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation 27

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Figure 13. Recommended project site layout

City of Folsom – Utilities Department Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation 28

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

Cost Estimate of Recommended Project

The estimated construction cost for the recommended project is $1,572,000 and the total project
cost is $1, 965,000 which includes 25% for engineering and administration costs and a 20 percent
contingency. (See screw press estimated cost opinion in Attachment E).

CSI Division

1 General Requirements $154,000

2 Sitework $23,200

3 Concrete $13,090

4 Masonry -

5 Metals $177,500

6 Wood and Plastics -

7 Thermal and Moisture Protection -

8 Doors and Windows -

9 Finishes $8,000

10 Specialties $17,500

11 Equipment $635,440

12 Furnishings -

13 Special construction $135,000

14 Conveying system $50,000

15 Mechanical $22,000
16 Electrical $100,000

Subtotal $1,336,000
Contingency (20%) $236,000

Construction Cost $1,572,000

Engineering and Admin (25%) $393,000

Project Cost $1,965,000

Interim Plan
The City is looking for an interim solution to process residual solids produced in the processes
and to empty sludge stored lagoons until a permanent solution becomes fully operational. The
alternatives for interim plans are:

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 29

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

 Discharge to SRCSD sewer – Discharge fresh residual solids and sludge stored in
lagoons for long time.

 Contract an outsider to dewater fresh and stored sludge (The City will evaluate this
alternative)

 Use Lagoon No. 1 to store residual sludge produced until the permanent solution is in
place (The City will evaluate this alternative)

The residual solids shall be temporarily discharged to the SRCSD sewer. The sanitary district will
evaluate the contents of sludge and capacity, and issue a temporary discharge permit for a year.
Temporary discharge fee is calculated to empty lagoon 2 and 3 and as follows:

Discharge volume and load:

Lagoon No. 1 360,000 gal Empty

Lagoon No. 2 480,000 gal Full
Lagoon No. 3 360,000 gal Full
Total volume from lagoons 840,000 gal = 0.84 MG
Solids content 20,000 mg/L = 140,112 lbs
BOD 6 mg/L = 42 lbs

Temporary discharge fee calculation:

Regional Charge 1:
0.84 million gal Million gallons x $318.46 = $267.51
0.042 lbs Thousand Pounds BOD x $191.89 = $8.07
140.112 lbs Thousand Pounds SS x $110.87 = $15,534.22
Subtotal $15,809.79

Sacramento Area Sewer District:

0.84 million gal Million gallons x $72.73 = $61.09

140.11 million gal Thousand Pounds SS x $5.10 = $714.57
CSD-1 fixed charge $7.16 = $7.16
Subtotal $782.82

Administration fees

Permit fee $400 = $400

Discharge evaluation fee $400 = $400
Subtotal $800
Total $17,392.61

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 30

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013
 Draft Technical Memorandum

There is no limitation to volume discharged under temporary discharge permit. If more volume to
be discharged, the fee shall be adjusted accordingly. The City needs to submit an application for
temporary discharge permit to SRCSD.

City of Folsom – Utilities Department 31

Mechanical Dewatering Alternatives Evaluation August 14, 2013