When does building an MBR make sense?

How variations of local construction and operating

cost parameters impact overall project economics
Thor Young*, Sebastian Smoot*, Jeff Peeters**, Pierre Côté***

* GHD. 16701 Melford Blvd. Suite 330, Bowie, Maryland, 21401 USA. thor.young@ghd.com
** GE Water & Process Technologies, Oakville, Ontario.
*** COTE Membrane Separation Ltd.

Abstract This study details the expansion of a tool used to compare the capital and operating cost
of membrane bioreactor (MBR) and conventional activated sludge (CAS) processes for a greenfield
5 MGD facility based on identical influent loading conditions for varying levels of effluent
treatment objectives. Results from the original study (Young et al, 2012) are further developed to
evaluate the impact of modifying key design assumptions and changing economic input variables
such as the cost of labor, materials, equipment, land, and electricity. The sensitivity and scenario
analyses presented in this study provide insight into which conditions tend to be most favorable for
CAS or MBR facilities.

Keywords: Membrane bioreactors (MBR), economic analysis, cost sensitivity, cost effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION

Wastewater treatment facility owners, operators, and designers must consider many factors in
selecting the treatment processes to use for a new facility including both economic and non-
economic considerations. Ultimately, however, many treatment process decisions come down to
determining what is the most cost-effective approach for a particular site location, flow, climate,
and effluent permit limitations. This economical evaluation should consider not only the initial
capital cost of the facility, but the present value of the projected operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs as well. Many of the capital and O&M costs of a wastewater treatment facility are site-
specific. Cost analyses should account for local market conditions when evaluating the costs of
treatment alternatives.

The use of membrane bioreactors (MBRs) for municipal wastewater treatment has expanded
dramatically in the past decade, from an estimated 10 facilities over 1 mgd (3.8 ML/d) in 2001 to
166 facilities over 1 mgd (3.8 ML/d) in 2011 (Hirani et al, 2011). With advances in membrane
technology, strategies to reduce operating costs, and increased membrane production, MBR
treatment has become cost-competitive with conventional activated sludge (CAS) technology for
situations which require lower effluent nutrient limits or water reuse (Young et al, 2012). This paper
expands upon the prior work by examining how variations in key construction and operational cost
parameters can impact the point at which MBR treatment is a more cost effective technology to use
than CAS treatment to meet a particular set of effluent limits, temperature conditions, and flow
variations. These parameters include: cost of purchasing land, equipment cost, materials cost, labor
cost, electricity cost, membrane life, and discount rate.

METHODOLOGY
An Excel® based tool was developed previously (Young et al, 2012) to calculate and compare the
capital, operating, and total lifecycle costs of different treatment strategies based on the same
influent wastewater flow and load. The tool developed compares two biological process
alternatives—one using a CAS process, and the other using an MBR process—for meeting a variety
of different effluent requirements and design scenarios as described below.
Conceptual designs for both MBR and CAS alternatives were evaluated for seven different
conditions, summarized in Table 1, which varied by effluent treatment objectives, primary
clarification, minimum month wastewater temperature, and hydraulic peaking factors. Each
condition has both a MBR and CAS alternative, resulting in a total of fourteen scenarios. For
example, the MBR alternative for Scenario 1 is identified as “MBR-1” and the CAS alternative for
Scenario 1 is identified as “CAS-1”.

The basis of design for the liquid treatment process included 6 mm mechanical coarse screening,
grit removal, activated sludge reactors, secondary clarifiers or membrane tanks for solids separation,
and effluent UV disinfection. Two (2) mm fine screening was also included for all MBR
alternatives following grit removal. Where target effluent limits required total nitrogen removal, a
modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) biological reactor configuration was used. The CAS scenarios
with effluent limits for total phosphorus were designed with chemical addition of metal salts for
phosphorus precipitation followed either by sand filters (for an effluent limit of TP < 0.2 mg/L) or a
tertiary membrane filtration system (for TP < 0.1 mg/L). All treatment scenarios are designed for
complete nitrification (effluent ammonia concentration less than 1 mg/L).

Table 1. Summary of Conditions Evaluated for both MBR and CAS Alternatives
Effluent mg/L Min Month Hourly Flow
Scenario Description
BOD/TSS/TN/TP Temp (°C) Peaking Factor
1 No TN or TP Limits 20/20 12 (54° F) 2
2 No TP Limit 20/20/10 12 2
3 Baseline ENR 10/10/10/0.2 12 2
4 Primary Clarifier 10/10/10/0.2 12 2
5 Warm Weather 10/10/10/0.2 25 (77° F) 2
6 High Peak Flow 10/10/10/0.2 12 4
7 Strict TP Limit 10/10/10/0.1 12 2

Conceptual designs were completed for greenfield wastewater treatment facilities using both MBR
and CAS technology for the biological treatment. The systems were designed to treat 18,927 m³/d
(5 mgd) of medium-strength wastewater. Concentrations were obtained from published typical
values (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).

Process sizing and wastewater characterization were based on the midpoint of the published ranges
of design criteria found in Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 2003 and Water Environment Federation Manual
of Practice No. 8, 2010. BioWin® process simulation software was used to size and configure the
biological reactors as well as determine operating requirements such as aeration and chemical
addition rates. The process was designed to provide a degree of redundancy typically provided for
similar projects:
• The membrane filtration system and sand filters were sized to pass the peak day flow with
one unit out of service and the peak hour flow with all units in operation.
• The fine screens and IPS pumps were designed with one fully-redundant spare unit.
• The biological reactors were sized to meet the treatment objectives at the winter
temperatures presented in Table 1 under average loading conditions with one unit out of
service, and under maximum month loading conditions with all units in service.

A hydraulic profile was created for all scenarios, and an intermediate pumping station (IPS) was
determined to be necessary for facilities with sand filters in order to maintain the selected design
criteria of an allowable 5 meter headloss through the entire facility on a flat site. Details of the
design criteria are further discussed by Young et al, 2012.
Following completion of conceptual designs, capital costs were developed for the entire liquid
treatment train for each alternative. The solids handling component of alternatives was assumed to
be the same and therefore, costs for the solids process were not considered in the evaluation. Land
requirements were estimated based on the size of the unit processes with appropriate allowance for
setbacks. Annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs of each alternative were estimated
based on labor, projected electrical and chemical use, equipment maintenance, and replacement of
diffusers, membranes, and UV lamps. The O&M labor cost for each scenario was developed based
on the assumptions presented in Table 2. The baseline unit costs used in the analyses were based on
the US national average costs provided by RS Means (2012). Process equipment costs were
obtained from manufacturer quotes. Key unit costs used in the study are presented in Table 3. The
labor, material, and equipment components of each unit cost were entered separately so that a
sensitivity analysis could be performed on each component separately (i.e., raising the material cost
of concrete while maintaining the labor and equipment at baseline values).

Table 2. Baseline Operations Labor Cost

Process Description Operators Mechanics
Number of Staff, Conventional Activated Sludge 5 2
Number of Staff, CAS with Tertiary Filters 6 2
Number of Staff, CAS with Tertiary Membranes 5 3
Number of Staff, Membrane Bioreactor 4 3
Annual Cost per Employee (incl. overhead) $ 50,000 $ 70,000

Table 3. Baseline Unit Costs

Value Value
Parameter Source
(US Units) (SI Units)
Land $100,000 / acre $247,105 / hectare Engineer estimate *
Excavation $6.71/cy $8.77/m3 RS Means (2012)
Backfill $8.04/cy $10.51/m3 RS Means (2012)
Hauling $7.11/cy $9.30/m3 RS Means (2012)
Concrete (Slab) $550/cy $719/m3 RS Means (2012)
Concrete (Wall) $800/cy $1,046/m3 RS Means (2012)
Handrail $76/lf $247/lf RS Means (2012)
Grating $44/sf $472/m2 RS Means (2012)
Buildings $250/sf $2690/m2 RS Means (2012)
Paving $4/sf $44/m2 RS Means (2012)
Equip. Installation 40% of equip. cost 40% of equip. cost Engineer estimate
Membrane Installation 10% of membrane cost 10% of membrane cost Engineer estimate
Electrical and Controls 25% of capital cost 25% of capital cost Engineer estimate
Yard Piping 10% of capital cost 10% of capital cost Engineer estimate **
Site/Civil Works 5% of capital cost 5% of capital cost Engineer estimate **
Electricity $0.10/kwh $0.10/kwh Engineer estimate *
Alum Solution $0.10/lb $0.22/kg Supplier quote
Caustic Soda $2.16/gal $0.57/L Supplier quote
Citric Acid $6.31/gal $1.67/L Supplier quote
Methanol $1.38/gal $0.36/L Supplier quote
Equip. Maintenance 2% of equip. cost/yr 2% of equip. cost/yr Engineer estimate
* An individual sensitivity analysis was performed for items marked with a single asterisk.
** Percentages for civil works and yard piping apply to CAS scenarios only. The percentages for civil works and yard
piping for MBR scenarios were adjusted proportional to the relative area of their combined process tankage and
structures as compared to that for the equivalent CAS scenario.
After development of these "baseline" cost models, some of the key design assumptions were
revisited to assess their impact on the results. Following this analysis, the relative magnitude of each
cost category (i.e., labor, materials, equipment, electricity, land, and chemicals) was assessed to
determine which cost areas had the largest impact on overall project costs. For the initial screening,
relative costs for Scenarios CAS-3 and MBR-3 were examined. A sensitivity analysis was then
performed to assess the impact on the 20-year present-worth total lifecycle cost of varying the
following values: cost of purchasing land, equipment costs, materials costs, labor costs, electricity
costs. In the cost sensitivity analyses, construction equipment and process equipment costs were
raised equally, as were construction labor and O&M labor.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the initial cost analyses are summarized in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Based on the
"baseline" cost input values shown in Table 3, the 20-year present-worth total lifecycle costs
(overall lifecycle costs) of MBR systems are less than those of CAS systems for plants designed for
enhanced nutrient removal or water reuse. The higher O&M costs associated with MBR systems are
offset by a lower capital cost for MBR systems compared to CAS systems. Raising the minimum
design temperature or adding primary clarification before the bioreactors resulted in a slight
improvement of the cost-competitiveness of the CAS alternative, but did not substantially alter the
relative costs of the two systems. Where treatment requirements are less stringent, MBR systems
have higher capital and O&M costs than CAS systems. Where the peaking factor is high, MBRs
have a lower capital cost and a slightly higher overall lifecycle cost than CAS systems. MBRs were
found to be most cost-competitive when compared to CAS followed by tertiary membrane filtration.

Figure 1. Capital Cost Comparison by Treatment Process for All Scenarios

$50
Capital Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$45

$40

$35

$30

$25

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0
CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Scenario 7:
No TN, TP Limit No TP Limit Baseline ENR Primary Clarifier Warm Weather High Peak Flow Strict TP Limit

Preliminary Primary Biological Chemical Secondary IPS Sand Membrane UV General

Treatment Clarifier Reactors Feed Clarifier Filters System
Figure 2. Present-Worth 20-Year O&M Cost Comparison for All Scenarios
$25
20-Year Net Present Worth of O&M Costs, 2012 USD, Millions

$20

$15

$10

$5

$0
CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Scenario 7:
No TN, TP Limit No TP Limit Baseline ENR Primary Clarifier Warm Weather High Peak Flow Strict TP Limit
Labor Power Chemical Equipment UV Lamp Membrane
Maintenance Replacement Replacement

Figure 3. Baseline Overall Lifecycle Cost Comparison for All Scenarios

$80
20-Year NPW, 2012 USD, Millions

$60

$40

$20

$0
CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Scenario 7:
No TN, TP Limit No TP Limit Baseline ENR Primary Clarifier Warm Weather High Peak Flow Strict TP Limit
Capital Costs NPW of Lifecycle O&M Costs

Sensitivity of Varying Key Assumptions

Prior to conducting the cost sensitivity analyses, three additional sets of results were generated to
assess the impact of changing key assumptions from the original study: site topography, differences
in O&M labor required for MBR and CAS processes, and the membrane replacement frequency.

Site Topography. The original study assumed the need for an IPS for facilities with sand filters
(Scenarios CAS-3, 4, 5, and 6) in order to keep structures from being excessively high above grade
or deep on a flat site. If the site were sloped such that the hydraulic profile could match the site
grading, the IPS could be avoided, thus reducing the cost of the CAS alternatives. The site
topography does not affect scenarios with membrane filtration (All MBRs and CAS-7), as it was
assumed that permeate pumps would be required to pass flow through the membranes. Figure 4
shows the overall lifecycle cost comparison for all scenarios with the capital, O&M, and land costs
of the IPS removed. Removing the IPS makes the CAS-3, 4, and 5 scenarios nearly equal in cost to
the respective MBR scenarios and results in CAS-6 being more cost-effective than MBR-6; the cost
comparison for conditions with no TP limit and a TP limit of 0.1 mg/L remain unchanged.

Figure 4. Overall Lifecycle Cost Comparison for All Scenarios (No IPS)
$80
20-Year NPW, 2012 USD, Millions

$60

$40

$20

$0
CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Scenario 7:
No TN, TP Limit No TP Limit Baseline ENR Primary Clarifier Warm Weather High Peak Flow Strict TP Limit
Capital Costs NPW of Lifecycle O&M Costs

O&M Labor. The second part of this analysis was to examine the cost variation of operations and
maintenance labor on the resulting overall lifecycle costs. The original assumption for the
operations and labor for each alternative was shown in Table 2. In general, MBR facilities were
assumed to require less operations labor (the process is typically highly automated) but more
maintenance labor (MBR processes typically have more equipment and instrumentation). As CAS
facilities added additional processes, such as sand filtration or tertiary membrane filters, the number
of required operations staff was assumed to increase, based on discussions with superintendents of
similarly-sized CAS and MBR facilities. However, even within the facilities surveyed, there was
wide variation on the number of staff employed at each facility. Using the baseline assumptions, the
cost results from each scenario were recalculated assuming the O&M labor cost for all of the
scenarios was exactly the same (in this case, equal to that of MBR-3). Figure 5 shows the overall
lifecycle cost comparison for all scenarios based on this assumption. Setting the CAS O&M labor
costs equal to those of the MBR alternatives resulted in a negligible impact on the cost comparison.

Figure 5. Overall Lifecycle Cost Comparison for All Scenarios (Equal O&M Labor)
$80
20-Year NPW, 2012 USD, Millions

$60

$40

$20

$0
CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR CAS MBR
Scenario 1: Scenario 2: Scenario 3: Scenario 4: Scenario 5: Scenario 6: Scenario 7:
No TN, TP Limit No TP Limit Baseline ENR Primary Clarifier Warm Weather High Peak Flow Strict TP Limit
Capital Costs NPW of Lifecycle O&M Costs

As a further sensitivity analysis on the quantity of labor required, Figure 6 shows the overall
lifecycle costs for scenarios CAS/MBR 1, 3, and 6 in which the labor required to run the MBR
scenarios is held constant and the annual O&M labor costs for the CAS facilities is varied from 75%
to 125% of the baseline values presented in Table 2. As shown in the figure, adjusting the O&M
labor for the CAS scenarios does not significantly affect the relative cost difference.

Figure 6. Sensitivity Analysis of O&M Labor Costs for CAS Scenarios

$100
Lifecycle Cost, Million 2012 Dollars

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0
70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130%
O&M Labor Cost Adjustment Factor for CAS
(O&M Labor for MBR maintained at constant level)

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Membrane Replacement Frequency. The third part of the analysis was to examine the cost
variation of varying the membrane replacement frequency. Over time, the membrane fibers
experience a gradual loss of permeability and must be replaced periodically. The life expectancy of
the membrane fibers is dependent on many factors, such as maintenance, influent loading, and water
chemistry. Life expectancies for membranes given in the literature range from 6 years (Ayala, 2011)
to 10 years or longer (Cote et al. 2012). As shown in Figure 7, the membrane replacement
frequency does not have a significant impact on the overall lifecycle cost comparison between CAS
and MBR at membrane life expectancies between 6 and 12 years.

Figure 7. Sensitivity Analysis of Membrane Replacement Frequency

$100
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Membrane Replacement Frequency (Years)

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Sensitivity of Varying Key Unit Costs

Returning to the model results based on the original assumptions that were summarized in Figure 3,
the relative magnitude of each cost for scenarios CAS-3 and MBR-3 are presented in Figure 8.
Labor and materials account for a greater proportion of the overall lifecycle cost for the CAS-3
scenario as opposed to the MBR-3 scenario (approximately 60% vs. 50%, respectively). This
finding suggests that MBR facilities are more cost-competitive in markets where the costs of labor
and materials are relatively high. On the other hand, equipment and electricity account for a higher
proportion of the overall lifecycle cost of the MBR alternative than the CAS alternative
(approximately 40% vs. 30%, respectively). This finding suggests that CAS facilities are more cost-
competitive in markets where the costs of equipment and electricity are relatively high. Sensitivity
analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of adjusting the cost of labor, equipment, land,
materials, and electricity; the results of each are discussed below.

Figure 8. Relative Magnitude of Cost Categories for CAS-3 and MBR-3

27% 20% 3% 21%
OO&M Capital
O CAS-3
C
C

15% 4% 7% 3% * Percentage values indicate portion of overall

lifecycle cost associated with cost category.
Values may not add to 100% due to rounding.
21% 27% 2% 15%
OO&M Capital
O MBR-3
C
C

15% 6% 9% 4%

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50

Capital Costs & Present-Worth of 20-year O&M Costs, Million USD (2012 Dollars)
Labor Equipment Land Materials Electricity Chemicals

Labor. The cost of labor varies widely across the world. According to the US Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2013), the hourly compensation cost in the manufacturing sector (which can be
considered to be comparable to that of the construction sector) can range from over $60 per hour in
Norway to $2 per hour in the Philippines; in the US, median manufacturing wages are
approximately $36 per hour. Based on these values, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by
adjusting the cost of labor from 5 to 180% of the baseline unit costs used in the initial evaluation.
The overall lifecycle costs for scenarios CAS/MBR-1, 3, and 6 for various labor rates are shown in
Figure 9. From this sensitivity analysis, one can make the following observations:
• As the cost of labor increases beyond 130% of the baseline cost, the MBR alternative
becomes more cost-competitive than CAS for the high peak flow condition (CAS/MBR-6).
• In markets with low labor costs (less than 30% of the baseline cost), the cost of a CAS
facility designed for 10 mg/L TN and 0.2 mg/L TP may be comparable to an MBR.
• When nutrient removal is not required (CAS/MBR-1), the CAS alternative is more cost-
competitive than an MBR even in markets with high labor costs.
Figure 9. Sensitivity Analysis of Labor Costs
$100
Great Britain ($31)
Singapore ($24)
Israel ($20)
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions
$80
Brazil ($11)
Mexico ($6)
Phillippines ($2)
$60

$40
Norway ($63)
Switzerland ($58)
Sweden ($50)
$20
Germany ($46)
France ($40)
United States ($36)
$0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200%
Labor Cost Adjustment Factor
Hourly wages (BLS, 2013) presented in parentheses for comparative purposes

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Materials. As with labor, the cost of construction materials such as cement, steel, masonry, and
aggregate varies widely across the world. As concrete is typically the most prevalent building
material in wastewater treatment facilities, the price of concrete—which can range from less than
$50 per ton in China to nearly $150 per ton in South America (ENR, 2012)—was used as a proxy
for the overall cost of construction materials. The overall lifecycle costs for scenarios CAS/MBR-1,
3, and 6 for various labor rates are shown in Figure 10. The results of the sensitivity analysis of the
materials cost are comparable to the results of the analysis based on the cost of labor: As material
costs increase, the MBR alternatives become more cost-competitive. As shown in Figure 10, the
cost of materials must fall to less than 25% of the baseline in order for the CAS alternative to
become cost-competitive with MBR for Condition 3 (permit limit: 10 mg/L TN and 0.2 mg/L TP).

Figure 10. Sensitivity Analysis of Material Costs

$100
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$80

$60

$40
Sao Paulo, Brazil ($146)
New Delhi, India ($72)
Doha, Qatar ($63) London, UK ($124)
$20
Shanghai, China ($49) Milan, Italy ($114)
Sofia, Bulgaria ($39) Berlin, Germany ($98)
Ankara, Turkey ($33) Los Angeles, USA ($84)
$0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200%
Material Cost Adjustment Factor
Cost of concrete per ton (ENR, 2012) presented in parentheses for comparative purposes

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Equipment. In this analysis, "equipment" refers both to the equipment used during construction as
well as the equipment that is permanently installed. While the cost of equipment can vary, it is not
as site-specific as the cost of labor or construction materials, and the range in equipment cost is
estimated to deviate no more than 25% +/- of the baseline cost. This range is shaded in Figure 11.
Only one scenario is sensitive to the variation in equipment cost within this range: CAS/MBR-6.

Figure 11. Sensitivity Analysis of Equipment Costs

$100
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200%
Equipment Cost Adjustment Factor

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Electricity. The overall lifecycle costs for scenarios CAS/MBR-1, 3, and 6 for various electricity
prices are shown in Figure 12. The price of electricity is highly dependent on many factors,
including the type of fuel source, market conditions, government taxes and subsidies, regulations,
and surcharges. As stated previously, MBRs are more energy-intensive than CAS processes;
however, as shown in the figure, the price of electricity has a nearly insignificant effect on the
relative cost difference between the MBR and CAS alternatives, even at very high or low prices.

Figure 12. Sensitivity Analysis of Electricity Cost

$100
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$80

$60

$40
Mexico (¢12) Slovak Republic (¢24)
Israel (¢10) Japan (¢18)
New Zealand (¢7) Czech Republic (¢16)
$20
United States (¢7) Spain (¢15)
Paraguay (¢6) Turkey (¢14)
Kazakhstan (¢5) Great Britain (¢13) Italy (¢28)
$0
$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30
Cost of Electricity, USD per kWh
Electricity cost (¢/kWh) for industrial users (IEA, 2013) in parentheses for comparison

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

Land. The availability of land is often a critical factor when deciding between a CAS and an MBR
process. MBR facilities are compact and occupy less area than their CAS counterparts. As shown in
Figure 13, the cost of land only affects the cost comparison of CAS/MBR-6 (when the cost of land
approaches $200,000 per acre). In order for MBR-1 to be cost-competitive with CAS-1, the cost of
land must approach $3M per acre. This is not surprising: as stated earlier, the cost of land was
estimated to account for only 2-3% of the overall lifecycle cost of the entire facility.

Figure 13. Sensitivity Analysis of Land Cost

$100
Lifecycle Cost, 2012 USD, Millions

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000
Cost of Land (USD per acre)

CAS-1 MBR-1 CAS-3 MBR-3 CAS-6 MBR-6

CONCLUSION

The results of the initial cost analyses are summarized in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Based on the
"baseline" cost input values shown in Table 3, the 20-year present-worth total lifecycle costs
(overall lifecycle costs) of MBR systems are less than those of CAS systems for plants designed for
enhanced nutrient removal or water reuse.

The results of this study indicate that the factor with the greatest influence on the relative costs
between CAS and MBR facilities is the site topography: The overall lifecycle costs of CAS
facilities are reduced by approximately 3% when the site is sloped such that an intermediate
pumping station is not required. Eliminating the IPS reduces the difference in cost between the CAS
and MBR alternatives for Conditions 3-6 but not for Condition 7 (TP limit of 0.1 mg/L).

The second most influential factor was found to be the cost of construction and O&M labor. The
overall lifecycle cost of CAS and MBR facilities were found to be nearly equal for Condition 3
(TN/TP limits of 10 and 0.2 mg/L, respectively) when the cost of labor was reduced to
approximately 30% of the values originally used in the study. The cost of materials was found to
have a similar, but lesser impact on the overall lifecycle cost comparison between CAS and MBR.

While the overall lifecycle cost comparisons were heavily influenced by membrane replacement
frequency and equipment cost, they were not significantly affected when variables were restricted to
a range of expected values (the shaded areas in Figures 7 and 11). The costs of electricity and land
and the assumed differences in the amount of O&M labor required for CAS and MBR facilities
were not found to have a significant impact on the relative overall lifecycle cost comparison.

In almost every sensitivity analysis, a "break-even point" was identified for CAS/MBR-6 (high peak
flow condition); this is attributable to the fact that the overall lifecycle costs were nearly equal
under the baseline assumptions and unit costs. No single adjustment of key design assumptions or
key unit costs were found to result in MBR processes being cost-competitive with CAS processes
without tertiary filtration (Conditions 1 and 2; no TP limit). On the other hand, no single adjustment
of assumptions or unit costs were found to result in CAS-7 (CAS followed by tertiary membranes)
being cost-competitive with an MBR (Condition 7; TP limit of 0.1 mg/L).

REFERENCES
Ayala, D. F., Ferre, V., & Judd, S. J. (2011). "Membrane life estimation in full-scale immersed
membrane bioreactors". Journal of Membrane Science, 378(1), 95-100.
Cote, P.; Alam, Z.; Penny, J. (2012). “Hollow Fibre Membrane Life in Membrane Bioreactors”,
Desalination 288:145-151.
Cote, P.; Young, T.; Smoot, S. Peeters, J. (2013). "Energy Consumption of MBR for Municipal
Wastewater: Treatment Current Situation and Potential." Proceedings of the WEF Energy
and Water Conference; Nashville, TN.
Engineering News Record (2012). "2012 4th Quarterly Cost Report". December 31, 2012.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment & Reuse, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill:
New York, NY.
Hirani, Z.; Oppenheimer, J.; DeCarolis, J.; Kiser, A.; Rittmann, B. (2010). "Membrane Bioreactor
Effluent Water Quality and Technology - Organics, Nutrients and Microconstituents
Removal". WEFTEC Proceedings.
International Energy Agency (2012). "2012 Key World Energy Statistics". Available online at
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf. Accessed Aug 2013.
RS Means Construction Publishers & Consultants. (2012). Facilities Construction Cost Data,
28th ed. Reed Construction Data, Inc: Norcross, GA.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). "International Comparisons of Hourly
Compensation Costs in Manufacturing, 2012". International Labor Comparisons.
Water Environment Federation. (2010). Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. WEF
Manual of Practice No. 8 (5th Ed). Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Young, T.; Muftugil, M.; Smoot, S.; Peeters, J. (2012), “Capital and Operating Cost Evaluation of
CAS vs. MBR Treatment”. WEFTEC Proceedings.