nutrient reduction through the use of advanced …...permeate results below detection limit of hand...

NUTRIENT REDUCTION THROUGH THE USE OF ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT

RECOVERY

Rick Johnson Vice President, Market Development

1

Agenda • What is the trend • Technology description • Results • Economics

"Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare“ -Japanese Proverb

2

3

Level 5 Complete set of N and P criteria for all watertypes

Level 4 2 or more watertypes with N and/or P criteria

Level 3 1 watertype with N and/or P criteria

Level 2 Some waters with N and/or P criteria

Level 1 No N and/or P criteria

State Nitrogen and Phosphorus Criteria

Source: http://cfpub.epa.gov/wqsits/nnc-development/

4

1998

2016 (est)

5

1998 2013 2016 est

Level 5 4 4 5

Level 4 1 4 6

Level 3 2 4 4

Level 2 7 16 16

Level 1 42 28 25

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Numeric Criteria Trend: States & Territories

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

6

0.10

0.02

0.04

0.075 ????

The challenge: • Reducing targeted nutrients in a cost effective manner

Our solution: • View algae as a process…not a product • Sustainable, advanced nutrient recovery

o US Patent 8,101,080

The benefits: • Best in Class performance • No chemical sludge produced • Sustainable • Multi-generational, single technology

CO2 recycling & O2 release

Biomass co-product 7

SEPARATION

NUTRIENT RECOVERY

MIX

Clean Water

Algae Return

CO2

Algae Harvest Pure

oxygen

8

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

TP, m

g/L

Date

Controlled experiment: Nitrogen : Phosphorus relationship

Raw

NH3 dosing

Permeate

Target

9

TP TN NH3 TKN BOD TSS

Raw 2.247 16.706 4.167 10.904 27.000 15.487

Treated 0.028 6.872 0.210 1.578 4.000 0.609

0.000

10.000

20.000

30.000

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/l

Municipal Summary

Raw Treated

Nutrient Recovery Test

Multi constituent performance

10

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

Raw Separation Permeate Raw Separation Permeate

Res

ult

, mg/

L

Influence of separation on phosphorus reduction

TP Ortho

Run2 Run1

Membranes alone cannot remove dissolved phosphorus

11

5.2

11.75

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Current DMR ABNR

Dis

solv

ed

Oxy

gen

, mg/

L

Dissolved Oxygen

3 year DMR average (ECHO)

Median of 1 minute recordings from 2.5 month component evaluation

12

Municipal wastewater treatment

Constituent Before After % Removal

Total P (mg/L) 0.625 0.036 94.14%

TSS (mg/L) 12.18 0.24 98.00%

PCB (pg) 2141 144.1 93.00%

5 MGD Municipality Primarily residential 36,000 Residents TMDL: 0.075mg/L TP

13

14

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

9/20

/201

0

9/21

/201

0

9/22

/201

0

9/23

/201

0

9/24

/201

0

9/25

/201

0

9/26

/201

0

9/27

/201

0

9/28

/201

0

9/29

/201

0

9/30

/201

0

10/1

/201

0

10/2

/201

0

10/3

/201

0

10/4

/201

0

10/5

/201

0

10/6

/201

0

10/7

/201

0

10/8

/201

0

10/9

/201

0

10/1

0/20

10

10/1

1/20

10

10/1

2/20

10

10/1

3/20

10

10/1

4/20

10

10/1

5/20

10

M Ts W Th F Sa Su M Ts W Th F Sa Su M Ts W Th F Sa Su M Ts W Th F

CPF

EFF

Flow

, mgd

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus,

mg/

L

Post Falls Effluent AlgEvolve Effluent PF Flow, mgd

Second 21 day pilot: Average Raw TP: 0.151mg/L Average Permeate TP: 0.024mg/L

Results:

Constituent Before After % Removal

Total P (mg/L) 2.68 0.18 93.3%

Ammonia (mg/L) 0.60 0.05 91.7%

Total N (mg/L) 14.1 3.26 76.9%

Inland Empire Paper Company Results

3 MGD Pulp & Paper Process recycled paper 130 year old company TMDL: ~0.075mg/L TP

16

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

2-J

un

9-J

un

16

-Ju

n

23

-Ju

n

30

-Ju

n

7-J

ul

14

-Ju

l

21

-Ju

l

28

-Ju

l

4-A

ug

11

-Au

g

18

-Au

g

25

-Au

g

1-S

ep

8-S

ep

15

-Sep

22

-Sep

29

-Sep

6-O

ct

13

-Oct

20

-Oct

27

-Oct

3-N

ov

10

-No

v

17

-No

v

24

-No

v

1-D

ec

8-D

ec

15

-Dec

22

-Dec

29

-Dec

5-J

an

12

-Jan

19

-Jan

26

-Jan

2-F

eb

9-F

eb

Tota

l Ph

osp

ho

rus,

mg/

L

Total Phosphorus Trend

Raw Treated

Average Raw: 0.126mg/LAverage Permeate: 0.024mg/L

Separation Technology Vendor performance evaluations

17

Average Raw TP: 0.126mg/L Average Permeate TP: 0.024mg/L

45 MGD Municipality • 250,000 residents • Biosolids management for 14 communities Heavy Industrial Base (26 SIU’s) Seasonal Permit: 0.1mg/L TP & 5.0mg/L TN

18

Raw 0.366 0.155 0.182 0.33

Treated 0.020 0.005 0.029 0.038

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

Ave

rage

co

nce

ntr

atio

n, m

g/L

Total Phosphorus

Raw Treated

19

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3

TN, m

g/L

Weekly period

Total Nitrogen response

Raw Permeate

Additional nitrogen reduction

20

Permeate results below detection limit of hand held meter-results supplemented with 3rd party lab results

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

10/

31

11/

2

11/

5

11/

8

11/

11

11/

14

11/

17

11/

20

12/

9

12/

12

12/

15

12/

18

1/1

3

1/1

6

1/1

9

1/2

2

1/2

5

1/2

8

1/3

1

2/2

1

2/2

4

2/2

7

3/8

3/1

1

3/1

5

3/1

8

3/2

1

3/2

4

3/2

7

5/1

4

5/1

7

5/2

0

5/2

3

5/2

6

6/3

6/6

6/9

6/1

2

mg

/L P

Total Phosphorus Feed and Permeate

avg Feed Water TP avg Permeate TP 0.1 mg/L P Discharge Permit Feed Alpha Labs Permeate Alpha Labs

City Water BaselineNo light study

Hypo threshold

study

Average 3rd party lab (TP) • Feed: 0.285mg/L • Permeate: 0.02mg/L

Date COD, mg/L TOC, mg/L

Feed Permeate Feed Permeate

3/19 26 24 4.86 4.81

3/20 35 24 5.17 4.62

5/18 20 20 6.54 5.91

5/25 26 20 6.91 2.5

6/4 28 20 5.94 5.86

Average 27.00 21.60 5.88 4.74

Reduction 20.0% 19.4%

Numbers in red reported as “Non Detect”. Level of detection shown

22

23

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10/3

0/20

14

11/6

/201

4

11/1

3/20

14

11/2

0/20

14

11/2

7/20

14

12/4

/201

4

12/1

1/20

14

12/1

8/20

14

12/2

5/20

14

1/1/

2015

1/8/

2015

1/15

/201

5

1/22

/201

5

1/29

/201

5

2/5/

2015

2/12

/201

5

2/19

/201

5

2/26

/201

5

Tem

pera

ture

, F

Temperature influence

Feed fluid temp Avg PBR fluid Avg Outsid Air Temp

Feed PBR Air

Average 58.2 59.6 30.4

St Dev 2.63 2.54 11.14

Temperature, F

24

Average Biomass characteristics

Average of 25 municipal / industrial sources

N, % P2O5, % Potash, % Protein, % Fat, % Carb, %

Average 4.4 1.7 0.6 30.3 3.1 32.4

Low 0.6 0.3 0.1 11.4 0.2 6.1

High 7.8 3.4 2.3 48.3 7.8 63.2

Sample size 25 25 25 18 18 18

Typical applications 5 Year TAM, $M • Bio-plastics $478 - $638 • Soil amendment / composting aid $71 - $94 • Fuel source $2 - $3 • Others In development

Biomass Market

25

26

$-

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

5 10 15 20 25 30

20

ye

ar P

W

Molar ratio, FeCl3

Break even technology comparison

MBR + chem P ABNR

Breakeven point for low P reduction at Molar Ratio = 8

Thank You

Rick Johnson rjohnson@clearaswater.com 440.415.2151

27