final report u.s. epa region 9 funded grant id #: …could be in high demand as the state water...
TRANSCRIPT
Demonstration and Evaluation of a Reciprocating Biofilter
for D oon Remairy Lag Nitrogen oval
FINAL REPORT | U.S. EPA REGION 9 FUNDED GRANT ID #: 96940001
CONTACT:
Joseph Choperena Sustainable Conservation 98 Battery Street, Suite 302
111 ne)
San Francisco, CA 94415‐977‐0380 x320 (pho415‐977‐0381 (fax) [email protected]
GRANT PERIOD: August 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010
INTRODUCTION__________________________________________________________________________________________________
The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 (EPA) funded the “Demonstration
and Evaluation of a Reciprocating Biofilter (ReCip®) Dairy Lagoon Nitrogen Removal” project to
evaluate and demonstrate a technology that removes nitrogen, organic matter and pathogens from
dairy lagoon water. From August 1, 2005 to December 31, 2010, Sustainable Conservation, in
partnership with the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Dr.
Les Behrends, designed, installed and tested a ReCip® (US Patent 5,863,433) system at the
university dairy. The demonstration project was a success and proved that ReCip® is extremely
effective at removing large percentages of nitrogen from dairy wastewater. The results show that
ReCip® removed 93% of Total Ammonia Nitrogen (Figure 1), 49% of Total Nitrogen (Figure 2),
58% of Total Suspended Solids (Figure 3) and 65% of Total Carbon (NPOC) from the dairy
wastewater.
Initially, there were some challenges getting the demonstration project off the ground. Those
challenges will be discussed in detail in this report but they included needing to change the location
of the demonstration project, construction delays and budget constraints.
Despite the challenges, we believe the project was a success and are now working to identify a
commercial dairy in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) to test ReCip® on a commercial scale. The
demand for a system like ReCip® that can effectively remove nitrogen from lagoon wastewater
could be in high demand as the State Water Board’s Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR),
specifically limiting nitrogen application rates, comes into effect in the summer of 2012. Then
California dairies will be required to apply nitrogen at no more than 1.4 to 1.65 times the crop’s
nitrogen uptake. The goal is to partner with SJV dairy producers that have nitrogen imbalances and
provide them with a cost-effective and operationally viable option for preventing nitrate
contamination of groundwater. ReCip® can help to achieve this goal.
Total Ammoniacal Nitrogen
INF: 221 (mg N/L) EFF: 15 (mg N/L) Percent Removal: 93%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
06-Jan-10
20-Jan-10
03-Feb-10
17-Feb-10
03-Mar-10
17-Mar-10
31-Mar-10
14-Apr-10
28-Apr-10
12-May-10
26-May-10
09-Jun-10
TAN (mg N/L)
Influent Effluent
Figure 1: Removal rates of Total Ammonia Nitrogen from pretreated dairy lagoon water (influent)
to post ReCip® treated lagoon water (effluent) at the Cal Poly dairy, from January 2010 to June 2010.
Total Nitrogen
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
17-F
eb-1
0
24-F
eb-1
0
03-M
ar-1
0
10-M
ar-1
0
17-M
ar-1
0
24-M
ar-1
0
31-M
ar-1
0
07-A
pr-1
0
14-A
pr-1
0
21-A
pr-1
0
28-A
pr-1
0
05-M
ay-1
0
TN
(mg
N/L
)
Influent Effluent
INF : 316 (mg N/L) EFF: 160 (mg N/L) Percent Removal: 49%Figure 2: Removal rates of Total Nitrogen from pretreated dairy lagoon water (influent)
to post ReCip® treated lagoon water (effluent) at the Cal Poly dairy, from February 2010 to May 2010.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
06-J
an-1
0
20-J
an-1
0
03-F
eb-1
0
17-F
eb-1
0
03-M
ar-1
0
17-M
ar-1
0
31-M
ar-1
0
14-A
pr-1
0
28-A
pr-1
0
12-M
ay-1
0
26-M
ay-1
0
09-J
un-1
0
TSS
(mg/
L)
Influent Effluent
Total Suspended Solids
IN F: 1,408 (mg/L) EFF: 591 (mg/L) Percent Removal: 58%Figure 3: Removal rates of Total Suspended Soli s from pretreated dairy lagoon water (influent)
to post ReCip® treated lagoon water (effluent) at t e Cal Poly dairy, from January 2010 to June 2010. dh
3
4
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION_____________________________________________________________________________________ Researchers at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Environmental Research Center in Muscle Shoals, Alabama developed ReCip®, a technology capable of nitrogen removal from high strength wastewater. ReCip® systems remove nitrogen and organic matter by creating an alternating aerobic/anoxic environment that supports the growth of bacteria capable of removing nitrogen and organic matter associated with liquid manure. The ReCip® system consists of two paired cells, each with an impermeable liner and filled with gravel. The gravel serves as a fixed‐film where microbial biofilms attach and grow. Water is pumped back and forth between the cells at a controlled rate of reciprocation, thereby creating alternating aerobic and anoxic environments necessary to support a diverse microbial population that can achieve organic matter oxidation and biological nitrogen removal. As the water moves from one cell to the other, the pumping process creates a vacuum, pulling atmospheric air into the gravel bed and bathing the microbes growing on the gravel substrate with atmospheric oxygen. Conversely, when the cell is submerged, anoxic conditions prevail. In the aerobic phase, nitrogen associated with organic matter is mineralized into ammonia, and then the ammonia becomes nitrate. In the anoxic phase, nitrates are converted into nitrogen gas. Thus nitrogen is safely and completely removed from the system. Additionally, the oncentrations of organic matter (measured as biological oxygen demand), suspended solids, and cpathogens are reduced. ReCip® systems have proven effective for treating water from swine lagoons, airports, food processing facilities, and residential communities (Behrends et al., 1999; Behrends et al., 2004). Results from two ReCip® systems on commercial swine farms in Alabama and North Carolina were impressive. In Alabama, ReCip® effectively removed 91% of ammonia‐N and 82% of TKN from swine lagoon water and reduced carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (CBOD5) by 77%, and E Coli by 99% (Behrends et al., 2004). In North Carolina, a ReCip® system reduced chemical oxygen emand (COD) by 83%, ammonia‐N by 57.3%, TKN by 87.5%, total suspended solids TSS by 94.5 % dand TS by 47.7% (Rice and Humenik, 2004). Given the simplicity of design, the energy efficiency and the relatively small footprint, a ReCip® system provides nitrogen treatment of dairy lagoon water with minimal operation and maintenance costs. At the swine facility in North Carolina, Rice and Humenik (2004) concluded hat “the ReCip® cells require little operator oversight and maintenance and have redundancy built tinto the pumping system to allow for safety and operation flexibility.” Flexibility is also associated with the rate of nitrogen removal and has considerable operational and environmental advantages for SJV dairies. Because the removal of nitrogen is limited by oxygen, adjusting the rate of the flow from the lagoon to the ReCip® system or the rate of reciprocation will alter the rate of nitrogen removal. On SJV dairies where most of the liquid manure nitrogen will be used to grow forage crops, the rate of nitrogen removal during times of the year when nitrogen is needed for crop fertilization can be reduced or eliminated by decreasing the rate of reciprocation or by decreasing flow rates into the ReCip® cells. Alternately, in the late summer and fall, when crop nitrogen needs are low, the rate of reciprocation can be increased to allow for additional land application of lagoon liquids and drawdown of the lagoons prior to winter rains. Adequate storage capacity through the winter is critical for protecting groundwater, as heavy rains not only add to the volume of water in the lagoon, but crop nutrient requirements are minimal and heavy rains are conducive to nitrate leaching if liquid manure is land applied during this time. The nitrogen removal flexibility associated with the ReCip® system will also allow for changes in treatment needs due to changes in herd size.
DEMONSTRATION SITE__________________________________________________________________________________________ The ReCip® system was constructed at the Cal Poly dairy (Figure 4) during the spring and summer of 2009. The Cal Poly dairy is a flush dairy, like the majority of dairies in California and the Western US. The dairy wastewater lagoons provide the influent water for the ReCip® plant. Lagoon water is used to irrigate and fertilize crops, primarily corn silage grown on neighboring fields, as well as to flush the concrete free‐stall lanes on the dairy four times a day. The free‐stall barns at the Cal Poly dairy house an average of about 325 animal units (1,000 lbs. each) consisting of lactating cows, dry cows, heifers, and calves. The Cal Poly dairy is located on Mount Bishop Road, on the North West area of campus (Latitude: N 35.31063 N 35° 18' 38.3" Longitude: W 120.67323 W 120° 40' 23.6") n the City of San Luis Obispo, on the Central Coast of California. Figure 4 is an aerial photo of the idairy. The university dairy was selected as the demonstration site because of their exemplary dairy manure management research and implementation, their commitment to educational outreach, and the technical expertise of Dr. Tryg Lundquist. Dr. Lundquist has overseen the design, on‐site management of the construction, water quality sampling and analysis, and has hosted tours and field days for technology transfer. Cal Poly is also committed to demonstrating other manure anagement technologies and practices that reduce odor, and other air emissions, and to protect m
groundwater. The ReCip® system (Figure 6) provides pre‐treatment of BOD5, nutrients, and pathogens of flushwater. The milking parlor and free‐stall flush water first goes through a series of solid liquid separation systems (a sand trap settling basin, mechanical inclined screen, and a second settling basin) before entering into one of two storage lagoons. Lagoon water is pumped into the ReCip® system using a pump housed on the lagoon shore. The pump inlet connects to a 45 foot long tube suspended below the surface of the lagoon water from a raft and also has a plastic screen to keep any solids out of the influent and ReCip®. Effluent from the ReCip® system discharges into an djacent anaerobic storage lagoon. Water from the lagoon is used to flush the free‐stall barn’s oncrete lanes and/or irrigate and fertilize nearby cropland. ac
5
Figure 4. Aerial photo (from Google Maps) of the Cal Poly dairy, site of the ReCiprocating biofilter, the inclined screen separator, sand trap settling basin, secondary settling basin, primary anaerobic lagoon, free‐stall barns and the milking parlor. Photo was taken prior to ReCip® construction.
7
1
2 3
4 5
6
7. Milking Parlor 6. FreeStall Barns
1. ReCip 2. Inclined Screen 3. Sand Trap Settling Basin 4. Secondary Settling Basin 5. Primary Anaerobic
Lagoon
igure 5. Simplified schematic of the recirculation of wastewater at the Cal Poly dairy. Anaerobic lagoon wastewater is used to flush the ree‐stall barns. A pump delivers influent to the ReCip® pilot plant and effluent is discharged back into the lagoon. Ff
6
Figure 6. Simplified plan view of the ReCip® basins. (A) Influent standpipe location; (B) Sumps that house the reciprocation pumps; (C) Effluent weir box that control the water level in Basin 2.
7
PROJECT SUMMARY______________________________________________________________________________________________ During the grant, a ReCiprocating Biofilter was constructed and operated at the Cal Poly dairy to onitor the system’s effectiveness for achieving nitrogen, organic matter and pathogen removal rom dairy lagoon water. mf PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES________________________________________________________________________________ The goal of the project was to demonstrate to dairy producers and regulators a cost‐effective and operationally viable dairy lagoon wastewater management system that can prevent nitrate ontamination. The objective was to test ReCip® and monitor nitrogen, organic matter and cpathogen removal from dairy lagoon water. Nitrogen, organic matter and pathogens were all removed by ReCip® from Cal Poly dairy lagoon water during this project and during a much longer and intensive sampling duration than was tated in the proposal. Please refer to Tables 1‐3 in the Appendix (A1), which summarize the sremoval rates of ReCip® constituents in 2010. ReCip® can play a significant role in helping SJV dairy producers having difficulty meeting the Water Board’s WDR for nitrogen application limits of 1.4 to 1.65 times the crop’s uptake rate. Producers with excess liquid nitrogen, in comparison to the amount of cropland and the crop’s uptake rate, who cannot purchase additional cropland or export nitrogen off farm and who do not want to decrease their herd size, may be interested in developing a commercial scale ReCip® in rder to remain in compliance. Sustainable Conservation has begun marketing the technology to omilk producers and dairy consulting groups. In comparison with similar technologies, ReCip® is very cost‐effective, simple to use and maintain, and is a viable option for dairies to prevent nitrate contamination of groundwater. Additional expenses may be incurred for synthetic liners and possibly leachate collection systems in order to meet the Water Board’s in‐ground storage regulations, but this would still be a very cost effective system. Additional research is being conducted at Cal Poly to evaluate renewable forms of biomedia, which could be used in lieu of the costly gravel substrate typically used in ReCips®. hese other types of biomedia, such as walnut shells, are more readily available, do not require ravel mining, and are less expensive to SJV producers. Tg WORK PRODUCTS/DELIVERABLES______________________________________________________________________________ he general objectives, timeline, and methods for evaluating the technical performance of the Tsystem are as follows: hase I:P Preparation of a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) and a Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prepared a CNMP for the Cal Poly dairy at no cost. Included in the Appendix (A2) is a letter from Dr. Bruce Golden, Head of the Dairy Science Department, confirming their completion of the CNMP. A full copy of the Cal Poly CNMP can be obtained by contacting Sustainable Conservation. The QAPP was completed for the initial project site’s partners at Fresno State University and BSK Laboratories, who originally planned to do the water quality analysis, but never submitted to EPA because the demonstration project was oved to the Cal Poly dairy, and university laboratories analyzed the wastewater samples. Instead, Quality Assessment Checklist was developed and a copy is included in the Appendix (A7). ma
8
Phase II: Characterization of the treatment effectiveness of the existing solid liquid separator and the lagoon system and design of the ReCip® system. In accordance with the project proposal, Cal Poly Dairy Science and Civil Engineering Departments collected samples of liquid manure before and after the separator and characterized the lagoon liquid for both sludge depth and nutrient concentration. Samples were analyzed for the following parameters: total solids, suspended solids, total‐N, ammonia‐N, nitrate‐N, total‐P, potassium, electrical conductivity, pH, salts (total dissolved solids and sodium), oxygen demand (most likely as hemical oxygen demand), and redox potential. Odor and emissions were also measured. The cresults can be found in the Appendix (A3). hile a CNMP was developed for the Cal Poly dairy, the ReCip® was not designed based on the
ce at the Cal Poly dairy. WCNMP because there is not a nitrogen imbalan Phase III: Installation of the ReCip® system.
er of 2009. ReCip® construction was completed at the Cal Poly dairy in the summ Phase IV: Evaluation of the ReCip® system (technical and economic). The Cal Poly Dairy Science Department measured influent and effluent flow rates and characterized nfluent, effluent, and lagoon liquid for parameters listed in Phase II. Removal efficiency was idetermined by the difference between influent and effluent concentrations. Samples were collected and analyzed weekly for over a year for the following parameters: Temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Total Suspended Solids, Volatile Suspended Solids, Carbonaceous BOD5, SCBOD5, Non‐purgable organic carbon, SNPOC, Alkalinity as CaCO3, Total jedahl Nitrogen, Total Ammonia Nitrogen, NO3 as N, NO2 as N, Total Nitrogen, Soluble Nitrogen, K
and Organic Nitrogen. The water quality analysis performed was much more in‐depth and over a longer duration (13 months instead of 6 months) than what was originally proposed. The proposal states that 12 parameters will be measured and “Three sets of samples will be collected monthly for six months fter the system has been installed”. Cal Poly sampled the above 17 parameters weekly for over 13 amonths. Sampling and analysis continues at present. An economic analysis of the ReCip® system was not performed. The project was scaled down in size, built above ground and many materials were donated due to budgetary constraints. In the future, commercial scale projects will almost certainly be in ground, making them more economical. We decided to construct the CalPoly demonstration project above ground to allow for additional design features (i.e., exposed manifold, sparge lines and drainage chambers), to better understand ReCip®’s performance and to better manage sludge accumulation and removal. Additionally, intensive monitoring, data collection and analysis increased the costs for the project and will not be conducted as intensively on a commercial system. These factors limited the ability to complete a thorough economic analysis that would be comparable to building an on farm commercial system. e intend to collect cost and operation and maintenance data for any future commercial scale W
projects. n lieu of the economic analysis, we can provide information on the amount of funds each of the artners invested in the project, not including the $125,000 grant provided by US EPA Region 9. Ip
9
Non‐federal funds: Sustainable Conservation invested $255,680 of private funds to the ReCip® project, primarily in staff time, travel and for Dr. Frank Mitloehner’s air quality research study.
Cal Poly invested $85,895.82 through both a Cal State University Agricultural Research Initiative Grant (ARI) and Dr. Lundquist’s volunteer time. The ARI provided $50,113.42 during the grant period. The total ARI grant for ReCip® is over $70K, however only $50K was spent during the EPA grant period. The remaining ARI balance will fund ongoing ReCip® research. In addition to the ARI funds, Dr. Lundquist volunteered $35,782.40 of his salary time. (A4 and A5)
es Behrends’ ReCiprocating Water Technologies, LLC and the Tennessee Valley Authority invested L$140,000. (A6)
hase V P : Technology transfer, outreach and education
• A field day, site tours, presentations and outreach materials will be developed and presented to dairy producers, the NRCS and regulators. Results from the project will be published in scientific journals and presented at professional and producer conferences. Results from the project will also be featured in news and producer publication articles and
at a number of events focusing on nutrient management in the Central Valley. ReCip® was highlighted in a wide array of education and outreach events and materials. Tours and informational talks about the biofilter were given at the annual Cal Poly Dairy Science Symposium at the university dairy (2008 and 2010); presentations were given at several meetings and conferences to dairies, regulators, consultants, industry trade groups, and at various California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP) Quarterly Partner meetings (refer to below list of presentations); articles were written in newsletters; an academic poster was developed and presented at several events, including the Dairy Symposium, and a brochure was also developed (A8), which will continue to be used for marketing the technology. Currently no scientific journal rticles have been published but Cal Poly is developing 3 separate ReCip® articles from the
ls. aMaster’s Theses that will be submitted to academic journa ReCip® presentations were given at the following events:
1. California Dairy Quality Assuarance Program (CDQAP) Quarterly Partner Meetings. Updates given quarterly from 2006 until December 2010.
ovation Grant Purple Sulfur Bacteria 2. California Dairy Campaign’s USDA Conservation Inn
Conference, 2008.
3. Cal Poly Dairy Science Symposium, 2008 and 2010.
4. The Source Group, Inc., December 2010.
5. Cal Poly Senior AgriBusiness Management Class, 2009.
6. Water Environment Federation Conference, 2009. 7. ustainable Conservation Board of Directors, December 2010. S8. Presentation to Water Board and Air District staff members, February 2011.
Sustainable Conservation successfully accomplished the commitments outlined in the proposal during the grant period. It showed that ReCip® is effective for nutrient removal from dairy lagoon ater and is a cost effective solution for the California dairy industry that can be easily ncorporated into flush dairy systems. wi
10
Challenges ustainable Conservation and our project partners experienced several challenges during this roject including moving the project to a new site and construction delays. Sp Change in Project Location One of the most significant challenges in the ReCip® project was relocating the demonstration project from Fresno State to Cal Poly. Fresno State could not commit the resources to install and manage the demonstration project which required Sustainable Conservation to search for an alternate host. Cal Poly was a strong alternate because their onsite dairy is similar in design to most commercial dairies in the SJV. Cal Poly continues to operate the ReCip® biofilter and is onducting additional research on alternative ways to operate the system. They have also agreed to cassist with outreach to the dairy industry. Dr. Tryg Lundquist, ReCip®’s principal investigator at Cal Poly, continues to be a strong partner. He is an expert in wastewater treatment systems and is tasked with overseeing and improving the university’s dairy manure management system after it was fined by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for a discharge due to excessive winter rains. Since then, the niversity dairy has greatly improved its waste management system and Dr. Lundquist is now a eading expert on ReCip®. ul Construction During construction, the design engineers and project managers experienced difficulties waterproofing the biofilter and the university approved contractor and the electrician caused several delays throughout construction. But, by far the most daunting challenge was the difficulty of resolving the biofilter’s water leaks caused by the contractor not building to the specifications of the engineering drawings and not patching stake holes in the biofilter’s concrete pad foundation. Unfortunately, the holes were not detected until 2 of the 3 layers of gravel were already placed into ReCip®, making it extremely difficult to find and patch the leaks. Fortunately, Sustainable Conservation, Tryg and his team of students continuously worked to resolve these problems and after 9 months and the application of six different types of water sealants, ReCip® was watertight and ready for wastewater to be pumped into the biofilter. These challenges would not have been vercome without the resilient teamwork and innovative solutions of Sustainable Conservation and al Poly. oC CONCLUSION__________________________________________________________________________________________________ The ReCip® demonstration project has proven that the technology can effectively treat dairy effluent by removing large percentages of nitrogen, organic matter and pathogens. We are pleased o report that researchers at Cal Poly are committed to running the ReCip® system and have eco mtr
m ended suggestions for additional research as follows (Henneman 2011):
1. Experiment with the operational parameters of ReCip®, inflow rate and the Hydraulic Residence Time, to evaluate how the effluent water quality changes. By expanding the rest periods, this will decrease the amount of energy used while also increasing the denitrification rate, which has not been as prevalent as nitrification. With 93% ammonia nitrogen removal, caused primarily by nitrification, increasing the denitrification will also increase the Total Nitrogen removal rates, which were 49% during this study. The least amount of energy that produces the most amount of nitrification should be found through the future research.
11
2. Use irregular cycles to increase denitrification. This has not changed since ReCip® began
operation in November 2009.
3. Conduct a study to determine how quickly NO3‐N is denitrified in the lagoon. If dairies that do not have lined lagoons develop a ReCip®; this could pose a problem if the nitrates in the effluent do not rapidly denitrify. It is understood that this process (denitrification) occurs quickly in anaerobic conditions, when the effluent is returned to the lagoon, however data
needs to be collected before commercial development occurs.
4. Construction and experimentation with mini ReCips®. Assembly of mini ReCips® are underway to research different types of biomedia (ideally renewable sources that are easily accessible in the SJV, do not require gravel mining and that are more cost effective than gravel) and how well microorganisms are able to colonize on the substrate while still
breaking down nutrients.
5. Research how well ReCip® performs after prolonged shutdowns, which will most likely occur on commercial dairies when nitrogen removal is only needed seasonally, during fall
and winter when crops are typically not grown and nitrogen requirements are low. Sustainable Conservation is conducting outreach to find a commercial dairy in the SJV that it can partner with to install, test and monitor a ReCip® system. A dairy consulting group working with SJV dairies on implementing their CNMP’s has been contracted to help identify a willing partner. In addition, the ReCip® demonstration project results have been presented and discussed to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Air District Board staff to seek their eedback and address any concerns as permits from both regulatory agencies will need to be btained before a system can be installed on a commercial dairy. fo
PHOTOS________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Photo 1. Empty ReCip® Tanks. The Cal Poly ReCip® is an above ground system constructed of a concrete foundation and cinderblock walls. In the background of this photo is some of the cropland where lagoon water is delivered to grow corn silage for dairy cow feed.
Photo 2. The Cal Poly ReCip® under drain (with drainage chambers, sparge lines and capped flush lanes) was designed to aid in sludge
removal. The PVC standpipes were installed to monitor sludge accumulation.
12
hoto 3. The middle aggregate layer of ReCip®. This photo shows what it looks like before the final layer of rock was installed. Notice the
black perforated pipe which aids in distributing flow evenly across the system. This pipe makes a square figure‐8. P
13
Photo 4. The Cal Poly dairy ReCip® with the final layer of gravel inserted. The blower, which will provide aeration, is housed in the
green hut constructed to decrease weathering from the elements. The two large PVC pipes from the north pump sump to the south pump sump allows for the reciprocation of lagoon water between the two tanks.
Photo 5. Jason Kane and Seppi Henneman, ReCip’s® two primary laborers, pose in front of the biofilter at the Cal Poly dairy. Both Jason and Seppi’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Master’s research projects and theses were evaluating ReCip®’s® environmental
benefits.
14
15
REF RE ___E NCES_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Behrends, L., E. Bailey, W. Ellison, L. Houke, P. Jansen, C. Shea, S. Smith, and T. Yost. 2004. Reciprocating constructed wetlands for treating high strength anaerobic lagoon wastewater. merican Society of Agricultural Engineers, Animal, Agricultural and Food Processing Waste IX, onAC ference Proceedings.
Behrends, L.L., L. Houke, E. Bailey and D. Brown. 1999. Reciprocating Subsurface‐flow Constructed Wetlands for Treating High‐Strength Aquaculture Wastewater. Pages 317‐325. In: etlands and Remediation: An International Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 16‐17, 99W1 9. Editors: Jeffrey L. Means and Robert E. Hinchee.
Behrends, L.L., Coonrod, H.S., Bailey E. and M. J. Bulls. 1993. Oxygen Diffusion Rates in Reciprocating Rock Biofilters: Potential Applications for Subsurface‐Flow Constructed etlands. In: Proceedings Subsurface‐Flow Constructed Wetlands Conference, August 16‐17, 99W1 3, University of Texas at El Paso, Texas.
Behrends, L.L., F.J. Sikora, H.S. Coonrod, E. Bailey, M.J. Bulls. 1996. Reciprocating Subsurface‐Flow Wetlands for Removing Ammonia, Nitrate, and Chemical Oxygen Demand: Potential for Treating Domestic, Industrial and Agricultural Wastewater. Vol. 5: 251‐263. roceedings Water Environment Federation, 69th Annual Conference & Exposition. Dallas, exPT as, October 5‐9, 1996.
Behrends, L.L. 1999. Reciprocating Subsurface‐flow Wetlands for Municipal and On‐site astewater Treatment. Wetlands and Remediation Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah. ov
WN ember 16‐17, 1999. In press.
M. Rice and F. Humenik. 2004. Solids Separation‐Reciprocating Wetland. In:Development of Environmentally Superior Technologies: Phase I Report for Technology Determinations per Agreement Between the Attorney General of North Carolina and Smithfield Foods, Premium Standard Farms and Frontline Farmers.
Henneman, S.M., 2011. Water and air quality performance of a ReCiprocating Biofilter
ry wastewater. Master of Science Thesis for College of Civil and Environmental . California Polytechnic State University.
treating daiEngineering
APPENDICES___________________________________________________________________________________________________ A1 Lab Work, Analysis and Removal Rates A2 CNMP Documentation Letter from Cal Poly Dairy Science Department A3 “Cal Poly Dairy Manure Flushwater Data” document A4 Financial Documentation: Cal Poly Corporation Letter: Project 50090, CSU ARI funds A5 Financial Documentation: Cal Poly Corporation Letter: Dr. Tryg Lundquist’s volunteer time A6 Financial Documentation ReCiprocating Water Technologies, LLC’s Letter documenting Dr. Les Behrends’ and TVA’s financial contribution A7 Quality Assessment Checklist A8 Brochure
Lab Work, lysis and Removal Rates
Ana
ates of ReCip® Constituents Table 1: 1st Quarter 2010 Removal R Data from January ‘10 to March ‘10
s of ReCip Constituents Table 2: 2nd Quarter 2010 Removal Rate Data from April ‘10 to June ‘10, 4.3 HRT
Table 3: 3rd Quarter 2010 Removal Rates of ReC Data from July ‘10 to September ‘10, 4.3 HRT Ave. HRT = 4.6 days and Ave. Flow = 2,242 gpd
ip® Constituents
Cal Poly Dairy Manure Flushwater Data April 8, 2011
Prepared By: Neal Adler, EIT
Background
The flush dairy unit at Cal Poly operates a closed loop waste water system. Samples were collected
periodically throughout a flush and were homogenized to generate a representative sample for that flush.
The 30,000 gallon flush tank is refilled with lagoon twice per day. The average daily flow is
approximately 84,000 GPD. An estimated 24,000 GPD of the daily flow is freshwater used to flush the
milking parlor. Samples were taken while the operators were flushing the dairy flush lanes, and not the
milking parlor. There are 325 animal units at the facility.
The five sample points of interest are listed in order of the flushing sequence, starting with flush water
released from the flush tank, and ending with the discharge from the fine solids trap which is pumped into
the storage lagoon. See Table 1 for site descriptions.
Site Label Sample Site Description
1. Flush Tank Out Sample was taken where flush water is released into the flushing lanes.
2. Sand Trap Out Sample taken from sand trap effluent which flows into the sump.
3. Screen In
Sample taken from influent to mechanical screen separator. The sump effluent is
pumped directly here.
4. Fine Solids
Trap In
Sample taken from influent to fine solids trap. The screened effluent is piped directly
to this point. 5. Fine Solids
Trap Out Sample taken from effluent of fine solids trap.
Table 1: Sample site descriptions
Data
Sample Site TS (g/L) VS (g/L)
Alkalinity
(mg/L as
CaCO3)
COD
(g/L)
TAN-N
(mg/L)
TKN
(mg/L)
Organic N
(mg/L)
1. Flush Tank Out 6.3 2.7 2,180 3.9 69 254 163
2. Sand Trap Out 8.8 4.8 2,140 5.6 112 420 271
3. Screen In 10.3 5.8 2,380 6.2 138 383 245
4. Fine Solids Trap In 9.5 5.3 2,340 5.9 148 381 233
5. Fine Solids Trap Out 9.6 5.2 2,300 6.1 136 381 245
Table 2: Summary Table of Dairy Waste Characterization at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo Dairy Unit . These are average
values over each sample day between November 2010 and April 2011. Number of sample days (n) in average for TS and
VS is 4, n for Alkalinity is 5, n for COD is 2, n for TAN-N, TKN, and Organic N is 3.
CAL POLY "-CORPORATION
March 17, 2011
Regarding Project 50090, entitled "Wastewater Facility Project"
To whom it may concern:
Regarding direct and in.kind services the US EPAgrant #CP-96940001 to construct and demonstrate the
"new generation" ReCip Wastewater Treatment System at the Cal Poly dairy, we provide the following
information:
Matching funds were provided by the California State Grant #49379 entitled "Nitrogen Removal fromdairy waste water using a novel reciprocation Biofilm Reactor," directed by Dr. Bruce Golden in the
amount $50,113.42 as of 12/31/10.
Please feel free to contact me at (805) 756-5589 if I can be of further assistance.
~:r--CindyGonz.,?'
Grant Analyst
Sponsored Programs
Cal Poly Corporation
~pons()n'd I'ro!!;r~rns, ()Ill' (ir,lIld . \\"'11111:, Buildln!!;3H R')('1ll 102,San LUIsOhlSpo:I, C\ 93-llli_Ok'O
MOS-~S6-11.!-' RlI5-756-SSRH
CORPORATION., II
AprilS, 2011
Regarding Project 50090, entitled "Wastewater Facility Project"
To whom it may concern:
Regarding direct and in-kind services the US EPAgrant #CP-96940001 to construct and demonstrate the
"new generation" ReCipWastewater Treatment System at the Cal Poly dairy, we provide the following
information;
In-kind services were provided by Dr. Tryg Lundquist, who worked on the project on a volunteer basis
for approximately 640 hours for a total of 35,782.40. Dr. lundquist's work on the project includeddesign, construction supervision, experimental planning, student supervision and technical transfer
work.
Please feel free to contact me at (805) 756-5589 jf I can be of further assistance.
Grant Analyst
Sponsored Programs
Cal Poly Corporation
Sp"n,orl"lll'ro~l.lln" ()n.: (;rand .\n'nu.:, I~llildin)l;.'1'. RO"l1l 102,S,IIl J.l1I' OhISP", C \ 'n.wi 111'.-'11
HII."--."6-112.' Ho5.-5(,-.'>.'>Hl'l
Re{lprqrcating Water Tech nnlogfes LLC
t-eslle Sc,hren*s Pfu.F
35S.ESs.4IS3[ c*l td b€h nrendsffya h stl. snn
h*p*f ne I Fil{ t€ rt's{ fu rreilnry'm,€sin
March L4,?:OLL
To whom it may concern:
Regarding direct and in-kind services for the US EPA grant #CP-96940001 to construct and demonstrate
the "new generation" ReCipo Wastewater Treatment System at the Cal Poly dairy, I provide the
following information:
As a TVA Scientist, and inventor of ReCiprocating Water Technology, I began collaborating with Kristin
Hughes of Sustainable Conservation in early 2005. Following is the statement I sent to Kristin via email
on April 201h,2005:
lThe Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA), Environmental Research Laboratory in Muscle Shoals, AL is
committed to helping Sustainable Conservation and other partners in the proposed FPPC
demonstration. The TVA is providing ReCipo Water Technology design and consultation as well as in-
kind matching funds of over 5120,000 in on-going ReCip@ research in support of this project.
Furthermore, TVAwill also provide a no-cost license for the patented ReCipo technology. Licensing of
the technology is usually charged as a percentage (!O-ZOYo) of the capital cost."
Subsequently, I worked with JosJph Choperena of Sustainable Conservation and Dr. Tryg Lundquist to
facilitate the design, construction and operation of an experimental ReCipo system at Cal Poly that was
largely financed by an EPA Grant. During the course of these efforts, I traveled to California on two
occasions and provided upwards of I25 hours of in-kind services as a consultant. I provided the
conceptual design and continue to provide advice and consultation related to operation and analyses of
data. The direct expenses and in-kind contributions related to trips and consultation are valued at
s8,000.
While a Senior Scientist at the Tennessee Valley Authority (l retired Feb. 2, 2008), I facilitated a WA ',
grant for up to $25,fii0 to help purchase equipment for the ReCip@ project at Cal Poly including axial
flow pumps, regenerative air blower pump(s), water level control structures, PVC pipes and valves for
underdrains, air-spargers, and sludge removal systems, digital timers and electrical controls. Some of the
equipment was ordered by me and shipped to Cal Poly, while other equipment and supplies wer€ ,
ordered by Cal Poly employees and invoiced to TVA.
TVA also extended a one-time no-cost license to Sustainable Conservation and Cat Poly allowing the
patented technology (US Patent 5,863,433), to be designed, constructed and operated at Cal Poly for
research and demonstration purposes. The commercial value of the no-cost license can be calculated as
the greater of 20 percent of the capital cost of the system, or S3/design gallon (2300 eal/day x $3/design
gallon = 56,900. Undoubtedly, the cost of the system x20% would have been a significantly larger fee
than the design based fee of $69fi).
TVA also provided funding to build, operate, and monitor a mesocosm-scale ReCipo system to test the
"new generation" design concept (two-story ReCip@), that was used to develop the conceptual design
information for the system at Cal Poly. TVA's experimental system was operated from March 1to
November 7,2007. The estimated cost for three employees to construct, operate and monitor the
system for seven months was approximately $100,000. Data, conceptual design and experience gained
from this experiment were vital to development of the "new generation" ReCip@ system at Cal Poly.
During the course of the US EPA grant with Sustainable Conservation, from 81L/?]AOS 6 t2l3L/2A10,1
conservatively estimate that TVA and my company provided up to $140,000 of direct and in-kind
services. lt has been a great honor to work with the dedicated personnel at Sustainable Conservation
and Cal Poly in this unique and valuable contribution to science.
Please feel free to contact me at (256) 3354232 if I can be of further assistance.
t-eslie L Behrends, PhD
President and Principal Scientist.
ReCiprocating Water Technologie$ Lt-C
A7
Quality Assessment Checklist for data collection and/or data use activities
Project Name
Grant ID #: 96940001 Demonstration and Evaluation of a Reciprocating Biofilter for Dairy Lagoon Nitrogen Removal
Phase
Final
Checklist prepared by Seppi Henneman Date Organization/Affiliation Cal Poly State University 4/15/2011 Contractor/Grantee/In-house Project Manager review Joe Choperena Date
4/20/2011 EPA Project Manager review and approval Date EPA Quality Assurance Office review Date
If there are two or more distinct sampling designs (for multiple media or parameter sets), describe each in Question 2. A separate checklist answering Questions 4 through 67 should be completed for each design.
Purp
ose
1. Briefly state the purpose of this project. Demonstration and Evaluation of a Reciprocating Biofilter for Dairy Lagoon Nitrogen Removal 2. Briefly describe the type(s) of sampling design(s) used. Sampling was conducted on the influent and effluent samples on a near weekly basis for 17 wastewater constituents 3. Briefly provide supporting rationale justifying the appropriateness of the sampling design(s) for this project. Cal Poly’s sampling design was more extensive and inclusive then was asked for in the proposal.
A7
Answer the following questions by placing a _ in the appropriate column to the right.
Yes No N/A Comments
Plan
ning
4. Were project planning documents fully approved by the Quality
Assurance Office (QAO) before this data collection or use event occurred? If not, explain under Comments.
x Host Site and laboratories
were changed mid-project. Note that Cal Poly added
more constituents and sample dates to original
plan, which only improved sampling quality
5. Were project planning documents made available to all project
personnel involved with the planning, sampling, analyses, review, and assessment portions of the project?
x
6. Were copies of project planning documents filed so that they
are available for future reference?
x
7. Were laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs) and
Quality Management Plans (QMPs) evaluated to ensure that they were capable of meeting project needs?
x
8. If required, were pre- and/or post-award laboratory onsite
evaluations performed?
x
9. Were laboratories outside of the current EPA regional
analytical system (EPA Regional Laboratory, National Contract Laboratory Program, state laboratory, etc.) used to support this project?
x The only labs used were Cal
Poly laboratories
10. Were field based analytical procedures or a mobile laboratory
approved for use? If yes, note under Comments what percentage of samples were confirmed by a fixed laboratory.
x Only field measurements
were via DO, pH, and ORP probes
A7
11. Were sub-contractors (for sampling or analytical purposes)
approved for use in support of this project?
x Cal Poly did all of the
sampling and analysis. They were a project partner and
not a sub-contractor.
Plan
ning
Con
tinue
d
12. Were sub-contractors, other than those previously approved,
used?
x
13. For laboratories outside of the current EPA regional analytical
system, were SOPs and QMPs evaluated to ensure that they were capable of meeting project needs?
x
14. Were sampler, driller, etc. qualifications, SOPs, and QMPs
evaluated to ensure that they were capable of meeting project needs?
x
Sam
plin
g
15. Was the sampling design(s) adhered to as outlined in the project
planning documents? If not, explain under Comments.
x Basic sampling design
adhered to but also added more constituents and
sampling dates 16. Were deviation reports prepared to capture deviations or
variances to the sampling design(s)?
x
17. Were sampling SOPs adhered to as outlined in the project
planning documents?
x
18. Were sampler’s field notes and documentation filed so that they
are available for future reference?
x
ly si s
19. Were all samples analyzed successfully?
x
A7
20. If any problems were encountered, were they documented by
the laboratory and communicated to project management?
x
Ana
lysi
s, C
ontin
ued
21. Were analytical procedures adhered to as outlined in the project
planning documents? If not, explain under Comments.
x
22. Did laboratory deliverables meet the project requirements?
x
23. Were laboratory data backed-up by the laboratory and retained
so that they can be made available at a later date, if needed?
x
24. Are the locations of project data deliverables being tracked?
x
R
evie
w
25. Did project planning documents contain data review/validation
criteria?
x
26. Were laboratory data deliverables reviewed for quality control
exceedances?
x
27. Were laboratory data deliverables reviewed for adherence to
project measurement quality objectives?
x
28. Were data reviewed/validated as outlined in the project
planning documents? If not, explain under Comments.
x
29. Were data review/validation reports generated?
x
30. Were copies of the data review/validation reports filed so that
they are available for future reference?
x
31. Were data quality problems identified during the data review/
validation process?
x
A7
Cor
rect
ive
Act
ions
32. Were sampling and/or analytical corrective actions necessary?
x
33. Were sampling and/or analytical corrective actions approved by
the EPA Project Manager before implementation, documented, and distributed to all involved personnel?
x
34. Were sampling and/or analytical corrective actions successful
in remediating the identified problems?
x
35. Were sampling and/or analytical corrective actions documented
and filed so that they are available for future reference?
x
Se
cond
ary
Use
of D
ata
36. Did the planning documents for this project account for the use
of existing data, including the specification of measurement quality objectives (MQOs) and other relevant data quality considerations (such as spatial and temporal representativeness)?
x
If this project included the secondary use of existing data, separate sets of responses should be prepared for Questions 37 through 62. One set is needed for the current project and an additional set for each secondary data source. Label each set of responses so that they are clearly distinguishable as current project or secondary data source(s).
Check one: x Current Project or Secondary Data Source
Se
cond
ary
Use
of D
ata
Con
tinue
d 37. Was sufficient documentation of the quality of the existing data
available for assessing conformance to the MQOs for this project?
x
38. Was an assessment of the acceptability of the existing data
performed for this project?
x
39. Were standard sampling methods cited and used as documented
for the original project? If non-standard (or innovative) sampling methods were used, describe under Comments.
x
40. Were standard analytical methods cited and used as
documented for the original project? If non-standard (or innovative) analytical methods were used, describe under Comments.
x
41. Were any changes to the sampling and/or analytical methods in
the original project documented?
x
A
dditi
onal
Pro
ject
O
vers
ight
Act
iviti
es
42. Did project planning documents require submission of
performance evaluation (PE) samples during this event?
x
43. Were any PE samples submitted to the laboratories during this
event?
x
44. Were all PE samples determined to be within acceptable
ranges? If not, describe under Comments.
x
45. Were PE sample evaluations filed so that they are available for
future reference?
x
A7
46. Were split samples collected during this event?
x
Add
ition
al P
roje
ct O
vers
ight
Act
iviti
es
Con
tinue
d 47. Did results reported by primary and referee laboratories agree
within project acceptance limits? If not, describe under Comments.
x
48. Were split sample evaluations filed so that they are available
for future reference?
x Cal Poly performed split
samples but not for PE samples
49. Were collection of Field quality control (QC) samples required
in the project planning documents?
x
50. Were Field QC samples collected and submitted to the
laboratories during this event?
x
51. Were laboratory reported results for Field QC samples within
project acceptance limits? If not, describe under Comments.
x
D
ata
Usa
bilit
y A
sses
smen
t
52. Were any sampling issues determined to have negatively
impacted data usability? If so, describe under Comments.
x
53. Were any analytical issues determined to have negatively
impacted data usability? If so, describe under Comments.
x
54. Did data meet measurement performance criteria (MPC) for
precision? If not, describe under Comments.
x
55. Did data meet MPC for accuracy? If not, describe under
Comments.
x
56. Did data meet MPC for representativeness? If not, describe
under Comments.
x
A7
A7
Dat
a U
sabi
lity
Ass
essm
ent
Con
tinue
d 57. Did data meet MPC for comparability? If not, describe under
Comments.
x
58. Did data meet MPC for completeness? If not, describe under
Comments.
x
59. Did data meet MPC for sensitivity? If not, describe under
Comments.
x
60. Were project measurement quality objectives met? If not,
describe under Comments.
x
61. Were project data quality objectives met? If not, describe under
Comments.
x
62. For all MPC, MQO, and/or DQO non-attainments,
exceedances, data flags, etc., provide estimates on:
a. The resulting effects on the usability of the data. b. The resulting effects on the end use of the data (such as qualifiers on or uncertainty in the decision to be made, or limitations on the types of decisions that can be made with the data).
This information can be provided either under Comments or as an attachment to the checklist.
- - - Very few data points did not
pass QA/QC, and analysis was performed per APHA 2005 Standard Methods, so the data should be usable
without limitations
63. Were usable (acceptable) sample results found to be above
action or regulatory levels?
x
64. Were regulatory or enforcement actions taken based upon
usable (acceptable) data?
x
A7
Furth
er A
ctio
n(s)
65. Have similar data quality problems, as those identified, been
encountered during previous sampling events? If yes, describe under Comments.
x
66. Will more samples need to be collected to address resulting
data gaps? If yes, describe under Comments.
x
67. Will there be any further action(s) on this project that may
involve collection and analysis of site samples? If yes, describe under Comments.
x More experiments will be
performed on this site in the future, so more samples will be analyzed
Questions should be directed to Carl Brickner of the EPA Region 9 Quality Assurance Office at (415) 972-3814 or [email protected].
Want to fi nd out more about ReCip®?Dairy producers and others interested in ReCip® are invited to contact Cal Poly and/or Sustainable Conservation. For Cal Poly, call Prof. Tryg Lundquist at (805) 756-7275. For Sustainable Conservation, call Joe Choperena at (415) 977-0380 ext. 320. We can provide information to help you in a cost-benefi t analysis of ReCip® for your operation.
Dairy Nutrient Control with the
ReCip® Biofi lter
ReCip® also removes over 50% of Total Suspended Solids
ReCip® has removed 85% to 95% Ammonia Nitrogen from lagoon water at the Cal Poly Dairy
Total Ammonia Nitrogen Removal
Total Suspended Solids Removal
Funding provided by US EPA Region 9 and CSU Ag Research Initiative
ReCip® Can Help Dairies Remove Excess Manure NitrogenExisting air and water quality regulations threaten the economic viability of the dairy industry, especially in California. The requirement for whole-farm nutrient balance with prescribed manure application rates, coupled with high land prices, have led to the need for a low-cost, simple nutrient removal technology that helps dairy operators manage nitrogen. The ReCip®
treatment system has successfully treated industrial, municipal and swine wastewater and now it has been proven effective for the treatment of dairy lagoon wastewater.
ReCip® Uses Methods Similar to Municipal Wastewater Treatment but in a More Simple and Cost Effective Way ReCip® is a reciprocating biofi lter that was patented in 1993 by the Tennessee Valley Authority. ReCip® removes nitrogen and organic matter and can contribute to odor control. ReCip® consists of two or more basins fi lled with gravel and timer-controlled, energy-effi cient pumps that move manure water back and forth between the basins (reciprocation). No chemicals or additives are used. Microorganisms that exist naturally in the wastewater attach to the rocks as microbial biofi lm and perform the treatment.
When the water level in one basin is pumped down, air is drawn into the gravel bed where it saturates the moist biofi lm with oxygen. This basin is then fi lled with water from the other basin. The oxygen in the biofi lm is used by nitrifying bacteria to convert the
ammonia nitrogen to nitrate. After a short time, the oxygen has been consumed and then denitrifying bacteria convert the nitrate to harmless nitrogen gas, which escapes to the atmosphere. Organic matter is degraded in a similar way.
Benefi ts of ReCip®
A Low-Cost, Simple TechnologyA typical ReCip® system consists of lined earthen basins or tanks fi lled with gravel, timer-controlled pumps and piping. This setup is relatively inexpensive to construct and operate compared to municipal waste treatment systems. The routine operational requirements are only checking on pump operation. Every few years, sludge is drained from channels under the rock to avoid clogging.
Easy Installation, Integration and OperationThe simple components of ReCip® require a short installation time. Once online, the system draws water directly from an existing storage pond and can discharge into the same pond or separate storage. Design and operational adjustments can be made to fi t the needs of each operation.
Odor and Air Pollution ControlReCip® can be operated specifi cally to produce nitrate (NO3
-) for discharge into lagoons. The oxygen in nitrate helps to control odor and hydrogen sulfi de. The nitrate is consumed by bacteria in the lagoons and is not applied to cropland.
ReCip® May Be the Best Alternative to Solve Nitrogen ImbalancesIf your dairy has more manure nitrogen than your crops require, removing nitrogen with ReCip® may be an alternative to reducing herd size, acquiring more cropland, changing crops or hauling manure offsite.
Proven Water TreatmentA ReCip® pilot plant being studied by research engineers at the dairy at Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo, has achieved the following water quality results over the course of a year of operation:
• 93% Removal of Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3 + NH4+)
• 53% Removal of Total Nitrogen• 66% Removal of Total Organic Carbon • 58% Removal of Total Suspended Solids
The Cal Poly Dairy ReCip® is a pilot system which treats approximately 2,500 gallons of lagoon water per day.
ReCip® has only two moving parts, the pumps located in the central sumps.