The 2015 Minnesota Water Technology Summit took place on Friday, September 11, 2015 at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs on the University of Minnesota campus.
The Minnesota Water Technology Summit is returning this year and expanding on the presence from last year’s sold-out event. This year’s summit, hosted by David Kansas, EVP, COO of Minnesota Public Radio, will highlight key topics in water technology including commercialization, water reuse and recovery, water risk and conservation and regulatory environment.
The agenda was developed by a planning committee with globally recognized leaders, companies and entities including: Aeration Industries,Dow Water & Process Solutions, Ecolab, GE Water & Process Technologies, Pentair, Tonka Water, Cartwright Consulting, Lenz Consulting, Faegre Baker Daniels, The Metropolitan Council, the University of Minnesota, The Minnesota Trade Office and GREATER MSP.
4. PLANNING COMMITTEE
AERATION INDUSTRIES
CARTWRIGHT CONSULTING
DOW WATER & PROCESS SOLUTIONS
ECOLAB
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
GE WATER & PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES
GREATER MSP
LENZ CONSULTING
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
THE MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
PENTAIR
TONKA WATER
THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
#MNWater
5. Slides will be available on
SlideShare at
http://www.slideshare.net/
GREATERMSP
#MNWater
9. COLLABORATION & COMMERCIALIZATION
Moderator | Bill Weimer, Faegre Baker Daniels
Panelist | Carrie Eppelheimer, Dow Water
Panelist | Marc Hillmyer, University of Minnesota
Panelist | Paige Novak, University of Minnesota
Panelist | Jay Schrankler, University of Minnesota
#MNWater
11. Collaboration and Commercialization
►Panel Members
► Bill Weimer, Faegre Baker Daniels
► Carrie Eppelheimer, Dow
► Professor Marc Hillmyer, University of Minnesota
► Jay Schrankler, University of Minnesota
► Professor Paige Novak, University of Minnesota
12. Point of this Panel
► Recognition
► Great collection of water-related technologies, businesses, universities and government entities in
Minnesota
► Strong interest in growing/strengthening this by private and public players
13. Point of this Panel
► Collaborations (and collaboration attempts) involving Minnesota companies, universities and
government
… are vehicles for communications, learning, relationship building and commercialization
14. Point of this Panel
► Types of collaborations
► Different Goals, e.g.,
► Bringing together two technologies
► Bringing together a material technology with a manufacturing capability
► Bringing together a technology with a existing market channel
► Bringing together a business goal with an expertise to scientifically uncover the mechanism that provide a
material property
► Bringing together two business capabilities
► Different Combinations of Parties
► Bigger companies, smaller companies, universities, govt entities
15. Point of this Panel
► Realities of a Collaboration
► Sometimes a collaboration makes sense, sometimes not
► Collaboration must be based on both (or all) parties’ business objectives
► Requires compromise
► Introduces risks
► Sharing confidential information, depending on another party
► The benefits of collaborating need to outweigh the risks and costs
► How will this potential collaboration benefit us? What are the costs? Risks? What is the probability of
success?
16. Point of this Panel
► Realities of Collaborations
► The “deal” you can strike depends on what each party brings to the table and needs from the other party
► Business acumen
► Willingness to compromise, to take smart risks, adjust
► Existing market channel, ability to move quickly in the marketplace
► Intellectual property: patent portfolio, trade secrets, brands, etc.
► Funding
► Collaboration agreements take time and care to negotiate and draft
► Capture how the parties want to proceed, including how to end the deal
17. Point of this Panel
► Realities of Collaborations
► Collaboration deals take time and care to negotiate and draft
► Agreement needs to capture how the parties want to proceed
► Including how they want to end the deal
18. Collaboration Examples and Tips
► Carrie Eppelheimer, Dow
► Professor Marc Hillmyer, University of Minnesota
24. OTC Metrics
Fiscal Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Invention Disclosures 217 244 255 250 324 331 343
New U.S. Patent Filings 52 65 66 78 115 146 138
New Licenses 63 44 67 76 71 91 154
University Start-Ups 2 3 8 9 12 14 15
Current Revenue-Generating
Agreements
281 306 399 457 426 331 429
Gross Revenues ($MM) $86.9 $95.2 $83.8 $10.1 $45.7 $39.5 $27.4
Recent OTC Awards/Recognition
• 2013 MHTA (Minnesota High Tech Assoc.) Tekne: Innovative Collaboration Award
Teamed with Boston Scientific
• 2014 MSP (Minneapolis St. Paul) Business Journal: Eureka Award
• 2014 MN Finance & Commerce: MN Progress Award
• 2014 Tech Connect: National Innovation Award
25. • Make it easier to do business with the University
• Eliminate protracted negotiations about IP terms
• More self-service, more/better information online
• Eliminate the uncertainty in future financial
obligations
• Define the licensing terms in the research agreement
• Want exclusive rights to the IP
• Eliminate concerns that competitors will license the IP that
results from research company funded
• Make it easier to evaluate and license IP
• Minimize financial risks for licensing unproven technologies
What Industry told us…
27. MN-IP Create
• Two options for establishing intellectual property rights
through a sponsored research agreement
• Option A: Created to remove uncertainty and financial
concerns that often surround industry funded research
projects in a university setting
• Option B: Retained for those sponsors who do not wish to
pay an upfront fee and wish to await creation of IP before
negotiating terms
• 6 month option period
28. MN-IP Create Option A
• Pre-paid exclusive option fee
• 10% of sponsored research contract or $15k, whichever is greater
• Option to exclusive license with pre-set terms
• No annual minimums
• No time limits or milestones
• Sponsor is free to sublicense/cross license
• When annual net sales ≥ $20M, 1% royalty on total annual net sales
• $5M cap on royalties if IP improves on sponsor’s existing product or
process
• Company pays patent costs and controls patent process
• While collaborating with the University on patent strategy
29. MN-IP Try and Buy
Transparent, industry-friendly IP license for existing
technology
•Try: Exclusive Option with low, single fee
– No U.S. patent expenses due
– $0 for MN companies
•Buy: License with pre-set terms – published online
– Low, published royalty %
– First $1M sales are royalty-free
– U.S. patent expenses due only when patent issues
– Discount for MN companies
30. Satisfied MN-IP Customer
Dear April,
I hope this finds you well. The investors and Board of Directors of Diabetes-Free, Inc have asked me to reach out to
you to let you know that the company's R&D has been very successful. The substantial scientific and commercial
progress that has been made is due in large part the efficiency and attractiveness of the MN-IP: Minnesota
Innovation Program.
They have now established a second company unrelated to Diabetes-Free and would like to fund a $250,000
research project with the University with a new researcher in the department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and
Development. Given the important role you played in making this a fast, efficient, and successful process and the
relationship we have now established, we would be delighted to work with you again.
Please let us know what next steps that we, the company, and the researcher can take to have the proposed
research approved and for us to start work on the SRA.
Thanks,
--
Roger A.C. Kuypers | Partner
31. UMN Initiatives in Water
Technology and
Remediation
Paige Novak
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering
32. Research in science and
engineering has become a highly
collaborative enterprise
Examples:
•
• Multiple Centers, Institutes, Research Networks
• MnDRIVE (Minnesota’s Discovery, Research,
and InnoVation Economy)
• Water Technology Working Group
33. Partnership between the State and the University to
stimulate research/business collaborations,
resulting in economic development and scientific
advances
(https://mndrive.umn.edu)
MnDRIVE Initiative
34. MnDRIVE Initiative: Environment
• Supporting and stimulating
research on the use of
microorganisms to remove
pollutants from the
environment (“bioremediation”)
• Hired faculty, supported
research, sponsored industry
events
• RFP out now, requires industry participation
38. WATER POLICY & REGULATION
Moderator | Ryan P. Godfrey, Tonka Water
Panelist | Brian Bergantine, AE2S
Panelist | Randy Ellingboe, State of Minnesota
Panelist | Glen Gerads, City of Minneapolis
Panelist | Seth Peterson, Bolton & Menk, Inc.
#MNWater
40. Nitrate – MN, IA
Drought – SW MN, CA, TX, NV …
Floods – Duluth
Harmful algal blooms – OH, IN, IL
Spills – WV
41.
42. Water Supply Environment
Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA)
Assess contaminants effects
on human health
Well construction and sealing
Clean Water Act
Ground & surface
water pollution
impacts
Water quantity
management/
appropriations
Nitrogen fertilizer
and pesticides impacts on
groundwater
43. MDH administers federal Safe Drinking Water Act under delegation
from EPA
MN’s public drinking water is protected through a series of strategic
safeguards to protect drinking water from source to tap
Three basic strategies:
◦ Monitoring
◦ Prevention
◦ Treatment
45.
• Serve 4 million people
• ~11,000 Public Wells
• ~960 systems that
provide water to people
where they live
• ~6,000 systems that
provide water to people
where they work or play
46. Monitoring and regulation of public water supplies (PWS) to comply with
federal drinking water standards
Technical assistance to PWS and well contractors
Plan review and approval of infrastructure including treatment systems,
water mains, etc.
Inspections of PWS infrastructure and wells
Public Information (Consumer Confidence Report, Annual Report, etc.)
Drinking Water Revolving Fund for infrastructure loans
◦ in cooperation with Public Facilities Authority, $40M+ per year
Assessing human health risks
◦ E.g., Contaminants of emerging concern
Regulation of well construction and sealing
47. 450 Licensed Well Contractors
250,000+ private wells
State well code
◦ Location, confining units, grouting
◦ 12,000 wells constructed annually in
MN on average
Special well and boring construction
areas
Testing required at construction:
◦ Nitrate
◦ Bacteria
◦ Arsenic
No additional testing or treatment required after construction
for private wells
47
48. Microbiological: Bacteria, Viruses, Parasites)
Inorganic Chemicals (e.g. Nitrate, Lead,
Arsenic)
Organic Chemicals (e.g. Fuels, Solvents,
Pesticides)
Radiological (e.g. Radon, Radium)
Samples analyzed in MN laboratories
Testing frequency varies depending on
contaminant and levels found
Over 150,000 samples tested each year
49. Meeting SDWA requirements:
◦ Some MN public water supplies require little or no treatment to meet standards
◦ Some have a variety of naturally and/or man-made contaminants in their
ground or surface water source
Treatment needs can vary greatly
Costs to public vary greatly
Drinking water treatment may create challenges for wastewater
treatment, e.g.,
◦ Reverse osmosis
◦ Phosphate for corrosion protection
50. 80,000+ chemicals in use in US
◦ Pharmaceuticals
◦ Personal care products
◦ Industrial
◦ Agricultural
Periodic reconnaissance efforts
◦ EPA Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule
◦ Contamination events
MDH Contaminants of Emerging Concern program assesses
nominated chemicals for potential health impacts
51. Innovation needed to deal with emerging issues
Challenges
◦ Regulatory staff knowledge/capacity varies by state
◦ Assessing feasibility and effectiveness of new
technologies important to public
Independent certification of technology?
Pilot studies
Resources for states:
◦ Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi River Board
Provides guidance for drinking water and
wastewater technology regulatory review
53. WATER POLICY & REGULATION
Moderator | Ryan P. Godfrey, Tonka Water
Panelist | Brian Bergantine, AE2S
Panelist | Randy Ellingboe, State of Minnesota
Panelist | Glen Gerads, City of Minneapolis
Panelist | Seth Peterson, Bolton & Menk, Inc.
#MNWater
57. 2.5%
= FRESH
WATER
glaciers, ice caps
groundwater
lakes, rivers,
ice/snow
1.72%
.75%
.03%
97.5%
= SALT
WATER
vs.
Of the earth’s water supply:
Water Inventory
57
58. Embedded Water in Everyday Products
167Gallons of Water
=
55Gallons
of Water =
39,090Gallons of Water
=
450Gallons
of Water =
700Gallons
of Water =
2.6Gallons
of Water =
58
59. Water Demand to Surpass Supply by 40%
59
+50%
+87.5%
+45%
-40%
60. Water Scarcity Intensifying
60
2014
Top 20 GDP
Water Price
($/m3) Water Risk
USA 17,419 $3.53 Moderate/high
China 10,380 $0.52 high
Japan 4,616 $2.12 moderate
Germany 3,860 $6.02 low
UK 2,945 $5.62 moderate
France 2,847 $4.59 low
Brazil 2,353 $2.43 moderate
Italy 2,148 $1.90 moderate
India 2,050 $0.14 high
Russia 1,857 $1.01 low
Canada 1,789 $3.54 low
Australia 1,444 $6.50 moderate
Korea 1,417 $0.95 moderate
Spain 1,407 $2.58 moderate
Mexico 1,283 $0.95 moderate
Indonesia 889 $0.53 low
Netherlands 866 $5.86 moderate
Turkey 806 $1.73 moderate
Saudi Arabia 752 $0.03 high
Switzerland 712 $4.49 low
2030
Top 20 GDP
Water Price
($/m3) Water Risk
China 32,529 $1.21 high
USA 25,458 $10.30 high
India 6,235 $0.25 very high
Germany 4,976 $10.90 moderate
Japan 4,543 $2.57 moderate
UK 4,441 $8.85 moderate
France 3,035 $5.40 moderate
Canada 2,656 $11.22 low
Brazil 2,391 $15.55 moderate
Korea 2,382 $2.67 high
Australia 2,212 $40.58 high
Russia 2,044 $5.12 low
Italy 2,015 $3.15 high
Indonesia 1,941 $0.50 low
Mexico 1,789 $6.14 high
Spain 1,758 $4.10 high
Saudi Arabia 1,324 $0.04 high
Turkey 1,273 $2.44 high
Netherlands 999 $32.99 high
Switzerland 977 $3.61 moderate
+158%
62. In 2015, the global water crisis was cited as the
number-one business risk for impact
70% of companies surveyed identify water
as a substantive business risk
US-based Fortune 500 companies:
Global Water Crisis impact upon
80%
60%
affects their decisions on
where to locate facilities
affects business growth and
profitability within five years
face potential
physical challenges
face reputational risks
94%
69%
Business Impact
SOURCES: World Economic Forum
2013 CDP Water Report
Bridging Concern with Action: Are US Companies Prepared for Looming
Water Challenges?, Pacific Institute and VOX Global 2014 survey of
US-based Fortune 500 companies62
63. Impacting Revenue & Profits
saw a
in its California-based carrot division
profits in early 2015 due in part
to drought followed by intense rains
28% drop
U.S. Based Food Company
Global Agriculture Producer
reported a in 2014 Q4
profits as a drought in the U.S.
damaged pastures used to raise beef
12% drop
North American
Food Company
introduced an
on coffee
packs in early 2015 to
offset impact of Brazil
drought
8% price
increaseestimated that
natural disasters linked to a
changing climate cost the company
around $400 million annually
Consumer Packaged Goods
Manufacturer
Australian
Agribusiness
reported a 64% drop in 2014
profits due to a prolonged drought
• cut grain deliveries by 23%
• nearly halved grain exports
on the development of an $81 million
bottling plant in Southern India in April
2015 due to resistance from local
farmers who cited concerns about
strains on local groundwater supplies
decided not to move forward
Fortune 500 Beverage Company
Source: Ceres 201563
64. California’s Drought Has Led to a Water
Reduction Mandate
statewide water reduction mandate
for urban users by February 2016.
Water use reporting requirements will expand
under the proposed emergency regulation
WHAT THIS
MEANS FOR
BUSINESSES:
Water suppliers will rely on both residential and
non-residential user reductions to meet the standard
Regulatory and public pressure to reduce water
consumption will increase
Violations will be costly
California has
imposed a 25%
64
65. By 2020, safely return to
communities and nature an
amount of water equal to what is
used in finished beverages and
their production
Committed to “zero-discharge” operations
as a critical part of a long-term target to
build a resource-saving and no-emission
management enterprise
Intends to cut water use per pound of
product by 20% by 2020, compared
to a 2008 baseline
Cut total water intake by 30% by
2020, compared to 2010 baseline
Aims to reduce direct water
withdrawal per ton of product
by 40% by 2015, compared
to 2005 baseline
Goal to reduce water consumption per
guest night by 25% by 2020, 30% in
water-stressed areas
Further reduce water consumption
20 percent per occupied room by
2020 from a 2007 baseline
Water-use-per-vehicle
reduction goal of 30%
from 2009 to 2015
2015 goal to improve
freshwater efficiency by 5%
2020 target to reduce water
intensity by 15% from 2011 levels
20% reduction in fresh water use
by 2015, compared with 2006
15% improvement in water
use by 2015 as compared
to 2011
The Most Forward-Looking Companies Have Aggressive Water
Goals
65
68. Ecolab’s Businesses Impact Our Customers’ Water Usage in
Many Ways
80%
Ecolab Sales $14B2014
68
•Global Textile Care 2%
•Global Food & Beverage 12%
•Global Paper 6%
•Global Water 15%
•Specialty Sector 6%
•Global Healthcare 4%
•Global Institutional 20%
30%30%
35%
5%
WATER USAGE
more than
of sales
IMPACT
69. Actionable quantification of water-
related risks in financial terms
Informs efforts to assess and
manage water risk
The Solution
Potential Revenue at Risk =
estimated amount and likelihood of the
revenue that could potentially be lost at a
facility due to the impact of water scarcity
on operations
Full Value of Water (Risk-
Adjusted Water Price) =
monetary estimate of the full value of
water at a facility level, based on what
water would cost if supply and demand
were accurately reflected
The Challenge
Water price does not
reflect its full value
Water scarcity makes it
harder to access water
necessary to operate
Business Implications
Reduced profit
margins
Decreased production
& loss in revenue
BUSINESS OUTCOME
$
From Operations at Risk to Risk Mitigation
70. Introducing a New Way to Factor Water Risks into Business
Decisions
70
Understand
the full value of
water to your
business
Quantify
water risks in
financial terms
that make
business sense
Calculate
potential revenue
at risk
First-of-its-kind Publicly available No cost
Assess
water scarcity
risks at site and/or
enterprise level
71. Visibility into Operational Risks
Beverage plant water usage = 5,353,591
Water Cost
Risk Adjusted Water Cost
Potential Revenue at Risk
Likelihood of Revenue Loss
$
LOS ANGELES
RIO
MUMBAI
$1.85
$1.11
$.17
$.31
$ $6.33
$ $5.59
$ $4.65
$ $4.79
37%
<1%
96%
17%
BEIJINGLOW
HIGH
MODERATE
MODERATE
71
72. Our Unique Solutions Help Businesses
Reduce Water Use
Helped customers
save more than
72
445 billion
litersin 2014
73. Our Unique Solutions Help Businesses
Reduce Water Use
73
Our solutions help customers save:
of water used by a typical
five-line beverage, brewing
or food processing plant
of warewashing water
use by restaurant
customers
of a typical customer’s
water consumption through
the innovative wash processes
of water use by open
recirculating
cooling system
90%
UP TO
90%
UP TO
50%
UP TO
30%
UP TO
DryExx™
dry conveyor
lubricant
Apex™
conveyor
dish machine
Aquanomic™
laundry system
3D TRASAR™
cooling water
technology
74. 3D TRASARTM Saves Water By Optimizing Chemical Use
74
3D TRASARTM Technology saved more than 119 billion gallons of water in 2014.
75. 3D TRASARTM Allows Many Cycles
75
Additional cycles of concentration enable additional water savings
76. Enabling Water Reuse
76
Impact:
ArcelorMittal saved 2.2 billion gallons of water
at its steel mill in Galati, Romania in 2014
Achieving water reductions:
Identified undetected leaks in the cooling
system through 3D TRASAR™
Technology’s monitoring capability
Increased the cycles of concentration in the
cooling tower through automated processes
that maintained optimal cleaning formulas
Eliminated the need to demineralize water
for continuous casting systems by switching
the make-up water source to soft water
Optimized recirculation pumps by switching
to a high-efficiency motor
ArcelorMittal
77. Enabling Water Reuse
77
Impact:
GNP Company saved more than 68 million
gallons of water at one plant through the use
of Ecolab’s InspexxTM Inside Outside Bird
Washer Water Recycling System
Achieving water reductions:
US Department of Agriculture-approved
control and filtering system safely
recirculates and treats water
Leverages specially formulated
antimicrobial solutions
Recycled water can be reused four to five
times to wash birds without compromising
cleanliness
GNP Company
78. Helping Customers Recycle Water
78
Impact:
A large food production plant reduced
water use by more than 275 million
gallons and reduced wastewater
discharge by 95 percent to achieve its
goal of dramatically reducing water use in
a drought region
Achieving water reductions:
Improved the quality of discharge
water by using a dissolved air
flotation unit to separate and remove
suspended matter from the water
Recycled the treated water as cooling
tower make-up water
Large Company
81. Introducing an Innovative Approach to Conservation in
Minnesota
OF Minnesota Headwaters Fund
in Minnesota
81
www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience
Mississippi
River
St. Croix
River
$10M
privately
funded
investment to
SUPPORT
CONSERVATION
90. Raj V. Rajan, PhD, PE
RD&E VP, Global Sustainability Technical Leader
Minnesota Water Summit
September 11, 2015
Water Risks and Conservation
91. True Cost of Water Toolkit
BEVERAGE INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL ROUNDTABLE (BIER)
91
W H Y : T H E C H A L L E N G E
Water is a strategic priority, but investments
commonly do not meet company return on
investment (ROI) rates due to only considering
“cost at the tap” and not the true cost of water.
TRUE COST OF WATER
What You THINK You Pay
FULLCOST
ACCOUNTING
What You ACTUALLY Pay
What You MIGHT Pay
What You COULD Pay
TOMORROWTODAY
Is the actual cost of water beyond just
what we pay for it ‘at the tap’?
Transport
Treatment/
Chemicals
Heating/
Cooling
92. Scarcity Impacts:
Financial Implications to Business
Revenue X
Cost of Goods Sold X
Operating Profit X
Operating Expenses X
Depreciation X
Ebit X
Interest X
Tax X
Profit After Tax X
Water scarcity
increases the cost
of water, which
reduces profit
margins.
Water scarcity
limits availability
of water, leading to
decreased
production and
loss in revenue.
94. Douglas Shaw, Assistant State Director
The Nature Conservancy in Minnesota
~ 60% forested/wetland
~ 78% agriculture
Photo credit: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2015
95. The Problem: Water Supplies at Risk
Our Water Comes
From Here
INCREASED USE OF SURFACE
WATER
POPULATION GROWTH
LAND USE CHANGE
CLIMATE CHANGE
97. The Problem: Loss of Forest = Increased Costs
For every 10% decrease in forest
cover, 20% increase in treatment costs
“Minnesota struggles to slow
deforestation, protect water”
Star Tribune February 1, 2015
Minnesota River Mississippi Headwaters
Photo credit: Brian Peterson, Star Tribune, 2015
101. /101
The Solution: Aligned and Targeted Public Funding
Total Costs of
Nitrogen Contamination
Grey Infrastructure Natural Infrastructure
Total Costs of Prevention
Costs Discounted
Through Targeted
Public Resources
Reduced
Utility/Water User
Investment
102. PENTAIR
Innovating Across The Water Cycle
Minnesota Water Summit
September 11, 2015
PHILIP M. ROLCHIGO, PhD
Vice President of Technology
103. PENTAIR
Industry
Residential & Commercial
Agriculture
Treatment &
Distribution
Well Water
Surface Water
Sea Water
Source
Water
Treated
Water
Municipal Infrastructure
Waste Water Waste Water
Water
Reuse
103
Improving Quantity, Quality & Energy Efficiency … Critical to a Sustainable Future
Nature’s Hydrologic Water Cycle &
The Consumptive Water Cycles
Are Critically Interdependent
INNOVATING ACROSS THE WATER CYCLE
105. PENTAIR
• Innovative Rainwater Reuse System
Captures, Purifies & Reuses Rain Water for
Washing Down the Stadium
• Reduces Municipal Water Used for These
Applications by ~ 50%
• Saves ~ 2 Million Gallons of Water per Year
• Protects The Mississippi River from Storm
Water Run-Off
An Innovative, Integrated Solution Required
TARGET FIELD RAINWATER REUSE TECHNOLOGY
One of The Greenest Ball Parks in America
105
106. PENTAIR
TARGET FIELD RAINWATER REUSE TECHNOLOGY
Saving & Protecting One of Minnesota’s Most Precious Resources
ENTER PRESENTATION TITLE UNDER "INSERT>HEADER AND FOOTER" 106
UNTREATED WATER TREATED WATER
107. PENTAIR
INNOVATING FROM ‘TOP TO TAP’
A Founding Partner of The Nature Conservancy’s Nairobi Water Fund
107
Goal of Improving Quality, Quantity and
Reliability of Source Water to Nairobi
• 1,600 Farmers Along Watershed Engaged in Water
and Soil Conservation to Reduce Water Use,
Erosion, Run-off and Water Treatment Costs
Pentair Water Quality Monitoring
Improving & Proving The Impact of Superior Water Quality
110. WATER REUSE & RESOURCE RECOVERY
Moderator | Peter Cartwright, Cartwright Consulting
Panelist | Paul Helgeson, Golden Plump
Panelist | Bob Nordquist, Metropolitan Council
#MNWater
111. Industrial Waste & Pollution
Prevention Section
September 11, 2015
Bob Nordquist
Manager
112. • Administer EPA Approved Pretreatment Program
• Protect 8 Wastewater Treatment Plants & Interceptor
System
• Protect 3 Major Rivers
• Protect the Health and Safety of:
– MCES Plant Operators and Interceptor Workers
– City Collection System Workers
– General Public
• Support the MCES Mission, Vision and Values
Industrial Waste Section Purpose
113. • Twin Cities Region of 2.6 Million People
• 848 Total Active Permits
– 178,964 Employees at Permitted Companies
– 226 Significant Industrial Users (SIUs)
– 102 General Industrial Permits
– 84 Liquid Waste Haulers
– 104 Groundwater and Leachate Discharge Permits
• 108 Communities Connected to our System
IWPP Customers
114. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Strategic Visioning 2013 – 2015
Mission: Provide wastewater services and integrated
planning to ensure sustainable water quality and
water supply for the region.
115. Sewer Availability Charge - SAC
•1 SAC Unit = 274 gallons/day
•Based on the discharge of an average household
•Based on maximum expected daily flow
•2015 Rate - $2,485 / SAC Unit
•SAC Wholesaler to Municipalities
•Many Municipalities base their own SAC and WAC
charges on MCES SAC determination
11
116. Sewer Availability Charge - SAC
•Residential SAC
•Commercial SAC
• Square footage depending on use
• Number of seats for restaurants
•Industrial SAC
• Based on Expected Flows
• Baseline set on Paid SAC, or Grand-Parented Levels
• Reviewed in the Permit Renewal Process
11
117. Industrial SAC Review
• 1 Year Prior to Permit Renewal
• Compare Reported Discharge to Baseline
• Facilities Have 1 Year to Reduce Discharge Volume or
Make SAC Payment to their Local Community
• Demonstrate Reduction by 30-day Volume Study
11
118. Prohibited Waste Discharges
Waste Discharge Rule 406.00
• Waste Discharge Rule 406.17
“…Any unpolluted water, including but not limited to…”
• Non-Contact Cooling Water
• Rain/Storm/Groundwater
• Water Collected from Foundation Drains or Sumps
“…unless there is no effective and practical alternative…”
11
119. Economic Feasibility Study
• Examples
• Reuse of RO Reject Water
• Reuse of Cooling Tower Bleed
• Reuse of Environmental Testing Water
• Use of Contaminated Groundwater Remediation Water
• Elimination of One-Pass Cooling Water
11
120. G & K Services, St. Paul
• Industrial Laundry – Uniforms
• 52,000 gallons / day of Industrial Waste
• Heavy Soil Waste Stream (Washing Cycle)
• Light Soil Waste Stream (Rinsing Cycle)
12
121. G & K Services, St. Paul
• Heavy Soil Waste Stream (Washing Cycle)
• Light Colors – Fresh Water
• Dark Colors – Reused Water
• Hot Water
• Heat Reused
• 30% to 40% of Heavy Soil Waste Stream Reused
12
122. G & K Services, St. Paul
Norchem Process
• Solids Removed
• Trench Screens
• Centrifuge
• Shaker Screen
• Basket Filter
• Feed Tank
• Ceramic Membrane Channels
• Clean Water – To Reuse Tank
• Dirty Water – Reject back to Feed Tank
12
123. G & K Services, St. Paul
Norchem Cleaning Process
• Concentration Operation
• Run at End of Day
• Continuous Recirculation in Closed Loop to Remove Water
• Concentrate Tank
• Oil Separation
• Ceramic Membrane Channels Cleaning
• Sodium Hydroxide
• Phosphoric Acid
• Nitric Acid/Citric Acid
12
124.
125. Other Reuse Examples
• Metal Finishing Rinse Tanks
• First Flush from Blending Tanks
• Produce Handlers
• Water from rinsing produce
• Disinfected
• Reused to grow tomatoes in high density hydroponics
• Remainder to Fruit Trees
• Goal of Zero-Discharge to Sewer
12
126. • A public/private partnership that could be a
win-win-win for Council ($), Industry ($) and
the environment:
– Council:
• Delays need for wastewater facility
expansion
• Avoids some operating costs
– Industry
• Reduces or eliminates strength
charges paid to Council
• Return on investment
– Environment
• Reduces energy at wastewater
plants
• Possibly increases energy recovery
at industries
Industrial Pretreatment
Incentive Program - IPIP
Digester
128. Minnesota Water Technology Summit
Paul Helgeson
September, 2015
GNP Company
Water Sustainability Efforts
Maker of these premium natural chicken brands:
157. INTERNATIONAL TRADE & WATER TECHNOLOGY
Moderator | Steve Riedel, Minnesota Trade Office
Panelist | Richard Rankka, SJE – Rhombus
Panelist | Greg Harding, Aeration Industries
Panelist | Thomas D. Davis, Tonka Water
Panelist | Brian LeMon, Barr Engineering
Panelist | Dave Anderson, IEC
#MNWater
158. Panel: Water Technology and
International Trade.
September 11, 2015
Minnesota Trade Office
Minnesota Water Technology Summit
159. MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
Department of Employment & Economic Development
Why Is International So Important?
Global water challenges and the global business opportunity go
hand-in-hand
We’re already good at solving other’s problems (desal), and our
leadership gives us an edge—we just jumped from 10th to 8th in
exports
Consider our reputation in med devices, is water tech next?
All leads to healthy, successful companies and new investment
160. MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
Department of Employment & Economic Development
Governor’s International Trade Award
Criteria
Generated a significant portion of
business internationally
Demonstrated growth in
international business over at least
the past three years, with continued
likelihood of growth
Increased or maintained
employment in Minnesota through
the expansion of international trade
activity
Developed novel ideas or
approaches to doing business intern
An Honor with 30 year history
161. MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
Department of Employment & Economic Development
Global Trade Opportunities
Upcoming water roundtables—see your program; new ideas welcome!
ANEAS in Mexico—Grant Funds for eligible companies
Listening Sessions with the UMN Institute of BioTechnology Institute—most recent
on mine water; let’s do more!
162. MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
Department of Employment & Economic Development
Meet the Honorees
1. Richard Rankka, SJE-Rhombus
2. Greg Harding, Aeration Industries
3. Tom Davis, Tonka Water
4. Brian LeMon, Barr Engineering
5. Dave Anderson, Industrial & Environmental Concepts
163. MINNESOTA TRADE OFFICE
332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200
Saint Paul, MN 55101 USA
Tel (651) 259-7494 Fax (651) 296-3555
Trade Assistance Help Line: (651) 259-7498
Email: steve.riedel@state.mn.us
www.exportminnesota.com
165. Email Us
sje@sjerhombus.com
Call Us
1+218+847+1317
Visit Us
www.sjerhombus.com
• Water and Wastewater Controls Manufacturer
• Industry leader since 1975
• Seven locations across the United States and Asia
serving customers globally
• 400 employees
• 100% employee-owned
• Corporate office located in Detroit Lakes, MN
167. Email Us
sje@sjerhombus.com
Call Us
1+218+847+1317
Visit Us
www.sjerhombus.com
• Customers – Distributor, Representatives, and OEMs
• Resources – Minnesota Trade Office and US Commercial Service
• Market research
• Gold Key services
• Trade Missions
• Export Training and Networking sessions
169. Barr’s history
1966: incorporated;
trace origins to 1912
1994: acquired A.W. Mathews
of Hibbing, MN
1996: opened office in Ann Arbor, MI,
and in Duluth, MN
1998: acquired Environmental Concepts
of Jefferson City, MO
2007: acquired Service Engineering Group of
St. Paul and Kaeding & Associates of Minneapolis
2008: opened office in Bismarck, ND
2010: opened office in Calgary, Alberta
170. Barr today
• over 700 engineers, scientists,
technical specialists, support staff
• employee owned
• we integrate engineering and
environmental expertise to help
clients develop, manage, and
restore natural resources.
• Our clients’ projects take us across
the Midwest, throughout the
Americas, and around the world.
171. Barr’s services
• assessment and remediation
of contaminated sites
• environmental management
and compliance assistance
• engineering and design of
structures and processes
• water resources management and planning
172. some of our client sectors
• mining
• power
• natural-resource
management organizations
• fuels
• manufacturing