Accelerating Innovation that Enhances Resource Recovery in the

Subscriber access provided by Eastern Michigan University | Bruce T. Halle Library

Feature

Accelerating Innovation that Enhances Resource Recovery in the Wastewater Sector: Advancing a National Testbed Network James R. Mihelcic, Zhiyong Jason Ren, Pablo K. Cornejo, Aaron Fisher, A.J. Simon, Seth W Snyder, Qiong Zhang, Diego Rosso, Tyler M. Huggins, William J Cooper, Jeff C Moeller, Robert J Rose, Brandi L. Schottel, and Jason Turgeon Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 23 May 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on May 24, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 31

Environmental Science & Technology

Accelerating Innovation that Enhances Resource Recovery in the Wastewater Sector: Advancing a National Testbed Network

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Abstract This article examines significant challenges and opportunities to spur innovation and

28

accelerate adoption of reliable technologies that enhance integrated resource recovery in the

29

wastewater sector through the creation of a national testbed network. The network is a virtual

30

entity that connects appropriate physical testing facilities, and other components needed for a

31

testbed network, with researchers, investors, technology providers, utilities, regulators, and other

32

stakeholders to accelerate the adoption of innovative technologies and processes that are needed

33

for the water resource recovery facility of the future. Here we summarize and extract key issues

34

and developments, to provide a strategy for the wastewater sector to accelerate a path forward

35

that leads to new sustainable water infrastructures.

James R. Mihelcic*, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of South Florida Zhiyong Jason Ren*, Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder Pablo K. Cornejo, Department of Civil Engineering, California State University, Chico Aaron Fisher, Water Environment & Reuse Foundation A.J. Simon, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Seth W. Snyder, Energy and Global Security, Argonne National Laboratory Qiong Zhang, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering University of South Florida Diego Rosso, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine Tyler M. Huggins, Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder William Cooper, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine Jeff Moeller, Water Environment & Reuse Foundation Bob Rose, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency Brandi L. Schottel, Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems Division, National Science Foundation Jason Turgeon, Energy and Climate Unit, Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 *

Co-corresponding authors

36

1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 2 of 31

37

Introduction Although water infrastructure is critical for protecting human health and the

38

environment, continuous investment in water and wastewater infrastructure is lagging

39

worldwide. For example, recent surveys estimate that $322-$600 billion is needed over the next

40

20 years in the United States alone for projects and activities to address water quality or related

41

public health problems.1,2 In addition, wastewater is increasingly seen as a valuable resource3

42

that can provide fit-for-purpose water, energy, nutrients, and carbon emission savings.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11

43 44

A large number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations recognize the social

45

economic, and environmental value of resources embedded in wastewater.12,13,14,15,16,17 For

46

example, the strategic research action plan of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

47

(EPA) Office of Research and Development lists the recovery of energy, nutrients, water, and

48

other valuable substances embedded in wastewater as a guiding objective12 and the U.S.

49

Department of Energy (DOE) has explored research opportunities in the area of waste

50

conversion technologies.15 Furthermore, the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (WE&RF)

51

lists identification of recoverable products from wastewater streams as a key knowledge gap in

52

nutrient recovery14 ,while the International Water Association (IWA) supports recovery of water,

53

energy and other valuable materials found in wastewater. 16,17 Additionally, the United Nations

54

Sustainable Development Goals (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs) have specific

55

targets related to improving water quality by increasing safe reuse of wastewater, making more

56

efficient use of natural resources, and reducing waste generation through recycling and reuse.

57 58

Upgrading today's aging wastewater treatment infrastructure to a new generation of water

59

resource recovery facilities will require the development and deployment of innovative


Page 3 of 31


60

technologies and processes. Figure 1 depicts this water resource recovery facility of the future,

61

one that is energy efficient, recovers value-added resources, and uses smart sensors, software,

62

and advanced devices to achieve desirable outcomes. These facilities are expected to reduce

63

stress on energy systems, decrease air and water pollution, build resiliency, and drive local

64

economic activity.

65

66

Historically, the wastewater sector has been risk adverse and slow to adopt new technologies. A

67

major reason for this is that management of wastewater under the existing regulatory framework

68

has a narrow (but very important) focus on treating waste to reduce risks to human health and the

69

environment . The consequences of a system failure may also lead to adverse economic impacts.

70

Overcoming this barrier to innovation and other challenges (discussed below) is thus key to

71

achieve the water resource recovery facility of the future. Accordingly, reports such as those

72

referenced above and an additional one on challenges and opportunities in the water-energy

73

nexus18 led to multiple venues to engage stakeholders on the topic of advancing resource

74

recovery in the wastewater sector in the United States in 2015 and 2016. 19,20, 21,22,23

75

Stakeholders included investors, technology vendors, state and federal regulatory officials,

76

professional organization and utility representatives, engineering design consultants, and

77

academic researchers. Early outcomes included identifying key water-energy interdependencies,

78

resource recovery as an area of opportunity to improve energy and water security, and challenges

79

and opportunities to advance innovation in resource recovery from wastewater. A later outcome

80

included discussing insights and identifying specific barriers to the development and deployment

81

of the water resource recovery facility of the future.



Page 4 of 31

82

The path to technology adoption depends on time consuming, costly, and often repetitive cycles

83

of testing and validation. Physical facilities that develop and test new technologies are currently

84

available throughout the world. However, in the U.S., they are currently managed as individual

85

entities and underutilized, they need to be linked to other activities inherent to an innovation

86

network, and individually are not seen as able to widely expand technology adoption.

87

Technology adoption could be accelerated by a national testbed network, defined here as an

88

entity that connects appropriate physical testing facilities (bench, pilot, and commercial scale

89

demonstrations) with other activities of an innovation network, to researchers, investors,

90

technology providers, utilities, regulators, educators, and other stakeholders in the water resource

91

recovery sector to accelerate the adoption of innovative technologies and processes. A successful

92

network of innovation would thus reduce the risks inherent to innovation by effectively

93

supporting the development of new technologies and spreading that risk between different

94

stakeholders. Accordingly, here we discuss key issues that inhibit or drive innovation in the

95

water sector, summarize lessons learned from similar national or global entities that seek to drive

96

technological innovation, and provide a strategy to accelerate development of a new generation

97

of more sustainable water infrastructures.

98

99

Barriers and Challenges to Innovation in the Wastewater Sector Investment in technology

100

innovation is critical to address the many dynamic changes (e.g., increases in population,

101

urbanization affluence, greenhouse gas emissions, scarcity of natural resources) influencing local

102

to global management of water and other natural resources. For example, technology innovation

103

can allow a municipality to minimize risk associated with future increases in population and/or

104

drought.

However, as mentioned above, the path of new technology adoption depends on time 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 5 of 31


105

and resource intensive cycles of testing and validation. The valley of death refers to the situation

106

where a new technology does not advance from demonstration to commercialization24 because a

107

technology developer is unable to obtain financing for scale up and manufacturing.24,25 At this

108

point, government entities who fund basic research would consider the work too applied and

109

private sources of funding and public utilities may be hesitant to invest until the technology is

110

more widely implemented.24,25 Lack of financial investment is known to be a significant

111

contributor to the valley of death in the environmental (and accordingly the water) sector.24 For

112

example, in 2015, U.S. venture capital investments in the environmental services and equipment

113

sector represented only 1.07% of total venture capital investments in private emerging

114

companies.26 In this same period, the environmental industry represented 2.83% of the U.S.

115

GDP.27 Furthermore, only seven of the 5,552 venture capital deals made in 2015 with private

116

emerging companies were reported in the environmental services and equipment sector.26

117

Sectors that receive significantly greater investment (to help overcome the valley of death)

118

include the internet, mobile/telecommunications, health care, computer hardware and software,

119

energy/utilities, and consumer products. Compared to another important environmental sector,

120

the number of U.S. patents annually filed in the clean energy sector began to increase at a much

121

greater rate compared to the clean water sector starting around 2005.28 This trend of low

122

investment in the water sector has persisted for the past twenty years, in which environmental

123

services and equipment have not placed in the top ten investment sectors in the United States

124

during this period.26

125

In the water and broader environmental sector, technical, regulatory, and managerial issues have

126

also created barriers to investment. Some of these complex and integrated issues in the water

127

and environmental sector include:24,29,30 1) an overall aversion to risk that is related to the 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 6 of 31

128

conservative nature of environmental permitting agencies, lack of test data on operational

129

performance and cost, and the presence of strict and duplicative regulatory requirements, 2)

130

technology transfer is not seen as an important job function for many employed at the utility

131

level in the water sector, 3) future environmental regulatory requirements are seen as uncertain

132

and regulations currently advance the goal of adequate treatment over goals of sustainability and

133

resource recovery, 4) the time required for technology development may not fit with a utility’s

134

schedule for capital improvement, and, 5) a failure to transfer new technologies to other utilities.

135

Specifically regarding resource recovery from wastewater, it has been observed that establishing

136

a fundamental business case that monetizes economic and noneconomic benefits is seen as a

137

priority among entities actively involved in the permitting, planning, design, and operation of a

138

future water resource recovery facility.31

139

There are also differences in perspectives, goals, and investment approaches between the public

140

and private sectors. For example, investments by the public sector are constrained by policy and

141

legal mandates. These public investments primarily support high-risk and long-term research

142

with occasional funding of shared demonstration projects that support the public good. In

143

contrast, private investments emphasize return on investment through support of robust markets

144

and market driven products (not just technology).25

145

Networking a group of physical testing facilities can advance opportunities to research, develop,

146

demonstrate, and deploy innovative technologies which are needed to create the water resource

147

recovery facility of the future. A testbed network will inform regulators and policy makers who

148

influence demand for new technologies in the wastewater sector, and increase connectivity and

149

communication between professional stakeholders and community representatives. Appropriate


Page 7 of 31


150

exchange of data, knowledge, and insights are also important attribute as sharing information

151

allows the public and private sectors to reduce the risk in technology development.25

152

153

Lessons Learned from other Testing Facilities and Networks Other testbeds and related

154

activities that can provide insight in the development of an innovation network exist globally.

155

Table 1 provides examples of important activities related to, and lessons learned from these

156

efforts, in both the water and non-water sectors that influence development of the network.

157

Existing efforts show the value placed on partnerships between government, small and larger

158

businesses, university researchers, technology providers, and facility staff engaged in operations.

159

In these examples, the funding models are based on public-private partnerships. There are

160

several international entities in the water sector (e.g., Canada, China, Israel, and South Korea)

161

that coordinate one to four facilities that provide testing, research, and development. They

162

demonstrate not only the widespread demand for water testing and validation services, but also

163

global efforts to advance innovation in the water sector. Other regional and national activities

164

show the importance of identifying market needs and developing regional and national networks

165

that match technology providers with researchers and facility operational staff.

166 167

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification program (1995-2014) tested 500 environmental

168

technologies with federal funding support, in which financial support from the public sector was

169

planned to decrease over time and the program would be privatized. Discussions with EPA

170

personnel indicated that as public funding declined, participation of small business technology

171

providers declined from 65% to 35% of the total participants. Total participation of all



172

technology providers also decreased during this period. One reason for declining participation

173

by the business community included the high cost of technology validation without public

174

support. For example, it could cost up to US $100,000 to verify a monitoring technology;

175

verifying a treatment technology was even higher because it required a larger scope of testing

176

parameters. Business participants also placed great importance on government participation,

177

which provided a "seal of approval" after validation.

Page 8 of 31

178 179

There are also examples of testbeds and networks that are working towards advancing innovation

180

for non-water technologies. In Germany, the Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and

181

Energy Technology is part of the largest European organization of applied research. Their goal

182

is to advance innovation, including environmental friendly technologies. The Fraunhofer

183

Institute provides an important model of an innovation network for reasons that include: 1) a

184

framework that includes the many required components besides a research laboratory that are

185

required for a successful network, 2) an established structure that manages research activities at

186

sixty-seven locations, 3) a record of managing conflicts that occur between stakeholders, and 4)

187

experience in managing intellectual property (IP) in a large network. Some aspects of their

188

management of IP include implementing earnings-oriented systems and coordinating licensing

189

agreements with strategic high-tech partners who can accelerate transfer of technology to a

190

commercial application. The National Advanced Spectrum and Communications Test Network

191

provides an example of how to develop a framework to screen proposals, manage test and

192

validation plans, provide technical and administrative oversight, identify stakeholders impacted

193

by spectrum sharing technology, and assist with knowledge dissemination. The U.S. National

194

Carbon Capture Center is a member of the International Test Center Network that facilitates


Page 9 of 31


195

transfer of knowledge generated from carbon capture test facilities. They thus have experience

196

in coordinating international partners if the network were to grow outside of North America.

197

The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (Manufacturing USA) was partially based

198

on lessons learned from the previously mentioned Fraunhofer Institutes. It uses a public-private

199

funding model that matches federal and industrial investment to advance technology innovation

200

in manufacturing. Other entities outside the water sector are much smaller in scope. For

201

example, Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology is a consortium that manages two research

202

locations to perform research and development to advance computer chip manufacturing. They

203

initially declined extensive government funding until merged with a public university.

204 205

Regarding testing, the framework of the European Union’s Environmental Technology

206

Verification pilot program (now under ISO14034) allows for a testing body to work with

207

technology manufacturers and verification bodies. Several water testing organizations are

208

considering adopting the standard for their operations. In this case, verification bodies must first

209

receive national accreditation and test bodies must further comply with standards for methods of

210

testing and calibration. The absence of accreditation or certification of a test body does not

211

however exclude it from performing verification testing. In this case, the verification body must

212

perform an audit on the test body’s quality management system.

213

Spurring Innovation to Support Creation of the Water Resource Recovery Facility of the

214

Future Recent engagement of a large number of diverse stakeholders, review of challenges to

215

innovation in the water sector, and evaluation of entities that support regional and/or national

216

technological innovation all together support creation of a national network that connects

217

stakeholders with appropriate physical testing facilities to assist creation of water resource 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Page 10 of 31

218

recovery facility infrastructures of the future. The structure of the network would be designed to

219

support and complement a central function of accelerating market adoption of new technologies

220

and processes. This in turn is expected to reduce investment risk in innovative and reliable

221

technology.

222

Testbed Network Stakeholders and Structure Figure 2 depicts the structure and major

223

functions that the testbed network can provide to professional stakeholders and community

224

representatives. The bottom of this figure lists core and affiliated stakeholders and their major

225

interests associated with testbed functions. Mutually beneficial partnerships between these

226

stakeholders are critical to generating innovative technologies and identifying the value

227

proposition for a new technology or process. While the objectives of different stakeholders may

228

vary based on their specific mission(s), they have many shared interests. Examples include

229

sharing risks of innovation, accelerating market entry, making connections that lead to full-scale

230

adoption of fundamental research, raising external funding, meeting regulatory requirements,

231

reducing costs, increasing reliability and resiliency, training a future workforce, and improving

232

community well-being. In addition, the roles and interests of stakeholders may change over

233

different stages of technology development. For example, university researchers, technology

234

providers, and funding agencies typically play important roles in early stages of technology

235

development. Building on a successful proof-of-concept, utilities, engineering design

236

consultants, and investors will test pilot systems to compare technological, economic, and

237

environmental benefits with existing technologies. Also, when a new technology or process is

238

demonstrated to be advantageous and scalable, third party validation, regulatory evaluation, and

239

private investment will need to occur to translate an innovation to the market.


Page 11 of 31


240

The network will also provide a central platform for stakeholders to make connections

241

within and outside the network. This enables a process where different stakeholders can share

242

knowledge and information. For example, connecting technology providers with appropriate

243

testbed facilities and utilities, investors with innovators, engineering consultants with new

244

clients, and the water sector with community members can be beneficial to all stakeholders. The

245

network can also create new and important channels for technology providers and utilities to

246

communicate with the regulatory and policy communities on existing and emerging regulations

247

and policy implications.

248

It is important for the network to not only provide a safe place for innovations to be

249

demonstrated under realistic settings, but also to serve as a source of test results to assist in

250

avoiding repetitive mistakes and reducing risks. Data management and sharing of the results are

251

thus critical components of a testbed network. Therefore, the testbed network will require

252

standards for methods, data quality, data management, and data security. There are also

253

decisions to be made to determine what data should be included, who should have access to the

254

data (public versus private data) and how to protect the data from outside manipulation. This is

255

especially important given that the network is envisioned to provide different levels of data

256

sharing and management service as a technology clearing house. Data sharing can also help

257

reduce administrative burdens for stakeholders by providing guidelines and documents for

258

generating intellectual property agreements, testing and evaluation protocols, and safety

259

procedures. However, data security and intellectual property protection will need to be carefully

260

designed and implemented but can be based on existing structures of other networks.

261



Page 12 of 31

262

The network will also provide an integrated platform for distributing information on new

263

innovations to stakeholders that include community members. It thus provides opportunities for

264

education, outreach activities, professional internships, and workforce training specific to the

265

environmental and water sectors. Furthermore, the network can provide an ideal platform to

266

organize competitions that advance innovation in the wastewater sector and other opportunities

267

to promote collaboration and technology validation, which can advance the pace of innovation.

268

The testbed facilities are central components of the network, and a national network where a

269

sufficient number of diverse facilities are available can help meet a variety of stakeholder needs.

270

For example, technology developers and regulators may want to advance a technology but

271

require information on its performance at facilities with varying size, operating climate, influent

272

characteristics, and treatment and resource recovery goals.

273 274

The testbed network is envisioned to be managed by a professional association. This entity

275

would be advised by an external board (including membership from utilities, technology

276

vendors, facility designers, and regulators) and supported by individuals with expertise in

277

administrative, legal, data management, and safety issues. Possible funding mechanisms have

278

include shared responsibility amongst the different public and private stakeholders. A business

279

plan will consider industrial, federal, state, and other supports; this broad support will be

280

essential to ensuring the network’s long-term viability.

281 282

Different levels of memberships will be considered for participation and the financial

283

responsibilities of membership will depend on the level of support the network can provide. Core

284

membership will be provided to stakeholders that have active and technical roles in research,


Page 13 of 31


285

development, deployment, and regulation (e.g., testbed facilities, technology providers, utilities,

286

regulators, and third party validators). Adjunct membership will be available for other

287

stakeholders such as policymakers, consultants, and educators.

288 289

Developing Appropriate Metrics Developing a common set of metrics (and standardized

290

evaluation and QA/QC protocols) for the network can assist efforts towards accelerating

291

innovation by: 1) providing quality reproducible and consistent data, 2) enabling transparent

292

comparison of technologies and processes through standard data collection procedures, and 3)

293

enhancing the state of knowledge guiding design, policy, and education of the next generation of

294

scientists and engineers. While the network is not expected to provide certification for

295

individual technologies, it may accredit the individual testbeds that make up the network to

296

ensure they provide defensible and unbiased data that leads to stakeholder confidence. It is

297

important that metrics are relevant, easy to understand by all stakeholders, reliable, quantifiable,

298

and based on accessible data.32

299 300

Table 2 groups examples of proposed specific metrics.22 These metrics are organized around

301

environmental, economic, and social categories. Environmental performance metrics can be

302

obtained from an inventory of material and energy inputs and outputs. These metrics can include

303

influent and effluent flow and water quality parameters, inputs of energy and chemicals,

304

resources recovered, and waste emissions (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions). Economic

305

performance metrics could include capital, operation and maintenance costs, life cycle costs, and

306

cost uncertainties. Social performance metrics would encompass risk, operational requirements

307

(e.g., degree of automation, or staffing requirements), and ability to meet regulatory standards.



Page 14 of 31

308 309

Metrics that measure how well a new technology or process minimizes physical footprint and

310

inputs of energy and chemicals, labor during operations and maintenance, and construction

311

materials are useful to utility stakeholders. Additionally, wide variations in wastewater

312

complexity, geographical location, and treatment standards may require flexibility in

313

performance assessment at different levels of technological development. For example, system

314

size can vary at different stages of technology development; therefore, caution should be made

315

during an assessment because system size not only impacts costs, but also the environmental

316

sustainability of treatment integrated with resource recovery.33

317 318

Furthermore, in efforts to normalize data so that facilities of different scale or located in different

319

locations can be compared, attention must be placed on the use of relative versus absolute values.

320

For example, whereas a large facility’s small percent improvement may amount to a large

321

reduction in energy consumption in absolute terms,34 a small facility may not want to rely on

322

such normalization as its total energy consumption may be small. Also, some technologies

323

employed at smaller facilities (e.g., waste stabilization ponds) may already avoid use of carbon

324

intensive mechanical energy inputs, while at the same time contribute to biogenic greenhouse gas

325

emissions.35 In addition, the dynamics of power demand peaks may place smaller facilities in

326

higher tiers of service charges; therefore, considering energy cost may not be an appropriate

327

metric. Using greenhouse gas output could be a concern because metrics that consider kg

328

CO2(eq) emitted per m3 of water processed may penalize a technology tested in a geographical

329

location with a more carbon intensive energy provider.

330


Page 15 of 31


331

Current Status of the National Testbed Network As of 2017, approximately seventy North

332

American facilities (from bench to full scale) have already registered an interest in piloting new

333

technologies in the proposed network (http://www.werf.org/lift/LIFT_Test_Bed_Network.aspx).

334

Some activities already in place include an online platform for vendors to introduce innovative

335

technologies to a wider group of stakeholders and discuss industry needs. Furthermore, a

336

knowledge sharing scholarship program is in place to support travel for utility personnel to other

337

facilities that operate an innovation(s) of interest.

338 339

Efforts to further define the functions of the network are underway in five areas: 1) Developing

340

pilot guidance: The network should develop and incorporate appropriate quality procedures,

341

protocols, and systems for facility testing processes, leveraging appropriate existing standards

342

and methods (e.g., ISO 14034). 2) Facilitating Communications: The network should help

343

connect researchers, technology providers, and other stakeholders with appropriate test facilities.

344

3) Assessing testbed facilities and their pilot data: The network should ensure that data

345

developed at a testbed facility is high-quality, credible, reliable, and transferable. 4) Creating a

346

data library to store and disseminate pilot data: The network should provide a national

347

clearinghouse for new water technology performance data and information for use by all

348

stakeholders. 5) Streamlining regulatory acceptance. An essential element is that the network is

349

streamlining regulatory acceptance of new technologies and processes through integration and

350

involvement of local, state, tribal, and federal officials through network activities. Efforts are

351

also underway (via surveys) to track the deployment of innovative resource recovery

352

technologies and measure outcomes related to cost savings, reductions in energy usage and

353

amount of resources recovered, and improvements in health and water quality. Dissemination of



354

case studies is also planned to provide a qualitative perspective that documents what role the

355

network plays in enabling innovation.

Page 16 of 31

356 357 358

Conclusion The water resource recovery facility of the future will continue to protect human

359

health and the environment, become more efficient with inputs of energy and chemicals, and

360

may also be a net producer of energy. It will also produce fit-for-purpose water and a slate of

361

products that improve food security and lead to production of industrial chemicals. Smart

362

systems that require new sensors and data processing and networking technologies will be

363

integrated with this effort. Transforming existing aging wastewater infrastructure from a

364

paradigm that emphasizes treatment to one that equally values resource recovery will require big

365

ideas and actions. These big ideas and actions will need be translated over appropriate

366

timeframes into innovative technologies and processes that can be deployed over a wide range of

367

geographical locations and plant sizes. For example, innovative technologies such as shortcut

368

nitrogen removal and fit-for-purpose water reuse are expected to be more widely implemented

369

over the next five to ten years, while microbial electrochemical cells are expected to have a

370

longer implementation schedule. Greater deployment of heat recovery systems and anaerobic

371

membrane bioreactors may occur over both near- and long-term time periods. Ultimately, a

372

national network that connects appropriate physical testing facilities, stakeholders, and other

373

activities of an innovation network will accelerate the development and adoption of the

374

innovative technologies and processes that are required for the water resource recovery facility

375

of the future.

376


Page 17 of 31


377

Acknowledgements Part of this work was supported by the National Science Foundation under

378

Grant Nos. CBET 1622770 and 1624219. Other support was provided by DOE, EPA, and

379

WE&RF. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

380

material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, DOE, EPA, or

381

WE&RF. We acknowledge the input of Mark Philbrick, Molly Mayo, and numerous

382

stakeholders that participated in workshops and other venues. Readers can obtain updates and

383

information on the testbed network, and learn how to participate in its development by visiting

384

www.werf.org/testbednetwork.

385 386

References

387 388

1. Copeland, C.; Tiemann, M. Water Infrastructure Needs and Investment: Review and

389

Analysis of Key Issues. CRS Publication Number 7-5700; United States Government

390

Publishing Office: Washington, D.C., 2010.

391 392 393

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/waterfinancecenter.cfm. 3. Guest, J. S.; Skerlos, S. J.; Barnard, J. L.; Beck, M. B.; Daigger, G. T.; Hilger, H.;

394

Jackson, S. J.; Karvazy, K.; Kelly, L.; Macpherson, L.; Mihelcic, J. R.; Pramanik, A.;

395

Raskin, L.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.; Yeh, D.; Love, N. G. A New Planning and Design

396

Paradigm to Achieve Sustainable Resource Recovery from Wastewater. Environ. Sci.

397

Technol. 2009, 43 (16), 6126-6130.

398 399

4. Ren, Z.J.; Umble, A.K. Water Treatment: Recover Wastewater Resources Locally. Nature 2016, 529 (25).



400 401 402 403 404 405 406

5. Asano, T., Levin, A.D. Wastewater Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse: Past, Present, and Future. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33(10-11), 1-14. 6. Mihelcic, J. R.; Fry, L. M.; Shaw, R. Global Potential of Phosphorus Recovery from Human Urine and Feces. Chemosphere 2011, 84 (6), 832–839. 7. Nouri, J.; Naddafi, K.; Nabizadeh, R.; Jafarinia, M. Energy Recovery from Wastewater Treatment Plant. Asian J. Water, Environ. Pol. 2007, 4 (1), 145-149. 8. Curtis, T. P. Low-Energy Wastewater Treatment: Strategies and Technologies, in

407

Environmental Microbiology, Second Edition; Mitchell, R., Gu, J. D., Eds.; John Wiley

408

& Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, 2010.

409 410

Page 18 of 31

9. McCarty, P.L.; Bae, J.; Kim, J. Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a Net Energy Producer – Can this be Achieved? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (17), 7100-7106.

411

10. Mo, W.; Zhang, Q. Energy–Nutrients–Water Nexus: Integrated Resource Recovery in

412

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 127, 255-267.

413

11. Lu, L.; Huang, Z.; Rau, G.; Ren, Z.J. Microbial Electrolytic Carbon Capture for Carbon

414

Negative and Energy Positive Wastewater Treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49

415

(13), 8193-8201.

416

12. Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Strategic Research Action Plan 2016-2019, U.S.

417

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 601/K-15/004, November, 2015;

418

https://www.epa.gov/research/safe-and-sustainable-water-resources-strategic-research-

419

action-plan-2016-2019

420

13. Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy and Water Systems (INFEWS) Program

421

Solicitation. NSF 16-524; https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16524/nsf16524.htm.


Page 19 of 31

422 423 424


14. Water Environment Research Foundation (WE&RF) Nutrient Recovery State of the Knowledge. www.werf.org/c/2011Challenges/Nutrient_Recovery.aspx 15. Hydrogen, Hydrocarbons, and Bioproduct Precursors from Wastewaters Workshop.

425

United States Department of Energy; Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

426

Bioenergy Technologies Office / Fuel Cell Technologies Office: Washington, DC, 2016;

427

http://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-hydrocarbons-and-bioproduct-precursors-

428

wastewaters-workshop.

429

16. State of the Art Compendium Report on Resource Recovery from Water. The

430

International Water Association; London, UK, 2015; http://www.iwa-

431

network.org/publications/state-of-the-art-compendium-report-on-resource-recovery-

432

from-water/

433 434 435

17. The Principles of Water Wise Cities. International Water Association: London, U.K., 2016. http://www.iwa-network.org/projects/water-wise-cities/ 18. The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. U.S. Department of Energy,

436

DOE/EPSA-0002, June 2014. https://www.energy.gov/under-secretary-science-and-

437

energy/downloads/water-energy-nexus-challenges-and-opportunities

438

19. Energy-Positive Water Resource Recovery Workshop Report. National Science

439

Foundation, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

440

Arlington, VA, 2016;

441

http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/01/f28/epwrr_workshop_report.pdf.

442

20. Waste-to-Energy Workshop Summary. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy

443

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office: Arlington, VA, 2015;

444

http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/beto_wte_workshop_report.pdf.



445

21. State of Knowledge and Workshop Report: Intensification of Resource Recovery (IR²)

446

Forum. Water Environment & Reuse Foundation: Alexandria, VA, 2015;

447

http://www.werf.org/lift/IR2.aspx

448

Page 20 of 31

22. Workshop for Developing Evaluation Metrics to Advance a National Water Resource

449

Recovery Facility Test Bed Network. National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of

450

Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water

451

Environment and Reuse Foundation: Arlington, VA, 2016.

452

http://www.werf.org/lift/docs/EPWRR_Metrics_Workshop/EPWRR_Metrics_Workshop.

453

aspx

454

23. Workshop for Developing the Structure of a National Energy Positive Water Resource

455

Recovery Facility Test Bed Network. National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of

456

Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water

457

Environment and Reuse Foundation: Denver, CO 2016.

458

http://www.werf.org/lift/docs/EPWRR_Structure_Workshop/EPWRR_Structure_Worksh

459

op.aspx

460

24. Frank, C.; Sink, C.; Mynatt, L.; Rogers, R.; Rappazzo, A. Surviving the "Valley of

461

Death": A Comparative Analysis. Technology Transfer, spring/summer, 1996, 61-69.

462

25. Murphy, L.M.; Edwards, P.L. Bridging the Valley of Death: Transitioning from Public to

463 464 465 466 467

Private Sector Financing. 2003, NREL/MP-720-34036. 26. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, PwC | CB Insights MoneyTree™ Report Q4 and Full-Year 2016. 2017. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/moneytree.html 27. Environmental Industry Overview 2016, Environmental Business Journal, 2016, 29 (9&10).


Page 21 of 31

468


28. Ajami, N.K.; Thompson Jr., B.H.; Victor, D.G. Path to Water Innovation, 2014,

469

Discussion Paper 2014-06, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

470

https://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/path_to_water_innovation_thompson_p

471

aper_final.pdf

472 473 474 475 476

29. Greiner, M.A.; Franza, R.M. Barriers and Bridges for Successful Environmental Technology Transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 2003, 28, 167–177. 30. Environmental Law Institute, Barriers to Environmental Technology Innovation and Use. 1998, ELI Project #960800. 31. Coats, E.R.; Wilson, P.I. Towards Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resources

477

Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors. Environ. Sci. Technol.

478

2017, 51 (8), 4158-4164.

479

32. Guidance on Developing Safety Performance Indicators Related to Chemical Accident

480

Prevention, Preparedness and Response. Environment Directorate, Organisation for

481

Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD: Paris, France, 2008.

482

33. Cornejo, P.K.; Zhang, Q.; Mihelcic, J.R. How Does Scale of Implementation Impact the

483

Environmental Sustainability of Wastewater Treatment Integrated with Resource

484

Recovery? Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50 (13), 6680-6689.

485

34. Rosso, D.; Stenstrom, M.K. Comparative Economic Analysis of the Impacts of Mean

486

Cell Retention Time and Denitrification on Aeration Systems. Wat. Res. 2005, 39 (16),

487

3773-3780.

488 489

35. Cornejo, P.; Q. Zhang; Mihelcic, J.R. Quantifying Benefits of Resource Recovery from Sanitation Provision in a Developing World Setting. J. Environ. Manage. 2013 131, 7-15.

490



Page 22 of 31

491 492 493 494

Biographies

495

South Florida (Tampa) where he also directs the Center for Reinventing Aging Infrastructure for

496

Nutrient Management. His research group develops and assesses technologies and practices for

497

sustainable water management that includes global provision of water, sanitation, and hygiene

498

(WaSH) in low-income countries.

Dr. James Mihelcic is a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of

499 500

Dr. Zhiyong Jason Ren is an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University

501

of Colorado Boulder. His research group analyzes reaction mechanisms and develops

502

technologies for energy and resource recovery during wastewater treatment, remediation, and

503

water desalination processes.

504

Dr. Pablo K. Cornejo is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at

505

California State University, Chico. His research focuses on sustainability assessment and

506

decision support for water systems, wastewater systems and resource recovery strategies.

507

Dr. Aaron Fisher is the Technology and Innovation Manager for the LIFT Program at the Water

508

Environment & Reuse Foundation. His position entails scouting and evaluating innovative water

509

technologies on behalf of the Foundation’s membership, including utilities and industrial

510

facilities.

511 512

A.J. Simon is the Group Leader for Energy in the Atmosphere Earth and Energy Division at

513

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. His research focuses on systems analysis and

514

technology assessment of secure and clean energy and water solutions. 22 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 23 of 31


515 516

Dr. Seth W. Snyder leads the water research program at Argonne National Laboratory. His

517

research has focused on low-energy water treatment technologies and processes. He has joint

518

appointments at Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, and the non-profit, Current.

519 520

Dr. Qiong (Jane) Zhang is an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at University of

521

South Florida (Tampa). Her research focuses on sustainability assessment and system modeling

522

of water systems, wastewater-based resource recovery systems, and the water-energy nexus.

523

524

Dr. Diego Rosso is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the

525

University of California, Irvine where he is also Director of the Water-Energy Nexus Center. His

526

research investigates the water-energy-carbon nexus and water reclamation and reuse processes.

527

Dr. Tyler Huggins is currently a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory. His research

528

involves novel and sustainable ways of resource recovery during wastewater treatment, including

529

concurrent materials and energy production.

530 531

Dr. William J. Cooper is Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of California,

532

Irvine. His research focus is on the design and optimization of wetlands for the sustainable

533

removal of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals of emerging concern.

534 535

Jeff Moeller is the Director of Water Technologies at the Water Environment & Reuse

536

Foundation. He manages the LIFT program and focuses on developing collaborative projects,



537

resources, and networks to accelerate innovation and new technology into practice in the water

538

industry.

Page 24 of 31

539 540

Bob Rose is a policy analyst with U.S. EPA’s Office of Water. His focus includes the

541

incorporation of market-based approaches to water quality protection, and energy-water

542

interdependencies.

543 544

Dr. Brandi L. Schottel is the Science Analyst for the Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy,

545

and Water Initiative (INFEWS) Program and the Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and

546

Transport Systems Division at the National Science Foundation. Her position includes

547

coordinating special INFEWS activities for NSF, including interagency efforts that fall under the

548

umbrella of INFEWS and environmental engineering.

549 550

Jason Turgeon is an Environmental Protection Specialist in the Energy and Climate Unit at EPA

551

Region 1 in Boston, MA. His interests focus on developing a 21st century sustainable water

552

infrastructure that integrates the management and reuse of the water, nutrient, and energy

553

resources found in what we now consider wastewater.

554 555


Page 25 of 31

556 557


Table 1. Key Activities and Insights from Existing Test Facilities and Networks in Water and Other Industrial Sectors Sector

Entity (web site)

Country

Purpose

Key Activities and Insights

Environm ent

EPA’s Environmental Technology Verification program (https://archive.epa.gov/ nrmrl/archiveetv/web/html/index.htm l)

U.S.

A public-private partnership between U.S. EPA and nonprofit testing and evaluation organizations that verified performance of innovative technologies (1995-2014)

Water

Current (www.currentwater.org)

U.S. (regional)

A public-private research consortium to accelerate innovation in the Chicago region

Water

New England Water Innovation Network (http://www.newenglan d-win.org/)

U.S. (regional)

Supports regional technological testing to accelerate innovation in the water sector

Water

Brackish Groundwater National Desalination Research Facility (https://www.usbr.gov/r esearch/bgndrf/)

U.S.

Water

Southern Ontario Water Consortium (https://sowc.ca/),

Canada, China, Israel, South Korea

A testbed facility supported by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to advance treatment technologies for brackish water Support development and testing of new technologies and demonstrations, especially with connections formed between academic researchers, private companies, and government utilities.

-Determined validation costs of different technologies (e.g., monitoring versus treatment) -Participants placed high importance on government "seal of approval" after validation -Effort led to new ISO 14034 standard - As public funding declined, participation of small business technology providers declined from 65% to 35% of the total participants -Regional focus enables researchers to address critical needs in utilities and industry -Current demonstration includes both research laboratories and utility sites -Current demonstration is negotiating access to industrial users to expand user portfolio -Integrates researchers with business knowledge and access to regional networks -Events related to innovation highlight stakeholder demand (including water technology startups) for networking opportunities -Even with no cost for facility use, testbed is not used to full capacity -Facilities should consider market needs before they are launched

Nanjing International Water Hub (http://www.sembcorp.c om/niwh/) WaTech® Center for Initiatives and Research (http://www.mekorot.co .il/)

Environm

Center for Advanced Technology of Wastewater Treatment and Reuse (http://www.bwtoptech. or.kr/ Fraunhofer Institute for

Germany

Performs research with

-Demonstrates demand for water testing and validation services - Examples of public and private partnerships that support facilities that use water testing and validation to support technology development and translation into practice - Demonstrates global interest in advancing innovation and national economies in the water sector

- Provides example of National Innovation



ental, Manufa cturing, Energy, Softwar e, Teleco mmuni cations, and other Sectors

Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology (https://www.fraunhofer .de/en/institutes.html)

practical application and Network that is not network of testbeds to helps to bridge gap manage research activities of large number between university and of research entities industry research. - Demonstrates methods to improved communication between fundamental Largest European organization of applied researchers and industry partners research with sixty- 70% of budget is from industry and specific seven institutes in government projects. Remaining 30% is Germany from federal and state government -Established process to manage intellectual property (IP) rights that results in a high level of inventions, new patent applications, and total number of patents

Energy

U.S. National Carbon U.S. & Capture Center Internati (https://www.nationalca onal rboncapturecenter.com/)

Wireless technol ogies

National Advanced Spectrum and Communications Test Network (https://www.nist.gov/ct l/nasctn)

U.S.

Manufact uring

National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (Manufacturing USA) https://www.manufactur ingusa.com/) Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology (www.sematech.org)

U.S.

Semicond uctor

Page 26 of 31

U.S.

Houses a test facility to assess, demonstrate, and advance emerging carbon capture technologies Joint effort supported by the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Commerce to organize a network of test facilities to accelerate deployment of new wireless technologies Public-private funding model that matches federal and industrial investment to advance technology innovation in manufacturing Manages two research locations to perform research and development to advance computer chip manufacturing

-Part of International Test Center Network that facilitates transfer of knowledge from carbon capture test facilities in the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom -Facilitates member access to test facilities -Developed framework to screen proposals, identify stakeholders impacted by spectrum sharing technology, manage test and validation plans, provide technical and administrative oversight, and assist with knowledge dissemination

- Example of National Innovation Network - Public-private funding model is useful

-Initially declined extensive government funding but changed their financial model after merging with a public university

558 559


Page 27 of 31

560


Table 2. Examples of proposed metrics for a national testbed.* Category Example Metrics (Unit or Approach to Measure) Environmental Influent and Effluent Quality: Flow (m3/day); COD, BOD5 (mg/L); N, P, Performance (mg/L); TSS, VSS (mg/L); temperature (oC) Process Inputs: Energy (kWh/day); chemicals (kg/day); infrastructure (no. of tanks, tank dimensions) Products: Water reclaimed (m3/day); nutrients recovered (kg/day); energy recovered (kWh/day); biosolids produced (kg/day); other products recovered (kg/day) Wastes and Emissions: GHG emissions (kg CO2eq/day) Economic Operational and Maintenance Costs: O&M costs ($/year); other costs Performance (labor, training, remote control) ($/year); avoided costs from recovered resources ($ avoided/year) Infrastructure Costs: Capital cost ($); land footprint costs (m2, $/m2) Life Cycle Cost: Infrastructure and O&M costs (net present worth) Cost Uncertainty: Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis (standard deviation) Social Risks: Performance under variability (performance over 24-hour cycles Performance (diurnal); discrete vs. composite; seasonal (e.g., dry and wet weather conditions)); scalability (applicable levels of implementation); resilience (time to startup, time to recover); ease of integration in existing infrastructure; level of technology development (e.g., pilot-scale vs. full scale) Operational Requirements: Degree of automation (manual to full automation); operational availability (actual running time vs. down time); staffing requirements (hours/week); training and education requirements (hours/year); skill level of operators (certifications needed) Regulations: Technology performance (frequency of non-compliance); statistics-based effluent concentrations; emerging contaminant removal; toxicity assays; ability to meet permit specifications or reuse requirements

561

*metrics and corresponding units, or the way to measure metrics, are written in parenthesis

562 563



564

Figure 1. The water resource recovery facility of the future.19

565

Figure 2. Structure, functions, and stakeholders of a national testbed network that enhances

566

resource recovery in the wastewater sector

Page 28 of 31

567


Page 29 of 31


Figure 1. The water resource recovery facility of the future. 190x215mm (300 x 300 DPI)

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


Figure 2. Structure, functions, and stakeholders of the national testbed network that enhances resource recovery in the wastewater sector 193x181mm (300 x 300 DPI)


Page 30 of 31

Page 31 of 31



Accelerating Innovation that Enhances Resource Recovery in the

Recommend Documents