EU Business and Biodiversity Platform Workstream 2: Innovation for Biodiversity and Business Water micropollutant treatment innovations from SUEZ (constructed wetlands) and Dryden Aqua (Activated Filter Media) – ANALYSIS OF THE OPPORTUNITY October 2015 Author: Guy Duke Contributing authors: Samuel Martin (SUEZ), Howard Dryden (Dryden Aqua)
17
Embed
EU Business and Biodiversity Platformec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/work... · EU Business and Biodiversity Platform Workstream 2: Innovation for Biodiversity
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EU Business and Biodiversity Platform Workstream 2: Innovation for Biodiversity and Business
Water micropollutant treatment innovations from SUEZ (constructed wetlands) and Dryden Aqua (Activated Filter Media) – ANALYSIS OF THE OPPORTUNITY
October 2015
Author: Guy Duke
Contributing authors: Samuel Martin (SUEZ), Howard Dryden (Dryden Aqua)
2.1 Estimate of the potential market size in Europe to 2020 and beyond
(A) SUEZ
In France, while the directives do not yet require the implementation of specific treatment for
micropollutants by WWTPs, controls on outflows have been mandatory since 2011 for
WWTPs with a capacity of >100,000 population equivalents (PE) and since 2012 for those
with a capacity of >10,000 PE. In Switzerland, around 100 WWTPs are required to achieve
an average purification rate of 80% in relation to raw water for some indicator substances
(including some household chemicals, medicines and biocides).1
The EU does not require that wastewater treatment plants treat micropollutants. However,
potential market size in Europe is largely driven by the WFD2 (as amended by Directive
2013/393), which sets targets and standards in relation to chemicals in surface waters. In
particular, it requires Member States to achieve ‘good chemical status’ of surface waters by
2028, specifically to meet specific EU environmental quality standards (EQSs) in relation to
listed priority substances, and to meet nationally set EQSs for ‘river basin specific pollutants’.
Priority substances and ‘river basin specific pollutants’ are predominantly micropollutants.
While not designed to remove micropollutants, pre-treatment (removal of coarse wastes,
skimming of fat and grease), primary treatment (removal of suspended solids) and
secondary treatment (degradation of biological content) do remove some micropollutants by
adsorption onto particulate matter, biological transformation, volatilisation or abiotic
transformation. A recent review of the fate of more than 160 micropollutants in WWTPs4
found that while relatively hydrophobic pollutants (such as heavy metals, persistent organic
pollutants, brominated flame retardants, several personal care products, and easily
biodegradable pollutants such as surfactants, plastic additives, hormones, several personal
care products, some pharmaceuticals and household chemicals) are relatively efficiently
removed (>70%) by primary or secondary treatment, this does not mean that the effluent
concentrations will not potentially affect aquatic life as some of these compounds are toxic at
very low concentrations. Moreover, more hydrophilic and poor-to-moderately biodegradable
pollutants (such as several pharmaceuticals, pesticides and household chemicals) are only
poorly removed during treatments. The review recommended greater source control
combined with advanced treatments (of which ZHART is one example) to decrease the
discharge of micropollutants into surface waters.
Tertiary wastewater treatments are typically focused on removal of biological nutrients,
nitrogen and phosphorus. There remains a need, therefore, for a fourth treatment stage
capable of removing micropollutants more effectively. Constructed/artificial wetlands such as
ZHART are one solution to this need.
The potential size of the market for constructed wetlands for micropollutant treatment of
urban wastewater can be estimated in relation to the number of urban wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs). A 2003 paper gave a total of 15,000 WWTPs for France of which 80%
1 Margot, J., Rossi, L., Barry, D. and Holliger, C. (2015). A review of the fate of micropollutants in wastewater treatment plants. WIREs Water 2015. doi 10.1002/wat2/1090 2 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. 3 Directive 2013/39/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy. 4 Margot, J. et al. (2015). Op cit.
6
were under 2000 PE.5 The necessary wetland area for a WWTP of over 50,000 PE would in
most cases be too great. Assuming that all those between 2000 PE and 50,000 PE will
eventually require micropollutant treatment, there is a potential need for up to 3000
constructed wetlands in France. However, it is perhaps likely that any eventual legal
requirement to remove micropollutants will concern only larger WWTPs, reducing this
number considerably. Moreover, much of the market is likely to be taken by intensive
treatments such as ozonation or activated carbon. Overall, it seems unrealistic to target
more than around 300 WWTPs in France.
A 2013 market study found a total of 71,000 WWTPs operating in the 28 EU Member States,
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.6 Applying similar reasoning to that used for France, it may
be reasonable to target around 1000-1500 of these for constructed wetlands. Consequently,
the total market size for constructed wetlands in Europe is probably around €500 m. This
figure relates to construction only. Running and maintenance costs increase the market size.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
AFM is manufactured in Scotland. A second production facility is planned for the Netherlands
and a third in China over the next 2 to 3 years. Between Dryden Aqua Technology in
Scotland and Dryden Aqua Distribution in Switzerland, DA currently turns over in excess of
€5 million per annum. A modest projection of the potential EU market is well in excess of €50
million per annum and more than €100 million per annum globally.
2.2 Costs and availability of substitutes
(A) SUEZ
The main current technologies for the removal of micropollutants from urban wastewater are
oxidation by ozone and activated carbon adsorption.7 Both are reasonably mature
technologies and are available commercially, for example, from Degrémont, SUEZ’s experts
in water treatment, Degrémont claim up to 95% of micropollutants can be removed through
the single or combined use of its tertiary filtration treatments. Oxidation by ozone has the
disadvantage that it produces unknown reactive byproducts, some of which can be more
toxic than the original micropollutants. Some micropollutants are also resistant to breakdown
by ozone. A recent pilot study in Switzerland8 however found the two technologies effective
in removing most of the micropollutants studied with average efficiency of around 80%. The
cost of these two technologies was calculated at €0.16 - 0.18 per m3 compared with current
total wastewater treatment costs in Switzerland of €0.54 per m3, thus adding around 30% to
the costs. This translated to an additional cost of €20 per year per citizen.
Constructed wetlands are likely to be cheaper over the long-term, especially considering low
operating costs, and may be equally effective in removal of targeted micropollutants. ZHART
achieves a reduction in concentrations of >70% for more than half of the identified
micropollutants.9
A wide range of low cost adsorption materials may offer future alternatives to ozonation,
activated carbon and constructed wetlands. These include natural materials (wood, coal,
5 C. Boutin, A. Lienard. (2003). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: the French experience. 1st international seminar on the use of aquatic macrophytes for wastewater treatment in constructed wetlands, May 2003, Lisbon, Portugal. p. 437 - p. 466. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00508191/document 6 Research and Markets. (2013). Market Study Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Europe (Analyst Version). http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/djcdzb/market_study 7 Degrémont & Suez Environnement. (2014). Micropollutants: Anticipating Future Challenges. 8 Margot, J. (2015). Micropollutant removal from municipal wastewater – from conventional treatments to advanced biological processes. These no. 6505 (2015). Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne. 9 Penru, Y, Schuehmacher, J., Blin, E., Di Pietro, F., Amalric, M., Bacchi, M., Budzinski, H. and Martine Ruel, S. (2014). Integrated constructed wetlands for micropollutants removal and biodiversity promotion. Proceedings of IWA World Congress, Lisbon, 21-26 September.
ash from coal power stations, sewage sludge, etc.). However most of these have limitations
that remain to be overcome.10
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
AFM competes with a range of other technologies depending on the precise nature of the
micropollutants. In cases where AFM alone can provide a complete answer the simplicity of
the installation reduces the cost of treatment to a fraction of the capital cost of ozonation and
other sophisticated treatment technologies. In cases where ozonation might complement
AFM use there will generally be a significant reduction in ozone demand with proportionate
reduction in cost.
In comparative accredited laboratory tests none of the other glass or sand media that are
available on the market even come close to the performance of AFM. They also do not carry
a significant surface charge and cannot therefore be considered as a substitute for use in
micropollutant removal.
2.3 Contribution to tackling risks facing business (including policy risks)
(A) SUEZ
Given the WFD requirements to achieve good chemical status of surface waters and to
achieve quality standards in relation to specific priority substances and specific ‘river basin
specific pollutants’, increasing pressure may be put on businesses such as SUEZ having
responsibility for wastewater treatment. While, in the first instance, national governments
bear the risk of EU-imposed infraction penalties should good chemical status for surface
waters and quality standards for priority substances not be achieved, this risk could be
passed on to companies with responsibility for wastewater treatment, especially after
mitigation measures at the source have been taken. ZHART and other artificial/constructed
wetland solutions for micropollutant removal from urban wastewater will help businesses to
tackle this policy-driven risk.
Requirements relating to the removal of micropollutants from wastewater, and consequently
the risks to wastewater treatment businesses, are likely to expand to a greater range of
micropollutants and more stringent standards over time. The 2013 amendment of the list of
priority substances (Directive 2013/39) resulted in the addition on 12 more substances. The
EU NORMAN network has identified over 1000 ‘emerging substances’ (substances which
have been detected in the environment, but which are currently not included in routine
monitoring programmes at EU level and whose fate, behaviour and (eco)toxicological effects
are not well understood).11 The next review of priority substances, to be completed in 2017,
is likely to again expand the list. Other examples of these emerging substances are likely to
appear in future ‘river basin specific pollutant’ lists.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
As noted above in relation to SUEZ, there is a likelihood of increasingly stringent
requirements relating to the release of micropollutants in to the environment, increasing the
policy/regulatory risks for many industries, including industries producing micropollutants, the
wastewater and the drinking water industries. The use of AFM can help these industries
tackle these risks.
10 Gupta, V., Carrott, P., Ribeiro Carrott, M., and Suhas. (2009), Low-Cost Adsorbents: Growing Approach to Wastewater Treatment—a Review, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 39:10, 783-842,
DOI: 10.1080/10643380801977610 11 NORMAN network of reference laboratories, research centres and related organisations for the monitoring of emerging environmental substances. www.norman-network.eu
2.4 Financial viability of the opportunity (source of profit, risk/reward balance)
(A) SUEZ
The financial viability of the opportunity is currently difficult to assess. It will be determined by
the costs of putting in place and maintaining constructed wetlands compared with the
alternative solutions, the extent to which these costs may be passed on to clients, and the
extent to which constructed wetlands can deliver the necessary reduction in micropollutants
and thereby reduce the risk of non-compliance with relevant WFD requirements. The
financial viability of constructed wetlands increases dramatically if revenue can be captured
for other ecosystem services that these wetlands supply, including groundwater infiltration,
biodiversity and disinfection.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
The AFM innovation is already delivering a substantial return on investment for Dryden Aqua
and offers substantial growth potential. AFM also offers cost-efficiencies for businesses
applying AFM technology for water/wastewater treatment, compared with conventional
treatments. Cost savings are on many levels from energy savings to water consumption in
backwash. As an example AFM requires only 50% of the quantity of backwash water when
compared to sand. AFM lifespan is also easily double that of sand and comfortably exceeds
10 years. Over 95% of conventional water treatment uses sand; AFM replaces sand and can
double the performance of the treatment plant. AFM is therefore considered to be a
disruptive technology that has the potential to transform the industry.
2.5 Potential demand underpinning the opportunity (number of beneficiaries and values to them)
(A) SUEZ
The potential demand underpinning the use of artificial/constructed wetlands to reduce
micropollutants in wastewater is largely determined by the regulatory framework of the WFD
and its requirements and standards to be met for good chemical status of surface waters,
priority substances and ‘river basin specific pollutants’. As additional micropollutants will very
likely be added to the lists of priority substances and ‘specific river basin pollutants’ over
time, and as Member State governments are required by the EU to adopt programmes of
measures, apply the standards, and achieve good chemical status of surface waters related
to these substances, demand for cost-effective innovations to reduce micropollutants in
wastewaters is expected to increase. Looking ahead to the future, this demand is likely to
extend beyond wastewater treatment for micropollutants, to treatment for nanoparticle
pollutants.
Individual EU Member States and other European countries may also strengthen controls on
permissible micropollution levels in effluents from larger WWTPs or WWTPs discharging in
to more sensitive areas, as has been seen in France and Switzerland, thereby further
increasing demand.
There is a growing concern relating to endocrine disruptors in the environment (e.g. pressure
from the French Government,12 and a recent EC consultation on endocrine disruptors13) and
this may lead to stronger regulation in future on micropollutants in wastewater, though trade
interests may oppose this.
Potential beneficiaries of the wider use of constructed wetlands for the removal of
12 France urges ‘quick action’ on endocrine disruptors. http://www.euractiv.com/sections/science-policymaking/france-urges-quick-action-endocrine-disruptors-302726 13 European Commission. (2015). Report on Public consultation on defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the Plant Protection Product Regulation and Biocidal Products Regulation. http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/docs/2015_public_consultation_report_en.pdf
3 SCALE OF REDUCED RISKS OR POTENTIAL GAINS TO NATURE
3.1 Scale (size and trend) of the externalities involved and urgency of response required
(A) SUEZ
The salient externalities in relation to constructed wetlands are the costs, not captured by the
market, to wildlife, environmental and human health arising from the presence of
micropollutants in the environment, which might otherwise be avoided through use of
constructed wetlands for their reduction and removal. These externalities are probably
increasing as the release of micropollutants in to the environment increases. It is difficult to
put a monetary value on these costs. However, a recent relevant estimate is available for a
sub-set of these micropollutants, those known or suspected to have endocrine disrupting
(ED) properties (that is, when ingested or absorbed, they can mimic, block or otherwise alter
the activity of hormones, thereby disrupting normal growth and development.15 ED chemicals
are of high societal concern due to: (a) high incidence and increasing trends of many
endocrine-related disorders in humans; (b) observations of endocrine-related effects in
wildlife; (c) evidence of chemicals with ED properties linked to disease outcomes in lab
studies.16 The burden and disease costs of exposure to ED chemicals in the EU has recently
been estimated at €157 billion annually (1.23% of EU GDP).17
This high cost suggests there is great urgency for an effective response. Clearly, wastewater
treatment is only a part of the necessary response (reducing emissions at source being
another key part), but it is likely to be an important part, as wastewater is one of the principal
routes through which micropollutants enter the environment.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
As for SUEZ.
3.2 Feasibility of managing the biodiversity and/or ecosystem services and speed and predictability with which they respond to management
(A) SUEZ
There is a substantial and growing body of knowledge and practical experience in creating
and managing constructed/artificial wetlands, including for wastewater treatment of
micropollutants, as well as for biodiversity and/or other ecosystem services.18
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
The innovation itself does not involve management of biodiversity and/or ecosystem
services. The mechanisms of the biodiversity and ecosystem services positive response to
the use of AFM technology (and consequent reduction of micropollutant pressures) are too
complex to be calculable.
15 Schug, T., Blawas, A., Heindel, J. and Lawler, C. (2015). Elucidating the Links Between Endocrine Disruptors and Neurodevelopment. Endocrinology 156: 1941–1951. 16 Bergman, A. et al. (2013). The Impact of Endocrine Disruption: A Consensus Statement on the State of the Science Environ. Health Perspectives 121(4), A104-106. 17 Trasande, L. et al. (2015). Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in Europe. J Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 100(4), 1245-1255.
18 See, e.g. Constructed Wetland Association resources webpage on www.constructedwetland.co.uk
fragrances, antiseptics, fire retardants, pesticides, and plasticizers) found that the
constructed wetland (61%) removes emerging contaminants significantly more efficiently
than the pond (51%), presumably due to the presence of plants (Phragmites and Thypa) as
well as the higher hydraulic residence time. The overall mass removal efficiency of each
individual compound ranged from 27% to 93% (71% on average), which is comparable to
reported data in advanced treatments (photo-fenton and membrane filtration). The seasonal
average content of emerging contaminants in the river water (2488 ng L−1) next to the water
reclamation plant is found to be higher than the content in the final reclaimed water
(1490 ng L−1), suggesting that the chemical quality of the reclaimed water is better than
available surface waters.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
The impact of AFM to date on biodiversity is probably marginal and highly localised, with
most AFM use currently relating to swimming pool and aquaria treatment. However,
widespread take-up for the treatment of urban and industrial wastewater could make a
substantial contribution to reduction of priority substances in the freshwater and marine
environments (DA aims for zero chemical discharge with AFM as part of the solution).
Priority substances impact on human health and biodiversity and reduce primary productivity
in the oceans. The oceans are responsible for up to 90% of our oxygen and CO2 fixation, yet
from NASA and other reports, we have lost up to 40% oceanic primary productivity since
chemicals started to be manufactured in the 1950’s. Oceanic pH is declining as a
consequence, and in 25 to 50 years is projected to reach pH 7.9. This will cause a trophic
cascade collapse of the entire oceanic ecosystem.20 This puts at risk all fish, whales, birds,
seals and the food supply for 1.5 billion people. There is a need to address priority
substances and AFM can be a significant part of the solution. For example, the textile
19 Matamoros, V. and Salvadó, V. (2012). Evaluation of the seasonal performance of a water reclamation pond-constructed wetland system for removing emerging contaminants. Chemosphere, 86(2), 111-117.
20 See, for example: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/ocean-acidification
Barriers to development of ZHART in particular and constructed wetlands more generally as
a solution to micropollutants in wastewater include: (a) land use restrictions; (b) public
perception of wetlands; (c) ecological sensitivity to climate conditions; (d) lack of strong
regulation on micropollutants; (e) lack of recognition of constructed wetlands as wastewater
treatment processes to be included in tenders. These barriers can be addressed by enabling
actions including: stronger regulations on micro pollutants concentration in effluents; stronger
regulations on environmental impacts of waste water treatment plants; implementation of a
European program on wetland restoration; communication of the benefits of constructed
wetlands to the general public.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
The water industry is highly risk-averse. Most new technology comes out of SME companies,
yet it takes a minimum of 10 years to get a product to market with the water companies; no
SME can cope with this time scale. AFM was first made available in 1998. Despite the
proven advantages of the technology and the various forms of accreditation and certification
that have been awarded, AFM is still a long way from being used routinely by the key
stakeholders in the drinking water and wastewater treatment business. As a consequence
the water industry is some 20 years behind current technology. DA has now reached a size
and position that it can start to have some influence. For example, DA works with the
Scottish Hydro Nation Committee, the NGO Scottish Water and the Scottish Government to
understand that barriers placed on SME companies that restricts the adoption of SME
technology in Europe. The group are now providing support and some of the barriers being
removed. DA finds the developing world much quicker to adopt new technology because the
problems and issues are much more serious (if 80% of your population suffer from disease
from drinking water, then you deal with the problem). With regards to effluent, DA is working
with Empyreal Environmental and Aqua Solutions from Hong Kong, companies that are fully
aware that the economy is not sustainable unless the environment is protected. This is why
DA is now providing some very large-scale installation in China and Bangladesh.
16
5 UNDERPINNING ECONOMIC CASE FOR THE INNOVATION
5.1 Existing cultural, regulatory or market management structures, including direction of travel
(A) SUEZ
There is a strong existing culture, regulatory and market management structure for
wastewater treatment and a clear direction of travel in the treatment of pollutants in
wastewater, which over the last 100 years has progressively addressed the removal of solids
(1920s), the removal of biological carbon (1950s), the removal of ammonium, nitrates and
phosphates (1960s-90s), treatments for heavy metals (2000), and more recently increasing
attention on pathogens and micropollutants. In future, this is likely to extend further, to
nanoparticles.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
A strong environmental commitment on the part of governments and regulatory authorities
worldwide indicates that the market can only expand. In countries such as China and India
where pollution of the water table has reached crisis levels there is increasingly intense
pressure to deliver cost effective solutions to their pollution problems. In Europe the pace of
change is much slower as motivation for change is often cost driven and based on direct
measurement of the impact of pollutants rather than the accumulation of their indirect but
very substantial economic consequences.
5.2 Underpinning rationale for the specific business model linked to market failures (public goods, information failures etc.)
(A) SUEZ
The underpinning rationale for the innovation of constructed wetlands is linked to the market
failure to fully value chemically clean (micropollutant-free) water. This is linked to length of
time it takes to fully understand and communicate the risks relating to a huge and growing
range of micropollutants in water.
(B) DRYDEN AQUA
As for SUEZ, the underpinning rationale for the AFM innovation is linked to the market failure
to fully value chemically clean (micropollutant-free) water.
5.3 The economic case for actions to enable the business opportunities
(A) SUEZ
As noted above, the burden and disease costs of exposure to ED chemicals in the EU has
recently been estimated at €157 billion annually (1.23% of EU GDP). This figure alone
suggests that there is a very strong economic case to enable business opportunities to take
forward application of constructed wetlands for the removal of micropollutants from
wastewater. An additional economic case can be made from an ecosystem services
perspective. The creation of 3000 ha of new wetlands across Europe would deliver a wide
range of ecosystem services, including biological diversity, pollination services, enhanced
flood control, groundwater recharge, enhanced amenity, etc., delivering a wide range of
direct use, indirect use and non-use values.26
26 Lambert, A. (2003). Economic Valuation of Wetlands: an Important Component of Wetland Management Strategies at the River Basin Scale. http://conservationfinance.org/guide/guide/images/18_lambe.pdf
AFM technology has the potential to reduce the estimated €157 billion annual burden and
disease costs of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the environment. Hutton Research in
Dundee Scotland have confirmed that AFM can remove Oestrogen hormone, and DA can
also manufacture AFM that has high specificity to remove other endocrine disrupters from
drinking water at parts per billion concentration.27 A strong economic case can also be made
in relation to the risks posed in the marine environment, in terms of averting the potential
collapse of marine ecosystems and the reduction in marine capacity to fix atmospheric
carbon, both of which would have serious consequences for the global economy.
27 AFM works by mechanical filtration for particles larger than 40 microns and by electrostatic adsorption for the sub 40 micron particles. The activation process of AFM is by a SolGel technique that we use to shape the aluminosilicate surface structure. Surface area is increased from 3000m2 to 1,000,000m2 per metric tonnes. DA can change the molecular sieve adsorption selectivity of AFM. Research is underway to further increase surface area and molecular sieve selectivity.