ECS-67100
Title of Project: Afvalwater - A
Sustainable Approach to Wastewater Treatment in the Netherlands
Notation: The
project is self-contained and not associated with WUR. I am working on this
project alone and have already done an initial pitch/proposal. In this
assignment I will be discussing both the initial proposal and edits that have
been made while working with the facilities to start the project.
1.
Define what is the overall key sustainability
problem that your project is attempting to tackle. Explain what is the change
(or intervention, or solution) your project is attempting to bring in, in order
to address the sustainability problem you discussed. Present the key
question(s) you are addressing through your project. Indicate at which scale
(e.g. local, global, etc.) your project is taking place.
a.
The Waterschapsbedrij and WLM Limburg have
identified the need to make their waste treatment facilities more sustainable
and environmentally friendly in the area of Afvalwater (Wastewater). After
speaking to the facilities, the primary concerns this project hopes to address
are the Heavy Metals and Pharmacological Chemical Residuals within the
wastewater. That is, how to minimize them to match or be lower than the Dutch
Environmental Regulations require for release back into the ground water
system. We are working at a local scale (within the municipality of Limburg);
however, the goal is that this could be implemented on a national scale once
proven efficient and effective.
b.
To do this, the project contains the following
tiers of action:
i.
Filtration unit or chemical additive (Ferric
Hydroxide) on site at primary waste treatment facility to remove the majority
of heavy metals through precipitation or chemical binding at the filer.
ii.
The initial proposal included a biogas digester
and dryer as the second step. This is already part of the facility design;
however, the current unit is out of date and does not work as efficiently as it
could (only 60% efficiency). The second step recommendation has been edited to
upgrade the current unit and create a clean-bio gas exchange unit to filter
carbon from the methane stream via cold filters for resale to the national
electric grid. Biosolids, once dried, have been proposed to be used for land
mitigation by the municipalities after chemical testing is complete.
iii.
The third step is constructed wetlands for
natural filtration into the ground water system as well as a possible tertiary
energy stream from planting, harvesting, and creating pellets from Cattail
plants (Typha). The cattails are carbon neutral plants (what they take in of
carbon during their lives is released when harvested and burned) that could be
used in pellet stoves instead of wood. The ash from the cattails could then be
applied as a fertilizer as it is high in Potassium.
2.
Discuss upon which domain(s) is your project
attempting to bring in change (make for example a circle or a cloud covering
the domain(s)). Explain in which way your project could bring in sustainability
changes within the domains you have selected.
a.
The primary domains this project hopes to focus
on are environment/ecology and economy/business. While there is some overlap
with culture/mindsets, the main aspect is to minimize an environment hazard
(heavy metals) while maintaining or increasing profitability of the business.
b.
By minimizing the heavy metals, the facility is
able to sell or dispose of the waste water within the Netherlands, instead of
their current practice of shipping it out of the country. This will save money,
time, effort, paperwork, and inspections, but it shall also allow the facility
to mitigate local land and water issues as well as turn a profit or minimize
their current electrical costs by using the gas on-site. By allowing the
facility to create their own energy, they reduce their emissions, external
resource dependence, and have the potential to make a profit by supplying
energy back to the national grid in the form of energy or natural gas. In the
large scheme of things, if this was implemented nationally, the government
would not need to frack for natural gas which will minimize sinkholes and
flooding concerns in the cities.
3.
Position in the figure (for example with a
circle or a cloud) the sustainability change challenge your project is
addressing. Explain your answer (why you have positioned it there). Describe
what type of intervention is needed through your project in order to contribute
to change, when considering the position of your change challenge.
a.
b.
The project is complex, but not so difficult it
cannot be implemented. The benefit of this project is that it can be scaled,
depending on the facility needs and financial resources. The primary goal is
the minimization of metals and chemicals. To this end, the first step is the
most crucial and is currently being implemented/tested. There have been several
reports that adding in a ferric hydroxide chemical or using a filtration system
(semi-permeable membrane) with that chemical embedded within it will minimize
chemical build-up within the waste water. This is being tested in the Limburg
Waste Treatment facility for validity and percentages. If this works the way
the various companies and papers say, then it will be the primary step
implemented within their municipality.
c.
The other aspects of the project can be left off
or changed depending on needs. If the chemical takes care of everything, then
it is a simple and cost-effective fix. If a second round of removal needs to
occur, the company can either upgrade their biogas digester, or use filtration
ponds in a wetland design as mentioned above. A smaller scale proposal has been
offered as a test on the efficiency of the cattail pellets. Currently the
municipality removes cattails during the summer and fall months and puts these
in landfills. The proposal requests the municipality to instead drop them off
with the facility for them to grind into pellets and use at lift/pump stations
in pellet burning generators to see if they provide enough energy to run those
facilities and what the labor cost is to manage the facilities entails.
d.
The interaction between departments within the
WML and the interaction within the WML and the Municipality are rather complex
as well. For this project, the first aspect is simply to get everyone to agree
that the project is necessary, and then to agree on the measures proposed.
Currently, the Innovation Technology Team is leading the project and there is
consensus that the project is necessary and viable, which allows us to move
into the initial testing phase, however, the upper management is very much
interested in the newest technology that other plants have in place, even if
they are not needed or useful on their current site. This is one of the aspects
we are attempting to counter in our meetings and communications. Another issue
is the interaction between the municipality and the facility, because the
municipality doesn’t wish to do extra work, so we are trying to find ways to
make them more amenable to cooperating.
4.
Introduce the concept of sustainability
transitions, by explaining what this means in conceptual general terms. Zoom
into your own project, and define what it is the specific sustainability
transition goal of your project. Explain whether your project concerns a
transition at a niche level or a regime level, in the attempt to achieve that
goal you just indicated.
a.
Sustainability transitions may fall under
several categories, but the general view is that they must consist of actors,
institutions, and material artifacts and knowledge. The interaction of these
systems and their co-dependence upon each other, is the key when dealing with
specific types of transitions. For my project, I focus on the socio-technical
transition which is described as a “set of processes that lead to a fundamental
shift in socio-technical systems. Socio-technical transitions differ from
technological transitions in that they include changes in user practices and
institutional structures, in addition to the technological dimension. In
addition, socio-technical transitions typically encompass a series of
complementary technological and non-technical innovations.” (Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012) . Another words, the
implementation of the technology (our cattail pellets for example) must also be
complementing a shift in the way the company and society interact. In this
example, the municipality would harvest the cattails from retention ponds (like
currently), drop them at the waste treatment facility, who then processes it
into pellets, which are then used at pump stations. The ash is then collected
and given/sold to the municipality or farmers as fertilizer.
b.
Sustainability transitions must also manage
guidance and governance issues/concerns. In water supply and sanitation
systems, these concerns make come in the form of “problems related to water
scarcity, insufficient access in low income countries, extreme events
(flooding, earthquakes) and micro-pollutants (Gleick, 2003)” (Markard,
Raven, & Truffer, 2012) . The
micro-pollutants, extreme events, and water scarcity issues are the primary
focus for this particular project and are why it, and other transition
projects, are typically long-term and involve changes in management and
interaction between these various actors; in this case, at a regime level
(municipality).
5.
Given the sustainability transition goal of your
project you just defined, position in the figure (for example with a circle or
a cloud) the transition/development phase (i.e. brewing phase, take off,
acceleration, or stabilization) of your project. Identify and describe at least
three key specific concrete indicators of system change (vertical axis) that
can indicate that your project is moving forward towards the next phase (or
phases).
a.
b.
This project is now in the mid-take-off phase.
The initial proposal has been accepted, meetings and plans with the agencies
have taken place, and the initial test phase is now underway. The testing of
the Ferric Hydroxide chemical additive and the filtration unit, as well as the
combination of these two systems, first needs to be completed at the lab level.
The levels of heavy metals pre and post additive and filter need to be checked
under standard, substandard, and overflow water levels to see how the chemical
and filter hold up under different water pressure systems. These levels need to
be compared to Dutch and EU guidelines and only if significant reduction is
found (60% or greater) will on-site testing will begin at the main facility
where these same systems (filter + chemical) will be tested separately and
together to see if the minimization of metals is significant (>60%
reduction).
6.
Position in the figure (for example with a
circle or a cloud) your project/change challenge. Motivate your answer.
a.
b.
The individual technological aspects of this
project are not new and while one could say that each step is able to be
implemented by itself (which they are), the goal of the project is to instead
create an awareness of the interconnectedness of different ecologically
sustainable technologies and the create a culture where cross-discipline work
is fostered. This is why I placed the mark within the transition category, but
still very close to the border. Within the societal sphere, we are still very
incremental. At this point, the project is looking at minimal societal
interaction. There is hope for work with the municipality, but the main aspects
are the change the way the Waste treatment facility works first and then expand
into the municipality and zoning board.
7.
Select one project that, for you, is a
best-practice within the field of sustainability transitions and social
change. Introduce briefly what the project is about, what are its
objectives, and what are possible results of the project so far (if known).
Explain on which sustainability domain that project is focused on. Explain
what, according to you, are two crucial characteristics of the project that
makes it a sustainability transitions best-practice (you can make use of
the previous models if you like).
a.
One of the projects that I used for my own
project is run by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD) called Cattail Biomass in Watershed-Based Bioeconomy: Commercial-scale
harvesting and processing for nutrient capture. biocarbon and high-value
bioproducts, out of Canada. The general idea in this project is to harvest
cattails and turn them into a renewable energy source, specifically by creating
pellets out of the cattails that can be used in pellet burning generators as an
alternative to wood. A side benefit is that cattails take up carbon and give
off ash high in potassium and phosphorus which can then be used in agricultural
settings. The cattails are harvested from Lake Winnipeg (Canada) as part of the
project and allowed for the continual ‘cleaning’ of the wetland.
b.
The results, to date, show that cattails
harvested and turned into pellets give off more heat energy than wood in stoves
and that the biochar created was of significantly higher levels of cation
exchange capacity and potassium than similar trials with wheat straw biochar.
c.
This particular project is complex, with a focus
on environment and ecology although there is some benefit for the business
model as well. This is because they were not looking at the financial implications,
simply at a away to reduce contaminants in runoff. It has, if the last year,
been expanded into a more economic aspect to see what products could be made
from this resource, which is why I suggest that in future papers one might see
more of a financial overview.
d.
I list this project as a best-practice because
it not only analyzes the chemical aspects of cattails for sequestration and
bioproducts, but it has also created a new marketplace for those products,
created a path to certification, created an integration with Surface Water
Management, Commercial Markets, and looked at possible uses as a sustainable
feedstock for animals. This integration between many scales, organizations, and
creation of pathways for others to follow as well as assessments for mechanical
usage shows a well developed, thought-out project which is taking into account
the needs and wishes of various stakeholders at all levels, as well as looking
at the societal and environmental factors.
8.
How is
your project addressing, or not addressing, each of those four RRI dimensions?
Explain, in a concrete way, how each dimension is (planned to be) taken into
consideration, or not, within your project.
a.
b. Anticipation
“involves systematic thinking aimed at increasing resilience, while revealing
new opportunities for innovation and the shaping of agendas for socially robust
risk research” and “requires understanding of the dynamics of promising that
shape technological futures” (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013) . In this project,
because we are looking at research others have carried out over several years
and in their own spheres of public/governmental/scientific inquiries, we are
now looking at seeing how these items affect each other when put in various
combinations. For example, the chemical treatment + the filter, not just the
chemical or the filter. Or, more aptly, the combination of the chemical + a
constructed wetlands environment. Each phase will be managed slightly
different, hopefully with the anticipatory questions being asked by the right
people. Current inquiries into management levels and zoning ordinances are
being looked into as are the feasibility of the cattail project onsite in
Roermond. Our initial testing for the cattail portion will be to first use
material currently being removed from retention ponds and see if we can
duplicate the Canadian’s achievements, then an environmental assessment project
will be put into place to see if creating additional wetlands that would be
managed onsite in Roermond are environmentally sound.
c. Reflexivity
and Inclusion is where our creation of a review board made up of various
stakeholders should come into play. A review board should oversee the
“activities, commitments and assumptions” (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013) of the project and
see how the project may influence internal and external dialogue. At this point
a board has not been created, but as the project moves forward beyond the
jurisdictions of the treatment facility itself, it would be a good idea to
create one with members of the municipality, universities and companies
involved, and the public (inclusivity). Right now, there is a small group of
WML and Waterschapsbedrij employees, as well as myself, that are
involved from several different departments. As we move into larger aspects of
the plan, I can see that number growing to include outside members.
d. One of the
benefits of this project is that we built in Responsiveness. The project itself
is a way to “respond to new knowledge as [it] emerges and to emerging
perspectives, views and norms” (Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013) . The idea is that each section can be added on
or left off/edited as the needs of the facility change. For example, the
facility has a biogas generator in place, but it is out-dated and inefficient,
this project allows for changes to the current generator to incorporate new
technologies to increase the efficiency without destruction of the current
plant. This also allows for an addition of filtration of the gas into cleaner
gas for use in vehicles on site instead of purchasing petrol. While
responsiveness also refers to the public commentary, we have focused, at this
point, on internal and municipality views. We must change the minds of the
business leaders internally before we change the minds of the citizenry.
9. Given what you have learned so far in SUST,
what do you consider to be one main insight you got in the course that is
helping you to understand and steer your project? Additionally, given the
current state of your project, what do you consider to be the main challenge of
your project when it comes to fostering sustainability transition? And what can
be the main contribution you/your SUST team can give/are giving when it comes
to fostering sustainability transitions within your project?
a. The RRI aspect is something we had only
briefly discussed in our internal meetings. I think as a governance aspect it
will become a much bigger portion of the project than what is currently
required. Since we are still in the take-off phase, just getting everything
started is our primary concern. However, the base of business anymore is
paperwork and the associated communications with the right stakeholders. I am
in a consultancy role now that the project has been approved. As the WML and Waterschapsbedrij
move forward, it will be up to the Innovation Team leads to continue the
momentum and get buy-in from the various actors. I think getting the
municipality on board will be the biggest hurdle as there seems to be a bit of
friction between the three agencies currently. Discussions regarding topics
such as in this reflection paper are the most important aspect I can give right
now. Since I am not on-site for the daily testing or implementation, I can only
go through concerns or new data that I find during my research. This is both
the biggest contribution as well as the biggest challenge for me in this
project.
Bibliography
Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012).
Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects. Research
Policy, 955-967.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013).
Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy,
1568-1580.
Intervention:
“I think it's very important to have a feedback loop, where you're
constantly thinking about what you've done and how you could be doing it
better." -Elon Musk, SpaceX/Tesla
Innovation Team Agenda
·
Project Review
o 4 Steps:
§ Chemical Filtration (FeO(OH))
§ Biogas Digester/Dryer
·
Cold Stack Filtration for Natural Gas
·
Biosolids for Land Mitigation
·
Bioslurry for Wetlands
§ Constructed Wetlands
§ Cattail (Typhus) Pellets
·
Fuel and Fertilizer
·
Kill Your Darlings
o Kill Your Darlings is a mindset and
creative process that allows you to go over each aspect of your plan and take
it apart, look for alternative ways of doing it and challenging all the
assumptions you have previously made.
·
Rewrite Project
o 15 minutes:
§ Reread the proposal individually- make
notes, questions, ideas
o 20 minutes:
§ Pair up and review. Write down
assumptions, changes, and questions on a large post-it sheet.
o 10 minutes:
§ Break
o 10 minutes:
o Review comments; add/change anything
new that you thought about.
o 1 hr:
§ Group review and notes
This first
reflexivity intervention is based on the concept that different individuals
will have different ways of seeing things based on their individual interests,
experiences, and expertise. This is more of a Management Transition because it
focuses on the following aspects:
·
Systems-thinking in terms of more than one
domain (multi-domain) and different actors (multi-actor) at different scale
levels (multi-level); analysing how developments in one domain or level gel
with developments in other domains
or levels; trying to change the strategic orientation
of regime actors;
·
Long-term
thinking (at least 25 years) as a framework for shaping short term policy;
·
Back- and
fore-casting: the setting of short-term and longer-term goals based on
long-term sustainability visions, scenario-studies, trend analyses and
short-term possibilities;
·
A focus on
learning and the use of a special learning philosophy of learning-by-doing
and doing-by-learning;
·
An
orientation towards system innovation and experimentation;
·
Learning
about a variety of options (which requires a wide playing field);
and
·
Participation
from and interaction between stakeholders. (Loorbach & Rotmans,
2006)
These items are the focus of the Kill Your Darlings
activity, where members of the Innovation Team (the internal Waterschapsbedrijf
Team) work individually, then in pairs, and finally as a group to go through
each aspect of the Project Proposal and take it apart. Their individual
expertise (chemists, marketing, environmental engineering, finance,
microbiologists, community liaison, ecologists, etc) as well as their personal
experiences, will give better feedback on what is or is not possible, which
aspects may need to be changed, and where there may be push-back from the
various stakeholders we wish to include in future development processes. This
allows for a greater amount of reflexivity and responsiveness in future
planning.
The culture of the activity is really built around pulling
individuals who are already involved in the project together so they can go
over the various questions that have arisen within their own departments. This
allows for two levels: the final project paper and the bonding of the team. The
final project paper should show a balance between the technology and the relationship
issues between the various external stakeholders while the bonding will allow
for more fluid communication within the team with less interpersonal issues. This
activity should also focus on creating a cohesive language of terminology that
would be used throughout the project (appendix on the final paper, etc).
“There's a tremendous bias against taking risks. Everyone is
trying to optimize their ass-covering.”
-Elon Musk,
SpaceX/Tesla
A big issue to work through is personal and professional
bias and tunnel vision. This is obviously not something that is easy to dispose
of since most biases are internal. The Kill Your Darlings activity is
specifically designed to mitigate these biases due to the repetitive, short
review process. The agenda proposed above gives time for a review of the
project (the redesign of the current Roermond Waste Treatment facility into a
more environmentally and economically sustainable enterprise), but also time
for individual and group reflexive thinking. Building in a small break will
allow for any non-solidified ideas to be worked out internally before the group
review. The group review is designed to allow for various opinions to be
expressed, commented on, reworked, and then added or dismissed from the final
project plan. This allows for inclusiveness between the various internal
departments that do not traditionally work together on a project design. For
example, a member of the Finance Department and an Environmental Engineer
working in pairs may focus on fiscal costs versus environmental regulatory
concerns. How they work out their paired concerns/questions will impact the
group review and may answer a different team’s questions during the final group
commentary and review.
The facilitator’s role (my role) would be to get the teams
to think outside the box. Reflexivity is the primary goal, but a secondary
aspect is to include as many different points of view as possible and include
members from departments that don’t normally work together. Comments and
questions would be: don’t just dismiss an idea because you don’t like it or are
afraid of it; break down the key aspects. How could you rework or improve them
or are there alternative ideas that would give the same type of results? The
final goal is to make a better project proposal. We want to cover as many levels
of review and impacts as possible, so think about the connections, what happens
if we succeed, how does that affect other aspects of the business? What happens
if a section fails? Can we work around it or alter it and continue? Will it
stop the process completely? Will we alienate a partner company if we do this
particular section of the project?
This activity, and ultimately the finalized proposal, should
take into account most of the stakeholder’s concerns or wishes. The
stakeholders, in this project, include the following:
·
Ms. Saskia Hanneman, Innovation Team,
Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg *Project Manager*
·
Ms. Cindy Reijnders , Senior
Communicatieadviseur, Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg
·
Mr. Mark Weijers, Project Manager for
Increase C0-firing Biomass AC09 , WML
·
Mr. J. van Montfort, Project Leader for
Sterrenberg phase 1, Municipality of Roermond
·
Mr. José Korteland, Head of Department of
Urban Development, Municipality of Roermond
·
Mrs. R. Feenstra, Environment manager for
Sterrenberg phase 1, BAM Infra
·
Mrs. Tamisan Latherow, Consultant for Project
Development, Wageningen University & Research *Project Plan Writer*
By having various members within the Innovation Team work to
break down and review the project plan, we should be able to mitigate any
concerns the stakeholders may have. A second round review process would then
include these stakeholders to review the final, reworked proposal.
The purpose of the second meeting will be to review the
reasons for the project, the infrastructure and design of the project,
deliverables, timelines, team creation, and communication between
organizations. Team Leads are pulled from the various organizations
(stakeholders) necessary for final project completion. By including these
individuals, we hope to cover most of the organizations this plan will impact.
There are two stakeholders not included, a member of the public and a member of
the government’s environmental protection/regulation agency. At this point,
those individuals would not be helpful for the project completion. Instead, we
have included a specialist in the environment and a member of the
communications and public relations staff. This meeting will allow the various
team leads from other organizations to express their opinions on the various
aspects of the project. *See Appendix 1 for Meeting
Agenda
Appendix 1: Team Lead Review of Project Planning
Invited Team Leads: (Idea-not finalized)
·
Ms. Saskia Hanneman, Innovation
Team, Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg *Project Manager*
·
Ms. Cindy Reijnders , Senior
Communicatieadviseur, Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg
·
Mr. Mark Weijers, Project
Manager for Increase C0-firing Biomass AC09 , WML
·
Mr. J. van Montfort, Project
Leader for Sterrenberg phase 1, Municipality of Roermond
·
Mr. José Korteland, Head of
Department of Urban Development, Municipality of Roermond
·
Mrs. R. Feenstra, Environment
manager for Sterrenberg phase 1, BAM Infra
·
Mrs. Tamisan Latherow,
Consultant for Project Development, Wageningen University & Research
*Project Plan Writer*
Agenda:
·
9:30 - Coffee/Tea,
Introductions
·
10:00 - Introduction to Project
and Goals
o
Brief description of the
project
o
The goals of the project
o
Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg’s
needs and expectations
o
The makeup of
Waterschapsbedrijf Limburg’s team and their decision making process
o
Feedback and Communication plans
o
Dates for project milestones
and deadlines
·
10:30 – Q&A about Project
·
11:00 – Participant’s Scope and
Interest
o
How Team Leads from Stakeholder
organizations will interact and communicate on the project.
o
Will there be any meetings or
points in the project where you’ll want us to present on the current project
status to a larger group (i.e a board meeting)?
o
Are there any points in the
process that some stakeholders might not understand that we can explain?
o
Participants interest, why you
should want to be involved.
o
How does this project affect
your daily work?
o
How can we collaborate to make
things easier?
·
12:00 - Lunch
·
13:00 - Review of Project Plan
Draft
o
The review will go over the
first draft of the Project Plan. Questions to go over are as follows:
o
What are the major
deliverables?
o
How will we get to those
deliverables and the deadline?
o
Who is on the project team and
what role will they play in those deliverables?
o
Approval process
o
Deliverables and the tasks
taken to create them
o
Timeframes associated with tasks/deliverables
o
Ideas on resources needed for
tasks/deliverables
o
A list of the assumptions
you’re making in the plan
o
Project dependencies as they
relate to the project budget and/or deadlines
o
Stakeholder involvement, when
and where
o
Stakeholder co-developed
projects
·
15:00 - Final
thoughts/questions to ask:
o
Is there a stakeholder we need
to consider who is not represented?
o
Which points have we not
covered that need to be addressed?
o
Timing for next meeting
·
16:00 – Coffee/Tea Conclusion
Powerpoint:
No comments:
Post a Comment