To: vanDruniek, Cc: Speth, Garland, Sonich-Mullin, From: Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer Sent: Tue 6/20/2017 1:38:33 PM Subject: RE: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation 0k, Jay and I can make that work Send call in when have it Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory USEPA Of?ce of Research and Development 109 TW Alexander Dr MC 305-01 RTP, NC 27711 919-541-2106 919-699-1564 (cell) From: vanDrunick, Suzanne Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:33 AM To: Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer Cc: Speth, Thomas Garland, Jay Sonich- Mullin, Subject: Re: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation 2:30? On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer wrote: Just landed in cinti. Maybe early aft? Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory USEPA RTP, NC 919?541-2106 On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:04 AM, vanDrunick, Suzanne wrote: Maybe a short call? On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Orme-Zavaleta, Jennifer wrote: Suzanne, what would be your tradeoff? Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory USEPA RTP, NC 919-541-2106 On Jun 20, 2017, at 7:24 AM, vanDrunick, Suzanne wrote: Please see email chain. Scroll down to bottom to my email to OW on Sunday June 18 at 12: 15pm. This is what ORD discussed and offered to OW. A lot of back and forth with Jacob but the bottom line: Mike Shapiro is asking if we have the capacity to take on this project, or if we should propose something different to meet the Administrator's goal? Assume there is no additional funding. Begin forwarded message: From: "Shapiro, Mike" <8hapiro?Mi?keQDepa. rov> Date: June 19, 2017 at 10:57:34 PM EDT To: ?vanDrunick, Suzanne" "Adler, Jacob" ror? Cc: ?Lape, Jeff" <1apejet?f die a. rov>, "Scozzafava, MiehaelE" , ?Gutierrez, Sally" Subject: RE: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation All 1 The basic concept that was suggested at the meeting last week involved using a CRADA mechanism to partner with multiple providers who would provide their equipment and work with EPA, as appropriate, to evaluate the cost and suitability for use in situations where conventional water sources are not available, including situations where replacement water is need to substitute for a contaminated water supply, in remote locations where water supplies are inadequate, or where regular supplies have been disrupted. Most of the questions in the write up below would seem to be the kinds of things we would need to know to design and execute an appropriate evaluation, with the possible exception of the future technology part, since the focus would be on what is available now. Since this is something the Administrator is interested in, no doubt he will wat to see something happening quickly, although we all know that it takes some time to design and implement a project like this. So my basic question to 0RD is whether you folks believe you have the capacity to take on a project like this? If not, do you see another approach we can try to accomplish the overall goal? Mike Michael Shapiro Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water US EPA, 4101 1200 Ave, NW Washington, DC 20460 202-564-5700 From: vanDrunick, Suzanne Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:12 PM To: Adler, Jacob Cc: Shapiro, Mike Lape, Jeff 3,nlga,gw>; Scozzafava, MichaelE Gutierrez, Sally For?; Wood, Robert Subject: Re: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation Yes thanks. On Jun 19, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Adler, Jacob wrote: Important points, Suzanne. Instead of establishing those criteria now, would it be sufficient to propose the need to establish a criteria for which tech/vendors to study, and as a precursor, exactly which technologies/vendors the group is most interested in researching? I added that sentiment to the fourth bullet. Is this closer to a satisfactory initial proposal? Now wator technologies and innovations an: driving transformations anross that ontiro water sector, whinh art: oloa?n water, improving water ir?ihi?astnictnro, nialring niorn oftioinnt and o'roating jobs. This was clearly nyidnnt this past woos (inns l2wl4l, for oxalnple, at the Alnorioan Wntor Works Association {Tonilhronoo with nna?rly 2,000 attandnos and hundreds tnohnology oxhihitors. Many wstor aconlorators and developsrs wort: clnsorihing the US and glohal potential. for new wator tnohnologins and the global nndorwny. hit the we tiff the. te wetter teehhetegy and edeptteh t5; the teeh hit? a theme 0t teehhaietgy ehd that thethtetest hee amt ht t?tmtt? t?tmee t5; he ??amethtet Rehett? the water teehhelegy" At {the "time? EPA 0RD had the Teehhetegy Ptegmm that a the teehihalegy third. petty teehhetegy evehtetteh pregame and teSt heet hetwethe ere uhdet hut teeh te he thity wetet gehetett?eh geheteity? with he than}; e3 70 epeet?e at.? teehhetegy baSt?fd he the heme {?tmeii?ph eeh hetveet wetet teeth the attheshhete White ether wetet ehd dehvet?y ate {at mete eftweettve? AWG eett he Viehte eetieh Where thete are he ethet ht teetet he, very tete evettehte wetter he tteetett. Given the hehhihtetmtieh?s thteteet hit AWG teehhetegiee, hetew ete petehttet 0W end 0RD eetiette: - Cehthtet a more detatted :tevtew and devetee extehetve teehhetegy review at" AWG teehhetegtee. - the effeetiveheett et?hWG te theet SDWA Stehdetde. - the ttetehttet the mietehhtl it: AWG tteethtehe Stetege attd dtetrihetitth Shm?tm and tehgmtetth epetetieht, - emerging AWG teehhetegtee het yet he tteette t0 and estehheh te Seteet which teehttetegy/vehdette) may he ehgeged. - identity and, hettet tthdetetettd eppheettehe 0t? AWG teehttetegiee. - tjethhtet eheiyete 6f AWG teehhetegiee end 0p?t?t?3ti0tt. - Cehdttet a Lite Cyete Chet Ahetyete (Lei/5t) est AWG applieatinns from a systems perspeetive. - Explare the extent to W'hieh nther Federal ageneies (Bare-an nfRee-lainatinn, Department nf and the Department {if .l?efense have experienee with AWG generally and WaterwGen speeifieally. - Explare haw EPA enuld support the. nf a third party validatinn pi?ngrain that would facilitate testing at" new teehnnlegies and faeilitate nae and adeptinn. - Explain use nfa CRADA er CRADAwlike partnerships. - Explain with QLEMISupe?rfi/ind Whether there are applieatinns or speeitie rentediatinn sites Where AWG have been or ennld be viable. From: vanDrunick, Suzanne Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 11:48 AM To: Adler, Jacob Shapiro, Mike Cc: Lape, Jeff ; Gutierrez, Sally ; Wood, Robert Subject: Re: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation It doesn't address What criteria EPA would use to select a specific Those already in the market or more advanced technologies still in development? 1 suggest not focusing on a single vendor, in this case WaterGen. My edits below re?ect text deletions (removed all specific references to WaterGen) and text additions. I apologize for no tracked changes but I'm typing on a phone. Edits only in section beginning with Given the Administrator?s On Jun 19, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Adler, Jacob wrote: Thanks Jeff and Suzanne. As the objective is propose a single response for Mike to relay to the political team, I have tried to integrate what you have both offered. Please let me know if this text is suf?cient. New tvatei" teehnelegies and innevatinns ate driving t'tanste?i?niatiens aetess the entire water semen:> whieh are ntedneinn elean tvateiy itnpi?eving water intiasttnetnte making npetatinns tnnte eftieient and eteatinn jehs, This was eleai?iy evident this feast week (Jnne 2mm)? fer eaainpie? at the ninetiean Water Weeks Asseeiatien Cenfei?enee with neatly 3123906?) attendees and hundreds {if watet teeliinninnv exhihitnts. Many water ae-eeletatnts and deveinpets were desetihing the US and glehal netential the new iva'tet teehnninnies and the glehal eninpetitien nndetway, in the nne ef the greatest hattiets tn ivatei' teehnnienv deveinpntent and adnptien is the tank at? a means at teehnnlegy vaiidatinn and petfnrinanee assessment that facilitates nse and in sitnpie teens? theie is an ?Censninet Repett? fest water tee-hnelegv ?it nne tiniea EPA 0RD had the itizn'vitennientai teehneiegv (ETV) P?i?nntani that ptnvided a fn'i'nin the teehnninggv assessment independent thii?d patty evainatinn and test hed net/weeks are under deveiepnienh hat tank. fending tn he fnliy epetatinnai. water generatinn (AWG) generally; with as many as 7t) speeifie nf teehnnlegy hased en the same enneenh ean harvest watei~ item the White ether watet tteann ent and delivery teehnnlegies are fat innte enst effeetive? ean he a viable eptinn whete thete ate he ether seine-es ef watet nix, in very rate instants-ea avaiiahle water? he treated. G?vm {hit Adm?mma?mfz?g imamgi AWG Eeehmigg??m baimw am pme?ntiai OW and 0RD milabma?va actian?: Cmuium a. datailed Eitera?uw reviaw and dam-19$ a mam mahmiagy raview MAWG mahmiag?m. - the: Ema?tmmt ?ffea?vmegg 0f AWG 1mm SDWA Standards; - - Evaluate the patmtia? f9? m?amb?ai in AWG imam/Ema ?wage and dim?bmim during Shm?tm and Opera?mm. - w?wrgging AWG mahm??gim mi; yet an - Identify and batter mndemimd ?gment appi?catiam 9f AWG fag-hngimgim. Ca?mduct a {hmba?cd waiygm 0f AWG mahmmgim and E?miuct a, Life $31016: Axiaiygig 0f AWG applicatima a pampea?w. - Expmm rm: mt?m ?which Fede?fa} agwcieg (Human 0f Reclama?iiam Depami?em 0f Emmgy) and; ma: Dwamnmt Qf have @Xper?mw with AWG and Wat?rrmGen Spac??m?y. - Expmm haw EPA mum 3&9pr {ha dawmpg?mm {if Ehirdmpa?y w?da?am pt?mg'z?am t?ha?? waum faai??am mating 01?? new mahm??gim and famiim?ie me?: and adwm?w. - Expmm 133%: 015?" a CRADA 0r CRADAMEEKQ part?emhipg - Expimm with whe?hm? them are: app?ca?mm; Spaa??c Superfund mme?ia?an Sizeg Where AWG fag-hngimgim have: berm maid be: V?abie, From: vanDrunick, Suzanne Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 12:15 PM To: Lape, Jeff Cc: Adler, Jacob ; Scozzafava, MichaelE , Penman, Campbell, Ann ; Gutierrez, Sally epa tov>; Wood, Robert Subject: Re: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation Thanks Jeff. A few comments to consider. This technology has been around for decades, and as you note is moving towards nano and even solar to improve on energy efficiency. Which technology EPA selects will be the challenge. 1 suggest if we move forward with this effort that we look at more advanced technologies not already on the market. We may want to consider several technologies, but we will need a CRADA for each vendor. The issue of microbial growth needs to be considered. Although freshly produced water My meet SDWA or WHO standards (what criteria are currently used to determine water is safe?), the same operational issues storage and distribution) that conventional systems face are likely to exist with AWG too. lab in Cincinnati could tie in this new research with its Legionella work - depending on available funding. EPA could also possibly do a health?based analysis (vendors can and should do the energy and cost analyses). Another option is to include OP to conduct a life cycle cost analysis of alternative scenarios, relative costs etc. from a systems perspective. Suzanne On Jun 17, 2017, at 10:17 AM, Lape, Jeff wrote: Here is a proposal: - This is very time sensitive. Suggest schedule as soon as possible. - 1n the interim, I suggest we collaborate on a joint ?proposed response? with proposed actions. If we get to a point where we agree on a single script, then the meeting with Mike and Suzanne perhaps becomes unnecessary. Here is a suggested framework below and attached. suggest edits and proposed actions. Thanks I eff New water technologies and innovations are driving transformations across the entire water sector, which are producing clean water, improving water infrastructure, making operations more efficient and creating jobs. This was clearly evident this past week (June 12-14), for example, at the American Water Works Association Conference with nearly 12,000 attendees and hundreds of water technology exhibitors. Many water technology accelerators and developers were describing the US and global potential for new water technologies and the global competition underway. 1n the US, one of the greatest barriers to water technology development and adoption is the lack of a means of technology validation and performance assessment that facilitates use and acceptance. In simple terms, there is no ?Consumer Report? for water technology. At one time, EPA 0RD had the Environmental Technology Veri?cation (ETV) Program that provided a forum for technology assessment. Independent third party technology evaluation programs and test bed networks are under development, but lack sufficient funding to be fully operational. Atmospheric water generation (AWG) generally, with as many as 70 specific suppliers of technology based on the same concept, can harvest water from the atmosphere. While other water treatment technologies are far more cost effective, AWG can be a viable option where there are no other sources of water. Given the Administration interest in Watergen and perhaps other AWG technologies, here are potential actions that ORD and OW could collaborate on: - Conduct a more detailed literature review and develop a more extensive technology review of AWG, Watergen and other similar technologies - Identify and better understand current applications of AWG technologies - Explore the extent to which other Federal agencies (Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Energy) and the Department of Defense have experience with AWG generally and Watergen specifically - Explore how EPA could support the development of a third-party validation program that would facilitate testing of new technologies and facilitate use and adoption, such as Watergen - Explore use of a CRADA or partnership with Watergen - Explore with Superfund whether there are applications or specific superfund remediation sites where AWG technologies have been or could be Viable - Assess how AWG and Watergen demonstrate adequacy of drinking water with WHO and SDWA drinking water requirements From: vanDrunick, Suzanne Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 5:24 PM To: Adler, Jacob Cc: Penman, ; Campbell, Ann Cc: Breen, Barry ioy>; Campbell, Ann ; Hilosky, Nick Southerland, Elizabeth Lape, Jeff <1apejeffi@gpagoy>; Wood, Robert ; Adler, Jacob ; Stalcup, Dana Cc: Breen, Barry ; Campbell, Ann ; Hilosky, Nick Southerland, Elizabeth Lape, Jeff ; Wood, Robert ; Adler, Jacob Subject: RE: Meeting Notes: Atmospheric Water Generation Mike, Thanks, this is a good summary of the discussion. had a few comments. First, think the goal is two-fold. One is, as you related, to help EPA advise states, communities, etc. on the possible use of this technology to deal with natural or man-made situations that result in shortages of potable water supply. Another is to inform EPA Superfund RPMs and 0803 on the suitability of the technology for their remedial and response projects where alternative potable water supplies are needed. Second, it?s probably better to say that 0RD not have the expertise, since we don?t know for sure and they were not represented at the meeting. Third, I see the second bullet under next steps to be a joint responsibility. Also, The immediate objective is to determine within a week whether the CRADA approach makes sense as a way of achieving the overall goals, recognizing that significant further work would be necessary to implement such an activity. Finally, with respect to the CRADA approach, the idea would be to offer partnering opportunities to multiple companies, not just one. it was noted by OGC that this would be an atypical use of CRADA authority. Mike Michael Shapiro Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water US EPA, 4101 1200 Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 202?564-5700 From: Scozzafava, MichaelE Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 9:48 AM To: Shapiro, Mike Cc: Breen, Barry jioy>; Campbell, Ann ; Adler, Jacob Stalcup, Dana