EPA-600/R-96-142a
August 1996
Report to Congress under CAA Amendments of 1990, Section 901(e)
Public Law 101-549
Assessment of
International Air Pollution Prevention
and Control Technology
Volume 1. Executive Summary
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
ES-16
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Jutovctioru on the reverse before completii
\. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/R-96-142a
2.
. F
PB97-131361
4. TITLE*NDSUBTITLE Assessment of International Air Pollu-
tion Prevention and Control Technology (Report to
Congress), Volume 1. Executive Summary
REPORT DATE
August 1996
j. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7- AUTHOR(S> ciint Burklin. Mahesh Gundappa. and
Donna Jones
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
P. O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-04-0022, W.A. 18
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: 12/93-12/95
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
ie.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES APPCD project officer is Michael A. Maxwell, Mail Drop 60,
919/541-3019. (Richard D. Stern, the initial project officer, is no longer with the
Agency.) Volume 1 is an executive summary; Volume 2 is the full report.
16. ABSTRACT
report gives results of a study that identifies new and innovative air
pollution prevention and /or control technologies, of selected industrialized countries,
that are not currently used extensively in the U. S. The technologies may be entirely
new to the U. S. , or they may be technologies currently in limited use in the TJ. S. that
achieve either a higher level of control than existing technologies or the same level
of control more cost effectively. The study addressed technologies that prevent or
control the emissions of the following pollutants from each of four sources of air pol-
lution: (1) Urban emissions — ozone precursors to include nitrogen oxides (NOx), vola-
tile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), and air toxics; (2) Motor
vehicle emissions — NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), and PM; (3) Toxic air emissions —
any one of the 189 compounds on the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the
1990 CAAA (Title EL); and (4) Acid deposition— NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), and, to a
lesser extent, VOCs. The report describes the approach taken to identify potentially
useful technologies, gives results of .the technology search and evaluation, and des-
cribes the selected technologies.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Dilution
itrogen Oxides
ilfur Oxides
rganic Compounds
olatility
articles
I. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
Toxicity
Carbon Monoxide
Motor Vehicles
Emission
b.lOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Volatile Organic Com-
pounds (VOCs)
Particulate
Acid Rain
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B 06T
07B
13F
07C
20 M
L4G
21. NO. OF PAGES
20
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with pro-
tecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions lead-
ing to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research
program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental pro-
blems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our eco-
logical resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and pre-
vent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks
from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air,
land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites and groundwater; and prevention and
control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze
development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental
technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to
support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and infor-
mation transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-
term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers
with their clients.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
ES-ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Richard D. Stem, the former Senior Technical Advisor for International Technology
Liaison at the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD), was instrumental in
collection and analysis of the candidate technologies, and for final selection of technologies
included in this report. Michael A. Maxwell coordinated the external peer reviews and
preparation of the final report. Support is also gratefully acknowledged from the staff of EPA's
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, and
Office of Mobile Sources from which valuable guidance and review of the technologies were
received during the course of the study. ERG, formerly Radian Corporation, is acknowledged for
their role in data gathering and compilation of candidate technologies.
-------
ES-iii
Table of Contents
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ES-ii
BACKGROUND ES-1
TECHNICAL APPROACH ES-2
RESULTS ES-6
EXHIBITS:
1 Key U.S. Emission Sources ES-4
2 Potentially Beneficial Pollution Prevention and Control Technologies ES-8
3 Applicability of Identified Technologies ES-15
-------
ES-1
BACKGROUND
Under Title IX of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to assess international air pollution
prevention and control technologies that may have beneficial applications to the U. S. air pollution
control efforts. Specifically, EPA is required to:
...conduct a study that compares international air pollution control
technologies of selected industrialized countries to determine if .
there exist air pollution control technologies in countries outside
the United States that may have beneficial applications to this
Nation's air pollution control efforts. With respect to each country
studied, the study shall include the topics of urban air quality, motor
vehicle emissions, toxic air emissions, and acid deposition.
In accordance with the Title DC requirements, the study specifically addressed
technologies that prevent or control the emissions of the following pollutants from each of four
sources of air pollution:
Urban emissions: Ozone precursors to include nitrogen oxi
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), and air
toxics.
Motor vehicle emissions: NOX, carbon monoxide (CO), and PM.
Toxic air emissions: Any one of the 189 compounds on the list of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the 1990 CAAA (Title US).
Acid deposition: NOX, sulfur oxides (SOJ, and, to a lesser extent, VOCs.
This summary describes the approach taken to identify potentially useful
technologies, and the results of the technology search and review. The full report is in Volume 2.
-------
ES-2
TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach used in the study included:
1. A preliminary identification of key industrial emission sources in the U.S.
that are in heed of air pollution control.
2. Development of criteria for a technology search strategy for these sources.
3. Identification of key foreign countries to be addressed for potential
technologies.
4. Conduct of an international search to identify potentially promising
technologies.
5. Collection of detailed information for the technologies that appeared to
meet the goals of the study.
6. Final review of potential beneficial technologies.
To define the U.S. air pollution prevention and control needs in each of the four
emission categories: urban air quality, motor vehicle emissions, toxics air emissions, and acid
deposition, a list of important U.S. industries in each emission category was developed.
However, since motor vehicles are major urban emission sources and also acid deposition sources,
the motor vehicle source category was incorporated within the Urban Air Quality and Acid
Deposition categories for the purposes of this study.
-------
ES-3
Initial lists of key pollution sources in each of the three areas described above were
developed and revised by the U.S. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
and Office of Research and Development (ORD). Exhibit 1 presents the final list of thirty (30)
specific source categories (most important for each of the three major source category groups)
identified. The source categories identified as major sources in their respective categories are
listed in alphabetical order. They are not ranked in order of importance.
To ensure proper screening and prioritization of the foreign pollution prevention
and control technologies, specific technology selection criteria were developed as follows:
1. The technology must be applicable to an air pollution source listed in
Exhibit 1. This ensured that the search remained focused on those foreign
technologies potentially benefitting key emission sources in the United
States. Applicability of technology to multiple sources/pollutants was also
considered.
2. The technology search would include both clean technologies (pollution
prevention) and "end-of-pipe" (pollution control) technologies. Clean
technologies include process modifications that result in the minimization
or elimination of certain pollutant emissions.
3. The technology was to have attained at least a large pilot-scale
demonstration status to ensure that sufficient technical information would
be available to review the potential for the selected technologies to meet
the U.S.1 immediate air pollution control needs. This last criterion ensured
that the technology review would be based on realistic performance and
cost information rather than estimations of projected performance and
costs that are generally optimistic.
-------
ES-4
EXHIBIT 1. Key U.S. Emission Sources
Urban Air Quality
Automobiles (including heavy-duty and off-road vehicles)
Boilers, Turbines, and Heaters
Chemical Manufacturing
Degreasing/Dry Cleaning
Gasoline Distribution (bulk stations and terminals)
Petroleum Marketing (vehicle refueling/spillage)
Plastics Manufacture
Solid Waste Disposal
Surface Coating
Woodstoves and Fireplaces
Toxic Air Emissions
Cyanide Production/Coke Ovens
Industrial Boilers
Lead Smelting
Petroleum Refineries
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
Polycarbonates Production
Resins Production (amino and acetal)
Solid Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Surface Coating
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industries (SOCMI)
Acid Deposition
Asphalt Paving
Automobiles (including heavy-duty and off-road vehicles)
Bakeries
Cement Manufacture
Chemicals Manufacturing
Fossil Fuel-Fired Boilers
Gasoline Station Evaporation Loss
Petroleum Refining
Primary Metals Manufacture
Solvent Evaporation (dry cleaning, degreasing, printing, etc.)
-------
ES-5
Countries addressed in the study include Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom
(UK), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and other Western
European countries.
Several methods were used to solicit technical information on candidate foreign
technologies. Contacts were established with:
• Scientific counselors at 19 key foreign embassies in the United States.
• Representatives and/or publications from six (6) international
organizations, that included the United Nations (UN), the Center for the
Analysis and Dissemination of Demonstrated Energy Technologies
(CADDET)', the World Bank, the UN Environmental Program (UNEP),
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the
World Environment Center (WEC).
• Fifty-four (54) consultants and/or indigenous (in-country)
contacts/researchers who were knowledgeable about recent developments
in foreign technologies.
• Eight (8) international technology vendors who initiated discussions in
addition to sending literature.
• On-line searches of four (4) key scientific databases: 1) Energy Science and
Technology (ES&T), 2) National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 3)
Air and Waste Management Association (A&WMA), and 4) Japanese
patent (JAPIO) databases; and several national and international
publications.
The results of this technology assessment produced over 100 leads for potential technologies and
over 200 abstracts and articles to review. From the literature and contacts made, over 300 initial
candidate technologies were identified to be reviewed for applicability to the project goals based
on the criteria already presented.
* CADDET functions as the International Energy Agency (TEA) center for dissemination of
information on end-use technology demonstration projects for all IEA-CADDET member
countries. The IEA implements the energy program within the framework of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
-------
ES-6
By the end of this phase of the study, a total of 52 technologies were identified and
their vendors contacted. These 52 technologies corresponded to 10 foreign countries: Australia
(1), Denmark (2), Finland (1), Germany (11), Japan (12), the Netherlands (3), Norway (2),
Poland (1), Sweden (4), and the UK (15).
Specific information needs were requested from the vendors of the 52 technologies
to further review their potential for use in the U.S. This information included detailed design,
costs, and performance data based on full-scale demonstration units. In some cases, information
obtained from vendors did not provide enough detail to adequately review the technology with
respect to the criteria developed for this study.
EPA experts in the respective technologies reviewed the technologies based on the
information provided for the study and their knowledge of the technologies currently available to
address the same source pollutant problem. The 21 technologies that reviewers believe may be
useful to U.S. industry appear in Exhibit 2.
Although EPA identified technologies which may be useful to U.S. industries in
general, it is important to note this report does not evaluate the applicability of these technologies
to any specific U.S. industrial facility. Rather, the report serves as a survey of potentially
applicable technologies, and does not provide an independent evaluation of vendor information by
EPA EPA review of information provided by vendors does not include an evaluation of
technologies relative to their potential for application to segments of relevant U.S. industries or to
the individual U.S. industrial facilities, or the ability of the technology to meet current or
anticipated Federal requirements. In addition, these technologies were not compared to current
U.S. technologies or to U.S. technologies under development, to determine where the U.S. has a
clear competitive advantage, since this was beyond the scope of the report.
In light of the nature of the review performed, readers are encouraged to contact
individual vendors for more specific information related to the potential application of a
technology for any individual facility operator's or pollution control agency's needs.
-------
ES-7
RESULTS
Exhibit 2 presents the 21 air pollution prevention and control technologies that
were identified in this study, as potentially beneficial technologies to bring to the attention of
U. S. industry. For each technology, the information in Exhibit 2 includes a short descriptive title;
a brief description; the vendor name; country of origin; the applicable industries and/or emission
sources; the pollutants controlled; the development status; and available information on
performance, cost, and secondary impacts. It is important to stress that information presented in
Exhibit 2 was obtained from the vendor and may, in some cases, lack detail or the objectivity
needed for an in-depth comparison of technologies.
Exhibit 2 is divided into two sections. The first section (Technologies A1-A14)
presents those technologies for which enough information was available to determine that the
technology is worthy of current consideration by U.S. industry. The second section
(Technologies B1-B7) presents technologies that are believed to be feasible and innovative and
which may have potential benefits for U.S. industry but which lacked sufficient information for
current consideration. However, these technologies should be watched for future consideration
as more information becomes available.
The applicability of the technologies identified in this study relative to the 3 major
source categories is summarized in Exhibit 3, which shows the 30 specific source categories under
the three major source category groups, and the number of international pollution control or
pollution prevention technologies that were identified for each source category.
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Potentially Beneficial Pollution Prevention and Control Technologies
Technology
Number
A-l
A-2
A-3
Technology Name and Brief Description
Zinc Oxide Process- Waste gas cleaning technology
that offers effective removal of SO, while producing
no wastewater effluent. The Zinc Oxide absorbs the
pollutants from annealing and drying kilns in a two-
stage countercurrent flow absorber. In the absorber,
a zinc oxide suspension is added to the top of the
column in a concentration above stoichiometric. The
waste gas, which is cleaned of most of its dust and
aerosols in venturi scrubbers prior to column entry,
enters the column near the bottom. The hydrogen
sulfide and the sulfur dioxide react with the zinc
oxide absorber to form Zn(HSO,),, ZnSO,, ZnSO3,
and ZnS.
SOLINOX process for the reduction of SO2--This
process comprises a two-step scrubbing process with
its primary objective the reduction of SO2 emissions.
A proprietary organic adsorbent (polyethylene-
glycol-dimethylether). removes the SO, by selective
(physical) absorption. The organic adsorbent can be
regenerated without any losses. The recovered
concentrated SO2 (90 percent) is cooled and
compressed, and can be sold.
LINKman Expert-System-Used to optimize the
cement manufacturing process and thereby reduce
emissions. The process is optimized by continuous
monitoring of NO,, CO, and O, emission levels, key
temperatures, and the power required to turn the
kiln.
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Sachtleben Chemie
GmbH Dr. Hans-Dieter
Bauerman Duisburg
Germany
Sachtleben Chemie
GmbH
Dr. Hans-Dieter
Bauerman
Germany
Image Automation Ltd.
Mr. D.W. Haspel
UK
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
Two sites in
Germany.
4 facilities in 3
countries:
Austria,
Germany,
Poland.
Over 60 plants
worldwide in
16 countries (2
U.S.)
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
SO.
Sources:
Chemical Manufacturing (ADP)
Secondary Impacts.:
None
Pollutants:
SO2, PM, HC's, HCI and other
halogen compounds
Sources:
Primary metals (ADP)
Industrial Boilers (TAE, UAP,
ADP)
Chemical Manufacture (ADP)
Secondary Impacts.:
Recovered SO, and wastewater
Pollutants:
NO,
Sources:
Cement Manufacture (ADP)
Chemical manufacture (ADP)
Secondary Impacts:
None
Performance
Levels
90% reduction in
S02.
97% S02
removal.
85% dust
removal.
NO, emissions
reduced from 500
ppm to 200 ppm.
Some SO2
reductions also
claimed.
9% capacity
increase. 3% fuel
savings, and 40%
reduction in
offspec. material
D reduced.
Costs
$1.080/tonofSO2
removed.
For 70,000 Nm'/hr plant:
Capital costs = S1I.8M
operating costs =
$l.4M/yr.
Capital investment
$350,000 for 1.1 M ton
clinker plant.
Payback period less than 3
months.
$1 .50 savings/ton clinker.
m
00
oo
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
A-4
A-5
Technology Name and Brief Description
Fluidized-Bed Sintering System for Pollution
Prevention through Energy Efficiency in Iron and
Steel Production (DIOS Project)--DIOS process uses
fine and granular non-coking coal and iron ore
directly for making molten iron without resorting to
the coking and sintering operations required in the
traditional blast furnace process. DIOS dispenses
with coking coal and can utilize non-coking coal
directly, thereby ensuring a wider selection of
'resources to be used in ironmaking. The
agglomerating process (sintering and coking) is
eliminated, thereby reducing capital expenditures
and energy costs. Sulfur emissions are "scarcely
measurable" since the sulfur charged is either
dissolved into the melted slag and metal, or absorbed
onto dust and collected. DIOS uses less energy than
a conventional blast furnace and, as a result, less
emissions will be associated with the combustion of
fuels.
Cerafil Low Density Filter Elements-This
technology utilizes low-density ceramic filter
elements, called Cerafil™ elements, that are
comprised of anthropogenic mineral fibers bonded
with organic and inorganic materials to form a
porous filtration medium. Paniculate matter (PM) in
the flue gas forms a dust cake on the outside of the
elements. The dust cakes are removed via reverse
pulse-jet cleaning. The elements are temperature
resistant to 900°C and resistant to acid and alkali
contaminants in the flue gas. For flue gases above
250°C, the Cerafd1* filter plant eliminates the
necessity of gas cooling equipment. Cerafil™ will
also control HCI and SO, with the use of a sorbent
material fe.2 . calcium hvdroxide).
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Center Clean Coal
Utilization
Mr. Elichi Yugeta
Japan
Cerel, Ltd.
Andy Startin
UK
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
500 tpd pilot
plant under
study
Several full-
scale units in
use throughout
Europe.
Targeted Pollutants and Sources.
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
SO2, CO,, and other energy
related pollutants
Sources:
Primary Metals Manufacture
(ADP)
Secondary Imoacts:
None
Pollutants:
SO,, HCI, PM
Sources:
Cement Manufacure (ADP)
Industrial Boilers (UAP, TAE,
ADP)
Solid Waste Disposal (UAP.
TAE)
Chemical Manufacturing (UAP,
ADP)
Primary Metals Manufacture
(ADP)
Secondary Imoacts:
None
Performance
Levels
"Scarcely
measurable"
sulfur emissions
and 5-10%
reduction in CO,.
99.7% PM
control.
No data on SO,.
Costs
Costs reduced due to
elimination of sintering
and coking.
$16.2 per ACFM of flue
gas treated.
m
CO
i
VO
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
Technology Name and Brief Description
Cool Sorption Vapor Recovery Units-Controls
evaporation losses. When a road tanker is filled,
gasoline displaces vapor in the tank. The vapor is
piped into the cool sorption unit, washed in a
counter-current of cooled kcrosine. The mixture is
stabilized then fed into a splitter where the kerosine
and gasoline (liquid) are separated. Kerosine is
cooled and recycled; gasoline is returned to the
storage lank. Operation is fully automatic. Active
charcoal filter can be added as 2nd stage air purifier.
High Combustion Efficiency Woodstove with
Downdraft Combustion-Downburning combustion
woodstove used to burn smoke (paniculate), carbon
monoxide, and hydrocarbons that would in a
conventional stove be emitted to the atmosphere.
This method of burning not only reduces pollution
(by almost 90 percent as compared to a conventional
stove), but also increases net stove efficiency. The
CRE woodstove is designed to pull air from outside
the top of the stove down into the combustion zone
and then completes combustion in a secondary
chamber.
Burning Image analyZER (BIZER)--Combustion
control in kraft pulp mill recovery boilers by use of
infrared fire-room cameras to view smelt pile and
digital image processing to provide presentation of
burning information in a clear form. Can be used
for automatic burning control, and automatic
prevention of disturbances in the fuel bed.
ELSORB process-Wet scrubbing method which
utilizes a phosphate buffer for absorption of SO,
from flue gas. Buffer is stable, nonvolatile,
nontoxic, easily available and is continuously
recycled to the process after removal of SO, by
evaporation. Process produces concentrated SO, for
further processing either to HjSO4, or elemental S,
or liauid SO,
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Cool Sorption A/S Mr.
Morten Reimer
Hamfrem Glostrup
Denmark
CRE Group, Ltd
UK
ABB Industry Oy
Mr. Raimo Sutinen
Finland
Elkem Technology, Inc.
Mr. Frank Fereday
Pittsburgh, PA Norway
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
Commercial in
use in Europe
at more than 60
units
Prototype
tested in
Russia.
Commercially
available in
Indonesia
Demonstration
at U.S. facility
in NM-1995.
Current Austria
and Norway
full-scale
facilities
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
VOCs
Sources:
Petroleum Marketing (UAP)
Gasoline distribution (UAP)
Secondary [moacQ:
Wastewater
Pollutants:
VOCs. PM, CO
Sources:
Woodstoves and Fireplaces
(UAP)
Secondary IrPPSCR:
None
Pollutants:
VOC, CO, NO,, PM (through
energy efficiency)
Sources:
Industrial Boilers (UAP)
Solid Waste Disposal (UAP)
Secondary Imoacts:
None
Pollutants:
SO2
Sources:
Industrial Boilers (ADP)
Petroleum Refineries (ADP)
Secondary Impacts,:
Minor amounts of water and
wastewater
Performance
Levels
Meets or exceeds
EPA
requirements.
78% reduction of
ordinary stove
emissions.
65 % reduction of
conventional
catalytic stove
emissions.
Maximizes
energy efficiency.
>95% control.
Costs
Capital costs range from
S600K to 12M. Savings
due to product recovery.
SI .50 per ton of smoke
reduced.
$I85/yr savings over
typical catalytic stoves.
Payback 1-2 years.
Capital costs 500,000 -
$2M.
$479/ton SO, removed.
Savings potential for
H,SO4 recovered at
$30/ton recovered.
m
C/3
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
A-10
A-ll
A-12
A-13
Technology Name and Brief Description
Water-based Liquid Resins-Proprietary resin
dispersion technology used for applying water-based
resin adhesives. Resins are free from organic
solvents, proteins and starches. Adhesives are
nontoxic and can generate higher levels of adhesion
through penetration of absorbent substrates
Airborne 10 Absorpn'on/biodegeneration Agent—A
proprietary blend of surfactants that when atomized
with water, increases the effective surface area or
interface area of the water droplet by 500.000
percent. When introduced into an exhaust gas. the
Airborne 10 droplet collides with a pollutant aerosol
and absorbs the pollutant. The Airborne
10/poIlution aerosol falls to the ground where it is
broken down by the natural bacteria present. The
high droplet surface area and volume allows for
more effective gas contact, scrubbing, and,
consequently, more effective air pollution control.
Oilless, Dry Centrifugal "leak free" Compressors-
Dry gas seals offer the advantage of very little
leakage, which eliminates die need for a
sophisticated seal oil supply system. Enables
increased reliability, energy savings, and
maintainability, which is required in some fugitive
leaks standards. Energy savings by use of magnetic
bearings can offer a speed increase of the rotor and a
size reduction of the casing.
Degreasing with Alkaline Cleaning-Traditional
trichloroethylene degreasing process replaced by an
alkaline cleaning process. Totally reduces need for
solvent.
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Blueminster Ltd.
Mr. Trevor Jones
United Kingdom
Impex U.K. Ltd.
J.P. Edgar, Managing
Director
UK
Hitachi Ltd.
Mr. Yasyo Fukushima
Hitachi U.S.
Mr. Peter Bellavigna
Japan
Thorn Jamkonst AB Mr.
Egon Conrad Sweden
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
In use by major
European/Int'l
manufacturers
Available and
in use
throughout
Europe
One full scale
commercial
application at a
petroleum
refinery
One site
participated in
study.
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
VOCs
Sources:
Resins Production (TAE)
Solvent Evaporation (ADP)
Surface Coating (UAP)
Secondary Impaqg:
Wastewater and resin disposal
Pollutants:
VOCs, toxics
Sources:
Solid Waste TSDF (TAE)
Chemical Manufacturing (UAP,
ADP)
Synthetic Organic Chem. Mfr.
(TAE)
Plastics Manufacture (UAP)
Bakeries (ADP)
Secondary Im.pa.cjs,:
Water quality
Pollutants:
VOC (process fugitives and
through energy efficiency), CO,
NO,, PM (through energy
efficiency)
Sources:
Petroleum Refineries (TAE)
Chemical Manufacturing (UAP)
Synthetic Organic Chem. Mfr.
(TAE)
Secondary Jmpa.c.t5:
None
Pollutants:
VOCs
Sources:
Degreasing/Dry Cleaning (UAP)
Solvent Evaporation (ADP)
Secondary lm.P8c.ts.:
Wastewater
Performance
Levels
Eliminates VOC
emissions from
adhesives.
Saves drying
energy
requirements.
99.8% removal
of emissions.
100% control of
fugitive
compressor
emissions.
100% reduction
in solvent
emissions.
Costs
Cost savings due to
reduced solvent
requirements.
$0.37 savings per ton
waste processed over
traditional scrubbing
mechanisms.
Relative to typical
reciprocal compressor:
capital costs 21 % less,
operating costs 4% less.
20% less man using
solvents.
m
GO
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
A-14
B-l
B-2
Technology Name and Brief Description
QSL Process— Designed to treat all grades of lead
concentrates and secondary materials. Reactor
consists of a horizontal, slightly-sloped cylinder
which is divided into oxidation and reduction zones.
Raw material is introduced in the oxidation zone
where the lead sulfides are oxidized forming primary
lead bullion and a slag containing about
20-25 % PbO. The PbO is reduced to metallic Pb in
the reduction zone by the use of pulverized coal or
coke. The off gas which contains a high
concentration of SO, and dust is treated before it is
exhausted. The process is designed to include
recovery of Cd, Zn, and H,SO,.
Envirotreat Modified Clays for die Control of VOC
in Waste Air Streams-This technology utilizes a
range of modified clays that readily react with
pollutants contained in waste gas streams. The clays
act as a filter to remove the VOCs in the air stream.
The Envirotreat clays (E-clays) were developed
initially for use in land remediation, but the high
reactivity of the clays made them well suited for air
pollution as well. The equipment required for
implementation is similar to that used with activated
carbon processes. Unlike activated carbon which,
once saturated with VOCs, must be treated to avoid
the reversal of the adsorption process, die E-clays do
not require treatment and will not desorb the
pollutants back into the environment.
Fluidized-bed Cement Kiln Technology-The
technology utilizes multiple fluid beds to improve the
combustion and heat transfer characteristics of the
cement production process, enabling better control
of the sintering temperature; reducing Nox and CO2
emissions. The fluidized bed system also enables
lower grades of coal to be used (low carbon and high
hydrogen content).
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Lurgi Metallurgie
Dr. Andreas Siegmund
Germany
Rowe Technology, Ltd
R.M. Weir, Director
UK
Center Clean Coal
Utilization
Mr. Elichi Yugeta
iapan
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
Commercial
operation in
Germany,
Korea, Canada,
China
Prototype
under
development
Under study
since 1986.
Pilot plant
testing began
1995
(200 ton/day
plant)
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
Lead, Cd, SO,
Sources:
Lead Smelting (TAE)
Secondary Im.pa.cts:
Process waste and wastewater
Pollutants:
VOCs, toxics
Sources:
Solvent Evaporation (ADP)
Surface Coating (TAE)
Chemical Manufacturing (UAP,
ADP)
Synthetic Organic Chem. Mfr.
(TAE)
ScffOn^ftfY Impacts*
Solid waste (spent clay)
Pollutants:
NO, and CO2
Sources:
Cement Manufacture (ADP)
Industrial boilers (ADP)
Secondary Impacts'
None
Performance
Levels
>90% reduction
in Pb and Cd
emissions.
98% reduction in
SO, emissions,
compared to
conventional
plants.
High efficiency
expected.
NO. levels
reduced one-half
to one-third
compared to
typical cement
kilns.
Reduces COj (by
10%). fuel
consumption, and
pollution.
Costs
S70M capital costs for
75,OOOT/yrlead
production plant.
$90/ton of pollutant
removed.
Reduces construction costs
by 30%. saves 70% of
usual space requirements,
reduces fuel consumption
10%.
m
00
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
B-3
B-4
Technology Name and Brief Description
Oxidation Low Temperature Catalyst for Catalytic
Combustion Deodorization/odor Abatement Systems-
Catalyst has unique high activity at low
temperatures, allowing for low temperature odor
treatment, which eliminates the possibility of NO,
formation. Catalyst can resist temperatures up to
800°C, allowing for greater catalyst life and lower
operating costs (fewer regenerations/replacements).
Fluidized-bed Heat Treatment of metal components-
A gas phase heat treatment process using a fluidized
bed of alumina particles. A mixture of gases is used
to produce the fluidizing atmosphere for heat
treatment of the material immersed in the fluidized
bed. Hydrocarbon gases are used for carburizing,
ammonia for nitrating, and nitrogen for neutral
hardening. The bed is heated by electricity or gas,
and quenching is also carried out in a fluidized bed.
Because the process areas are enclosed, fugitive
emissions can be easily controlled when compared to
current molten salt bath heat treatment methods.
Vendor/Country of
Origin
Babcock Hitachi KK
Mr. Hiroshi Ichiryu
Japan
Quality Heat Treatment
Pty Ltd. Mr. Ray W.
Reynoldson Australia
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
Two full-scale
systems in
operation;
acrylic acid and
styrene
monomer plant
Four facilities
in 3 countries:
Australia,
Indonesia,
Malayasia (2)
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
NO,
Sources:
Chemical Manufacturing (ADP)
Secondary Impacts:
None.
Pollutants:
Metals, CN, VOC's, Halogens
Sources:
Primary Metals Manufacture
(ADP)
Secondary Impacts:
None
Performance
Levels
Produces less
thermal NO, with
90% reduction of
target pollutants
at 350°C with no
deterioration at
3,000+ hours of
catalyst service.
' 100% control of
chemicals
replaced.
Costs
Capital costs: SUM for
20,000 NmVhr acrylic
plant and S2.8M for
60,000 NmVhr styrene
monomer plant.
For 100-275 kg/hr plant,
cost savings of
$87.000/yr, two-year
capital cost payback
period.
m
t/5
U>
(continued)
-------
EXHIBIT 2. Continued
Technology
Number
B-5
B-6
B-7
Technology Name and Brief Description
"BIOTON" Biofilter-Biofilter works by providing an
environment in which the microorganisms can
thrive. The construction of this environment begins
with organic-bearing material, such as compost,
surrounded by a thin film of water. The compost
serves as the nutrient source for the microorganisms
until the polluted gas stream becomes the food
source. One cubic meter of filter material can
provide approximately 10 million particles, and each
particle can house up to 100,000 microorganisms.
Ecoclean Cleaning Machines-Batch solvent cleaning
machines. The cleaning chamber is hermetically
sealed during the cleaning cycle. After completion
of the cleaning cycle, the solvent vapor is a
evacuated from the chamber through a solvent
recovery system.
F-l Clean-Ultrasonic cleaning and drying batch
solvent cleaning machine. Cleaning chamber is
closed-during cleaning and drying is performed
under vacuum with recovery of residual solvent
vapors.
Vendor/Country of
Origin
PPC BioHlter/Clair Tec
Mr. Scot Standefer
Longview, Texas
Netherlands
Durr Industries/
Automation, Inc.
Mr. David Townsend
and Mr. Joseph
Scapoelilti
Germany
Tiyoda Mfg.
Mr. Mickey Ohkubo
Japan
Developmental
Status/Sites in
Use
20+ facilities
in Europe
Commercially
available
throughout
Europe
Commercial
use in Japan by
many large
companies.
Targeted Pollutants and Sources,
and Secondary Impacts
Pollutants:
VOCs, toxics
Sources:
Chemical Manufacturing (UAP,
ADP)
Petroleum Refineries (TAE,
ADP)
Synthetic Organic Chem. Mfir.
(TAE)
Surface coating (TAE)
Sccppdiuy Impacts:
Disposal of aged filter material
Pollutants:
VOCs, toxics
Sources:
Degreasing/Dry cleaning (UAP)
Solvent evaporation (ADP)
Secondary Impacts:
None
Pollutants:
VOCs, Toxics
Sources:
Solvent Evaporation (ADP)
Degreasing/Dry Clean (UAP)
Secondary Impacts.:
Sludge from filters
Performance
Levels
80-90% control.
99% reduction in
solvent use when
compared to the
conventional
open-top vapor
cleaners being
used in the U.S.
99.99% control.
Costs
$ 15- 1 00 per cfm of air
cleaned.
$30/ton of load degreased.
Capital costs S200K -
250K.
tn
on
(continued)
-------
ES-15
EXHIBIT 3. Applicability of Identified Technologies
Emission Source
Urban Air Quality
Automobiles (also heavy-duty and off-road vehicles)
Boilers, Turbines, and Heaters
Chemical Manufacturing
Degreasing/Dry Cleaning
Gasoline Distribution (bulk stations and terminals)
Petroleum Marketing (vehicle refueling/spillage)
Plastics Manufacture
Solid Waste Disposal
Surface Coating
Woodstoves and Fireplaces
Toxic Air Emissions
Cyanide Production/Coke Ovens
Industrial Boilers
Lead Smelting
Petroleum Refineries
Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing
Polycarbonates Production
Resins Production (amino and acetal)
Solid Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Surface Coating
Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industries
(SOCMI)
Acid Deposition
Asphalt Paving
Automobiles (including heavy-duty and off-road vehicles)
Bakeries
Cement Manufacture
Chemicals Manufacturing
Fossil Fuel-Fired Boilers
Gasoline Station Evaporation Loss
Petroleum Refining
Primary Metals Manufacture
Solvent Evaporation (dry cleaning/degreasing, printing)
Applicable Air Pollution Prevention and Control
Technologies
Pollution Control
0
A-2, A-5
A-5.A-1 1,8-1, B-5
B-6, B-7
A-6
A-6
A-ll
A-5
0
0
0
A-2, A-5
0
0
0
0
0
A-5 A- 11
B-l.B-5
A-11.B-1.B-5
0
A-ll
A-5
A-l, A-2, A-5, A-ll, B-l,B-5
A-9, A-5
0
A-9
A-2, A-5
B-6, B-7, B-l
0
Pollution
Prevention
0
A-8, A-12
A-12
A-13
0
0
0
A-8
A-10
A-7
0
A-12
A-14
A-12
0
0
A-10
0
0
A-12
0
0
A-3, B-2
A-3, B-3, B-4
A-12, B-2
0 ,
0
A-4, B-4,
A-10, A-13, B-3
0
From the list of 21 technologies shown in Exhibit 2, listed here by technology number.
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
00) S
i- I. 0 O
ooa>
r
>EE
±00)0)
«+- Q. ----
,tl 0) o C
EE..O
t o> 3+3
0 O 05
aw>
4-1 0.
0£.
c "- E'
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 487-4660.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; audiovisual products; computer software and electronic
databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and technical
reports prepared by research organizations worldwide. Approximately
100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS collection
annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at (703) 487-4650 and request the free NTIS Catalog of Products
and Services, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
------- |