United States Office of Research and EPA/600/R-07/098
Environmental Protection Department October 2006
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Environmental
Technology Verification
for Air Pollution Control
Technologies
-------
Environmental Technology Verification for
Air Pollution Control Technologies
Final Report
by
Andrew R. Trenholm and Jenni M. Elion
Research Triangle Institute
3040 Cornwallis Road
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
EPA Cooperative Agreement CR 82943401
Project Officer
Michael Kosusko
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
This project was conducted in cooperation with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
Notice
This document was prepared by RTI International (RTI) with funding from Cooperative
Agreement No. CR829434-01-1 with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
document has been submitted to RTI/EPA's peer and administrative reviews and has been
approved for publication. Mention of corporation names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products.
11
-------
Abstract
This report is submitted in fulfillment of CR 82943401 by Research Triangle Institute under the
sponsorship of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and covers a period from
September 15, 2001, to September 14, 2004. Work is continuing under a separate cooperative
agreement.
The technical objective of the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Air Pollution
Control Technologies Verification Center (APCT Center) is to verify environmental technology
performance by obtaining objective, quality-assured data, thus providing potential purchasers
and permitters with an independent, credible assessment.
A Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC), comprised of a highly qualified core group with a
wide range of perspectives and collective experience, provided guidance and input on the various
factors used to evaluate candidate technologies. Candidate technologies were ranked based on
several factors, including the importance of air pollutant, commercial availability and multiple
vendors, available test methods, and interest by vendors and developers.
As a priority pollutant, paniculate matter was of great interest, and the APCT Center focused on
technology areas that would have the most impact on reducing these emissions. Although work
began during the initial pilot period, efforts continued in the verification of baghouse filtration
products because of the increasing interest in high efficiency for small particle sizes. Work also
continued in the verification of retrofit technologies for mobile sources and of dust suppressants,
as mobile sources and fugitive dust emissions are primary sources for particulate matter. The
Center also continued evaluating bioreaction technologies to reduce VOC emissions.
Over a period of three years, the APCT Center produced 12 verification reports. These
documents were placed on the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv and the RTI Web site:
http://etv.rti. org/apct.
in
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Technical Objectives 1
2.0 ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1
2.1 Program Management 1
2.1.1 ETV Team meetings 2
2.1.2 Quality 2
2.1.3 Business Plan 3
2.2 Technical Achievements 3
2.2.1 Stakeholders Advisory Committee 4
2.2.2 Mobile Sources 4
2.2.3 Dust Suppressants 7
2.2.4 Baghouse Filtration Products 9
2.2.5 Volatile Organic Compounds 9
3.0 OUTREACH 10
3.1 Constituent Information System (CIS) 10
3.2 APCT Center Web Site 10
3.3 Published Articles and Presentations 11
3.4 Conference Attendance 12
4.0 BUDGET 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 13
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This final report fulfills the contractual requirements in the cooperative agreement,
CR82943401. The report describes the activities of the Air Pollution Control Technology
Verification Center (APCT Center) and Stakeholders Advisory Committee (SAC) and
summarizes the accomplishments of the specific verification areas under this agreement. Work
was continued from the pilot program funded under cooperative agreement CR 82615201-3 and
has been extended under a separate cooperative agreement.
Generic verification protocols (GVPs), test/quality assurance (QA) plans, verification reports,
and verification statements were posted to the Web site (http://etv.rti.org/apct) following
approval by EPA's Office of Research and Development. Meeting minutes were also posted
after meeting attendees were given the opportunity to review and comment on them. Minutes of
all the technical panel meetings can be accessed from the index page
http://etv.rti.org/apct/tech/index.cfm. Other uniform resource locators (URLs) are provided here
for reference.
1.2 Technical Objectives
The technical objective of the overall Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program is
to verify environmental performance of selected technologies by developing objective, quality-
assured data, thus providing potential purchasers and permitters with an independent, credible
assessment.
The ETV APCT Center developed a strategy to meet its objective of furthering the development
of self-supporting private testing/certification programs for air pollution control technologies.
To achieve this goal, the Center:
Convened stakeholder advisory committees and technical panels,
Developed and verified test protocols,
Tested commercially available technologies voluntarily offered by vendors,
Prepared verification statements and reports and publicly disseminated them via the EPA
and Research Triangle Institute (RTI) ETV Web sites, and
Provided quality and technical support as needed during privatization.
2.0 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
2.1 Program Management
The cooperative agreement CR 82943401 (RTI 08281) is in place from September 15, 2001 to
September 14, 2006; however, existing funding ran out in 2004. This final report, covering the
period from September 15, 2001 to September 14, 2004, completes the requirements of this
cooperative agreement. Funding was $1,217,700. Andrew R. Trenholm was the RTI program
manager. The program management personnel matrix is illustrated in Figure 1.
-------
Program Management
Andrew R. Trenholm
Technology
Administrative
Quality Assurance
Mobile Sources
Jenni M. Elion
Dust Suppressants
Deborah L. Franke
Baghouse Filtration Products
Andrew R. Trenholm
Volatile Organic Compounds
Andrew R. Trenholm
Emulsified Fuels
Andrew R. Trenholm
Add-on NOx Controls
Douglas W. Van Osdell
Financial
Jennifer L. Westcott
Communication & Outreach
Jenni M. Elion
Gene Tatsch
Figure 1. Organization of the Air Pollution Control Technology Verification Center
The APCT Center submitted separate monthly and quarterly progress reports to Michael
Kosusko, the EPA Center Manager.
2.1.1 ETV Team Meetings
RTI participated in the following ETV team meetings and provided updates of our center.
October 21-23, 2002, Cincinnati, OH
April 1-3, 2003, Charleston, SC
October 14-15, 2003, Las Vegas, NV
May 11-12, 2004, Arlington, VA
2.1.2 Quality
The value of ETV/APCT Center data rests on the credible, high-quality performance information
released in Verification Statements and Verification Reports. To produce such data, the APCT
Center quality program, developed and implemented by RTI depends on systematic application
of activities addressing the quality of processes and oversight, including verification-specific
activities. These activities are consistent with the spirit and letter of EPA's quality system
requirements and guidance. Program-related activities included:
Paul Groff and Robert Wright of EPA met with Gene Tatsch (quality manager), Andrew
Trenholm (program manager), and Jenni Elion of RTI/APCT Center on December 29,
2003, and conducted a quality systems audit of the center
The program manager with the active support of the quality manager (and other RTI
staff, as appropriate) ensured that the various processes and activities specified in the
approved APCT Center QMP were implemented in a timely, effective, and efficient
manner
Within the APCT Center management responsibility are technology-specific tasks, including
preparation of Generic Verification Protocols (GVPs), Test/Quality Assurance Plans (T/QAPs),
Verification Statements (VSs), and Verification Reports (VRs). These activities included:
-------
All the above mentioned documents underwent EPA technical and quality review for
each technology tested
The APCT Center program manager (PM) and quality manager (QM) participated in
development of four GVPs, one T/QAP, and four associated T/QAP addenda prior to
their submission to EPA for review
The PM and QM reviewed each data package from each technology test in detail for
technical and quality-related issues to ensure the credibility and high quality of VSs and
VRs submitted to EPA
2.1.3 Business Plan
The APCT Center monitored marketing activities with ETS and the SAC to better inform
vendors, users, and regulators about center activities. Marketing efforts have focused on
developing case studies of vendors who have completed the verification process and how they
have benefited from the ETV program. The center has marketed its accomplishments in trade
journals, publications, and conferences via program fact sheets and technology-specific profiles.
The center has posted the fact sheets and profiles on its web site, along with pdf files of papers
and presentations.
2.2 Technical Achievements
A highly qualified core group that agreed to participate in the SAC during the APCT pilot
program continued their involvement as the center evolved. With its wide range of perspectives
and collective experience, the SAC provided guidance and input on the various factors used to
evaluate candidate technologies.
Candidate technologies were ranked based on the following factors:
Importance of air pollutant,
Commercial availability and multiple vendors,
Available test methods,
Interest by vendors and developers,
Market potential, and
Potential for self-sustainability.
The SAC and the technology focus areas are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
A summary of the test protocols and test/QA plans and verification reports is given in Table 1.
This does not include test protocols, test/QA plans, and verification reports completed during the
pilot phase. All the completed verification reports are listed later with reference to their web site
location.
-------
Table 1. Summary of APCT Center Technical Achievements
Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Mobile Sources
Dust Suppressants
Baghouse Filtration Products
Volatile Organic Compounds
# members
27
71
33
41
23
# meetings
3a
6b
lb
lb
Vendor mtgs.
2
1
1
# protocols
2
ld
1
# test plans
7
3C
# reports
7
5
a A fourth SAC meeting, scheduled for 9/20/01 was cancelled following the terrorist attack of 9/11.
b Technical panel established during pilot phase of program; technical meetings held between 9/15/01 and 9/14/04.
0 Includes one test plan for the demonstration phase and two test plans for verification testing at two different sites.
d Protocol revised to reduce filtration velocity.
2.2.1 Stakeholders Advisory Committee
Over the course of the program, members representing the Air & Waste Management
Association (AWMA), American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA), American
Chemistry Council (ACC), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), California Air Resources Board (CARB), Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA), Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO), Dayton
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC), Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association
(MECA), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Audubon Society, National
Council of Air and Stream Improvement, Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
(NESCAUM), and State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and
the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) have served on the SAC.
Under this cooperative agreement, stakeholder meetings have been held on a biannual basis in
the fall and spring.
September 20, 2001, Research Triangle Park, NC
This meeting was cancelled on 9/17 due to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
March 13, 2002, Research Triangle Park, NC
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/advisory/02Marl3/index.html)
September 18, 2002, Research Triangle Park, NC
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/advisory/02Sep 18/index.html)
March 5, 2003, Research Triangle Park, NC
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/advisory/03Mar05/index.html)
The SAC continues to provide guidance and input to the APCT Center under cooperative
agreement CR 831911-01-1.
2.2.2 Mobile Sources
This area was proposed as a technology for ETV testing because of the intense interest in
controlling NOX and PM from mobile sources, the new highway regulations scheduled to go into
effect in 2004, the new fuel requirements scheduled to go into effect in 2007, and voluntary
retrofit programs for state implementation plan (SIP) credits. The SAC recommended that the
task area be expanded to include nonroad engines as well.
-------
The protocol was based on the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) described in 40 CFR Part 86 for
highway engines and 40 CFR Part 89 for nonroad engines. After completing a protocol for
verification of retrofit devices, the technical panel held additional meetings in 2002 to develop a
protocol for selective catalytic reduction systems and a protocol for alternative and reformulated
fuels. These protocols, Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions
Reductions from Selective Catalytic Reduction Control Technologies for Highway, Nonroad, and
Stationary Use Diesel Engines and Generic Verification Protocol for Determination of
Emissions Reductions Obtained by Use of Alternative or Reformulated Liquid Fuels, Fuel
Additives, Fuel Emulsions, and Lubricant for Highway and Nonroad Diesel Engines and Light-
Duty Gasoline Engines., were approved in September 2003 and posted to the Web site the
following month.
Many of the applicants to the verification program were seeking approval for the Voluntary
Diesel Retrofit Program (VDRP) from EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ),
certification from California Air Resources Board (CARB), or both. The center worked closely
with the applicants and representatives from OTAQ and CARB to ensure that the test plans
developed would produce data suitable for vendor submission under VDRP.
Most of the manufacturers that contacted the center during this period were seeking verification
under the devices protocol. These applicants listed below either contacted the center for general
information, or submitted the Intent to Verify form or application, but did not sign a contract
with the center to conduct verification.
AES, EPCS exhaust headers
Algae-X International, magnetic fuel conditioning device
Allison Transmission, hybrid propulsion system
Arvin Meritor, diesel oxidation catalyst
Arvin Meritor, diesel particulate filter thermal regeneration system
Bose, Bose System Mark I automobile anti-air pollution and energy conservation system
CleanAir Associates, fuel line catalyst
Concepts Unlimited, (AEGIS) Air Enriched Gas Induction System
Dr. Performance, diesel propane engine kit
Egregor, ThermaPore biofilter
Faurecia Exhaust Systems, diesel particulate filter and selective catalytic reduction
Finnkat, diesel oxidation catalyst
FreEnergy Group, LLC, EnergyCel magnetic fuel ion modifier
Fuel Preparator, Inc. (formerly Diesel Products, Inc.), FP-135 fuel delivery system
Infineum, Vektron gasoline additive
Magna-Guard, Inc., oil filter magnets
Mann+Hummel, Pro-Vent 200 CCV coalescing filter
Mirenco, DriverMax throttle management system
Nett Technologies, DH diesel oxidation catalyst + SF1100 diesel particulate filter
Octel, fuel-borne catalyst plus diesel particulate filter
PFC Environmental Products, Flux wave cell
PFC Environmental Products, PM catalyst
Rotec Design Ltd., FreedomAir Twin Stroke CU-C-1000
Tadger Group International, Tadger (creates controlled turbulence in fuel that results in more
efficient combustion)
-------
Tipaz, Zetron mobile electron beam systems
The following manufacturers contacted the Center during this period seeking verification under
the fuels protocol. These applicants either contacted the Center for general information, or
submitted the Intent to Verify form or application, but did not sign a contract with the center to
conduct verification. The high cost of the verification testing was usually cited as the reason for
not conducting verification testing, although some manufacturers sought financing through
award and grant programs administered by other agencies.
Agro Management, AMG2000 vegetable-based lubricant
Aquafuel, HFO3 emulsified fuel
Bio*Friendly, Green Plus combustion catalyst added to fuel
EcoEnergy Solutions, A-55 emulsified boiler fuel
EnviroFuels, Diesel fuel catalyzer
Filtakleen, ILFC 1035 fuel line catalyst
GTA Technologies, high molecular weight polymer fuel additive
H2OIL Corp., F2-21 10/5J fuel additive and F2-21 3/9C fuel additive
Oryxe Energy International, Inc., OR-EPA diesel fuel additive
Pacific Petroleum, fuel additive, lube oil additive
SolPower, Soltron enzyme fuel treatment
World Energy Alternatives, Envirodiesel B20 biodiesel fuel
Panther Water & Fuel Solutions
Rentar Fuel Catalyst
The following manufacturers contacted the center during this period seeking verification under
the SCR protocol. These applicants either contacted the center for general information, or
submitted the Intent to Verify form or application, but did not sign a contract with the center to
conduct verification. Discussions with these manufacturers are continuing under the new
cooperative agreement.
Combustion Components Associates, Elim-NOx MSCR-00 urea-based SCR
lohnson Matthey, SCR urea system with CRT filter
Haldor Topsoe
KleenAir, SCR plus DPF
The following manufacturers contacted the center during this period seeking general information
only. They did not provide enough information to classify their technology or respond to follow-
up emails.
Afco Environmental
American Energy Group
Cleaire Advanced Emissions Controls
CleanAIR Systems
Clear Imaging Alternatives
Combustion Technologies, Ltd.
DCL-International
FuelFX
Lyon Development
Metalbrook Energy Group
Motormaster
-------
Oxy-Adders Inc.
Peroulis
PowerClean 2000
Precision Combustions
Universal Cams
During this period, the center verified the technologies from four different applicants under the
devices protocol, resulting in seven verification reports.
Donaldson Company, Inc., Series 6000 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler and Spiracle
Closed Crankcase Filtration System
(http://etv.rti. org/apct/pdf/Donaldson%20VR_6000+spiracle.pdf)
Donaldson Company, Inc., Series 6100 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/Donaldson%20VR_6100.pdf)
Donaldson Company, Inc., Series 6100 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler and Spiracle
Closed Crankcase Filtration System
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/Donaldson%20VR_6100+spiracle.pdf)
Lubrizol Engine Control Systems Purifilter SC17L
(http://etv.rti. org/apct/pdf/Lubrizol_Veri fication_Report_6-9-04.pdf)
Clean Diesel Technologies Fuel-Borne Catalyst with CleanAir System's Diesel Oxidation
Catalyst
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/CDT_FBC+DOC_VerificationReport_2-5-04.pdf)
Clean Diesel Technologies Fuel-Borne Catalyst with Mitsui/PUREarth Catalyzed Wire
Mesh Filter
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/CDT_FBC+CWMF_VerificationReport_9-27-04.pdf)
Clean Clear Fuel Technologies, Inc., Universal Fuel Cell
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/CCFTVerificationReport2-22-05.pdf)
Activities in this area will continue under RTFs new cooperative agreement.
2.2.3 Dust Suppressants
This area was selected for verification because PM is one of EPA's six criteria pollutants, and
fugitive emissions from unpaved roads represent about 41% of direct PMio emissions, making
them the greatest single source. Fugitive emissions from unpaved roads also make up about 34%
of direct PM2 5 emissions.1
Before assembling a technical panel, the task leader convened a meeting for manufacturers and
possible participants to gauge interest. The manufacturers noted several concerns to be
addressed by the technical panel:
Location of the test (e.g., geography, geology, and climate),
Proposed verification test approach (e.g., application rate),
Associated environmental impacts (e.g., storm water run-off), and
1 Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C. Reconciling Urban Fugitive Dust Emissions Inventory and Ambient Source Contribution
Estimates: Summary of Current Knowledge and Needed Research. DRI Document No. 6110.4F. Desert Research
Institute, Reno NV, 2000.
-------
Markets (e.g., focus the road dust suppressant verification on a market of broad interest).
The task leader assembled a technical panel comprised of members representing manufacturers
of dust suppressants and soil stabilizers, state and local government agencies, end users, and the
Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF). The manufacturers wanted a simple test
program that would give good results at a reasonable cost so that verification would be within
financial reach of small companies.
A profiling technique has been used for some time to collect total PM, PMio, and PM2.5. This
method is labor-intensive and very dependent upon wind direction. With support from the U.S.
Army, MRI developed a mobile sampling device mounted behind a truck. Mobile sampling,
when correlated with the results from profiling, will be substituted in later tests for profiling to
reduce testing costs.
Under the guidance of Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products and Comparison
of Dust Emissions Monitoring Methods at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri., MRI conducted a 3-
month preliminary test at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, to compare the control efficiencies resulting
from profile measurements and the mobile sampling device measurements. The preliminary test
included six products from three vendors and was conducted from October 2001 to January
2002.
Because the test/QA plan was developed for the preliminary test and not the verification test, it
was not published on the Web site. Test reports for the six products included in the pilot test,
which are listed below, were not published on the Web sites.
Enviroseal Corporation (Port St. Lucie, FL), Enviroseal LDC
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. (Canton, OH), EK35
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. (Canton, OH), EnviroKleen Version C
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. (Canton, OH), EnviroKleen
SynTech Products Corporation (Toledo, OH), EC CRYL SUPPRESS
SynTech Products Corporation (Toledo, OH), PetroTac
Based on the results of the pilot test, several changes were made to the Generic Verification
Protocol for Dust Suppression and Soil Stabilization Products:
EPA Method 9E observations were removed,
Water baseline testing was removed, and
Statistical analysis was improved.
Test/QA plans based on the protocol were developed for the two sites chosen for field testing:
Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/FLWl-yrDraftTest-OAPlanlO-17-02.pdf), and
Test/QA Plan for Testing of Dust Suppressant Products at Maricopa County, Arizona
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/Maricopal-yrDraftTest-QAPlanlO-17-02.pdf).
Full verification tests of dust suppression products were begun in June 2002. At Fort Leonard
Wood, MO, testing includes two products from Midwest Industrial Supplies, two products from
-------
Syntech Products Corporation, and one product from North American Salt Corporation. At
Maricopa County, AZ, testing included two products from Midwest Industrial Supplies. Testing
was completed in September 2003, and five verification reports were posted to the Web sites in
December 2005.
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. (Canton, OH), EKฎ35
(http ://etv.rti .org/apct/pdf/VREK3 52005_12-13 -05 .pdf)
Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc. (Canton, OH), EnviroKleenฎ
(http ://etv.rti .org/apct/pdf/VREnviroKleen2005-12-13-05 .pdf)
North American Salt Company (Overland Park, KS), DustGard
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/VRDustGard2005_12_13_05.pdf)
SynTech Products Corporation (Toledo, OH), PetroTacฎ
(http ://etv.rti .org/apct/pdf/VRPetroTac2005-12-13 .pdf)
SynTech Products Corporation (Toledo, OH), TechSuppress
(http://etv.rti.org/apct/pdf/VRTechSuppress2005-12-13.pdf)
2.2.4 Baghouse Filtration Products
As with dust suppressants, this area was selected for verification because PM is one of EPA's six
criteria pollutants. The test method, developed for the protocol during the pilot phase of the
program, was accepted by the American Society to Testing and Materials and published as
ASTM method D6840 in December 2002.
The center verified the performance of 15 products total for eleven vendors during three rounds
of testing during the pilot phase. In October 2002, the technical panel met to consider whether
changes to the protocol were necessary. Because more applications requiring high efficiency at
small particle sizes were using light-weight membrane fabrics, the technical panel decided to
modify the protocol to allow testing of such fabrics at a lower pressure drop.
During a vendors' teleconference on April 17, 2003, potential changes to the BFP protocol
regarding testing of light-weight membrane fabrics, use of a reference fabric for performance
comparisons, and lowering the detection limit for outlet dust concentration were discussed.
Suggested improvements included generating reports that were more readable for end users and
more closely aligned with field experience and adding an option to test light-weight membrane
fabrics. Some vendors volunteered to supply information that may allow comparison between
verified fabrics and their use in the field. Suggestions for sources of funding were requested for
the work needed to change the protocol.
The protocol developed during the pilot phase was modified to allow testing at a lower filtration
velocity and approved. No verification tests were conducted in this area over the time period.
Activities in this area will continue under RTFs new cooperative agreement.
2.2.5 Volatile Organic Compounds
This area was selected for verification because the market for VOC control technologies is
expected to grow substantially, driven by MACT/RACT/BACT/LAER regulations.
-------
The task leader assembled a technical panel comprised of members representing manufacturers,
test laboratories, state and local government agencies, and end users. The protocol was limited
to bioreaction technology, defined as a closed system using microbes to control a gas stream
containing VOCs, and included bioreactors, biofilters, bioscrubbers, and biomembranes. Open
systems were not covered within the scope of the protocol. The protocol, Generic Verification
Protocol for Bioreaction System Control Technologies for Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions, was approved in September 2003 and posted to the Web site the following month.
One vendor applied for verification testing of a biofilter installed at a paint manufacturing
facility in California for VOC control. Verification of the technology was delayed until the plant
came up to full production capacity.
Activities in this area will continue under RTFs new cooperative agreement.
3.0 OUTREACH
Outreach activities conducted by the APCT Center included periodic communication with the
SAC and technical panel members through meetings and email, updates to the center website,
and publication of accomplishments in trade journals and presentations at trade shows.
3.1 Constituent Information System (CIS)
The Constituent Information System (CIS) is a database of air pollution control technology
developers/vendors; regulators; test laboratories; end users; trade associations; and local, State,
and Federal agencies. The database was initially compiled from technical association Web sites
(Institute of Clean Air Companies, A&WMA, Pollution Online Guide to Products); published
buyer's guides (Pollution Equipment News); manufacturers' Web sites; and trade magazines and
journals. It includes names, addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers, and email addresses
when available. For technology developers and vendors, the control technologies offered by
each company are listed. The database has grown to over 1000 firms and organizations. The
CIS has been used to identify and contact manufacturers and vendors of the technologies
selected thus far and invite their participation in the testing program. This tool is also used as a
messaging center for communication with individuals, companies, and groups via email and fax,
as well as for scheduling events related to the ETV program.
3.2 APCT Center Web Site
The APCT Center Web Site supplements the EPA's ETV Web Site. It was launched to
disseminate information about the program to the targeted community of air pollution control
technology developers, manufacturers, vendors, end users, regulators, and others, as well as the
general public. Completed verification reports and verification statements are posted on both the
APCT Center and ETV Web Sites, along with the GVPs and test/QA plans. Visitors to the
APCT Center Web Site can also review recent publications and minutes of previous meetings,
see when upcoming meetings were scheduled, submit technologies to be verified, and request to
be added to the CIS.
10
-------
As seen by the usage statistics in Figure 2, the Web site has become a valuable tool. In this
figure, a visitor is usually defined simply as a unique internet protocol (IP) address, and a visit is
a collection of requests that represent all the pages and graphics seen by a particular visitor at
one time.
'{/)
o
ฃ 7SOO :
Zonnn
1 nnn
500 -_
n :
D Visitors
Visits
: |
1
1
_
0
i.
-------
Brna, T. "Environmental Technology Verification: A Vehicle for Independent Creditable
Performance Results on Commercially Ready Technologies (Paper #71006)." A&WMA
96th Annual Conference & Exhibition, San Diego, CA, June 22-26, 2003.
Trenholm, A. R. "Verifying the VOC Control Performance of Bioreactors (Paper
#69850)." A&WMA 96th Annual Conference & Exhibition, San Diego, CA, June 22-26,
2003.
Franke, D. L. "Dust Suppression and Soil Stabilization Products Long Term
Verification of Performance on Roads (Paper #69623)." A&WMA 96th Annual
Conference & Exhibition, San Diego, CA, June 22-26, 2003.
Trenholm, A. R. "Performance Verification for Air Pollution Control Technologies."
Environmental Innovations Summit, Washington, DC, July 16, 2003.
Trenholm, A. R. "Performance Verification for Air Pollution Control Technologies."
Industrial Emissions Conference, sponsored by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners,
Charlotte, NC, August 2003.
3.4 Conference Attendance
Andrew Trenholm represented the APCT Center at seven conferences and workshops.
SERDP & ESTCP Symposium & Workshop, Washington, DC, December 3-5, 2002.
Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Phoenix, AZ, February 19-21, 2003.
Texas Industries of the Future and DOE, Houston, TX, March 17-18, 2003.
National Defense Industrial Association (NIDA), Richmond, VA, April 7-9, 2003.
96th Annual Conference and Exhibition, AWMA, San Diego, CA, June 22-26, 2003.
Environmental Innovations Summit, Washington, DC, July 16, 2003.
Industrial Emissions Conference, sponsored by the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners,
Charlotte, NC, August 2003.
4.0 BUDGET
EPA provided $1,217,700, with RTI committing to a cost share of $60,885. RTI exceeded its
cost share commitment by $471,470. Cost share was earned through program income and
donated services. Fees paid by the applicants for product verifications generated program
income. SAC members' time to attend the SAC meetings contributed to donated services. The
sources and amounts of income are shown in Table 2.
12
-------
Table 2. Funding Sources for APCT Center ETV Program
EPA
COST SHARE EARNED
Program Income
Donated Services
TOTAL FUNDING
$1,217,700
$532,355
$530,490
$1,865
$1,750,055
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
The APCT Center is an environmental technology verification organization with active programs
in six technology areas; paint overspray arresters, baghouse filtration products, add-on NOX
controls, mobile sources, dust suppressants, and VOC controls. This Center is one of six
selected from the initial 12 pilot programs for continued funding. Other conclusions are listed
below.
Areas of most interest have focused on control of paniculate matter (i.e., mobile sources,
baghouse filtration products, and dust suppressants).
The mobile sources area attracted greater interest than other areas because it was
coordinated with a specific EPA regulatory program, the voluntary diesel engine retrofit
program. The verification tests, while conducted independently of this program,
provided data that was acceptable to the regulatory program.
The cost of a verification test continues to be a barrier to attracting greater numbers of
vendors to participate in the APCT Center. This is particularly true when the verification
tests must be conducted one device at a time on a full-scale installation (i.e., only one
vendor provides funds).
The use of interested stakeholders to provide guidance and direction to the APCT Center
and to help prepare generic verification protocols was very efficient and effective.
The ETV Program and the APCT Center are not widely recognized and understood by
vendors, users, and permitters.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
EPA's ongoing involvement is integral to the continued success of the ETV program. EPA
should continue funding for the APCT Center to support operation and marketing of the center,
and development of additional verification areas. In addition, the EPA and the APCT Center
should increase interaction and leveraging of funds with other organizations such as DOD, the
Texas Council on Environmental Technology, grant programs, etc.
When possible, verification approaches should focus on generating verification data that can be
used by vendors to market their products for compliance with existing or upcoming regulatory
programs. Also, an increase in effort by the EPA and the APCT Center is needed to gain greater
13
-------
exposure and recognition for the "ETV" and "APCT Center" names.
14
------- |