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

-------