EPA 600/R-10/119 I September 2010 I www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program
Case Studies
DEMONSTRATING PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Development of this document was funded by die United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program under contract number EP-C-08-010 to The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. ETV is a public-private partnership conducted, in
large part, through competitive cooperative agreements with nonprofit research institutes. This document has been subjected to the Agency's review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey, and should not be inter-
preted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. The use of company- and/or product-specific sales information, images,
quotations, or other outcomes-related information does not constitute the endorsement of any one verified company or product over another, nor do
the comments made by these organizations necessarily reflect the views of EPA.
-------
Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program
Case Studies
DEMONSTRATING PROGRAM OUTCOMES
CD
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
3
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support
and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPAs research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of techno-
logical and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health
and the environment. The focus of the laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness
for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in
public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of
indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with public and private sector partners
to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research
provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment, advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions, and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and
made available by EPAs Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and link researchers
with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
III
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ETV Program wishes to thank the ETV verification organizations, ETV center project officers, EPA program
office staff, and other EPA personnel who reviewed the case studies throughout the development process. The fol-
lowing individuals were instrumental in ensuring that the information presented in the case studies was technically
accurate, consistent with the Agency's current understanding of the underlying issues, summarized fairly, and, in
the case of potential outcomes, estimated in a reasonable manner:
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies: Joyce Hudson, EPA Office of Water; Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech;
Thomas Stevens, NSF International; Raymond Frederick, EPA Office of Research and Development, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory; and Claude Smith, International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Rachel Goldstein, EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program; Neeharika Naik-
Dhungel, EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership; Christopher Voell and Kurt Roos, EPA AgSTAR Program;
P. Ferman Milster, University of Iowa; Doug Tolrud, Minnesota Power; James Foster, New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority; Timothy Hansen, Southern Research Institute; Lee Beck and Julius Enriquez,
EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory; Joseph Staniunas,
UTC Power; and Jim Mennell, renewaFUEL, LLC.
All Case Studies: J. E. Smith; Patrick Topper, The Pennsylvania State University; and Teresa Harten, Evelyn Hartz-
ell, and Abby Waits, EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
IV
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Acknowledgements iy
Exhibits yi
Acronyms and Abbreviations yii
1. Introduction and Summary 1
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Organization and Scope 3
1.3 Summary of Outcomes 4
2. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies 7
2.1 Environmental, Human Health, and Regulatory Background 8
2.2 Technology Description 10
2.3 Outcomes 11
2.3.1 Pollutant Reduction Outcomes 11
2.3.2 Technology Acceptance, Use, and Financial and Economic Outcomes 14
2.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes 15
2.4 References 17
3. Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery 19
3.1 Environmental, Human Health, and Regulatory Background 21
3.1.1 Energy, GHGs, and Climate Change 22
3.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations 23
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment 24
3.1.4 Landfills 25
3.1.5 Boilers 26
3.2 Technology Description 26
3.2.1 Biogas Processing Systems 26
3.2.2 Distributed Generation Energy Systems 28
3.2.3 Biomass Co-Fired Boilers 31
3.3 Outcomes 32
3.3.1 Emissions Reduction Outcomes 32
3.3.2 Resource Conservation, Economic, and Financial Outcomes 36
3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes 39
3.3.4 Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes 40
3.3.5 Scientific Advancement Outcomes 41
3.4 References 43
Appendix A. Methods for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Technologies Outcomes 47
A.I Number of Systems 47
A.2 Pollutant Reduction 47
A.3 References 48
Appendix B. Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes 49
B.I Distributed Generation Systems 49
B.I.I Animal Feeding Operations 49
B. 1.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 51
B. 1.3 Landfills 52
B.2 Co-Fired Boilers 53
B.3 References 54
Appendix C. Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy,
Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making 55
C.I Water Programs 55
C.2 Air and Energy Programs 56
C.3 Land and Toxics Programs 58
C.4 Other Areas 59
C.5 References 60
V
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1.1-1:
Exhibit 1.2-1:
Exhibit 1.3-1:
Exhibit 2.2-1:
Exhibit 2.2-2:
Exhibit 2.3-1:
Exhibit 2.3-2:
Exhibit 2.3-3:
Exhibit 3-1:
Exhibit 3.2-1:
Exhibit 3.2-2:
Exhibit 3.2-3:
Exhibit 3.3-1:
Exhibit 3.3-2:
Exhibit 3.3-3:
Exhibit 3.3-4:
Exhibit B.l-1:
Exhibit B.l-2:
ETV Centers and Verification Organizations 1
Case Studies, ETV Centers, and Priority Environmental Topics and
Significant Pollutants 3
Types of Outcomes Identified for Each Case Study. 5
Performance of ETWerified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
BOD, TSS, and COD 11
Performance of ETWerified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
Nutrients and Total Coliform. 12
Calculated Pollutant Reductions Achieved During 3-Years of Operation at
Installed Sites 13
Expected Annual Pollutant Reductions for Scheduled Installation Sites 13
Estimated Potential Pollutant Reductions for the ETWerified Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Technology 13
Completed and Ongoing ETV Verifications for Waste-to-Energy Technologies 20
Performance of ETWerified Biogas Processing Units 27
Performance of ETWerified Distributed Generation Technologies 29
Characteristics and Performance of ETV-Verified Biomass Co-Fired Boilers 32
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies
Used at Animal Feeding Operations 33
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies
Used at Wastewater Treatment Facilities
34
Number of Landfills That Could Apply ETWerified Technologies 35
Estimated Potential Energy Generation and Cost Benefits of Using ETV-Verified
Distributed Generation Technologies 37
Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at
Animal Feeding Operations 50
Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at a
Wastewater Treatment Facility. 52
VI
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
ASERTTI Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT best available technology
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
Btu British thermal unit
CH4 methane
CHP combined heat and power
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COD chemical oxygen demand
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ESTE Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
EVRU Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit
g/h grams per hour
GHG greenhouse gas
GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
H2S hydrogen sulfide
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWS International Wastewater Systems
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
Ibs pounds
Ibs/h pounds per hour
Ibs/kWh pounds per kilowatt-hour
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
mg/L milligrams per liter
MGD millions of gallons per day
MMBtu/h British thermal unit per hour
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx nitrogen oxides
NYPA New York Power Authority
NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
ODW Office of Drinking Water
VII
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OWHH outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters
PM particulate matter
PON Program Opportunity Notice
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
RCCH RCC Holdings Corporation
REC Rapids Energy Center
SBR sequencing batch reactor
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SWTS subsurface wastewater treatment system
Tg teragram
THCs total hydrocarbons
TSS total suspended solids
TxLED Texas Low Emission Diesel
UI University of Iowa
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UV ultraviolet
VIWMA Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority
VOC volatile organic compound
VIM
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
1. Introduction and Summary
1.1
l.l PURPOSE
This document contains two case studies that highlight
some of the actual and potential outcomes and benefits
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program. The ETV Program was initiated in 1995 to
verify the performance of innovative technologies that
have the potential to improve human health and the
environment. The program operates, in large part, as a
public-private partnership through competitive coopera-
tive agreements between EPA and the nonprofit testing
and evaluation organizations—called ETV verification
organizations—listed in Exhibit 1.1-1. ETV also verifies
technologies to address EPA high-priority environmental
problems through Environmental and Sustainable Tech-
nology Evaluation (ESTE) projects; these verifications are
performed under contracts.
The ETV Program develops testing protocols and pub-
lishes detailed performance results in the form of veri-
fication reports and statements, which can be found on
ETV's Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifiedtech-
nologies.html). EPA technical and quality assurance staff
review the protocols, test plans, verification reports, and
verification statements to ensure that the verification
data have been collected, analyzed, and presented in a
manner that is consistent with EPA's quality assurance
requirements. ETV also relies on the active participa-
tion of environmental technology information custom-
ers in technology-specific stakeholder groups. ETV
stakeholders represent the end-users of verification
information and assist in developing protocols, priori-
tizing technology areas to be verified, reviewing docu-
ments, and conducting outreach to the customer groups
Exhibit 1.1-1
E TV Centers and Verification Organizations
ETV Center
! Verification
! Organization
ETV Advanced Monitoring i „
- _ b i Battelle
Systems Center ;
i Technology Areas and
i Environmental Media Addressed
Air, water, and soil/surface monitoring
Site characterization
! ETV Air Pollution Control
i Technology Center
| RTI International | Air pollution control
ETV Drinking Water
Systems Center
| NSF International j Drinking water treatment
i ETV Greenhouse Gas
i Technology Center
| Southern | Greenhouse gas reduction, mitigation, and sequestration
| Research Institute | Advanced and renewable energy generation
ETV Materials Management i „
, n ,. .. _ b. i Battelle
and Remediation Center ;
! Materials management, recycling, and reuse
i Contaminated land and groundwater remediation
ETV Water Quality
Protection Center
i NSF International i Storm and wastewater control and treatment
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
they represent. Through rigorous and quality-assured
testing, ETV provides credible performance informa-
tion for commercial-ready environmental technologies.
This information can help vendors market and sell their
technologies and help users make purchasing decisions.
Ultimately, the environment and public health benefit.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
of 1993 holds federal agencies accountable for using re-
sources wisely and achieving program results. Among
other things, GPRA requires agencies to measure their
performance and communicate this information to Con-
gress and the public. In measuring performance, GPRA
distinguishes between "output" measures, which assess a
government program's activities in their simplest form,
and "outcome" measures, which assess the results of these
activities compared to their intended purpose.
Initially, the ETV Program measured its performance
with respect to outputs; for example, the number of
technologies verified and testing protocols developed.
ETV expanded its approach to include measurement
and estimation of outcomes, such as potential pollution
reductions attributable to the use of ETV technolo-
gies and subsequent health or environmental impacts.
In 2006, ETV published two case study booklets, En-
vironmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Case Studies'. Demonstrating Program Outcomes, Volume
I (EPA/600/R-06/001, January 2006) and Volume II
(EPA/600/R-06/082, September 2006). These book-
lets contain 15 case studies and one update. This new
booklet builds on the original case studies and features
newer technology areas. The case studies presented here
highlight how the program's outputs (verified technolo-
gies and protocols) translate into actual and potential
outcomes. The program also uses the case studies to
communicate information about verified technology per-
formance, applicability, and ETV testing requirements to
the public and decision-makers.
In reviewing these case studies, the reader should keep
in mind the following:
» Given the current state of science, there can be consider-
able uncertainty in assessing environmental outcomes
and human health benefits. Therefore, many of the out-
comes quantified in these case studies are described as
"potential" outcomes and should be treated as estimates
only.
» Vendors of ETV-verified technologies are not required
to track their sales or report the impacts of ETV verifi-
cation to EPA. Therefore, the ETV Program does not
have access to a comprehensive set of sales data for the
verified technologies. Faced with this limitation, ETV
has estimated outcomes using market penetration sce-
narios. That is, ETV has estimated the total potential
market for a given technology or technology group and
applied scenarios (e.g., 10% and 25% of the market) to
project the potential number of installations for the
technology category. Of course, in cases in which sales
information is available, ETV incorporates this infor-
mation into the outcomes estimates (see, for example,
the case study in Chapter 2).
» The ETV Program calculated the outcomes in these
case studies by combining the verified performance
results (which can be found in the verification reports
and statements at http://www.epa.gov/etv/veri-
fiedtechnologies.html) with data from publicly avail-
able sources (e.g., regulatory impact analyses), reason-
able assumptions, and logical extrapolations.
» These case studies are not intended as a basis for mak-
ing regulatory decisions, developing or commenting
on policy, or choosing to purchase or sell a technology.
They merely are intended to show potential benefits or
other outcomes that could be attributed to verification
and verified technology use.
» The ETV Program does not rate or compare technolo-
gies. Where possible, when a case study discusses a
group of similar verified technologies, it summarizes
performance as a range of results. When results are
listed in a tabular format, vendor and product names
are arranged by technology category or are listed in
alphabetical order by company or technology name.
Technologies or technology areas were selected for in-
clusion in these case studies because information on
program outcomes was available.
» Verified technology performance data and other in-
formation found in the verification reports were used,
in part, to develop the case studies. The cooperative
agreement recipients, or ETV verification organiza-
tions, make the final decisions on the content of the
verification reports. These reports are the products
of the ETV cooperative agreement recipients. EPA
technical and quality assurance staff review the pro-
tocols, test plans, verification reports, and verification
statements to ensure that the data have been collected,
analyzed, and presented in a manner that is consistent
with EPA's quality assurance requirements.
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
1.2
ETV verification organization representatives, EPA
project officers, and appropriate program office and
other EPA personnel have reviewed the case studies
throughout the development process (see Acknowl-
edgements). These reviews, as well as external peer re-
view, were performed to ensure that the information
presented in the case studies is technically accurate,
consistent with the Agency's current understanding
of the underlying issues, summarized fairly, and, in the
case of potential outcomes, estimated in a reasonable
manner. Vendors also were provided with an opportu-
nity to review the case studies.
EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any of the
products and services from companies mentioned in this
document. Also, the use of company- and/or product-
specific sales information, images, quotations, or other
outcomes-related information does not constitute the
endorsement of any verified company or product over
another, nor do the comments made by these organiza-
tions necessarily reflect the views of EPA.
1.2 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
This document includes two case studies featuring the
following technology areas: decentralized waste water
treatment technologies (Chapter 2) and waste-to-ener-
gy technologies for power generation and heat recovery
(Chapter 3). Each chapter also includes a complete list
of references. A set of appendices provide a detailed dis-
cussion of the methods used to estimate outcomes in
the case studies. In addition to outcomes information
presented for the technology categories above, Appendix
C lists recent examples of ETV outcomes—how ETV
data, reports, and protocols have been used in regulation,
permitting, purchasing, and other decision-making and
similar activities—for other technologies or technology
areas.
Exhibit 1.2-1 identifies the case studies, the ETV center
that verified each technology or technology area, and the
priority environmental topics and significant pollutants
addressed by each.
Exhibit 1.2-1
Cose Studies, ETV Centers, and Priority Environmental Topics and Significant Pollutants
Case Study
i Decentralized Wastewater
i Treatment Technologies
I (Chapter 2)
i Waste-to-EnergyTechnol-
i ogies: Biomass Co-Fired
1 Boilers (Chapter 3)
i Waste-to-EnergyTechnol-
i ogies: Distributed Gen-
i eration Energy Systems
1 (Chapters)
i Waste-to-EnergyTech-
i nologies: Gas Processing
i Systems (Chapter 3)
ETV Center
Water Quality
Protection
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Priority
Environmental Topics
i Decentralized wastewater
i systems, drinking and
i groundwater protection,
i watershed protection,
i community development
i Greenhouse gases, waste-to-
i energy, industrial emissions
i Greenhouse gases, waste-
i to-energy, animal feeding
i operations, landfills,
i wastewater treatment
i Greenhouse gases, waste-
i to-energy, animal feeding
i operations, landfills,
i wastewater treatment
! Significant Pollutants
i Nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspend- i
i ed solids, biochemical oxygen de-
i mand, chemical oxygen demand, total i
i coliform bacteria
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sul- i
i fur dioxide, carbon monoxide, par-
i ticulate matter
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sul- i
i fur dioxide, methane, carbon mon- i
i oxide, particulate matter, ammonia, i
i total hydrocarbons
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hy- i
i drogen sulfide and other sulfur com- i
i pounds, hydrocarbons, methane, ha- i
i lides, volatile organic compounds
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Each case study begins with an introduction, followed by
three sections. The first section,"Environmental, Health,
and Regulatory Background," describes the pollutant or
environmental issue(s) that the technology is designed to
address, human health and environmental impacts associ-
ated with the pollutant or issue, and regulatory programs
or voluntary initiatives that apply. The second section,
"Technology Description," describes the technology(ies),
identifies what makes the technology(ies) innovative, and
summarizes the performance results as verified by ETV.
The third section, "Outcomes," presents the ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of actual and potential outcomes from
verification and from applying the technology. These out-
comes may include:
» Pollutant reduction outcomes, such as tons of pol-
lutant emissions reduced by potential applications
of the technology.
» Resource conservation outcomes, such as the types of
natural resources that the technology can conserve.
» Economic and financial outcomes, such as the eco-
nomic value of cost savings to users of the technology.
» Regulatory compliance outcomes, such as how the
technology can assist users in complying with federal
and state regulations.
» Technology acceptance and use outcomes, such as evi-
dence that ETV verification has led to increased use
of the technology.
» Scientific advancement outcomes, such as improve-
ments in technology performance and standardiza-
tion of technology evaluation or development of a
protocol that has advanced efforts to standardize
protocols across programs.
Within outcome categories, the ETV Program has made
every effort to quantify (i.e., place a numerical value on)
the outcome. For instances in which insufficient data
were available to quantify an outcome, the case studies
present information about that outcome and describe its
potential significance qualitatively.
Each case study is written to stand on its own, so that
readers interested in one or more technology categories
can comprehend the section(s) of interest without need-
ing to review the full document. For this reason, each
case study spells out all acronyms (other than EPA and
ETV) on first use (even if they have been used in previ-
ous case studies) and includes its own acronyms list at
the end of the section. For readers who wish to review
both case studies together, a complete list of acronyms is
included at the beginning of this document. Additionally,
Appendix C also contains its own list of acronyms and
abbreviations.
1.3 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
The case studies presented here address a variety of pol-
lutants and environmental issues (see Exhibit 1.2-1). As
discussed previously, the ETV Program examined differ-
ent types of outcomes and attempted, within the limits of
the available data, to quantify each outcome. This section
identifies the types of outcomes associated with each case
study or subtopics within the case studies and provides
examples of the most significant, quantifiable actual and
potential outcomes. Exhibit 1.3-1 lists the case studies
with the types of outcomes identified in each. It also in-
dicates which of the outcomes the ETV Program was
able to quantify.
Examples of significant potential outcomes from those
identified in Exhibit 1.3-1, which are described in further
detail within the case studies, include the following:
» Based on current installations, the ETV-verified de-
centralized wastewater treatment technology, when
compared to traditional technologies, reduced total
nitrogen discharges during the 3-year period since
installation by 0.14 tons (0.25 pounds [lbs]/day on
average) at one site and by 0.21 tons (0.38 Ibs/day
on average) at a second site; total suspended solids
(TSS) discharge was reduced by 1.6 tons (3.0 Ibs/
day on average) and 2.4 tons (4.5 Ibs/day on average)
at each site, respectively. During the same time pe-
riod, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was
reduced by 4.2 tons (7.7 Ibs/day on average) and 6.3
tons (11 Ibs/day on average) at each site, respectively.
» Based on near-term pending installations (to occur
during 2010), the ETV-verified decentralized waste-
water treatment technology could produce additional
annual pollutant reductions of 110 to 220 Ibs (an av-
erage of 0.30 to 0.61 Ibs/day) of nitrogen, 0.65 to 1.3
tons (3.6 to 7.1 Ibs/day on average) of TSS, and 1.7 to
3.4 tons (9.2 to 18 Ibs/day on average) of BOD5 when
compared to traditional technologies.
» A decentralized wastewater treatment technology
vendor reports that demonstrated technology perfor-
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
Exhibit 1.3-1
Types of Outcomes Identified for Each Case Study
1.3
Case Study
Pollutant or | ResQurce | Economjc | Regu|atory | Technology |
Reduction
and Use
! Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
! Technologies (Chapter 2)
! Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
I Biomass Co-Fired Boilers (Chapter 3)
i Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
! Distributed Generation Energy
i Systems (Chapter 3)
Q
Q
! Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Gas
i Processing Systems (Chapter 3)
i Q = ETV identified this type of outcome and was able to quantify its potential impact.
i X = ETV identified this type of outcome but was not able to quantify its potential impact.
i Blank = ETV did not identify this type of outcome.
mance through verification resulted in five projects
totaling $1.4 million in revenue and that ETV veri-
fication testing has had indirect benefits in the form
of added company value and partnerships; the vendor
estimates that the total value added to the company as
a result of participation in ETV could be as much as
$5 million.
Using 10% and 25% market penetration scenarios,
the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater treat-
ment technology could potentially be applied at ap-
proximately 140 to 350 residential clusters of homes
with annual pollutant reductions of 0.58 to 1.4 tons
of nitrogen (3.2 to 7.9 Ibs/day on average), 6.8 to 17
tons of TSS (37 to 93 Ibs/day on average), and 18
to 44 tons of BOD5 (96 to 240 Ibs/day on average)
when compared to traditional septic systems; associ-
ated environmental and human health benefits also
could be realized.
At least nine states currently use ETV protocols in the
evaluation of alternative technologies for wastewater
treatment, and three identify the protocol used for the
verification described in the decentralized wastewater
treatment technologies case study.
Based on current installations, eight ETV-verified
fuel cell distributed generation systems in operation
at wastewater treatment plants in or near New York
City reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more
than 11,000 tons per year. The vendor reports that, cu-
mulatively, these fuel cell installations have generated
more than 56,000 megawatt-hours of electricity with
an associated economic value of $5.6 million.
The ETV-verified distributed power generation sys-
tems highlighted in the waste-to-energy technologies
case study could potentially be applied, using 10% and
25% market penetration scenarios, at:
> Approximately 820 to 2,100 animal feeding op-
erations with annual CO2 equivalent emissions
reductions of up to 5.9 million to 15 million
tons and associated climate change, environ-
mental, and human health benefits.
> Approximately 44 to 110 wastewater treatment
facilities with annual CO2 equivalent emissions
reductions of 63,000 to 160,000 tons and an-
nual nitrogen oxides emissions reductions of 80
to 200 tons; associated climate change, environ-
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
mental, and human health benefits also could
be realized.
The estimated potential energy generation and cost
benefits of using the ETV-verified distributed gen-
eration technologies described in the waste-to-energy
technologies case study at 10% and 25% market pen-
etration are as follows:
> If candidate animal feeding operations used
these technologies, up to 1.4 million to 3.5 mil-
lion megawatts (MW) of electricity could be
generated annually with associated cost benefits
of up to $140 million to $350 million.
> If candidate landfills used these technologies, up
to 75,000 to 190,000 MW of electricity could
be generated annually with associated cost ben-
efits of up to $7.5 million to $19 million.
> If candidate wastewater treatment facilities used
these technologies, 74,000 to 190,000 MW of
electricity could be generated annually with
associated cost benefits of $7.4 million to $19
million.
ETV verification results from the biomass co-fired
boilers described in the waste-to-energy technologies
case study were used to assist in permit analysis and
permitting of test burns at universities, public utilities,
and large industrial operations in five states.
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
2.0
2. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The ETV Program's Water Quality Protection Cen-
ter, operated by NSF International under a cooperative
agreement with EPA, has verified the performance of
a decentralized wastewater treatment technology de-
signed for use in areas that are not served by centralized
wastewater treatment facilities (sewers and municipal
sewage treatment plants) and expects to verify another
technology in 2010. Decentralized wastewater systems
treat wastewater close to the source, and most discharge
directly to the soil. Decentralized systems include septic
systems that provide treatment to individual homes and
larger capacity systems that treat discharges from clusters
of homes, businesses, subdivisions, or small towns (U.S.
EPA, 2005a; NSF International, 2006). This case study
focuses on larger capacity systems, like the International
Wastewater Systems, Inc. Model 6000 sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) verified by ETV1, that are used to treat
discharges of approximately 5,000 gallons per day or
more.
High-volume decentralized wastewater treatment sys-
tems can have economic and ecological advantages com-
pared to centralized systems when used in appropriate
locations. They can be more protective of groundwater
and surface water quality, allowing for new development
in areas with nondegradation limits, and can lead to de-
creased threats to public health if used to replace failing
or improperly maintained septic systems. The technol-
ogy verified by ETV uses a combination of biological
treatment, sand filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) treat-
ment to treat wastewater generated by a small cluster
of homes, thereby greatly decreasing levels of bacterial
contaminants and pollutants such as nitrogen and phos-
phorus in the water.
Section 2.3 of this case study presents the ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of verification outcomes from actual
and potential applications of the technology. Appendix
A provides a detailed description of the methodology
and assumptions used to estimate these outcomes. Using
the analyses in this case study, ETV reports the follow-
ing outcomes:
1. At the time of verification (2006), the technology was manufactured by
International Wastewater Systems, Inc. In 2007, RCC Holdings Corporation
purchased International Wastewater Systems, Inc., renaming the company
International Wastewater Systems. In 2009, the company filed paperwork to
modify its corporate name to IWS Water Solutions, Inc., but will maintain
use of the name International Wastewater Systems.
The 50-home Trellis Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho, that uses the International
Wastewater Systems, Inc. Model 6000 SBR.
Based on current installations, the ETV-verified de-
centralized wastewater treatment technology, when
compared to traditional technologies, reduced total
nitrogen discharges during the 3-year period since
installation by 0.14 tons (0.25 pounds [lbs]/day on
average) at one site and by 0.21 tons (0.38 Ibs/day on
average) at a second site; total suspended solids (TSS)
discharge was reduced by 1.6 tons (3.0 Ibs/day on av-
erage) and 2.4 tons (4.5 Ibs/day on average) at each
site, respectively. During the same time period, 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was reduced by
4.2 tons (7.7 Ibs/day on average) and 6.3 tons (11 Ibs/
day on average) at each site, respectively.
Based on near-term pending installations (to occur
during 2010), the technology could produce additional
annual pollutant reductions of 110 to 220 Ibs (an av-
erage of 0.30 to 0.61 Ibs/day) of nitrogen, 0.65 to 1.3
tons (3.6 to 7.1 Ibs/day on average) of TSS, and 1.7 to
3.4 tons (9.2 to 18 Ibs/day on average) of BOD5, when
compared to traditional technologies.
The vendor reports that verification of technology per-
formance resulted in five projects totaling $1.4 million
in revenue and that ETV verification testing has had
indirect benefits in the form of added company value
and partnerships; the vendor estimates that the total
value added to the company as a result of participation
in ETV could be as much as $5 million.
Using 10% and 25% market penetration scenarios,
the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater treat-
ment technology could potentially be applied at ap-
proximately 140 to 350 residential clusters of homes
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
with annual pollutant reductions of 0.58 to 1.4 tons
of nitrogen (3.2 to 7.9 Ibs/day on average), 6.8 to 17
tons of TSS (37 to 93 Ibs/day on average), and 18
to 44 tons of BOD5 (96 to 240 Ibs/day on average),
when compared to traditional septic systems; associ-
ated environmental and human health benefits also
could be realized.
Additionally, technologies such as the one verified by
ETV provide an opportunity to re-use the reclaimed
water to benefit the local community. The treated effluent
from such systems is of high enough quality that it can
be used for landscape irrigation. For example, reclaimed
water from treatment systems similar to those verified
by ETV has been used to water golf courses and school
athletic fields in the immediate vicinity (International
Wastewater Systems, 2010). Other benefits of ETV
verification include the establishment of a well-accepted
protocol that has advanced efforts to standardize pro-
tocols across programs. At least nine states currently
use ETV protocols in the evaluation of alternative tech-
nologies for wastewater treatment, and three specifically
identify the protocol used for the verification described
in this case study.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN
HEALTH, AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
Well-designed and well-managed decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment systems, including onsite and septic systems
and larger capacity cluster systems, can help protect hu-
man health and water quality. These systems can have eco-
nomic and ecological advantages compared to centralized
systems when used in appropriate locations. Decentralized
wastewater systems treat and disperse wastewater as close
as possible to its source and maximize re-use opportuni-
ties. They use relatively low-cost equipment and release
small volumes of treated wastewater to the environment
at multiple locations (EPA, 2010a). When used in exist-
ing developments, decentralized systems can serve dense
areas with small lots, considerably improve treatment lev-
els, and increase groundwater recharge to a great extent,
which in turn conserves water within the watershed. In
new developments, these systems can provide advanced
treatment for sites with poor soils, steep slopes, or high
groundwater. They are useful to promote smart growth
and low-impact development and foster the preservation
of woodlands and open space by promoting the cluster-
ing of homes and businesses. Other advantages include
enhanced assimilation via multiple smaller discharges,
avoidance of large mass loadings at outfalls, and malfunc-
tion risks that are small and easier to manage compared to
centralized systems (EPA, 2008d).
In the past, decentralized wastewater treatment systems
commonly were viewed as temporary approaches to
waste management and were intended for use only until
centralized treatment systems could be installed. There
are many situations (e.g., low-density communities, hilly
terrain, ecologically sensitive areas) in the United States,
however, in which centralized systems are neither the
most cost effective nor the most sustainable treatment
option for a variety of reasons. Under these circumstanc-
es, decentralized systems should be considered long-term
solutions (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2004; Siegrist,
2001; U.S. EPA, 1997a).
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems can be
major sources of groundwater and surface water con-
tamination if they are improperly sited, operated, or
maintained (U.S. EPA, 2005c). Typical pollutants from
these systems can include suspended solids, bacteria
and other pathogens, biodegradable organics, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and other inorganic and organic chemicals
(U.S. EPA, 2005b). Conventional onsite wastewater
treatment systems remove solids, biodegradable organic
compounds, and fecal coliform. These systems, however,
may not be adequate for minimizing nitrate contamina-
tion of groundwater, removing phosphorus, and treat-
ing pathogenic organisms (U.S. EPA, 2002). States have
identified improperly maintained septic systems as the
second most frequently reported groundwater contami-
nant source (U.S. EPA, 2010b). When used to replace
failing or malfunctioning systems or as an alternative
to conventional septic systems, modern decentralized
wastewater treatment systems can decrease nitrogen,
phosphorus, and bacterial discharges to groundwater
and surface water, thereby protecting environmental
quality and reducing public health threats.
Approximately one-half of the U.S. population relies on
groundwater for its drinking water supply, with ground-
water being the sole source of drinking water in many
rural areas and some large cities. Groundwater used for
drinking water can have substantial problems with ni-
trate contamination, a significant source of which is im-
properly installed or maintained decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment systems. In areas that rely on groundwater
for drinking water, high levels of nitrate and nitrite in the
8
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
water can pose a health hazard. Excessive nitrate or ni-
trite in drinking water can increase the risk of methemo-
globinemia in infants who drink formula made with the
water (Greer, et al, 2005). Methemoglobinemia is a dis-
order in which excessive levels of methemoglobin, a form
of hemoglobin that cannot carry oxygen, accumulate in
the body, causing illness. To protect against this hazard,
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA requires that
nitrate concentrations in drinking water not exceed 10
milligrams per liter (mg/L) as nitrogen (56 FR 3526).
Although many sources, including inorganic fertilizer, ani-
mal manure, and particles from industry or automobiles,
may contribute to nitrogen contamination of groundwater,
improperly maintained decentralized wastewater systems
are a significant source of nitrogen contamination in some
areas. For example, in one area of Nevada, these systems
were found to be responsible for almost all of the nitrogen
pollution of the local groundwater—an important prob-
lem because the community relies on groundwater for its
drinking water supply, and nitrogen contamination has
increased to near the EPA maximum contaminant level
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2006).
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems also may
contribute to bacterial contamination of drinking water
sources. EPA estimates that 185,000 viral illnesses occur
each year as a result of consumption of drinking water
from systems that rely on groundwater contaminated by
improperly treated wastewater (71 FR 65573). The con-
taminants of primary concern are waterborne pathogens
from fecal contamination. Wastewater treatment systems
are a potential source of this fecal contamination and also
may contribute to the increased levels of fecal bacteria
that prompt beach and shellfish harvesting area closures.
Additionally, these systems may pollute lakes and other
surface waters with the nutrients nitrogen and phos-
phorus, which promote excessive growth of algae and
impair water quality (U.S. EPA, 2003a, 2008a). Exces-
sive growth of algae can lead to harmful algal blooms
and make shallow waters green and cloudy, with ac-
cumulations of "pond scum." The decomposition of al-
gae consumes oxygen in water, creating oxygen-starved
"dead zones" in which fish and other aquatic organisms
cannot survive and sometimes leading to extensive kills
of fish and shellfish (Camargo and Alonso, 2006; U.S.
EPA, 2008c). The decline in oxygen levels also can pro-
mote formation of toxic substances, such as hydrogen
sulfide, that have harmful effects on aquatic life. Some
of the algae and other organisms whose growth is pro-
moted by nutrient pollution, such as cyanobacteria, are
themselves toxic and pose hazards to both aquatic ani-
mals that live in the water and land animals that drink
it (Camargo and Alonso, 2006). As a result of these
impacts, excess nutrients may present significant losses
to ecological, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic
uses of surfaces waters.
One specific area of risk is the Chesapeake Bay water-
shed. EPA estimates that there were 2.3 million decen-
tralized systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed as
of 2008, and this number is expected to increase to 3.1
million by 2030 (U.S. EPA, 2009b). These systems con-
tributed about 4% of nitrogen loading—approximately
6,000 tons of nitrogen—to the Chesapeake Bay in 2008,
particularly because typical systems are not designed to
reduce nitrogen (U.S. EPA, 2009b). On May 12, 2009,
Executive Order 13508 was issued, requiring EPA to
protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resourc-
es, and social and economic value of the Chesapeake Bay,
which is the Nation's largest estuary system. EPA recom-
mends using nitrogen-reduction technologies to protect
Chesapeake Bay watershed surface waters from nitrogen
discharged by decentralized wastewater treatment sys-
tems (U.S. EPA, 2010c).
BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by
microorganisms in decomposing organic matter in wa-
ter, including wastewater from decentralized wastewater
treatment systems. BOD5 is a measure of the amount of
oxygen consumed by these organisms during a 5-day pe-
riod at 20°C. The greater the BOD, the more rapidly oxy-
gen is depleted. This results in stress and death of aquatic
organisms because less oxygen is available to higher forms
of aquatic life (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The Clean Water Act
recognizes BOD as a conventional pollutant, and EPA
uses BOD to establish effluent guidelines under this Act.
TSS is a measure of the suspended solids in wastewater,
effluent, or water bodies. High concentrations of TSS
also can have a variety of negative impacts on aquatic
life, including decreased photosynthesis, death of aquatic
plants, and increased surface water temperature, all of
which result in decreased dissolved oxygen, which in turn
results in fish kills. TSS also can clog fish gills, affect
the ability of fish to feed, reduce fish growth rates and
resistance to disease, smother insect and fish eggs, and
have a variety of detrimental effects on aquatic inverte-
brates, including death (U.S. EPA, 2003b). TSS limits
are set via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES).
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
To mitigate risks of water quality degradation from tra-
ditional decentralized wastewater treatment systems,
which typically discharge directly to soil or a substrate
for secondary treatment, regulatory oversight often is
provided at the local, state, or tribal level rather than at
the federal level. The verified technology includes sec-
ondary (biological) treatment, which allows it to meet
EPA-established standards for BOD5 andTSS removal;
therefore, it is able to discharge directly to surface water.
Larger capacity systems that discharge directly to sur-
face waters, such as the verified technology, generally are
regulated at the state level through NPDES permits and
managed by wastewater districts, homeowners' associa-
tions, water users' associations, and others. In contrast,
soil-discharging wastewater systems that serve more
than one residence are classified by EPA as large capac-
ity septic systems and are regulated via the Underground
Injection Control Program of the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (U.S. EPA, 2007).
EPA works with organizations, local governments, and
states in information exchange and technical assistance
for decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. In
2008, EPA renewed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), originally signed in 2005, with 14 other orga-
nizations involved in various aspects of decentralized
wastewater treatment system regulation, operation, and
environmental impacts. These organizations include the
Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment, National Environmental Health Association,
National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc.,
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and
others. The MOU is intended to upgrade professional-
ism within the industry and facilitate collaboration among
EPA and its regions, state and local governments, and
national organizations representing practitioners in this
area, leading to improved decentralized wastewater treat-
ment system performance (U.S. EPA, 2008e). EPA also
has developed voluntary guidelines and a handbook for
the management of decentralized wastewater treatment
technologies (U.S. EPA, 2003a, 2005b). As of Septem-
ber 2008, 13 states (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin) had
adopted these management guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2008b).
Beginning in 2008, EPA recommended that states adopt
numeric nutrient standards (U.S. EPA, 2008c), which
provide quantitative measures for nitrogen, phosphorus,
and other water quality parameters. States and tribes re-
tain the authority to adopt these water quality standards;
as of 2008, seven states had adopted numeric nutrient
standards for at least one water quality parameter for at
least one waterbody type, 18 states had adopted numeric
nutrient standards for at least one water quality param-
eter for selected individual waters in a waterbody type,
and 46 states had EPA-reviewed nutrient criteria plans
that were being used to guide numeric nutrient criteria
development (U.S. EPA, 2008c).
EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan states that the Agency
will continue to encourage state, tribal, and local govern-
ments to adopt voluntary guidelines for managing decen-
tralized wastewater treatment systems and will use Clean
Water State Revolving Funds to finance systems where
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2006). The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides an ad-
ditional $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds. Twenty percent of each state's capitalization grant
can support "Green Reserve" projects, which are defined
as green infrastructure, energy efficiency projects, water
efficiency projects, or innovative environmental projects.
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems qualify for
Green Reserve funding in the category of "innovative en-
vironmental projects." States may use ARRA funding for
solutions to existing deficient or failing onsite systems
(U.S. EPA, 2009a).
2.2 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
In 2006, ETV verified the International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. Model 6000 SBR, which includes a 6,000
gallon equalization tank, a 6,000 gallon modified SBR,
a 3,000 gallon holding tank, a coagulation injection sys-
tem, a gravity sand filtration system, and a UV disinfec-
tion system. The Model 6000 SBR is designed to meet
secondary wastewater treatment standards of 30 mg/L
TSS and 30 mg/L BOD, and the entire Model 6000
system is designed to meet direct discharge standards
and water reclamation and reuse standards, depending
on local requirements. The Model 6000 SBR verified
by ETV is a full-scale, commercially available unit that
treated a maximum volume of 6,000 gallons per day dur-
ing verification testing. The technology was verified at
Moon Lake Ranch, a housing development of 18 homes
in Eagle, Idaho, which is served by a centralized wastewa-
ter collection system. The vendor operates and maintains
the wastewater treatment system under contract to the
10
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Moon Lake Ranch Homeowners Association. Treated
water is discharged to a lake within the housing devel-
opment. Waste sludge from the SBR is transferred to
the sludge holding tank and allowed to settle. Sludge is
pumped from the holding tank and disposed of at the
local wastewater treatment plant approximately every 6
to 12 months. Specific details of the Model 6000 SBR
technology can be found in the verification report (NSF
International, 2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/
nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/600r06130.pdf.
The ETV verification test determined the performance
of the Model 6000 SBR for treating TSS, BOD5, nu-
trients (phosphorus and nitrogen), and total coliform
bacteria in domestic wastewater. The SBR was evalu-
ated separately and in combination with the subsequent
treatment steps of filtration and UV disinfection. The
verification protocol is described in the Protocol for the
Verification of Wastewater Treatment Technologies (NSF
International, 2001), available at http://www.epa.gov/
etv/pubs/04_vp_wastewater.pdf.
The. treatment system was monitored throughout a
1-year test period. Samples were collected from the un-
treated wastewater, treated effluent from the SBR, and
final effluent from the system after filtration and UV dis-
infection. The samples were analyzed for BOD5, chemi-
cal oxygen demand (COD), TSS, nitrogen compounds,
phosphorus compounds, and total coliform. Other op-
erating parameters such as flow, pH, alkalinity, turbidity,
temperature, and operation and maintenance character-
istics (e.g., reliability of the equipment and the level of
required operator maintenance) also were monitored.
The verification results for BOD5, TSS, and COD are
summarized in Exhibit 2.2-1. The mean value was very
close to the detection limit for the COD test (20 mg/L),
as most of the test results were below the detection limit.
Collection System
ToLSAS/
Receiving Water
WLAP
SBR Model 6000 Process Flow Diagram
The results of the nutrient and total coliform sample
analyses are summarized in Exhibit 2.2-2. The UV sys-
tem reduced total coliform levels to below the detection
limit on most sample days. More detailed performance
data are available in the verification report (NSF Inter-
national, 2006), which can be found at the above link.
2.3 OUTCOMES
2.3.1 Pollutant Reduction Outcomes
The Model 6000 SBR currently is installed at two com-
mercial sites in Montana—a commercial center at East
Gallatin Airport outside Bozeman and a casino project
on an Indian reservation north of Great Falls (Smith,
2010a).Two additional systems are completing installa-
tion in Montana. One of the systems is being installed
in a 50-home subdivision, and the other will be shared
by a fitness center and a children's rehabilitation center
(Smith, 2010d). An additional system also was sched-
uled be installed in a 30-home subdivision during 2010,
Exhibit 2.2-1
Performance ofETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology: BOD, TSS, and COD
BOD5(mg/L)
i Mean
! Concentration*
|% Reduction
Influent
I 230
| n/a
SBR
Effluent
12
95
Final
Effluent6
4
98
Influent
I 170
| n/a
TSS (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
26
85
Final
Effluent6
6
96
Influent
480
n/a
COD (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
49 I
90 !
Final
Effluent6
22
95
A Based on 64 samples.
B Final effluent refers to effluent following gravity sand filtration and UV disinfection.
11
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Exhibit 2.2-2
Performance ofETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
Nutrients and Total Conform
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
Nitrogen* (mg/L as N)
i Nitrite Plus Nitrate i
| (NO2 + NO3 N) ]
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus*
(mg/L as P)
Total ColiformB
(MPNC/100 ml)
i SBR i Final i !„(!,,=„, i SBR i Final i ,_».„_, I SBR i Final i ,„„..„„, i SBR i Final i ,„„..„„, i SBR i Final
i Effluent i Effluent0 ilnfluent j Effluent i Effluent0 ilnfluent | Effluent i Effluent0 i lnfluent | Effluent ! Effluent0 i lnfluent | Effluent i Effluent0
i Mean
| Concentration j
i % Reduction j
38 i
n/a j
3.2 i
92 i
1.2
97
i 0.08 !
1 n/a i
3.1 i
n/a i
3.1
n/a
! 38 i
i n/a i
6.3
83
4.4
88
i 5.4
1 n/a
i 2.4 i
i 56 i
1.3
76
!7.1xl06il.2xl05i 4
j n/a i 98 j 99.999
A Based on 16 samples,
B Based on 63 influent and SBR effluent samples and 53 final effluent samples. Total coliform values are geometric means,
= MPN = Most probable number,
D Final effluent refers to effluent following gravity sand filtration and UV disinfection.
but the subdivision project currently is pending funding
(Smith, 2010e). The average daily flows of these five sites
range from 10,000 to 24,000 gallons per day, as shown
in Exhibits 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. Four of the five sites have
severe nitrogen problems, as improperly managed and
maintained septic tanks have contaminated the soil and/
or the soil is saturated with nitrogen from historical min-
ing use (Smith, 2010a, 2010f). All of the sites discharge
to drainfields designed by state-licensed engineers whose
calculations determined the drainfield dimensions. A
backup drainfield is adjacent to each site in the event the
initial drainfield becomes unusable (Smith, 2010g).
The two currently operating sites were installed in ear-
ly 2007. The Bozeman site has an average wastewater
volume of 10,000 gallons per day; the Great Falls site
has an average wastewater volume of 15,000 gallons per
day (Smith, 2010a). Using these average volumes and
system performance observed during verification, ETV
determined the reductions in nitrogen, TSS, and BOD5
achieved to date as compared to what would have been
achieved with traditional onsite wastewater treatment, as
shown in Exhibit 2.3-1. The methodology and assump-
tions used to calculate these reductions are described in
Appendix A. The calculations for the Bozeman site may
be conservative, as they compare reductions achieved by
the verified system to those achieved by traditional onsite
wastewater treatment systems. According to the vendor,
because the nitrogen impairment in the area is substan-
tial, traditional technology would have been unsatisfac-
tory. Without the use of the ETV-verified technology or
an alternative treatment technology of equivalent per-
formance, the Bozeman airport commercial center most
likely would not have been built (Smith, 2010a).
Again, using system performance observed during ETV
testing, the potential annual reductions in nitrogen, TSS,
and BOD5 compared to what would be achieved with
traditional onsite wastewater treatment can be calculated
for the three systems scheduled to be installed in 2010.
The first installation is in a 30-home rural subdivision
in Kalispell with an average daily wastewater volume of
12,000 gallons; the second is a 50-home upscale subdivi-
sion in Butte with an average daily wastewater volume of
15,000 gallons; and the third is a commercial installation
in Missoula with an average daily wastewater volume of
24,000 gallons (Smith, 2010a). ETV calculated the ex-
pected annual reductions in nitrogen, TSS, and BOD5
at the three sites, as shown in Exhibit 2.3-2. Appendix
A describes the methodology and assumptions used to
calculate these estimated reductions. Once again, these
estimates may be conservative as the nitrogen impair-
ment in each area is significant enough that traditional
technology would be unsatisfactory. According to the
vendor, without the availability of the ETV-verified
technology or an alternative treatment technology of
equivalent performance, the two subdivisions and the
commercial installation most likely could not be built
(Smith, 2010a).
The verified technology primarily is installed in new
subdivisions and developments in rural or rural/subur-
ban areas. Estimates indicate that an average of 1,400
new cluster systems currently are being installed each
12
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
year in the United States (Tonning, 2010a). The ETV
Program used this approximation of the total potential
market to estimate the number of clusters of homes
that could utilize the Model 6000 SBR based on two
market penetration scenarios, 10% and 25% of the total
potential market, as shown in Exhibit 2.3-3. The ETV
Program also used these scenarios to estimate the pol-
lutant reduction outcomes shown below. Homeowners
and builders in areas where residential discharges might
present a threat to groundwater or surface water quality
from nitrogen, phosphorus, and other contaminants are
those most likely to benefit from the technology, as are
the communities in which these homes are located. It
should be noted, however, that because of the current
U.S. economy, new home construction has decreased
by 50%; the potential market could be as high as 2,500
to 3,000 clusters of homes annually as the economy
improves (Tonning, 2010b). Additionally, the verified
technology also can be installed in smaller commercial
facilities and businesses. Because these types of installa-
tions are not included in the ETV estimate, the potential
pollutant reductions are even greater.
Using assumptions regarding total potential market,
daily water use, and nitrogen concentration, combined
with system performance observed during ETV testing,
the ETV Program estimated annual pollutant reduc-
tions from potential application of the ETV-verified
decentralized wastewater treatment technology for
residential clusters of homes, compared to reductions
Exhibit 2.3-1
Calculated Pollutant Reductions Achieved During 3-Years of Operation at Installed Sites
I Flow ! Nitrogen ] TSS j BOD5
location ; (gallons per; 3 year Total I Average Daily 1 3 Year Total I Average Daily I 3 Year Total I Average Daily
! aay) I (tons) i (Ibs/day) I (tons) i (Ibs/day) i (tons) I (Ibs/day)
jBozeman j 10,000 i 0.14
I Great Falls j 15,000 j 0.21
Values rounded to two significant figures.
0.25
0.38
1.6
2.4
3.0
4.5
4.2
6.3
7.7
11
Exhibit 2.3-2
Expected Annual Pollutant Reductions for Scheduled Installation Sites
Location
! Kalispell
i Butte
i Missoula
Flow
(gallons per
day)
i 12,000
i 15,000
i 24,000
Values rounded to two significant fij
Nitrogen
Annual Total
(Ibs)
110
140
220
;ures.
Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
0.30
0.38
0.61
TSS
Annual Total
(tons)
0.65
0.81
1.3
Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
3.6
4.5
7.1
BOD5 1
Annual Total
(tons)
1.7
2.1
3.4
Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
9.2
11
18
Exhibit 2.3-3
Estimated Potential Pollutant Reductions for the ETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Technology
Nitrogen
Market Number of Clus ~
Penetration ters of Homes Annual Total
(tons) ,|
! 10% j 140 j
I 25% 350
Values rounded to two significant figures.
0.58
1.4
Average
Daily
(Ibs/day)
3.2
7.9
Annual Total
(tons)
6.8
17
Average
Daily
(Ibs/day)
37
93
Annual
Total
(tons)
18
44
Average
Daily
(Ibs/day)
96
240
13
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
A view of the Model 6000 SBR following installation at the Trellis
Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,
seen with traditional septic systems (see Exhibit 2.3-3).
Appendix A describes the methodology and assump-
tions used to develop these estimates.
Quantitative data are not available to estimate the en-
vironmental and health outcomes associated with these
pollutant reductions. As discussed in Section 2.1, how-
ever, nutrient loadings are a significant environmental
concern, and nitrates and nitrites have human health
impacts. Therefore, the benefits of reducing nitrogen
loading also could be significant.
2.3.2 Technology Acceptance, Use, and Finan-
cial and Economic Outcomes
The manufacturer of the ETV-verified system has in-
dicated that participation in the ETV Program and the
availability of credible information on demonstrated
technology performance and capabilities has helped
the company to market and sell its Model 6000 SBR
system. According to the vendor, the State of Montana
gave the company a preferred position within the state
in areas where rural wastewater systems are required,
based on the ETV verification test results. This recog-
nition resulted in five projects totaling $1.4 million in
revenue for the vendor. These project sites are located in
nitrogen-sensitive ecosystems. Because the ETV results
demonstrated that the system was able to meet nitrogen
standards, the vendor was given a recommendation for
the Bozeman project. The vendor was awarded the Ka-
lispell project because the ETV verification resulted in a
state nitrogen approval rating of 7.5 mg/L for the tech-
nology, which met the total nitrogen discharge limit of
12.5 mg/L for the project. New construction at the Butte
and Missoula sites was considered impossible because of
severe nitrogen problems from nearby improperly con-
structed and maintained septic tanks and historical use,
resulting in discharge limits for nitrogen in these areas of
7.5 mg/L. According to the vendor, these projects were
approved solely on the basis of the Model 6000 SBR's
ability to meet the nondegradation requirements of the
State of Montana, as demonstrated through ETV test-
ing. Although the Great Falls project did not have major
environmental requirements associated with it, the Indi-
an reservation wanted the best environmental treatment
system possible. The vendor's system had documented
performance through ETV verification and was awarded
the project. The vendor also has $9 million worth of new
bids in progress (Smith, 2010a). Additionally, Minne-
sota and New Jersey have nondegradation limits similar
to those of Montana, so the verified technology could
be used to meet the requirements in these states as well
(State of Minnesota, 2008; State of New Jersey, 1993).
The vendor reports that the payback period for the cost
of the ETV verification was 11 months (Smith, 2010g)
and that demonstrated technology performance as veri-
fied by the ETV Program has had indirect benefits in
the form of valuation and partnerships. Based on an au-
dit of company assets by an outside valuation firm, the
vendor reports that the value added to the company as a
result of ETV verification could range from $2 million
or $3 million up to as much as $5 million. The audit
determined that the company's primary asset was par-
ticipation in ETV verification because of the competitive
advantage it provides in states that recognize the ETV
Program (Smith, 2010c). According to the vendor, an-
other important benefit of ETV verification testing has
been the reputation that it provides with new custom-
ers and partners, allowing the company to compete in a
much broader range of activities than it could have with-
out ETV verification. The value of these partnerships
is worth much more than the $5 million valuation of
the ETV asset and would not have been available to the
company without the ETV results (Smith, 2010a). The
vendor states that because of the ETV name recogni-
"It can't be emphasized enough that ETV
ignited our company and its growth and
continues to be used by us every day in the
expansion of our company. So, in a very
unique way, you can never put a fixed value
on ETV, because it has become a cornerstone
of our company's existence, and it allows us
to increase in value every day."
Claude Smith, President,
International Wastewater Systems (Smith, 2010a).
14
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
tion, various partners and relationships have been created
that have allowed the company to compete in the new
construction market and the already-existing installed
building market. These relationships also have aided
the vendor in gaining access to the commercial building
and Federal Government building markets. Without the
ETV Program and the name recognition from EPA, it
is unlikely that these relationships could have been de-
veloped. Independent of the technical aspects of ETV
testing, the marketing recognition that has been attained
as a result of the ETV verification is quite valuable to the
vendor (Smith, 2010b).
As stated in Section 2.1, decentralized wastewater treat-
ment systems can have economic advantages compared
to centralized systems when used in appropriate areas.
Decentralized systems allow capacity to more closely
match actual growth because decentralized capacity can
be built on an as-needed basis, providing a number of
important benefits. Capacity capital costs are moved to
the future, typically reducing the net present value, re-
sulting in a more affordable approach compared to build-
ing centralized treatment capacity or extending sewers.
Communities are able to incur less debt because it is not
necessary to borrow large up-front capital, which also can
reduce financing costs. Because decentralized systems
can be expanded depending on growth, if less growth
occurs than predicted initially, the community does not
have overbuilt capacity and a large debt load that must
be spread across fewer-than-expected residents. Also,
making decentralized investments over time allows the
community to adjust its technology choices as improved
or less expensive technologies become available. Finally,
more expensive nutrient removal technologies can be
targeted only to locations that are nutrient sensitive, as
opposed to upgrading treatment of all of the commu-
nity's wastewater at a centralized plant (Rocky Mountain
Institute, 2004). The verified system detailed in this case
study is an example system that can potentially provide
these economic advantages.
2.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
In addition to adopting regulations or guidelines for
decentralized wastewater discharge, states also establish
water quality standards to protect water bodies for drink-
ing, recreation, and ecological activities. Total maximum
daily loads and maximum contaminant levels are used
to ensure that drinking water meets safety criteria for
pollutants and contaminants (e.g., total nitrogen). The
ETV-verified technology described in this case study can
A view of the Model 6000 SBR following installation at the Trellis
Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,
be used to help states and other governing bodies to meet
drinking water regulations, standards, and guidelines.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has outlined how EPA
can protect the Bay watershed, including requiring all
newly developed communities and densely populated
areas to use cluster systems employing advanced nitro-
gen removal technology (U.S. EPA, 2009b). The new
discharge standards specify total nitrogen levels of not
more than 20 mg/L throughout the Bay watershed and
in some areas no more than 5 mg/L. The Chesapeake
Bay Program specifically cites ETV and several veri-
fied products when discussing available technologies to
meet these new standards (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The veri-
fied technology discussed in this case study meets the
nitrogen recommendations for use in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
As mentioned in Section 2.1 and above, a number of
states have adopted regulations or guidelines for manage-
ment of decentralized wastewater and nutrient discharge.
Such regulations and guidelines rely in part on the use of
alternative technologies, some of which are approved by
the states. In the residential wastewater treatment sec-
tor, regulators rely on third-party testing and standards.
Additionally, some states have processes that allow for
innovative approvals of systems that perform outside the
scope of the existing certification protocols. At least nine
states currently use ETV protocols in the evaluation of
alternative technologies for wastewater treatment and
three identify the protocol used for the verification de-
scribed in this case study:
» North Carolina has stated that vendors requesting in-
novative approval for wastewater treatment systems
can use ETV verification protocols, including the pro-
tocol used for the verification described in this case
study to support their requests. The state also suggests
15
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
A finished view of the Model 6000 SBR installation at the Trellis
Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,
that data gathered outside these protocols might not
be considered equally valid (Jeter, 2001).
Florida indicates that applications for innovative sys-
tem permits for onsite sewage treatment and disposal
systems shall include "compelling evidence that the
system will function properly and reliably to meet
the requirements [e.g., permitting, inspection] of this
chapter...Such compelling evidence shall include one
or more of the following from a third-party testing or-
ganization approved through the NSF [sic] Environ-
mental Technology Verification Program: (1) testing
of innovative systems in other states with similar soils
and climate; (2) side stream testing where effluent is
discharged into a treatment system regulated pursuant
to Chapter 403, FS; and (3) laboratory testing" (State
of Florida, 2006).
The State of Idaho Technical Guidance Manual for In-
dividual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems states
that extended (wastewater) treatment package systems
and nitrogen reduction systems may be approved if
they have successfully completed an EPA-sanctioned
ETV verification test (State of Idaho, 2007).
Pennsylvania's Experimental Onlot Wastewater Tech-
nology Verification Program requires that onlot sew-
age system technologies accepted for performance
verification complete appropriate testing that follows
a protocol developed by or in cooperation with the
American National Standards Institute and/or the
U.S. EPA (Pennsylvania Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, 2004).
Washington testing requirements for proprietary
treatment products require that certain categories of
residential and high-strength wastewater treatment
systems complete testing following an ETV verifica-
tion protocol, including the protocol used for the veri-
fication described in this case study (State of Wash-
ington, 2007).
Minnesota testing requirements for proprietary treat-
ment products require that technologies designed for
treating high-strength sewage typical of commercial
sources (restaurants, grocery stores, group homes,
medical clinics, etc.) and reducing total nitrogen and
phosphorous complete testing following an ETV veri-
fication protocol, including the protocol used for the
verification described in this case study, or the equiva-
lent (Minnesota Administrative Rules, 2008).
The Oregon State Administrative Rules for Approval
of New or Innovative Technologies, Materials, or De-
signs for Onsite Systems specify that the Department
of Environmental Health and Quality may approve
new or innovative technologies, materials, or designs
for onsite systems pursuant to the rule if it deter-
mines that they will protect public health, safety, and
waters of the state as effectively as systems authorized
by the division. One of the factors on which the de-
partment may base approval is meeting the criteria
established by EPAs ETV Program, including several
NSF International and ETV protocols for wastewa-
ter treatment (State of Oregon, 2009).
The Administrative Rules of Montana 17.30.718: Cri-
teria for Nutrient Reductionfrom Subsurface Wastewater
Treatment System (SWTS) state that results from an
SWTS that has been tested by ETV may be used to
demonstrate compliance with requirements (e.g., col-
lection and analysis of raw sewage for total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, BOD, and TSS; sampling frequency) for
nutrient reduction as outlined in the regulation (State
of Montana, 2004).
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
encourages innovative wastewater treatment technol-
ogy developers and vendors to use technology tem-
plates, such as the EPA ETV Program, to serve as
means for potential customers and regulators to see
consistent descriptions, application information, and
performance data on new wastewater treatment tech-
nologies (Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 2009).
16
-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Case Study:
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
COD chemical oxygen demand
Ibs pounds
mg/L milligrams per liter
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SBR sequencing batch reactor
SWTS subsurface wastewater treatment system
TSS total suspended solids
UV ultraviolet
2.4
2.4 REFERENCES
56 FR 3526. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Final Rule. Federal Register 56, no. 20 (30 January 1991).
71 FR 65573. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Groundwater Rule; Final Rule, Federal Register 71, no. 216 (8
November 2006).
Camargo JA and Alonso A. 2006. Ecological and toxicological
effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems: a
global assessment. Environment International 32:831—849.
Greer FR, Shannon M, the Committee on Nutrition, and the
Committee on Environmental Health. 2005. Infant Methe-
moglobinemia: The Role of Dietary Nitrate in Food and Water,
Pediatrics 116(3):784-786.
International Wastewater Systems. 2010. International Waste-
water Systems Projects, Last accessed 22 June. http://www.rcciws.
com/mdex-5.html
Jeter WC. 2001. Memorandum from William C.Jeter (North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources)
Concerning Innovative Wastewater Treatment System Verification,
30 April.
Minnesota Administrative Rules. 2008. 7083.4010: Testing
Requirements for Proprietary Treatment Products,
18 February.
NSF International. 2001. Protocol for the Verification of Waste-
water Treatment Technologies, April.
NSF International. 2006. Environmental Technology Veri-
fication Report: Evaluation of a Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Technology—International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
Model 6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System (With Coagula-
tion, Sand Filtration, and Ultraviolet Disinfection), Prepared
by NSF International under a cooperative agreement with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 06/28/WQPC-
SWP EPA/600/R-06/130. August.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004.
Experimental Onlot Wastewater Technology Verification Program,
Bureau of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. 3 July.
Rocky Mountain Institute. 2004. Valuing Decentralized Waste-
water Technologies: A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic
Analysis Techniques, November.
Siegrist RL. 2001. Advancing the Science and Engineering of
Onsite Wastewater Systems, In: Proceedings of Ninth National
Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
ASAE, March 11-14,2001, Fort Worth, TX.
Smith C. 2010a. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 6 January.
Smith C. 2010b. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 3 March.
Smith C. 2010c. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 27 April.
Smith C. 2010d. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 18 August.
Smith C. 2010e. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 19 August.
Smith C. 2010f. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 7 September.
Smith C. 2010g. E-mail communication. International Waste-
water Systems, Inc. 17 September.
State of Florida. 2006. Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administra-
tive Code: Standards for Onsite Sewave Treatment and Disposal
J & L
Systems, Department of Health. 26 November.
State of Idaho. 2007. Technical Guidance Manual for Individual
and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, Department of Environ-
mental Quality. 4 October.
State of Minnesota. 2008. Minnesota Rules. Chapters 7050 and
7053. April 1.
State of Montana. 2004. Administrative Rules of Montana
17.30.718: Criteria for Nutrient Reduction from Subsurface
Wastewater Treatment System, 18 June.
State of New Jersey. 1993. New Jersey Administrative Code 7:9-
6—Groundwater Quality Standards, January 7.
17
-------
2.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
State of Oregon. 2009. Approval of New or Innovative Tech-
nologies, Materials, or Designs for Onsite Systems, 340-071-
0135. Department of Environmental Quality. Last accessed
21 October. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARs_300/
OAR_340/340_071.html
State of Washington. 2007. Rules and Regulations of the State
Board of Health: On-site Sewage Systems Chapter 246-272 A
WAC. Department of Health. 1 July. (Formatting revised Sep-
tember 2009).
TonningB. 2010a. E-mail communication. Tetra Tech. 17
March.
Tonning B. 2010b. Personal communication. Tetra Tech.
March.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA-832-R-97-001b. April.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods
Manual Office of Water. EPA-841-B-97-003. November.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
Office of Water. EPA-625-R-00-008. February."
U.S. EPA. 2003a. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of
Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems,
Office of Water. EPA-832-B-03-001. March.
U.S. EPA. 2003b. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspend-
ed and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential Approaches (Draft),
Office of Water. August.
U.S. EPA. 2005a. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems: A
Program Strategy, Office of Water. EPA-832-R-05-002. January.
U.S. EPA. 2005b. Handbookfor Managing Onsite and Clustered
(Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems: An Introduction
to Management Tools and Information for Implementing EPA's
Management Guidelines, Office of Water. EPA-832-B-05-001.
December.
U.S. EPA. 2005c. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems:
A Program Strategy. Office of Water. EPA-832-R-05-002. Janu-
ary.
U.S. EPA. 2006. EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA-
190-R-06-001.29 September.
U.S. EPA. 2007. Large Capacity Systems, Last updated 12 De-
cember, http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/uic/classS/types_lg_ca-
pacity_septic.html
U.S. EPA. 2008a. L7.S. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment
(Final Report). EPA-600-R-07-045F. May.
U.S. EPA. 2008b. What is EPA Doing To Address Septic
Systems? Office of Wastewater Management. Presented at the
Groundwater Protection Council's 2008 Annual Forum. 23
September.
U.S. EPA. 2008c. State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards
(1998-2008). Office of Water. EPA-821-F-08-007. December.
U.S. EPA. 2008d. EPAs MOU Partnership: Improving Com-
munication, Cooperation, and Coordination in Decentralized
Wastewater Management, Webinar. 3 November.
U.S. EPA. 2008e. Memorandum of Understanding: EPA Partners
for Decentralized Wastewater Management, 19 November.
U.S. EPA. 2009a. Activity Update: Funding Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems Using the Clean Water State Re-
volving Fund, Office of Water. EPA 832-F-09-005. Summer.
U.S. EPA. 2009b. The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to
Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A Revised Report
Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508. 9 September.
U.S. EPA. 2010a. Septic (Onsite) Systems—Education and
Outreach, Last updated 22 June, http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/sep-
tic/septic.cfm?page_id=277
U.S. EPA. 2010b. National Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress Electronic Integrated Reporting, Last updated 15 June.
http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir
U.S. EPA. 2010c. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chapter 6: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
sheds. EPA841-R-10-002.12 May.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quantification of the Contribution
of Nitrogen from Septic Tanks to Groundwater in Spanish Springs
Valley, Nevada. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5206.
September.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Innovative
Technology: Technology Verifications and Inventories, Last updated
8 January, http://www.deq.state.va.us/innovtech/dem2.html
18
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.0
3. Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
Power Generation and Heat Recovery
The ETV Program has verified the performance of eight
technologies that produce or use fuels generated from
biomass or other wastes (opportunity fuels). Six of the
technologies, including four distributed generation en-
ergy systems and two biogas processing systems, were
verified by ETV's Greenhouse Gas Technology Center,
which is operated by Southern Research Institute under
a cooperative agreement with EPA. These technologies
have applications at municipal solid waste landfills, ani-
mal feeding operations, wastewater treatment facilities,
or other sources of methane (CH4) or high-energy-
content gaseous waste streams. Two biomass co-fired
boilers also were verified under an ETV Environmental
and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE) project;
these are applicable for co-firing in industrial, commer-
cial, or institutional boilers in the 100 million to 1,000
million British thermal unit per hour (MMBtu/h)
range. Collaborators during these verifications included
the Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management
and Conservation, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA), University of
Iowa (UI), Minnesota Power, and EPAs Office of Solid
Waste, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), and Office of Air and Radiation. The Green-
house Gas Technology Center also is conducting a joint
demonstration and verification of a microturbine using
landfill gas with the Department of Defense's (DoD) En-
vironmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP); the verification is expected to be completed in
2011. Completed and ongoing verifications are summa-
rized in Exhibit 3-1. Additionally, the Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center is performing a preverification tech-
nology assessment of the environmental and economic
impacts from gasification of aqueous sludge from paper
mills and wastewater treatment. The project may include
verification of these technologies for use in onsite energy
or fuel production for the pulp and paper and municipal
wastewater treatment industries.
Waste-to-energy technologies use opportunity fuels that
usually are byproducts or waste streams from other pro-
cesses, thus reducing the need to use fossil fuels and the
quantity of wastes treated, disposed of, or emitted. Al-
though these fuels may not have the same heating value
as conventional fossil fuels, they are beneficial as a po-
tential source of alternative energy, especially when used
The University of Iowa main power plant,
with distributed generation energy systems that generate
electricity at the point of use. These technologies also can
employ heat recovery systems that capture excess thermal
energy and use it to provide domestic water and space
heating, process heat, or steam. Distributed generation
systems that include heat recovery are referred to as com-
bined heat and power (CHP) systems.
Common opportunity fuels include landfill gas, anaero-
bic digester gas, wood, and grass. These fuels are derived
mostly from biomass waste such as crop residues, farm
waste from animal feeding operations, food waste, mu-
nicipal solid waste, sludge waste, and waste from forestry
and agricultural operations. Benefits and outcomes of the
use of selected opportunity fuels include decreased de-
pendence on fossil fuels; decreased waste volume requir-
ing disposal; and reduced CH4, carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOJ, carbon monoxide (CO), and
total hydrocarbons (THCs) emissions. CO2 and CH4
are greenhouse gases (GHGs) linked to global climate
change. CO, THCs, compounds in the NOx family, and
derivatives formed when NO reacts in the environment
X
cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts.
Waste-to-energy technologies can significantly reduce
the environmental impacts of municipal solid waste by
redirecting and reducing the volume of waste disposed
of in landfills and decreasing the amount of GHGs that
otherwise would be released. For example, according to
EPAs Landfill Methane Outreach Program, waste-to-
19
-------
3.0
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Exhibit 3-1
Completed and Ongoing ETV Verifications for Waste-to-Energy Technologies*B
Company/Technology Name
Biogas Processing Systems
\ NATCO Group, Inc., PaquesTHIOPAQ®
Technology Description/
Application
i A sour gas processing system for
i biogas purification that removes
! hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
Opportunity Fuel Source
I Anaerobic digester gas from a water
! pollution control facility (verified in 2004).
! US Filter/Westates Carbon, Gas Processing
i Unit (verified with the UTC Fuel Cells, LLC,
i PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant-Model C)
A carbon-based filter that removes
H2S, other sulfur species and
hydrocarbons from biogas.
I Anaerobic digester gas from a water
i pollution control facility (verified in 2004).
| UTC Fuel Cells, LLC, PC25C Fuel Cell Power
I Plant—Model C (formerly the combined
| PC25™ 200 kW Fuel Cell and gas pro-
icessing unit by International Fuel Cells
i Corporation and currently the PureCell™
! Model 200 by UTC Power) (technology
\ was tested using two different opportunity
\fuel sources)
Internal Combustion Engines
i Martin Machinery, Caterpillar Model
! 379 (200 kW) Engine/Generator Set with
i Integrated CHP System
I Martin Machinery, Caterpillar Model 3306
1ST (100 kW) Engine, Generator, and Heat
I Exchanger
A 200 kilowatt (kW) phosphoric acid
fuel cell with an included gas process-
ing unit for commercial or institutional
use with the potential for heat recov-
ery in a CHP application.
! A distributed generation/CHP system
i consisting of a Caterpillar Model
! 379, 200 kW engine-generator with
! integrated heat recovery capability.
Biogas from two municipal solid waste
landfills; included a landfill gas processing
unit (verified in 1998).
Anaerobic digester gas from a wastewater
treatment facility; included a gas processing
unit verified separately (verified in 2004).
! Anaerobic digester gas from a dairy
Ifarm with 1,725 cows and heifers (verified
| in 2007).
i A distributed generation/CHP system i
I consisting of a Caterpillar Model 3306 i Anaerobic digester gas from a swine facility i
i ST, 100 kW engine-generator with i with up to 5,000 sows (verified in 2004). i
i integrated heat recovery capability. i i
i Capstone Turbine Corporation, Capstone
! Model 330 30 kW (currently the Capstone
i Model C30) microturbine system
; Flex Energy, Flex-Powerstation®
i (planned verification 2011)
Biomass Co Fired Boilers
!A 30 kW biogas-fired microturbine i
i combined with heat recovery system i Anaerobic digester gas from a swine facility i
I for distributed electrical power and I with up to 5,000 sows (verified in 2004). !
i heat generation. i i
! A microturbine using a thermal oxi-
! dizer system to oxidize and destroy
i hydrocarbons in the waste fuel stream
! before entering the turbine.
! Landfill and other waste gases.
i Pelletized wood fuel, developed by re-
! newaFUEL, LLC, co-fired with coal at the
! University of Iowa Main Power Plant
i Boiler 10
| A Riley Stoker Corporation boiler unit
! rated at 170,000 pounds/hour (Ibs/h)
! steam co-firing pelletized wood fuel
I with coal.
iWood pellets from a renewaFUEL, LLC
I facility in Michigan co-fired with coal
! (verified in 2008).
20
Wood waste co-fired with coal at the
Minnesota Power, Rapids Energy Center
BoilerS
A Foster Wheeler spreader stoker boil-
er with a steaming capacity of 175,000
Ibs/h co-firing western subbituminous
coal with wood waste, railroad ties,
onsite generated waste oils and sol-
vents, and paper wastes.
Waste wood and bark from a paper mill
and waste wood from other facilities co-
fired with coal (verified in 2008).
A Complete verification reports and statements for the verified technologies may be found at http://www.epa.gov/£tv/vt-ggt.btml#advanc££n£rgy,
B Adapted from ETV, 2009.
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.1
energy technologies that utilize landfill gas from munici-
pal solid waste landfills have the potential to reduce CH4
emissions from these sources by up to 90%; this would
have resulted in a reduction of 2.7 million metric tons
of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2010e).
Certain waste-to-energy technologies also can serve as
an integral element in the waste and energy management
chains at different facilities, helping to limit releases to
land and water bodies, as well as assisting with facility-
specific waste processing or treatment needs.
The utilization or conversion of waste streams for al-
ternative energy involves many different types of tech-
nologies and sources of waste (e.g., municipal solid
waste combustion). This case study, and in particular
the "Technology Description" and "Outcomes" sections
of this study, focus on the types of waste-to-energy tech-
nologies verified by the ETV Program, namely those that
utilize CH4 or other gaseous waste streams for power
generation and biomass co-fired boilers.
Section 3.3 of this case study presents the ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of verification outcomes from actual
and potential applications of the technologies. Appen-
dix B provides a detailed description of the methodol-
ogy and assumptions used to estimate these outcomes.
Using the analyses in this case study, ETV reports the
following outcomes:
» Based on current installations, eight ETV-verified
fuel cell distributed generation systems in operation
at wastewater treatment plants in or near New York
City reduce CO2e emissions by more than 11,000 tons
per year. The vendor reports that cumulatively, these
fuel cell installations have generated more than 56,000
megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity with an associ-
ated economic value of $5.6 million.
» The ETV-verified distributed power generation sys-
tems could potentially be applied, using 10% and 25%
market penetration scenarios, at:
> Approximately 820 to 2,100 animal feeding
operations with annual CO2e emissions reduc-
tions of up to 5.9 million to 15 million tons and
associated climate change, environmental, and
human health benefits.
Approximately 44 to 110 wastewater treatment
facilities with annual CO2e emissions reduc-
tions of 63,000 to 160,000 tons and annual
NOx emissions reductions of 80 to 200 tons;
associated climate change, environmental, and
human health benefits also could be realized.
» The estimated potential energy generation and cost
benefits of using ETV-verified distributed generation
technologies at 10% and 25% market penetration are
as follows:
> If candidate animal feeding operations used
these technologies, up to 1.4 million to 3.5 mil-
lion megawatts (MW) of electricity could be
generated annually with associated cost benefits
of up to $140 million to $350 million.
> If candidate landfills used these technologies, up
to 75,000 to 190,000 MW of electricity could
be generated annually with associated cost ben-
efits of up to $7.5 million to $19 million.
> If candidate wastewater treatment facilities
used these technologies, 74,000 to 190,000
MW of electricity could be generated annually
with associated cost benefits of $7.4 million to
$19 million.
» ETV verification results from the biomass co-fired
boilers described in this case study were used to as-
sist in permit analysis and permitting of test burns at
universities, public utilities, and large industrial opera-
tions in five states.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN
HEALTH, AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
Opportunity fuels often originate from sources or
sectors that are regulated independently under vari-
ous environmental laws. As a result, the environmen-
tal, human health, and regulatory issues associated
with waste-to-energy technologies are broader and
more complex than just those found in the energy
and climate change sector. To effectively address the
range of environmental, human health, and regula-
tory issues associated with different waste-to-energy
applications, this section has been divided into five
subsections: (1) energy, GHGs, and climate change;
(2) animal feeding operations; (3) landfills; (4) wastewa-
ter treatment; and (5) boilers.
21
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
3.1.1 Energy, GHGs, and Climate Change
EPA estimates that, in 2007, the United States emit-
ted CO2in the amount of 6,100 teragrams of CO2e
(Tg CO2e) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the amount of
312 Tg CO2e. Electricity generation is the largest single
source of CO2 emissions, accounting for approximately
42% of the U.S. total in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2009a). N2O
emissions from electricity generation represent 25% of
emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
A variety of other pollutants also are emitted during
electricity generation, including sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter (PM), ammonia, andTHCs. Each of
these emissions can have significant environmental and
health effects. Conventional electricity generation also
consumes finite natural resources, with environmental
and economic repercussions.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
has increased 35% (from 280 parts per million [ppm] to
379 ppm) since preindustrial times (AD 1000 to 2005)
(IPCC, 2007a). The IPCC has concluded that global
average surface temperature rose 0.6°C in the 20th cen-
tury, with the 1990s being the warmest decade on re-
cord. Sea level rose 0.12 to 0.22 meters during the same
time. Snow cover has decreased by about 10%, and the
extent and thickness of Northern Hemisphere sea ice
have decreased significantly (IPCC, 2007b). Resultant
flooding can cause health impacts, including direct in-
juries and increased incidence of waterborne diseases
from pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia,
altered marine ecology, displacement of coastal popu-
lations, and saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater
supplies. Higher average surface temperatures caused by
GHG impacts on climate are expected to result in severe
heat waves that are intensified in magnitude and dura-
tion. This will in turn result in increased heat-related
morbidity and mortality. The range of some zoonotic
disease carriers (e.g., ticks carrying the agent of Lyme
disease) may expand with rise in temperature (74 FR
66496; U.S. EPA, 2009b). GHG-related climate change
is expected to elevate regional ozone levels, accompanied
by increased risk for respiratory illness and premature
death. Additionally, evidence indicates that elevated CO2
concentrations can lead to changes in aeroallergens that
could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. Many
of these impacts depend on whether rainfall increases or
decreases, which cannot be reliably projected for specific
areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which
The Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 3306 internal combustion
engine combined heat and power system installed at Colorado Pork
in Lamar, Colorado.
parts of the United States will become wetter or drier,
but there is likely to be an overall trend toward more
precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms,
and drier soils (74 FR 66496; U.S. EPA, 2009b).
The various compounds in the NOx family (including
N2O, nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, nitrates, and nitric
oxide) and derivatives formed when NOx reacts in the
environment cause a wide variety of health and envi-
ronmental impacts, including formation of ground-level
ozone (or smog) and acid rain, water quality deteriora-
tion, respiratory problems, and global warming, as well
as reacting to form nitrate particles and toxic chemicals
(U.S. EPA, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2003). Ozone is capable
of reducing or damaging vegetation growth and causing
respiratory problems in humans (U.S. EPA, 2008c).
Other pollutants emitted during electricity generation also
can have significant environmental and health effects. For
example, SO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain
(U.S. EPA, 2009c). THCs and CO can contribute to
ground-level ozone formation, and CO can be fatal at
high concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA, 2010g).
PM can cause premature mortality and respiratory effects,
including aggravated asthma, difficult or painful breath-
ing, decreased lung function, and chronic bronchitis (70
FR 65984). Finally, ammonia can contribute to PM levels
and result in adverse environmental effects after deposi-
tion to surface water, such as eutrophication and fish kills.
Ammonia also can be fatal at high concentrations (U.S.
EPA, 2004a).
CH4 is another important GHG of concern. CH4 can re-
main in the atmosphere for approximately 9 to 15 years.
As one of several non-CO2 gases that contribute to cli-
mate change, CH4 is 20 times more effective in trapping
22
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.1
atmospheric heat than CO2 during a 100-year period. It
is emitted from a variety of sources, including landfills,
natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities,
coal mining, wastewater treatment, and others. CH4 is
a primary constituent of natural gas and an important
energy source. Use of CH4 emissions for waste-to-energy
technologies can provide significant energy, economic,
and environmental benefits (U.S. EPA, 2010a).
There are several regulatory drivers for using waste-to-
energy technologies to reduce GHGs and improve ener-
gy independence. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that GHGs are air pollutants that fall under the
Clean Air Act and that EPA has the responsibility and
jurisdiction to regulate them (549 U.S. 497). The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes provi-
sions to increase energy efficiency and the availability
of renewable energy (Public Law no. 110-140). In De-
cember 2009, the EPA Administrator signed an endan-
germent finding that states that current and projected
concentrations of CO2 and five other GHGs—CH4,
N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public
health and welfare of current and future generations (74
FR 66496).
EPA has established a number of partnerships and pro-
grams to mitigate GHGs and promote clean and efficient
energy technologies, including for waste-to-energy. EPA
established the voluntary CHP Partnership to reduce the
environmental impact of power generation by promot-
ing the use of CHP. The partnership works closely with
energy users, the CHP industry, state and local govern-
ments, and other clean energy stakeholders to facilitate
the development of new projects and promote their en-
vironmental and economic benefits. As of January 2010,
the CHP Partnership had more than 350 partners dedi-
cated to promoting and installing CHP and had assisted
more than 460 CHP projects, representing 4,900 MW
of new CHP capacity. Of these projects, 321 are waste-
to-energy CHP applications, with a capacity of 1,700
MW (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., 2010).
EPA also initiated Climate Choice, a new partnership
program that recognizes innovative emerging technolo-
gies that can substantially reduce GHG emissions when
widely adopted. The program offers innovative technolo-
gies and practices that dramatically reduce energy use and
carbon emissions. EPA is partnering with progressive
organizations to bring these technologies to market (U.S.
EPA, 2009d). An international initiative, the Methane
to Markets Partnership, engages 32 countries and the
European Commission in advancing cost-effective, near-
term CH4 recovery and use as clean fuel from four major
CH4 sources: landfills, underground coal mines, natu-
ral gas and oil systems, and animal waste management.
The partnership's goal is to reduce global CH4 emissions
while enhancing economic growth, strengthening energy
security, improving air quality, and reducing GHG emis-
sions (Methane to Markets Partnership, 2010).
3.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations
EPA defines animal feeding operations as agricultural
operations in which animals are kept and raised in con-
finement. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the
animals grazing for or seeking food (e.g., in pastures,
fields, or rangelands). The U.S. Department of Agri-
culture (USDA) estimates that there are approximately
450,000 animal feeding operations in the United States
(USDA, 2009). If not properly managed, animal feeding
operations may have environmental and human health
impacts, as pollutants from these operations may de-
grade groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. Animal
waste and wastewater from these operations may enter
groundwater or surface water from production areas
and areas in which manure is applied to land and cause
nutrient contamination. Animal feeding operations also
can be a significant source of odorous and potentially
harmful air emissions, such as ammonia, hydrogen sul-
fide (H2S), CH4, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
and PM. Clusters of animal feeding operations in certain
areas of the country can contribute to air quality prob-
lems. For example, the California Air Resources Board
estimates that dairy operations, mainly concentrated in
the Sanjoaquin Valley, are the third-largest source of air
pollution in the state, after vehicle exhaust and compost-
ing (U.S. EPA, 2008).
Biogas, which is composed of approximately 60% CH4,
approximately 40% CO2, and trace amounts of H2S and
water vapor, is produced and emitted during the anaero-
bic decomposition of organic material in livestock ma-
nure at animal feeding operations. The quantity of CH4
emitted is a function of the manure composition, type
of treatment or storage facility, and climate (U.S. EPA,
2006a). In the United States, manure management is
the fifth-largest source of human-related CH4 emissions,
accounting for approximately 7.5% of these emissions in
2007 (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Globally, CH4 emissions from
these types of operations are projected to increase by
21% between 1990 and 2020 (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
23
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Operations that meet the regulatory definition of a
concentrated animal feeding operation are regulated
as point sources of pollution to U.S. waters under the
Clean Water Act and are required to obtain discharge
permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) (68 FR7175; 73 FR 70417).
Animal feeding operations also may be subject to permit-
ting requirements under the Clean Air Act and reporting
requirements under the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act if they emit large quantities of air pollutants. In Janu-
ary 2005, EPA announced the Air Quality Compliance
Agreement to monitor, evaluate, and reduce emissions
from certain animal feeding operations and ensure com-
pliance with regulatory requirements (U.S. EPA, 2010i).
Voluntary programs, such as the AgSTAR Program and
Methane to Markets Partnership, help animal feeding
operations reduce CH4 emissions while promoting other
environmental benefits. The AgSTAR Program, jointly
sponsored by EPA, USDA, and the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE), is a voluntary program that encour-
ages the use of CH4 recovery (biogas) technologies at
animal feeding operations that manage manure as liquids
or slurries. This program has successfully encouraged the
development and adoption of anaerobic digestion tech-
nology. Annually, these systems reduce CH4 emissions by
about 800,000 metric tons of CO2e and produce more
than 370,000 MWh of energy (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
The implementation of biogas recovery for livestock
manure treatment and energy production has increased
quickly over the past few years as a result of a number
of factors: increased technical reliability of anaerobic
digesters through deployment of successful systems,
growing concerns about environmental quality, increas-
ing number of state and federal programs designed to
help provide funding for development of these systems,
increasing energy costs, emphasis on energy security, and
emergence of state energy policies and incentive pro-
grams to promote renewable energy and green power
markets. Financial incentives have been instrumental
in increasing the development of anaerobic digester
systems. For example, the USDA Rural Development
Business and Cooperative Programs provide loans and
grants to farm owners to partially fund installation of
commercially proven livestock waste digestion technolo-
gies (U.S. EPA, 2010p; USDA, 2010b).
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater from municipal sewage is treated to remove
soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic or-
ganisms, and chemical contaminants. Anaerobic treat-
ment of wastewater produces CH4, which can be released
to the atmosphere if controls to capture these emissions
are not in place. Wastewater treatment facilities are the
eighth-largest source of human-related CH4 emissions in
the United States, emitting 24.4 Tg CO2e and accounting
for approximately 4.2% of total emissions in 2007 (U.S.
EPA, 2010e).
More than 75% of the U.S. population is served by cen-
tralized wastewater collection and treatment systems
(U.S. EPA, 2004b). Based on the results of EPAs 2004
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, more than 16,000
municipal wastewater treatment facilities operate in the
United States, ranging in capacity from several hundred
millions of gallons per day (MGD) to less than 1MGD
(U.S. EPA, 2008b). According to EPA, 1,066 of these
facilities operate with a total influent flow rate greater
than 5 MGD (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA,
2007), making them potential candidates for perform-
ing anaerobic digestion and off-gas utilization for CHP
applications (U.S. EPA, 2007). Only 544 of these treat-
ment facilities, however, employ anaerobic digestion to
process wastewater, and only 106 of the facilities uti-
lize the biogas produced by their anaerobic digesters to
generate electricity and/or thermal energy (U.S. EPA,
2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA, 2007).
Wastewater treatment facilities are critical for main-
taining public sanitation and a healthy environment and
must be continually operated during power outages or in
the event of a natural or man-made disaster. Because of
its ability to produce electricity and heat onsite, indepen-
dent of the power grid, CHP is a valuable addition for
wastewater treatment facilities. A well-designed CHP
system that is powered by digester gas offers many ben-
efits for wastewater treatment facilities because it pro-
duces power at a cost below retail electricity, displaces
fuels normally purchased for the facility's thermal needs,
qualifies as a renewable fuel for green power programs,
offers an opportunity to reduce GHG and other air pol-
lution emissions, and enhances power reliability for the
treatment plant (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
Wastewater treatment facilities use several methods to
manage and dispose of sludges produced during sew-
24
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.1
age treatment, including aerobic or anaerobic digestion.
Under aerobic digestion, microorganisms convert or-
ganic material to CO2 and water, resulting in a 35%
to 50% reduction in volatile solids content (USDA,
2010a). The disadvantage compared to anaerobic di-
gestion is that its byproducts cannot be used to make
energy, whereas anaerobic digestion produces CH4 that
can be harnessed. Additionally, anaerobic digestion has
a higher rate of pathogen destruction as compared to
aerobic digestion, eliminating more than 99% of patho-
gens (U.S. EPA, 2010H).
Several regulations cover various aspects of wastewater
treatment. The Clean Water Act sets limits, via permit-
ting under the NPDES, on the amount of pollutants
that may be discharged and states that pollution dis-
charge must be controlled by best available technology.
Section 503 of the Clean Water Act covers biosolids,
which are defined as treated residuals from wastewa-
ter treatment that can be used beneficially, and governs
land application of wastewater treatment residuals (40
CFR Part 503). Part 133 of the Clean Water Act requires
municipal waste treatment facilities to meet secondary
treatment standards, ensuring that the discharged efflu-
ents meet minimal removal standards for biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and pH (40 CFR
Part 133). Several states, including Minnesota and Mon-
tana, require wastewater treatment facilities to obtain air
emission permits if there is the potential to emit certain
pollutants (e.g., NOJ above federal and state thresholds
(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1998; Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).
3.1.4 Landfills
Municipal solid waste landfills are the second-largest
source of human-related CH4 emissions in the United
States, accounting for approximately 22% of these emis-
sions in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Possibly the biggest
health and environmental concerns are related to the
uncontrolled surface emissions of landfill gas into the
air. Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a mu-
nicipal solid waste landfill decomposes. On average, this
gas is made up of approximately 50% CH4, approximate-
ly 50% CO2, and a small amount of non-CH4 organic
compounds, including VOCs that contribute to ozone
formation and hazardous air pollutants that can affect
human health (U.S. EPA, 2010k).
Landfill gas can be captured, converted, and used as an
energy source. Using it helps to reduce odors and other
The anaerobic digester at Colorado Pork in Lamar, Colorado,
hazards associated with emissions and helps to prevent
CH4 from migrating into the atmosphere and contribut-
ing to global climate change. Landfills are regulated to
control air emissions under the authority of Section 111
of the Clean Air Act (71 FR 53271). Current regulatory
standards correspond to emissions of non-CH4 organic
compounds, which generally make up less than 1% of
landfill gas. Landfill gas possesses a heat content equal to
roughly one-half that of natural gas (Southern Research
Institute, 1998). Landfills emitting greater than 50 met-
ric tons per year of non-CH4 organic compounds are
required to install a gas collection system and a treatment
system capable of destroying 98% of the non-CH4 or-
ganic compounds in the gas or reducing their concentra-
tion to less than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
(71 FR 53271). In this process, CH4 also is converted to
CO2 while being utilized to produce electricity or heat
(Southern Research Institute, 1998). Under the Final
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, effective
December 29,2009, certain municipal solid waste land-
fills that generate CH4 in amounts equivalent to 25,000
metric tons of CO2e must report these emissions (74 FR
56260). Finally, in many cases, landfill gas is collected
and flared, which often requires additional fossil fuels
to sustain the flare and assure complete combustion. In
such cases, valuable fossil fuels are consumed and poten-
tial renewable energy is not utilized.
The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program is a vol-
untary assistance program that helps reduce CH4 emis-
sions from landfills by encouraging the recovery and use
of landfill gas for energy production. The program forms
partnerships with companies, state agencies, organiza-
tions, landfills, and communities and provides industry
networking and technical and marketing resources to
aid project development (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Additional
voluntary programs, such as the international Methane
25
-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
to Markets Partnership, also help landfills reduce CH4 20101). The court-ordered date for promulgating the rule
emissions while promoting other environmental benefits, is December 16,2010 (Eddinger, 2010).
3.1.5 Boilers
With increasing concern about climate change and fos-
sil fuel energy supplies, there continues to be interest in
biomass as a renewable and sustainable energy source.
Biomass is organic material typically derived from plant
matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. Co-
firing involves substituting biomass, commonly wood or
waste wood from paper mill operations, for a portion
of the fossil fuel used in a boiler. Use of biomass can
generate CO2 credits for power producers while enhanc-
ing their renewable energy portfolios. Many studies have
shown the efficacy and environmental impacts of bio-
mass co-firing at large, coal-fired utility boilers, but data
have been limited for biomass co-firing in industrial-size
boilers. Areas with limited renewable energy resources,
such as solar and wind, may need to rely on biomass as
an alternative renewable energy option. To decrease the
investment needed to establish a biomass combustion
facility and utilize existing resources, current coal-fired
generation units can explore opportunities to co-fire bio-
mass with coal.
The co-firing of wood waste with coal in boilers can re-
duce emissions of GHGs and criteria pollutants. Using
wood waste reduces the need to burn fossil fuels and
conserves finite natural resources. Co-firing also signifi-
cantly reduces SO2 emissions because biomass contains
significantly less sulfur than coal (U.S. DOE, 2000). In
recognition of these benefits, an increasing number of
organizations are promoting the co-firing of wood or
waste wood from paper mill operations in coal boilers.
Co-firing does not require significant changes to the
boiler beyond burner modifications, nor any additions
necessary to burn the new type of fuel. In the United
States, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program and
NYSERDA are working to increase co-firing in indus-
trial, institutional, and other nonutility coal-fired boilers.
The Northeast is ideally suited for the use of wood waste
as there is a large supply available (Northeast Regional
Biomass Program, NYSERDA, 1999).
On April 29,2010, EPAs OAQPS proposed a new max-
imum achievable control technology (MACT) standard
for boilers—the Boiler Area Source Rule—that regu-
lates emissions from biomass co-fired boilers at indus-
trial, commercial, and institutional facilities (U.S. EPA,
3.2 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
ETV's Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, managed
by Southern Research Institute, has verified the per-
formance of two biogas processing systems and four
distributed generation energy systems that utilize CH4
or other gaseous waste streams as fuel, including one
fuel cell, two internal combustion engines, and one
microturbine. ETV also verified the performance of
two biomass co-fired boilers under an ESTE project
(see Exhibit 3-1). All eight systems were operated on-
site using either landfill gas, anaerobic digester gas gen-
erated from animal waste, municipal wastewater sludge,
or solid biomass. Although the regulations and drivers
that govern these sectors are different, with the possible
exception of the co-fired boilers, the technologies used to
process and generate power from these sources are gener-
ally applicable to more than one sector. As a result, the
following information has been divided into subsections
based on technology categories, rather than environmen-
tal sectors, with the understanding that these technolo-
gies may be applicable across sectors.
3.2.1 Biogas Processing Systems
Biogases from wastewater treatment plants, livestock
manure management facilities, and landfills are prom-
ising alternatives to natural gas for fueling distributed
generation technology. The gases are produced onsite,
either through natural decomposition of organic wastes
in a landfill or controlled decomposition of manure
and human waste in anaerobic digesters, and require
treatment to remove contaminants before they can be
used as fuel. Biogas can be made more usable and en-
vironmentally benign if contaminants, primarily H2S,
are removed prior to use as an energy source. Biogas
processing systems remove the H2S and other sulfur
species from the biogas before it is introduced to a dis-
tributed generation system as fuel, where these contam-
inants can cause corrosion in engines, increase main-
tenance requirements, and poison catalyst materials.
A variety of technologies and techniques are available
for removing H2S from biogas, including air injection,
reaction with iron oxide or hydroxide (iron sponge),
water scrubbing, and biological treatment (Krich, et
al., 2005). Certain H2S removal technologies, such as
26
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
caustic scrubbers, may be costly to operate and produce
hazardous effluents. Redox processes also are available,
but these require use of chelating agents and generate
potentially hazardous effluents (Southern Research
Institute, 2004e).
The ETV Program verified two biogas processing sys-
tems. The first technology, the Paques THIOPAQ® gas
purification system manufactured by NATCO Group,
Inc., is designed to remove H2S from biogas and other
sour gases. The system minimizes the generation of
harmful emissions or effluents by aerobically digesting
the waste into a more benign sulfurous product and
regenerating and reusing the caustic sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) used in the scrubber. This caustic scrubber-
based system was verified at a 40-MGD Midwestern wa-
ter pollution control facility designed to process indus-
trial wastewater streams from local industries, including
grain and food processing plants and a paper mill. The
second technology, an anaerobic digester gas processing
unit manufactured by USFilter/Westates Carbon2, was
verified with the PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant-Model
C manufactured by UTC Fuel Cells, LLC at the Red
Hook Water Pollution Control Plant, a 60-MGD sec-
ondary wastewater treatment facility in Brooklyn, New
York (see Section 3.2.2 for additional information on the
fuel cell verification). This technology is a carbon-based
filter that removes H2S, other sulfur species, and heavy
2. Westates Carbon was acquired by the former USFilter Corporation in
December 1996. USFilter was acquired by Siemens in July 2004 and now
operates as Siemens Water Technologies,
The USFilter/Westates Carbon gas processing unit installed at Red Hook
Water Pollution Control Plant,
hydrocarbons from biogas. It differs from the first tech-
nology in that it was integrated with a waste heat recov-
ery system and was designed specifically to remove impu-
rities, such as H2S, that are potentially damaging to the
fuel cell. Specific details of the gas processing units can
be found in the verification reports (Southern Research
Institute, 2004c, 2004e), available at http://www.epa.
gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr32.pdf andhttp://
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr26b.pdf.
ETV-verified performance for these systems is described
in the text following and in Exhibit 3.2-1.
Additionally, a combined fuel cell and gas processing
unit produced by International Fuel Cells Corpora-
tion (now UTC Power) was verified at two municipal
solid waste landfills, one in California and one in Con-
necticut. The gas processing unit, described in the text
following and in Exhibit 3.2-1, is designed to remove
Exhibit 3.2-1
Performance ofETV-Verified Biogas Processing Units
Technology*
Testing Location
Processed Gas Heat Content HIS Removal
Composition (%) Lower Heating Value Efficiency (%)/
(Btu per standard Average Final
CH CO N cubic foot) Concentration
I International Fuel Cells Gas Pro-
icessing Unit
! NATCO Group, Inc. Paques
| THIOPAQ®
1 USFilter/Westates Carbon Gas
1 Processing Unit
! Penrose Landfill Facility (Los
I Angeles, CA)
I Groton Landfill Facility (Groton,
1 en
j Water Pollution Control Facility
i (Midwest)
i Red Hook Water Pollution
i Control Plant (Brooklyn, NY)
! 44.11
I 57.30
! 68.89
61.37
37.88
41.21
28.71
37.10
17.31 !
1.16 I
2.03 i
1.23 !
401.3
522.8
617.2
551.2
j 99/0.04 ppmv
| 99/0.02 ppmv
! 99.8/27.5 ppm
! >99.996/<4 ppb
A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. In this exhibit, technologies are listed alphabetically by vendor company name. Order of appearance of
technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology performance results.
27
-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
The Capstone Model 330 microturbine combined with heat recovery system
installed at Colorado Pork.
impurities from biogas, making it amenable for use by
the company's PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell. Additional
details of the technology can be found in the verification
report (Southern Research Institute, 1998), available at
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/epavsgbgpl.pdf.
Information and results for the fuel cell verification are
discussed in Section 3.2.2.
During testing of the three biogas processing units, the
ETV Program verified the composition and properties of
raw and processed biogas. Sulfur compound removal ef-
ficiency was verified for all three biogas processing units.
Halide removal efficiency was verified for the USFilter/
Westates Carbon unit and the International Fuel Cells
unit. Moisture and VOC removal also were verified for
the USFilter/Westates Carbon unit. System effects on
biogas composition and heating value were verified for
the NATCO and USFilter/Westates Carbon technolo-
gies tested at wastewater treatment facilities. NaOH
consumption rates were monitored and reported for the
NATCO system.
The International Fuel Cells gas processing unit installed
at the two landfills consistently reduced contaminants
in the landfill gas to levels significantly below the initial
goals of less than 3 ppmv total sulfur and less than 3
ppmv total halides. Additionally, VOC removal efficien-
cies for the USFilter/Westates Carbon gas processing
unit ranged from 17.5% to 99.9% for the 12 VOCs de-
tected in the raw biogas samples at concentrations of 50
parts per billion (ppb) or greater. Total halide removal
efficiency averaged 65%. For the NATCO gas processing
unit, the average 50% NaOH consumption rate normal-
ized to biogas feed rate was 0.12 gallons per thousand
cubic feet of biogas processed, or 0.44 pounds (Ibs) of
NaOH per Ib of sulfur. Further verification results are
described in Exhibit 3.2-1.
3.2.2 Distributed Generation Energy Systems
Fuel cells, internal combustion engines, and microtur-
bines are well suited to provide electricity at the point of
use because of their small size, flexibility in connection
methods, ability to be arrayed in parallel to serve larger
loads, ability to provide reliable energy, and low emis-
sions profile (National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
2003). These technologies may be used to convert oppor-
tunity fuels (e.g., gas from municipal solid waste landfills)
to energy. When used in stationary applications to gen-
erate electricity at the point of use, distributed genera-
tion systems reduce the need to generate electricity from
sources such as large electric utility plants, which emit
significant quantities of CO2, NOx, and CO. When well-
matched to building or facility needs in a properly de-
signed CHP application, distributed generation systems
can utilize waste heat to increase operational efficiency
and avoid power transmission losses, thereby reducing
overall emissions and net fuel consumption compared to
traditional power and heat generation systems.
Below are descriptions of the verified waste-to-energy
distributed generation systems, as well as their applica-
tions. ETV-verified unit performance is described in the
text following and in Exhibit 3.2-2.
Fuel cellst Fuel cells use hydrogen to generate elec-
tricity. They consist of two electrodes separated by an
electrolyte (U.S. DOE, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a). Dur-
ing operation, hydrogen-rich fuel reacts with the anode
to produce positive ions and electrons. The positive
ions pass through the electrolyte to the cathode, where
they react to produce water and heat. The electrons
must travel around the electrolyte in a circuit, gener-
ating an electric current (U.S. DOE, 2008). Fuel cells
typically are categorized by the type of electrolyte used
(U.S. EPA, 2008a). As mentioned in Section 3.2.1,
the ETV Program verified the performance of the
PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant—Model C (now called
PureCell™ Model 200) manufactured by UTC Fuel
Cells, LLC (now UTC Power). The PureCell™ Model
200 fuel cell uses liquid phosphoric acid as the elec-
trolyte (Southern Research Institute, 2004b). Per the
manufacturer, this fuel cell is capable of producing 200
kilowatts (kW) of electrical power with the potential
28
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
to produce an additional 205 kW of heat. The Pure-
Cell™ Model 200 fuel cell was tested in 2004 at the
Red Hook Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn,
New York. The fuel cell also was tested in 1998 (then
as the combined PC25™ 200 kW fuel cell and gas pro-
cessing unit manufactured by International Fuel Cells
Corporation) at the Penrose Landfill in Los Angeles,
California, and the Groton Landfill in Groton, Con-
necticut. The PureCell™ Model 200 system consists
of three major components: (1) a gas processing unit
(developed by USFilter/Westates Carbon), (2) a pow-
er module, and (3) a cooling module. Two PureCell™
Model 200 systems were installed at the Red Hook
plant, and both were configured to use anaerobic di-
gester gas produced at the site as the primary fuel and
natural gas for fuel cell startup or as a backup fuel.
The landfill gas from the Penrose site was waste gas
recovered from four nearby landfills, containing most-
ly industrial waste material. The Groton test site is a
relatively small landfill but with greater-heat-content
gas. Specific details of the technologies can be found in
the verification reports (Southern Research Institute,
1998,2004b), available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr26.pdfa.ndhttp://www.epa.
gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/epavsghg01.pdf.
Microturbinest Large- and medium-scale combustion
turbines have been used by electric utilities since the
1950s. Recent advances have allowed the development
and limited application of microturbines (U.S. EPA,
2002). The Capstone Model 330 (now the Model C30)
30 kW microturbine system, manufactured by Capstone
Turbine Corporation, is a microturbine combined with
a heat recovery system for distributed electrical power
Exhibit 3.2-2
Performance ofETV-Verified Distributed Generation Technologies
Technology"
Testing
Location
Test
Condition
(Power
Efficiencies
(site specific maximums)
Maximum
Electrical
Power
Emissions Rates
(Ibs/kWh)
Command) j E|ectrjca| j Therma| | Total j Output(kw) | co
System
! Capstone Model C30 i Colorado Pork, LLC Swine
! Microturbine ! Farm (Lamar, CO)
30
I 20.4% ! 33.3% I 53.7% i 19.9B i 3.45 i 8.2 x 10'5
! Martin Machinery i
i Caterpillar Model 379 i_
i Engine/Generator : ^rsonRarms Dairy Farm ; ; ; ; ;
|wi^ Integrated Heat pburn< NY>
! Recovery i i i i i i I i
! Martin Machinery
i Caterpillar Model
! 3306 ST Engine/
! Generator and Heat
iExchanger
i Colorado Pork, LLC Swine
I Farm (Lamar, CO)
45° i 19.7% ! 32.4% i 52.1% i 44.7 i 1.97 i 0.012
IUTC Power PureCell™ i Red Hook Water Pollution i
! Model 200 Fuel Cell I Control Plant (Brooklyn, NY) I
200
i 36.8% ! 56.9% i 93.8%E i 193 ! 1.44 i 1.3 x 10'5
A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. In this exhibit, technologies are listed alphabetically by vendor or technology name. Order of appearance
of technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology performance results.
B The relatively high altitude of the facility and the parasitic load introduced by the gas compressor limited the micro turbine's power output.
" The site was not designed to maximize heat use. Higher total system efficiency could be realized at other sites. Also, if low-quality hot water (approximately
140°F) could be utilized, higher thermal efficiency could be realized.
D The configuration of the engine's fuel input jets and the low heating value of the biogas restricted the engine's power command output to 45 kW during
verification, which is lower than the equipment manufacturer's recommended minimum rating for this engine.
B This value represents the maximum potential heat usage based on heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures; however, the site did not actually utilize this
heat because of the availability of steam onsite at no cost.
29
-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
and heat generation. The heat recovery system in the
verified application was manufactured by Cain Indus-
tries and recovered waste heat from the microturbine.
The Capstone Model C30 microturbine was verified
at the Colorado Pork facility in Lamar, Colorado—a
sow farrow-to-wean farm that houses up to 5,000 sows.
The facility employs a complete mix anaerobic digester
that promotes bacterial decomposition of volatile sol-
ids in animal wastes. The resulting effluent stream is
allowed to evaporate from a secondary lagoon. Solids
accumulate in the digester and are manually removed.
Recovered heat from the microturbine CHP is circu-
lated through the waste in the digester to maintain the
digester temperature.3 Details of the Capstone Model
C30 microturbine and a heat recovery system can be
found in the verification report (Southern Research
Institute, 2004a), available at http://www.epa.gov/etv/
pubs/sriusepaghgvr22.pdf.
Reciprocating internal combustion engines; Recip-
rocating internal combustion engines are widespread
and well-understood technology suited for a variety of
distributed generation and CHP applications. Internal
combustion engines depend on the process of combus-
tion (i.e., the reaction of a fuel with an oxidizer, usually
air) to generate useful mechanical energy. Although
commonly fueled with fossil fuels, recent technologi-
cal advances have allowed introduction of biogases
and other renewable fuel sources (Southern Research
Institute, 1998, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e,
2007) capable of providing significant environmental
and economic benefits (Southern Research Institute,
2007). The ETV Program verified the performance of
two internal combustion engines with CHP. The veri-
fied distributed generation/CHP systems, designed
and installed by Martin Machinery, Inc., are: (1) Cat-
erpillar Model 379, 200 kW engine and generator
set with integrated heat recovery; and (2) Caterpillar
Model 3306 ST, 100 kW engine, generator (manufac-
tured by Marathon Electric), and heat exchanger. The
first test was conducted using biogas from the Colo-
rado Pork facility described above. The second test was
conducted using anaerobic digester gas from Patterson
Farms, a dairy farm with 1,725 cows and heifers near
Auburn, New York. Details of the internal combus-
tion engines can be found in the verification reports
(Southern Research Institute, 2004d, 2007), available
3. The information provided was applicable at the time of verification; the
digester at this facility no longer is in operation.
at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/03_vr_
martin.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/
pubs/vr600etv07049.pdf.
ETV verification of the distributed generation technolo-
gies outlined above included tests to verify heat and pow-
er production, emissions, and power quality. The four
technologies reported in Exhibit 3.2-2 included heat re-
covery for CHP. Power production tests measured elec-
trical power output and electrical efficiency at selected
loads. In the tests in which potential heat production was
verified, ETV measured heat recovery, potential thermal
efficiency, and potential total system efficiency at selected
loads. For the Capstone Model C30 microturbine, when
tested at less than full load, electrical efficiencies were
lower, but thermal efficiencies were higher. It should be
noted that the test site was not designed to maximize
heat use, and higher total system efficiency could be real-
ized at other sites.
The verification tests measured emissions concentrations
and rates at selected loads. Verified emissions rates for
CO2 and NOx are reported in Exhibit 3.2-2. Addition-
ally, three of the verification reports estimated total an-
nual CO2 reductions by comparing measured emissions
rates during testing with corresponding emission rates
for baseline power-production systems (e.g., average re-
gional grid emission factors or baseline scenarios for the
testing sites). Annual changes in NOx emissions were
estimated in a similar manner. Annual emissions reduc-
tions as compared to the grid were not evaluated for the
Capstone Model C30 microturbine verified at the animal
feeding operation. Additional information on the annual
emissions reductions estimates is available in Appendix
B. The ETV Program also verified concentrations and
emissions rates for other pollutants and GHGs, includ-
ing CO, THCs, and CH4 (in two of the cases), as well
as flare destruction efficiency at the two landfill applica-
tions. More detailed performance data are available in
the verification reports for each technology (Southern
Research Institute, 2004b), which can be found at the
links above.
For the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell verified at the two
landfills in California and Connecticut, the maximum
electrical power outputs were 140 kW and 165 kW at
the Penrose and Groton sites, respectively. Energy con-
version efficiency was determined to be 37.1% at Penrose
and 38% at Groton. Average emissions rates were 0.12
ppmv or 0.29 grams per hour (g/h) for NOx; 0.77 ppmv
30
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
or 1.15 g/h for CO; SO2 emissions were below the de-
tection limit. Annual emissions reductions as compared
to the grid were not evaluated for the fuel cells verified
at the landfills.
3.2.3 Biomass Co-Fired Boilers
Coal-fired boilers use thermal energy to produce elec-
tri-city and steam. Because of increasing concerns about
fossil fuel use, alternatives to burning coal have been
sought, and many coal-fired boilers now are co-fired us-
ing a mixture of biomass and coal. Since approximately
1990, an increasing number of electric utilities across the
United States have implemented biomass co-firing (U.S.
DOE, 2000). This transition is occurring because renew-
able wood waste is an energy source that can be used
to: reduce the amount of coal used in coal-fired boilers;
reduce emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, and acid gases; and
decrease waste sent to landfills (U.s! DOE, 2000,2004).
Depending on the price of coal and the availability of
wood waste in the area, co-firing also has the potential
to lower fuel costs (U.S. DOE, 2004). Many studies
have been conducted on the efficacy and environmental
impacts of biomass co-firing on large, coal-fired utility
boilers, but data regarding biomass co-firing in indus-
trial-size boilers have been limited (Southern Research
Institute, 2008a).
The ETV Program verified the performance, includ-
ing emissions reductions, of two biomass co-fired in-
dustrial boilers. The pelletized wood fuel developed by
renewaFUEL, LLC was used for one verification. The
renewaFUEL pellets, which have a moisture content of
6.6% by weight, were tested at the University of Iowa
(UI) Main Power Plant Boiler 10 (a Riley Stoker Corpo-
ration unit) in Iowa City, Iowa. The Main Power Plant is
a CHP facility that serves the main campus and univer-
sity hospitals and clinics. The plant continuously supplies
steam service and cogenerated electric power. This boiler
co-fired the pellets with coal in an 85:15 ratio of coal to
biomass. In the second verification, wood waste was co-
fired with coal at the Minnesota Power Rapids Energy
Center (REC) Boiler 5 (a Foster Wheeler spreader stok-
er boiler) in Grand Rapids, Minnesota. REC provides
power and heat for the neighboring Blandin Paper Mill.
This boiler co-fired wood waste and bark from the paper
mill, railroad ties, and onsite generated waste oils and
solvents with coal in an 08:92 ratio of coal to biomass
and moisture content of 46.5% by weight.
ETV evaluated changes in boiler performance resulting
from co-firing woody biomass with coal. Boiler opera-
renewaFUEL pelletized wood fuel
tional performance with regard to efficiency, emissions,
and fly ash characteristics was evaluated while combust-
ing 100% coal and then reevaluated while co-firing bio-
mass with coal. The UI Boiler 10 verification indicated
that SO2 emissions were 12.4% lower while combusting
the blended fuel, which correlates well with the approxi-
mately 15% biomass-to-coal ratio. The reduction in SO2
indicates that co-firing woody biomass may be an option
for reducing SO2 emissions without adding emission-
control technologies. NOx emissions rose by 10.2% at the
UI Boiler 10 site, which may be attributable to the higher
temperatures within the boiler that occurred while fir-
ing the dryer, lighter blended fuel. The two verifications
serve as a useful comparison between relatively dry and
very moist woody fuels and how these factors can impact
emissions. The characteristics and verification results are
highlighted in Exhibit 3.2-3.
Metals emissions were extremely low during testing at
both sites, ranging from 4.80 xlO"7 ± 8.42xlO~9 for arse-
nic to 4.34xlO'5 ± 6.8 xlO'6 for selenium. The REC Boil-
er 5 site showed significant reductions in mercury and
selenium emissions, and the UI Boiler 10 site showed
a significant reduction in selenium emissions. Fly ash
composition changes also were verified. The two sites
differed in changes in fly ash content. In general, changes
were small—with the exception of carbon content, which
was significantly lower—following co-firing in UI Boiler
10. Changes were significant at the REC Boiler 5 site,
with the exception of carbon content, which was not
significantly changed. Loss on ignition was significantly
impacted at both sites. More detailed performance data,
including impacts on ash quality can be found in the
verification reports for each technology (Southern Re-
search Institute, 2008a, 2008b), available at http:/'/'epa.
gov/etv/pubs/600etv08018.pdfandfatp://www.epa.gov/
etv/pubs/600etv08017.pdf.
31
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Exhibit 3.2-3
Characteristics and Performance ofETV-Verified Biomass Co-Fired Boilers
Ratio of i Moisture j Boiler
Coal to i Content (by j Operational
Biomass j weight) j Efficiency*
Emissions Reductions*
| Ul Boiler 10, j
i renewaFUEL pelletized j
! wood fuel co-fired with I
I coal i
85:15
6.60%
-0.90% j 12.4%* i -0.82% i -10.2%* j 5.02%
28.1%
| REC Boiler 5, wood j
i waste co-fired with coal j
08:92
46.5%
-17.7%* i 99.7%* I 18.3%* ! 63.2%* i -142%* i 81.2%*
1 Compared to operation while combusting 100% coal
* Statistically significant ((-test with 90% confidence interval)
3.3 OUTCOMES
Waste-to-energy technologies harness the energy po-
tential of waste streams, including organic wastes. Gas
from digesters and landfills can be used in distributed
generation applications to generate reliable electricity
and power for facilities, thus replacing fossil fuels and
decreasing the amount of waste sent to landfills or oth-
erwise emitted. Benefits for the facility and the environ-
ment include producing onsite power, displacing pur-
chased fuels for thermal needs, qualifying as a renewable
fuel for green power programs and incentives, enhancing
power reliability for the facility, and reducing GHGs and
other air emissions. Waste-to-energy technologies also
offer an important security and safety benefit for many
facilities, particularly wastewater treatment facilities. To
help maintain public health, these facilities must operate
continuously or come back online quickly in the event of
a grid power loss, such as from a catastrophic event or
natural disaster. Waste-to-energy technologies can con-
tinue to provide onsite power generation to these and
other critical facilities in the event of utility failures and
are a valuable infrastructure addition (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
There are, however, some barriers to implementing such
systems for waste-to-energy applications. Considering
current market conditions, many facilities do not view
installation as economically viable based on installation
and operating and maintenance costs that may not al-
low payback of the investment, especially as some public
utilities are not willing to accept excess power from these
facilities. Regulatory and statutory frameworks are need-
ed to promote waste-to-energy conversion technologies,
and public and elected officials need to be educated re-
garding the benefits of waste-to-energy (California In-
tegrated Waste Management Board, 2001).
The ETV-verified technologies for processing and
generating power from CH4 or other gaseous waste
streams are generally applicable to more than one sec-
tor. As such, the ETV Program estimated the following
market scenarios and potential outcomes—including
emissions reductions, energy generation, and cost ben-
efits—associated with use of verified technologies by
sector or application.
3.3.1 Emissions Reduction Outcomes
The emissions reductions discussed here were estimat-
ed for distributed generation systems and biomass co-
fired boilers. Biogas processing units were not evaluated
directly for their applicability to reduce emissions and
so are not discussed in this section, although they allow
distributed generation systems to use biogas as an alter-
native fuel source. Biogas production is considered to be
CO neutral, and utilization of landfill gas and manure
digester biogas directly prevents atmospheric pollu-
tion by preventing CH4 from being emitted into the
atmosphere (U.S. EPA, 2010e). ETV estimates that
the potential markets for the biogas processing units
would be similar to those identified for the distributed
generation systems.
Distributed Generation Systems
Emissions reductions from using distributed generation
systems depend on a number of factors, including the
electricity and heating demand of the specific application,
32
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
the technology's emissions rates, and the emissions rates
of the conventional source that the technology replaces.
These factors vary by geographic location. Characterizing
these factors for all potential applications of ETV-verified
distributed generation systems is not reasonably feasible.
ETV used geographic-specific estimates developed by
Southern Research Institute for the verified technologies,
as well as estimates generated by the CHP Partnership,
USDA, and DOE to estimate potential markets and
project CO2, NOx, CH4, and other emissions reductions
from these sectors, as indicated below. Additionally, the
ETV-verified technologies have the potential to reduce
emissions of other pollutants such as CO and THCs. As
environmental and human health effects of GHGs and
other pollutants are significant, the benefits of reducing
these emissions also should be significant. Appendix B
describes ETV's methods for using these estimates to
project nationwide emissions reductions for the applica-
tions below. Based on these analyses and verified technol-
ogy performance, potential emissions reductions from use
of waste-to-energy distributed generation systems include
the following:
Animal feeding operations! Dairy operations with
more than 500 cows and heifers and swine operations
with more than 2,000 sows are good candidates for an-
aerobic digestion and biogas use. The potential for ma-
nure-produced biogas is highest for manure that is col-
lected and stored as a liquid, slurry, or semisolid. Given
these parameters, EPA AgSTAR estimates that 2,600
dairy operations and 5,600 swine operations are poten-
tial candidates for significant manure biogas production
and anaerobic digestion in the United States, greatly ex-
ceeding the estimates for systems that currently are in
use (see text box; U.S.EPA, 2010c). Based on AgSTAR
estimates and ETV verification results, Exhibit 3.3-1
presents annual CO2 or CO2e emissions reductions that
could be realized through use of ETV-verified technolo-
gies at 10% and 25% of these operations. Appendix B
describes the methodology and assumptions used to
develop these estimates. Based on verified technology
performance, average annual NOx emissions could po-
tentially increase by approximately 0.37 to 14.7 tons
per installation when compared to baseline regional grid
emissions rates. Because ammonia generated by anaero-
Exhibit 3.3-1
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies Used at Animal
Feeding Operations
Market Penetration
10%
25%
Number of Animal
Feeding Operations
820
2,100
Annual CO Emissions Reductions (tons per year)*
Lower Bound
2,500
6,300
Upper Bound
5.9 million
15 million
Values rounded to two significant figures,
A The verification results used to calculate the upper bound for annual emissions reductions outcomes include estimated reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions
associated with the use of waste generated CH4 as fuel; the verification results used to calculate the lower bound did not include these additional reductions,
B Emissions reductions outcomes do not include additional reductions associated with the recovery and use of waste heat; the annual CO emissions reduc-
tions above are for electricity generation only.
As of April 2010, AgSTAR estimated that 151 anaerobic digester systems are operating at commercial livestock farms in
the United States, and 125 of these generate electrical or thermal energy from the captured biogas, producing about
360,000 MWh annually. The combustion of biogas at these digesters prevents the emission of about 36,000 metric tons
of CH4 annually (760,000 metric tons of CO2e). In addition, the combustion of biogas displaces the use of fossil fuels, thus
achieving additional emissions reductions of GHGs and air pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2010H). If biogas recovery systems are
installed at all feasible dairy and swine operations, total CH4 emissions can be reduced by an estimated 66%—or 1.6 mil-
lion tons—compared to 2002 CH4 emissions (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The ETV-verified technologies discussed in this case study
are potential candidates for these types of projects.
33
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
bic digester systems is burned in an energy recovery sys-
tem, ammonia output is ultimately reduced compared
to a standard lagoon or pit. Although not quantified,
additional significant environmental benefits also can
be realized from the recovery and use of waste heat and
odor reduction.
Wastewater treatment facilities! Wastewater treat-
ment facilities with influent flow rates greater than 5
MGD are good candidates for distributed generation
anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization.4 The EPA
2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey estimates that
544 wastewater treatment facilities in the United States
currently produce biogas using anaerobic digesters. Of
these, only 106 facilities utilize the biogas produced by
their anaerobic digesters to generate electricity and/or
thermal energy (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA,
2007), for an additional potential market of 438 facili-
ties that could install distributed generation waste-to-
energy technologies. Based on this additional market
potential and ETV verification results, Exhibit 3.3-2
presents annual CO2 and NOx emissions reductions
that could be realized through use of ETV-verified
technologies at 10% and 25% of these facilities. Ap-
pendix B describes the methodology and assumptions
used to develop these estimates. The 2004 EPA Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey identified a total of 1,066
wastewater treatment facilities in the United States
with flow rates greater than 5 MGD (U.S. EPA, 2004c,
as cited in U.S. EPA, 2007)—more of these facilities
4. Analyses conducted by the EPA CHP Partnership indicate that treatment
facilities with influent flow rates less than 5 MGD typically do not produce
enough biogas from anaerobic digestion to make CHP technically and eco-
nomically feasible (U.S. EPA, 2007).
could perform anaerobic digestion, but treatment
process modifications most likely would be required.
Emissions reductions for the ETV-verified technolo-
gies could be even greater if market scenarios are based
on the total number of treatment facilities with flow
rates suitable for performing anaerobic digestion.
C(X and NO emission reductions also have been es-
2 x
timated for commercial applications of a verified fuel
cell at wastewater treatment facilities in New York.
Under a partnership between NYSERDA, the New
York Power Authority (NYPA), and others, eight
UTC PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cells are operating
at four wastewater treatment plants managed by the
New York City Department of Environmental Protec-
tion and located in or near New York City (NYPA,
2010; Staniunas, 2010a). A ninth PureCell™ Model
200 system operating at a fifth site near Yonkers, New
York, has been decommissioned (Staniunas, 2010a).
Each system is fueled by biogas from anaerobic diges-
tion of sewage sludge. As described in Section 3.2.2, in
2004, ETV verified one of the PureCell™ Model 200
fuel cell installations at the Red Hook Water Pollution
Control Plant in Brooklyn; ETV collaborated with
NYSERDA and NYPA on this verification. These fuel
cell projects are part of a program to offset emissions
from NYPAs PowerNow!—six small natural gas-
powered plants designed to increase electrical generat-
ing capacity for New York City. NYPA initiated a zero
net emissions program to offset the small amount of
emissions from the generators by reducing pollutants
from other sources, including the installation of the
UTC fuel cells to harness waste gas from sewage treat-
Exhibit 3.3-2
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies Used at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Market Number of Wastewater Treatment
Penetration Facilities
Annual Emissions Reductions
(tons per year)*
10%
25%
44
110
63,000
160,000
80
200
Values rounded to two significant figures.
A Estimates for annual emissions reductions include emissions reductions for flare offset.
34
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
ment facilities and produce clean electricity (NYPA, Exhibit 3.3-3
2010). According to the vendor, collectively, the nine
fuel cells reduced NOx emissions by 50,000 Ibs annu-
ally (UTC Power, 2007). Based on verified technol-
ogy performance, the ETV Program estimates that the
eight UTC fuel cells currently operating at wastewater
treatment plants in or near New York City collectively
reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 11,000 tons
annually.
Number of Landfills That Could Apply ETV-Verified
Technologies
Market Penetration i Number of Landfills
10%
25%
52
130
Landfills; The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach
Program estimates that there are approximately 518
landfills already collecting landfill gas for energy re-
covery in the United States. These landfills generate
approximately 13 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
electricity per year and deliver 100 billion cubic feet
of landfill gas to direct-use applications annually. This
represents the equivalent of the carbon sequestered
annually by approximately 20 million acres of pine
or fir forests, CO2 emissions from approximately 216
million barrels of oil consumed, or annual GHG
emissions from approximately 18 million passenger
vehicles (U.S. EPA, 2010k). EPA estimates that an
additional 520 landfills are good candidates for land-
fill gas energy projects based on gas generation and re-
covery estimates; feasibility assessments on biogas gen-
eration and recovery potential, potential end uses, and
approximate costs of using gas for energy; and other
analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Based on this additional
market potential and ETV verification results, Exhibit
3.3-3 presents the number of landfills that could ap-
ply ETV-verified technologies at 10% and 25% of the
market. The ETV Program did not calculate annual
emissions reductions during the waste-to-energy veri-
fications performed at landfill sites; therefore, quan-
titative data are not available to estimate emissions
reductions associated with the market scenarios out-
lined in Exhibit 3.3-3. It also should be noted that
according to EPA, internal combustion engines are
the most commonly used waste-to-energy technol-
ogy for landfill gas applications (used in more than
70% of current landfill gas energy recovery projects in
Values rounded to two significant figures.
the United States) because of their relatively low cost,
high efficiency, and good size match with the gas out-
put of most landfills (U.S. EPA, 2010o). Several of the
ETV-verified distributed generation technologies de-
scribed in Section 3.2.2 could be applied for landfill gas
recovery and achieve associated emissions reductions.
EPAs estimates for the number of landfills that are
candidates for waste-to-energy applications do not
necessarily include older landfills that produce low-
British thermal unit (Btu) landfill gas. The microtur-
bine scheduled to be verified in 2011 jointly by ETV
and DoD's ESTCP claims the ability to operate on
low-Btu landfill gas, which may extend the usefulness
and decrease CO2 emissions further in the long term.
The ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center esti-
mates that the technology could have applicability at
approximately 100 DoD landfill sites with potential to
generate 90 MW of electricity annually. This translates
to an estimated offset of 710,000 tons of CO2e annu-
ally assuming that all sites are operating at maximum
capacity and flare is offset (Hansen, 2010a).5
Co-Fired Boilers
According to the vendor, use of renewaFUELs pelletized
wood fuel in place of coal at the permitted capacity of
210,000 tons per year will result in direct reduction of
5. The estimate for potential applicability at DoD landfill sites is based solely
on landfill size, closure date, and other similar information; actual application
at these sites would require further analysis, including site logistics, economi-
cal feasibility, etc.
If a 3-MW landfill gas electricity project starts up at a landfill with previously uncontrolled landfill gas, the project would
reduce CH4 by approximately 6,000 tons per year and 110,000 tons of CO2e per year. The combined emissions reduction
of 130,000 tons of CO2e per year would be equivalent to any one of the following annual environmental benefits for
2010: annual GHG emissions from 24,000 passenger vehicles, carbon sequestered annually by 27,000 acres of pine or fir
forests, or CO2 emissions from 14.3 million gallons of gasoline consumed. Additionally, annual energy savings for a 3-MW
project equate to powering 1,800 homes (U.S. EPA, 2010e). The ETV-verified technologies discussed in this case study are
candidates for these types of projects.
35
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center woody biomass feed,
creditable GHG emissions of approximately 550,000
tons per year, which is equivalent to the emissions from
the annual use of more than 56,000 vehicles. There is an
even greater reduction in total lifecycle GHG emissions
(direct and indirect) compared to coal given the reduced
transportation emissions from renewaFUEL's local
sources and the absence of CH4 releases from coal min-
ing. Based on a 90% reduction in the sulfur content of
renewaFUEL pellets compared to the coal they displace,
SO2 emissions also are reduced. Per the vendor, there
has been a demonstrated reduction in CO emissions by
greater than 25% as a result of the combustion qualities
of renewaFUEL pellets. Solid waste and ash disposal
are reduced because the ash content of renewaFUEL's
product, which is less than 1% by weight, contains ap-
proximately 80% less ash postcombustion than the coal
it displaces (Mennell, 2010a, 2010c).
Minnesota Power— one of the host sites for the biomass
co-fired boilers verification testing—co-fires woody bio-
mass in Boilers 5 and 6. This facility has been co-firing
since it was built in 1980 (Tolrud, 2010). Based on
verification testing results, ETV estimates the following
emissions reductions for biomass co-firing at Minnesota
Power's Boiler 5: 107,000 tons of CO2 per year, based
on a typical heat generating rate of 200 MMBtu/h, an
availability and utilization rate of 75%, and an estimated
CO2 emission reduction of 90% as compared to the grid
or 148 Ibs/MMBtu output during co-firing. Appendix
B describes the methodology and assumptions used to
develop these estimates.
3.3.2 Resource Conservation, Economic, and
Financial Outcomes
Use of biogas and landfill gas as alternative energy sources
results in the conservation of finite natural resources, such
as natural gas, oil, and coal used as conventional fuels.
Waste-to-energy technologies can produce cost benefits by
allowing the use of an on-hand fuel source instead of rely-
ing on more costly purchased fuels. The NATCO Paques
THIOPAQ® system produces elemental sulfur that can
be recycled for sale or use, increasing the cost efficiency of
the biogas processing unit. Because distributed generation
systems generate and use electricity onsite, these systems
avoid economic losses associated with the transmission
of electricity, which can be in the range of 4.7% to 7.8%
(Southern Research Institute, 2004b). Waste heat recov-
ery also provides an opportunity to significantly reduce
fossil fuel consumption in boilers, furnaces, and other gen-
eration devices. Although cost savings vary depending on
the configuration of the individual installation and the cost
of electricity and fuels, these savings can be significant, as
noted below:
» The EPA AgSTAR Program estimates that 2,600
dairy operations and 5,600 swine operations are po-
tential candidates for anaerobic digestion and biogas
use in the United States. It is estimated that these op-
erations could generate 13 million MWh of electricity
per year (U.S. EPA, 2010c). Based on an average elec-
tricity price of $0.10/kWh6 (U.S. DOE, 2010), this
equates to $1.3 billion worth of electricity annually.
» The EPA 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey esti-
mates that there are 544 municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities in the United States with influent flow
rates greater than 5 MGD that operate anaerobic digest-
ers. If all of these facilities used their biogas to fuel CHP
systems, approximately 340 MW of electricity could be
generated annually (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S.
EPA, 2007) worth $300 million based on an average
electricity price of $0.10/kWh. Of the 544 wastewa-
ter treatment facilities that operate anaerobic digesters,
6. Average electricity price is based on the average retail price to ultimate
consumers in all end-use sectors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia
from January 2008 to June 2010 as reported by DOE,
In general, a wastewater treatment facility with a total influent flow rate of 4.5 MGD can produce approximately 100 kW
of electricity to offset purchased electricity or sell to the grid, and 12.5 million Btu per day of thermal energy that can be
used to heat an anaerobic digester and/or for space heating (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
36
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
438 facilities could install ETV-verified technologies to
utilize the biogas produced by the digesters and gener-
ate electricity or thermal energy, with associated cost
benefits.
» The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program esti-
mates that 518 landfills currently collect landfill gas for
energy recovery in the United States. As many as 520
additional landfills could cost-effectively install waste-
to-energy systems to convert CH4 emissions into an
energy resource, producing enough electricity to power
688,000 homes across the United States (U.S. EPA,
2010e). Based on an average annual usage of 12,000
kWh per household (Padgett, et al., 2008) and an aver-
age electricity price of $0.10/kWh, this would provide
an estimated annual economic value of $830 million.
Based on the above market potential, energy generation,
and cost benefits associated with waste heat recovery
for various applications, the ETV Program estimated
annual energy generation and cost benefits from appli-
cation of the ETV-verified distributed generation tech-
nologies at 10% and 25% market penetration, as shown
in Exhibit 3.3-4. Estimates for potential energy genera-
tion and cost benefits that could be realized through ap-
plication of ETV-verified distributed generation systems
at wastewater treatment facilities are conservative. As
previously noted, additional benefits could be realized if
market scenarios are based on the total number of treat-
ment facilities with flow rates suitable for performing an-
NATCO THIOPAQ system with aerobic bioreactor and scrubber
installed at a water pollution control facility.
aerobic digestion. Appendix B describes the assumptions
and methodologies used for these calculations.
Outcomes also have been estimated for actual applica-
tions of verified technologies, as discussed below:
* The Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 379 (200
kW) Engine/Generator Set with Integrated CHP
System has been installed at Patterson Farms in Au-
burn, New York—the ETV-verification site—since
2005. Because Patterson Farms is located near Cayuga
Lake, a popular recreation area, the farm constructed
an anaerobic digester to help control odor and other
emissions and improve manure management. The
CHP system provides heat to maintain the digester
and electricity for the facility. Food waste from a near-
by Kraft Foods factory is combined with dairy manure
Exhibit 3.3-4
Estimated Potential Energy Generation and Cost Benefits of Using ETV-Verified Distributed
Generation Technologies
Application
Market Number of
Penetration Facilities
Annual Energy
Generation (MW)
Annual Cost Benefits*
Lower Bound Upper Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound
Animal Feeding i 10% 82° 320,000 | 1.4 million | $32 million j $140 million
i Operations
I Landfills
i Wastewater
1 Treatment
! Facilities
25%
! 10%
25%
10%
25%
1 2,100
! 52
130
44
110
820,000 | 3.5 million
64,000 75,000
160,000 190,000
I Annual Energy Generation
i (MW)
74,000
190,000
| $82 million j $350 million j
! $6.4 million i $7.5 million i
! $16 million ! $19 million i
i Annual Cost Benefits* \
$7.4 million
$19 million
Values rounded to two significant figures.
A Estimated cost benefits are not net benefits and do not take into account capital costs, operation and maintenance, or depreciation; estimates
include cost benefits associated with electrical and gas offsets only.
37
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Patterson Farms in Auburn, New York—host site for verification testing of the Martin Machinery
Caterpillar Model 379 internal combustion engine with CHP.
for use in the digester. Kraft Foods pays a tipping fee
to Patterson Farms, which improves the economics of
the system. The digester project includes the following
benefits: odor and pathogen reduction; reduced risk of
nutrient run-off and leaching; conversion of nutrients
for use as plant fertilizer; and potential revenue from
sale of excess electricity, tipping fees, and carbon credit
sales (U.S. EPA, 2010m). According to a case study
by Cornell University, during a 10-month period, the
engine/generator set produced on average 4,451 kWh
per day of electricity (Gooch and Inglis, 2008). Based
on verified performance, the ETV Program estimates
that, during the 5-year period of its operation at Pat-
terson Farms, the Martin Machinery system has gen-
erated nearly 8.4 million kWh of electricity with an
estimated economic value of $840,000, assuming an
average electricity price of $0.10/kWh. The farm sells
excess electricity back to the grid at a rate of $0.06/
kWh. The farm also receives revenue from the sale of
carbon credits to the Chicago Credit Exchange; for a
1-year period (2006-2007), these credits were valued
at about $8,000 (Gooch and Inglis, 2008). In 2009,
Patterson Farms received an EPA ENERGY STAR'
CHP Award in recognition of the pollution reduction
and energy efficiency associated with its CHP instal-
lation (U.S. EPA, 2010n).
» As discussed in Section 3.3.1, nine UTC PureCell™
Model 200 fuel cells were in operation at five waste-
water treatment plants managed by the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection and
located in or near New York City (eight still are in op-
eration at four sites). The vendor reports that, through
July 2010, the nine sites have cumulatively generated
56,000 MWh of electricity (Staniunas, 2010a). Based
on an average electricity price of $0.10/kWh, the ETV
Program calculates that this has resulted in economic
benefits of $5.6 million. Per the vendor, three addi-
tional sites—one in Portland, Oregon (operated from
1999 through 2004), and two in Las Virgenes, Cali-
fornia (operated from 1999 to 2002 and 2004, respec-
tively)—generated 13,000 MWh of electricity while in
operation (Staniunas, 2010a). The economic benefit for
these three sites, based on the same average electricity
price, is estimated to be $1.3 million. Nine of the 12
domestic sites at which the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel
cell has been installed have exceeded the 40,000-hour
design life of the fuel cell stack (Staniunas, 2010a). The
vendor also reports that a wastewater treatment facility
in Koln, Germany, used the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel
cell to provide electricity for its facility using digester
gas from the wastewater treatment process from March
14,2000 to August 6,2009; during that time it logged
approximately 50,000 load hours and generated 6,400
MWh of electricity (Staniunas, 2010b).
For the co-fired boiler systems, because co-firing biomass
with coal at a coahbiomass ratio of 85:15 has no signifi-
cant effect on efficiency, cost savings are realized solely
from the use of wood waste in the place of coal. Although
potentially significant, the total cost savings will depend
on the amount of coal typically used in the boiler, the
price of coal in the given location, and the availability and
cost (if any) of the wood waste (Milster, 2010).
The performance results demonstrated through ETV
verification have been helpful to renewaFUEL's efforts to
commercialize its products. A production-scale research
and development facility in Battle Creek, Michigan, is
owned and operated by renewaFUEL; since ETV veri-
fication, the company has expanded the facility to 60,000
tons-per-year capacity (Mennell, 2010a). The company
is nearing completion on a new $20 million commercial
biomass fuel production facility at the Teklite Technolo-
gy Park at Sawyer International Airport near Marquette,
Michigan. The renewaFUEL plant will produce 150,000
38
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
tons of high-energy, low-emitting biomass fuel (Mennell,
2010a; Michigan Renewable Fuels Commission, 2009).
According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture,
there is a lucrative market for crop farmers, woodlot own-
ers, and the forestry industry in Michigan, whose residues
and waste streams can be productively processed into
renewaFUEL's biomass cubes (Michigan Renewable Fu-
els Commission, 2009). The company provides direct
employment of approximately 35 people in Michigan,
and indirect employment, through the feedstock supply
chain, of approximately 168 people with an annual in-
vestment of more than $5 million into the local economy.
The company's clients include major public universities
and public utilities (Mennell, 2010a).
Federal and state incentive programs provide market driv-
ers for innovative alternative energy technologies, includ-
ing waste-to-energy technologies like those verified by
the ETV Program (see text box). For example, the UTC
Power PureCell™ Model 200 could be used to convert
landfill gas to qualify for Alabama's Biomass Energy Pro-
gram, which provides up to $75,000 in interest subsidy
payments on loans to install approved biomass projects,
including landfill gas projects (Alabama Department of
Economic and Community Affairs, 2010). The NATCO
Group, Inc., Paques THIOPAQ® or USFilter/Westates
Carbon Gas Processing Unit could be used to enable use
of livestock CH4 to qualify for Illinois' Biogas and Bio-
mass to Energy Grant Program, which allows incentives
up to 50% of the total project cost, awards for biogas- or
biomass-to-energy feasibility studies, and grants for bio-
gas-to-energy systems up to $225,000 and for biomass-
to-energy systems up to $500,000 (Illinois Department
of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, 2010).
3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, there are regulatory driv-
ers for creating clean and renewable energy by adopting
innovative technologies. The ETV-verified technologies
described in this case study can be used to meet these regu-
lations, including those set forth by the Clean Air Act, the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
EPA's OAQPS, which collaborated with ETV during
the verification of the biomass co-fired boilers, has de-
veloped a new MACT standard for boilers—the Boiler
Area Source Rule—which includes biomass co-fired
boilers in the 100 to 1,000 MMBtu/h range at indus-
trial, commercial, and institutional facilities. The court-
ordered date for promulgating the rule is December 16,
2010 (Eddinger, 2010). ETV verified the performance of
biomass co-fired boilers to support development of the
new MACT standard. Because electricity produced by
biomass meets the Energy Policy Act of 2005 definition
of renewable energy, co-fired boilers using biomass to
produce electricity can be used to meet the Act's renew-
able energy requirements (Public Law no. 109-58). This
strong incentive can increase the use and acceptance of
co-fired boilers. The Federal Energy Management Pro-
Under the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, public utilities may qualify
for incentive payments for generation of electricity from landfill gas, livestock CH4 (anaerobic digestion), or biomass (42
USC § 13317). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 established a biomass commercial utilization grant program that
provides grants to facilities that use biomass as a raw material to produce electric energy (Public Law no. 108-148). The
Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 allows businesses to claim an investment tax credit for using qualifying
fuel cells, microturbines, or CHP systems; qualifying energy resources include biomass and municipal solid waste (Public
Law no. 110-343). A renewable energy grant program, created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
will be administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury that recognizes qualifying fuel cells, microturbines, and CHP sys-
tems, including those that use biomass (Public Law no. 111-5); this program extended investment tax credits for qualifying
technologies permitted under the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
In addition to federal incentives, most states have enacted renewable portfolio standards or goals—legislative requirements
for utilities to generate or sell a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Maryland, Montana,
and the District of Columbia allow energy derived from wastewater treatment plants to count as a renewable source for
their standards (Council of the District of Columbia, 2005; State of Maryland, 2007; State of Montana, 2005), and many
states accept co-firing with biomass as a renewable energy source. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia have
renewable portfolio standards or goals that include landfill gas (U.S. EPA, 2010J). Virtually all states have implemented
loans, grants, rebates, environmental regulations, or tax credits for CHP and biomass projects (2010d). The Database of
State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (http://www.dsireusa.org) is a comprehensive source of information on
state, local, utility, and federal incentives and policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.
39
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
"Prior to 2001, there was little or no credible independent test results available for real world
emissions or performance data for many new distributed generation/(CHP) technologies such as
fuel cells, reciprocating engines, andmicroturbines. Recognizing this need, a collaborative program
between NYSERDA, Southern Research Institute, and EPA was developed under the ETV Program
that established a protocol for field testing of these new technologies...The timely, accurate data
obtained from this testing has helped guide NYSERDA's program and has been valuable in program
metrics assessment. In addition, with the performance data developed under this program, technol
ogy buyers, financiers, and permitting authorities in the United States and abroad will be better
equipped to make informed decisions regarding environmental technology purchase and use."
James Foster, Project Manager for Transportation and Power Systems Research, NYSERDA (Foster, 2010).
gram is examining the feasibility of switching existing
federal coal-fired boilers to co-fired boilers utilizing
biomass (Federal Energy Management Program, 2004).
This move would significantly increase the number of
co-fired boilers currently operating in the United States.
According to renewaFUEL, LLC, a third-party organi-
zation under consent decree modified its decree based on
proposed use of the company's wood pellets and the re-
sulting anticipated emission decreases (Mennell, 2010b).
3.3.4 Technology Acceptance and
Use Outcomes
With growing concerns about fossil fuel depletion and
GHG atmospheric increases, waste-to-energy technolo-
gies are becoming more commonplace. Access to reliable
information on the performance of these technologies is
an essential element of this acceptance. The ETV Program
allows the capabilities of verified technologies to be dem-
onstrated and documented. Vendors believe that ETV
verification provides them with greater marketing power
for their verified technologies, as shown by the mention
of ETV verification in vendor press releases, marketing
materials, and company Web sites (Capstone Turbine
Corporation, 2003; UTC Power, 2005; Cleveland-Cliffs,
Inc., 2007). Others also use ETV data to discuss the
performance of waste-to-energy technologies in relevant
literature. For example, the Intermountain CHP Center,
formed by DOE to increase CHP use and installation in
five Western states, profiled Colorado Pork, LLC, high-
lighting the ETV verification of the Martin Machinery
Caterpillar Model 3306 CHP system and the Capstone
Model C30 microturbine that the company installed to
use digester gas produced at its facility (Intermountain
CHP Center, 2004). The American Society of Healthcare
Engineering also featured an article about the ETV Pro-
gram in its Inside ASHE journal. The article profiled ETV
verification of energy technologies, including the Capstone
Model C30 microturbine and the UTC Power PureCell™
Model 200 system discussed in this case study (American
Society of Healthcare Engineering, 2008).
ETV has strong partnerships with NYSERDA and
DoD s ESTCP, both of which are committed to increasing
innovative technology evaluation and acceptance to solve
energy and environmental challenges; these joint efforts
lead to wider acceptance. NYSERDA has contributed
support for several distributed generation/CHP technol-
ogy verifications through Program Opportunity Notices
(PONs), which can be used to co-fund innovative envi-
ronmental technology demonstrations and verifications.
Two of these notices mentioned the ETV Program and
have resulted in funding support for verifications. PON
768, released in 2003, solicited proposals for converting
waste streams into energy resources (NYSERDA, 2003).
Three of the technologies discussed in this case study
were verified with co-funding obtained through this op-
portunity: the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 379
Internal Combustion Engine, installed at Patterson Farms
(Auburn, New York), and the combined PureCell™ Model
200 fuel cell and USFilter/Westates Carbon gas process-
ing unit, installed at the Red Hook Water Pollution Con-
trol Plant (Brooklyn, New York).
DoD's ESTCP currently is working with ETV on joint
performance verification of microturbines that utilize re-
newable fuel. The objective is to determine the economic
and environmental benefits of the technology at DoD
40
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
landfills and other sources of low-value, low-Btu waste
streams. Potential benefits to DoD from use of this tech-
nology include: (1) expanded use of both renewable and
domestic energy resources for sustainable and secure en-
ergy production; (2) emissions reductions associated with
vented or flared landfill and other waste gases and offset of
utility power production; (3) cost savings associated with
the reduction in electrical purchases from the grid and fuel
needed to flare waste gas; (4) an estimated payback of 3 to
6 years, depending on the site; (5) applicability to many
DoD landfill installations, as well as other waste streams;
and (6) extended power generation life-cycles for landfills
(by more than 40 years) resulting from low-energy landfill
gas requirements (Hansen, 2009).
Per publicly available information, verified vendors are
marketing their technologies abroad. Capstone Turbine
Corporation is working with China to increase biogas
use in Asia. The technology, similar to the microturbine
discussed in this case study, will be installed in several
Chinese provinces to harness CH4 waste from landfills
and wastewater treatment facilities (Capstone Turbine
Corporation, 2009).
According to renewaFUEL, LLC, the company pro-
vided the results from the ETV verification of the bio-
mass co-fired boilers to assist in the permit analysis and
permitting of test burns in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Ohio at universities, public utilities, and
large industrial operations (Mennell, 2010a). Also, the
Michigan Department of Agriculture is collaborating
with renewaFUEL, which has resulted in commercial
biomass fuel production facilities in Battle Creek and at
the Teklite Technology Park near Marquette. In its 2008
annual report, the Michigan Department of Agriculture's
Renewable Fuels Commission describes the collabora-
tion and reports that renewaFUEL's products have been
tested by ETV and demonstrated substantial creditable
emissions reductions compared to coal (Michigan Re-
newable Fuels Commission, 2009). Municipal utilities,
industries, and other institutions are expected to pur-
chase the renewaFUEL product for boiler and furnace
applications to generate electricity, heat, or steam (Michi-
gan Renewable Fuels Commission, 2009).
3.3.5 Scientific Advancement Outcomes
ETV verification of waste-to-energy technologies has
resulted in scientific advancement, including improve-
ments in technology performance and standardization of
technology evaluation. According to renewaFUEL, LLC,
ETV verification was helpful in directing the company's
research toward improved fuels and operating practices.
High NOx emissions during the ETV verification test-
ing led to analysis and development of recommended
operating practices for combustion of renewaFUEL
products and development of patent-pending additives
that result in greater nitrogen capture in ash, which in
turn lowers NOx emissions. The operating practices and
patent-pending technologies have, through subsequent
testing, demonstrated significant decreases in NOx emis-
sions when renewaFUEL is co-fired with coal compared
to a coal-only scenario (Mennell, 2010a).
One of the testing host sites for ETV verification of bio-
mass co-fired boilers, UI, currently is experimenting with
poplar wood chips for co-firing and most likely will use a
local source of wood chips on a more permanent basis in
the near future. The university also co-fires oat hulls in
its circulating fluidized bed boiler, sustaining an average
of 50% heat input from the oat hulls, which are obtained
from the Quaker Oats production plant in Cedar Rap-
ids, about 20 miles from the university (Milster, 2010).
According to the facility, the ETV verification of biomass
co-fired boilers has been useful in helping UI continue to
pursue biomass co-firing (Milster, 2010).
Other benefits of ETV verification include the devel-
opment of a well-accepted protocol that has advanced
efforts to standardize protocols across programs. The
Generic Verification Protocol for Distributed Generation
and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing originally
was developed by Southern Research Institute for the
Association of State Energy Research and Technology
Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI) and was adopted by
the Greenhouse Gas Technology Center and published
as an ETV protocol (Southern Research Institute, 2005).
The protocol also was adopted by ASERTTI, DOE, and
state energy offices as a national standard protocol for
field testing.
41
-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Case Study:
ASERTTI Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
Btu British thermal unit
CH4 methane
CHP combined heat and power
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ESTE Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
g/h grams per hour
GHG greenhouse gas
H2S hydrogen sulfide
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
Ibs pounds
Ibs/h pounds per hour
Ibs/kWh pounds per kilowatt-hour
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MGD millions of gallons per day
MMBtu/h British thermal unit per hour
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
N2O nitrous oxide
NaOH sodium hydroxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx nitrogen oxides
NYPA New York Power Authority
NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
PM particulate matter
PON Program Opportunity Notice
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppmv parts per million by volume
REC Rapids Energy Center
SO2 sulfur dioxide
Tg CO2e teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent
THCs total hydrocarbons
UI University of Iowa
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
VOC volatile organic compound
42
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.4
3.4 REFERENCES
40 CFR Part 133.2007. Code of Federal Regulations Title 40—
Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Protection
Agency. Part 133: Secondary Treatment Regulation. 1 July.
40 CFR Part 503. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations Title
40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental
Protection Agency. Part 503: Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage Sludge, 1 July.
42 USC § 13317. United States Code, Title 42. The Public Health
and Welfare. Chapter 134: Energy Policy, Renewable Energy (24
October 1992).
549 U.S. 497. 2007. Massachusetts v. EPA. Supreme Court
ruling.
68 FR 7175. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Con-
centrated Animal feeding Operations (CAFOs); Final Rule. Federal
Register 68, no. 29 (12 February 2003).
70 FR 65984. Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register 70, no. 210 (1 November 2005).
71 FR 53271. Standards of Performance, Emission Guidelines, and
Federal Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 71, no. 174 (8
September 2006).
73 FR 70417. Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the
Waterkeeper Decision; Final Rule. Federal Register 73, no. 225
(20 November 2008).
74 FR 56260. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final
Rule. Federal Register 74, no. 209 (30 October 2009).
74 FR 66496. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final
Ruk. Federal Register 74, no. 239 (15 December 2009).
Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs.
2010. Biomass Energy Program, http://www.adeca.state.al.us/
C16/Biomass%20Energy%20Program/default.aspx Last accessed
ljuly.
American Society of Healthcare Engineering. 2008. Nothing But
the Green Truth: EPAs Environmental Technologies Verification
Program. Inside ASHA 16:(3)31-34. http://www.energystar.gov/
ia/business/healthcare/ashe_may_june_2008.pdf
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2001. Conver-
sion Technologies for Municipal Residuals Forum Background
Paper and Findings on Barriers, 22 May.
Capstone Turbine Corporation. 2003. Capstone MicroTurbine
Fleet Amasses S Million Operating Hours. Press Release. 25 No-
vember, http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=272
Capstone Turbine Corporation. 2009. Capstone Turbine Names
Two Distributors in China for Fast-Growing Biogas Market; C6S
Sold for Landfill Power Generation in Beijing. Press release. 2 De-
cember, http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=538
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. 2007. Cleveland-Cliffs Acquires 70% of
"Green" Energy Company, Press release. 20 December.
Council of the District of Columbia. 2005. Bill A1S-7SS: Renew-
able Energy Portfolio Standard Act of 2004.19 January.
Eddinger J. 2010. E-mail communication. U.S. EPA Energy
Strategies Group. 11 March.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2010. Combined Heat
and Power Installation Database, http://www.eea-inc.com/chp-
data/index.html. Last accessed 7 July.
ETV. 2009. Waste-to-Energy Fueled Technologies, TechBrief.
EPA/600/S-09/027. October.
Federal Energy Management Program. 2004. Biomass Cofir-
mg in Coal-Fired Boilers. Federal Technology Alert. DOE/
EE-0288.June.
Foster J. 2010 E-mail communication. New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. 23 July.
Gooch C and Ingliss S. 2008. Anaerobic Digestion at Patterson
Farms, Inc.: Case Study. Case Study AD-10. Cornell University.
February.
Hansen T 2009. Joint Demonstration and Verification of the
Performance of Microturbine Power Generation Systems Utilizing
Renewable Fuels with the U.S. EPAs Environmental Technology
Verification Program, DoD ESTCP Project Number SI200823
Fact Sheet.
Hansen T. 2010a. E-mail communication. Southern Research
Institute. 30 June.
Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.
2010. Biogas and Biomass to Energy Grant Program. http://www.
commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recyclmg/Energy/
Clean+Energy/02-BiogasBioMass.htm Last accessed 1 July.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a.
Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis:
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Intermountain CHP Center. 2004. Project Profile: Colorado
Pork 11 S-kW Renewable CHP Application. December, http://
www.chpcentermw.org/rac_profiles/mtermountain/Colorado_
Pork_Project_Profile.pdf
Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale JP, Benemann J, Rutledge B,
and Salour D. 2005. Biomethane from Dairy Waste: A Source-
book for the Production and Use of Renewable Natural Gas in
California, Western United Dairy men. July.
Mennell J. 2010a. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
26 July.
Mennell, J. 2010b. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
5 August.
Mennell, J. 2010c. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
10 August.
43
-------
3.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Methane to Markets Partnership. 2010. http://www.methaneto-
markets.org. Last accessed 13 January 2010.
Milster PR 2010. E-mail communication. University of Iowa.
10 March.
Michigan Renewable Fuels Commission. 2009. Renewable fuels
Commission 2008 Annual Report, February. http://www.michi-
gan.gov/documents/mda/RFC2008AR_270824_7.pdf
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1998. Facts About Air
Quality Permits for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
AQ Document. #5.10. May.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Clean
Air Act of Montana. Title 75: Environmental Protection. Chapter
2: Air Quality.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2003. Gas-
Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations.
A joint project of the Gas Research Institute (GRI) and NREL.
Prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. October.
New York Power Authority. 2010. PowerNow! Small, Clean
Plants, http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/powernow.htm. Last ac-
cessed 22 July.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA). 2003. Environmental Product &• Process Technol-
ogy Program Opportunity Notice 768,
Padgett JP Steinemann AC, Clarke JH, and Vandenbergh MR
2008. A Comparison of Carbon Calculators. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review 28(2-3);106—115.
Public Law no. 108-148. 2003. Healthy Forests Restoration Act
0/2003.
Public Law no. 109-58. 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Public Law no. 110-140. 2007. Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007.
Public Law no. 110-343. 2008. Energy Improvement and Exten-
sion Act of 2008.
Public Law no. 111-5. 2009. The American Recovery and Rein-
vestment Act of 2009.
Southern Research Institute. 1998. Electric Power Generation
Using a Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell on a Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Gas Stream. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technol-
ogy Center, Southern Research Institute, Under a Cooperative
Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-
VS-GHG-01. August.
Southern Research Institute. 2004a. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat Produc-
tion—Capstone 30 kW Microturbine System. Prepared by Green-
house Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Under
a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004b. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Generation Using
UTC Fuel Cells' PC25C Power Plant and Anaerobic Digester
Gas. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, South-
ern Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-
VR-26. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004c. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: UTC Fuel Cells PC25C Power Plant—Gas
Processing Unit Performance for Anaerobic Digester Gas. Prepared
by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research
Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency and under agreement with the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority. SRI/
USEPA-GHG-VR-26b. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004d. Environmental Technol-
ogy Verification Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat
Production—Martin Machinery Internal Combustion Engine.
Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern
Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and under agreement with
the Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management and
Conservation. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004e. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: NATCO Group, Inc.—Paaues THIOPAQ
Gas Purification Technology. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Tech-
nology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a coopera-
tive agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-32. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2005. Generic Verification Protocol
for Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field
Testing Protocol, Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Cen-
ter, Southern Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-
GHG-GVP-34. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2007. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Production Using
Renewable Biogas at Patterson Farms. Prepared by Greenhouse
Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and under agreement with the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority. SRI/USEPA-GHG-
VR-43. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2008a. Environmental and Sustain-
able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
Boilers—Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center. Prepared by
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Insti-
tute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work
Assignment No. 2-8-101. April.
Southern Research Institute. 2008b. Environmental and Sustain-
able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
Boilers—University of Iowa. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work Assignment
No. 2-8-10 I.April.
Staniunas J. 2010a. E-mail communication. UTC Power. 21
July.
Staniunas J. 2010b. E-mail communication. UTC Power. 31
August.
44
-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
3.4
State of Maryland. 2007. Senate Bill 595: Renewable Energy
Portfolio Standard, 24 April.
State of Montana. 2005. Senate Bill 415: Montana Renewable Power
Production and Rural Economic Development Act, 28 April.
Tolrud D. 2010. E-mail communication. Minnesota Power. 10
March.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Technical Re-
sources: Animal Feeding Operations and Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 6 October.
USDA. 2010a. Energy Self Assessment: Renewable Tools—Bio-
gas, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.
ruralenergy.wisc.edu/renewable/biogas/default_biogas.aspx,Last
accessed 3 September.
USDA. 2010b. USDA Rural Development: Business and Coop-
erative Programs, Rural Development, http://www.rurdev.usda.
gov/rbs/busp/bprogs.htm. Last accessed 23 September.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Biomass Coftring: A
Renewable Alternative for Utilities. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. DOE/GO-102000-1055. June.
U.S. DOE. 2004. Federal Technology Alert: Biomass Coftring
in Coal-Fired Boilers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
DOE/EE-0288.June.
U.S. DOE. 2008. Fuel Cells: Basics. Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. Last updated 19 December, http://
www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html
U.S. DOE. 2010. Electric Power Monthly. 19 July. http://www.
eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/tableS_3.html
U.S. EPA. 1998. NCh How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the Way We
Live and Breathe. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA-456/F-98-005.
September.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. Office
of Research and Development. EPA 600/P-99/001F.June.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Managing Manure With Biogas Recovery
Systems: Improved Performance at Competitive Cost. Office of Air
and Radiation. EPA-430-F-02-004. Winter.
U.S. EPA. 2003. Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet:
Fabric Filter—Pulse-Jet Cleaned Type. EPA-452/F-03-025.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. EPA/600/R-04/042. May.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Systems, Office of Water. EPA 832-R.-04-001. September.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Dataset,
http://www.epa.gov/cwns/cwns2004db.mdb
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery
Systems: A Guide to Identifying Candidates for On-Farm and
Centralized Systems. EPA-430-8-06-004. August.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: 1990-2020, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
EPA 430-R-06-003. June.
U.S. EPA. 2007. Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat
and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Office of Air and
Radiation, Combined Heat and Power Partnership. EPA-
430-R.-07-003. April.
U.S. EPA. 2008a. Catalog ofCHP Technologies, December.
http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_full.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2008b. 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Report
to Congress, January, http://www.epa.gov/cwns/2004rtc/cwn-
s2004rtc.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2008c. Frequently Asked Questions About Landfill Gas
and How It Affects Public Health, Safety, and the Environment,
Office of Air and Radiation. June.
U.S. EPA. 2009a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And
Sinks: 1990-2007, EPA 430-R-04-004.15 April.
U.S. EPA. 2009b. Frequently Asked Questions About Global
Warming and Climate Change: Back to Basics, Office of Air and
Radiation. EPA-430-R08-016. April.
U.S. EPA. 2009c. Health Impacts ofSO2. Last updated 17 No-
vember. http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html
U.S. EPA. 2009d. Climate Choice. Last updated 12 November.
http://www.epa.gov/cppd/climatechoice
U.S. EPA. 2010a. Methane, Last updated 5 March. http://www.
eva.pov/methane/index.html
L £>
U.S. EPA. 2010b. The AgSTAR Program: Guide to Anaerobic
Digesters, Last updated 28 January, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/
operational.html
U.S. EPA. 2010c. Status, Opportunities, and Barriers in the U.S.
Agricultural Digester Market. Presented at the Fifth AgSTAR
National Conference, Green Bay, WI, April 27,2010.
U.S. EPA. 2010d. Combined Heat and Power Partnership Fund-
ing Resources. Last updated 30 June, http://www.epa.gov/chp/
funding/fmancial.html
U.S. EPA. 2010e. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Last
updated 14 July, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/mdex.html
U.S. EPA. 2010f. CHP Strategic Markets—Municipal Wastewa-
ter Treatment Facilities. Last updated 3 June, http://www.epa.
gov/CHP/markets/wastewater.html
U.S. EPA. 2010g. An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Carbon
Monoxide, Last updated 23 April, http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
co.html
U.S. EPA. 2010h. Anaerobic Digesters, AgSTAR. Last updated
24 September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/index.html
U.S. EPA. 2010i. Animal Feeding Operations, Last updated 2
June, http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anafoidx.html
U.S. EPA. 2010J. State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Last
updated 29 June, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/
fundinf-fuide/renewable.html
j & &
U.S. EPA. 2010k. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the
United States, Landfill Methane Outreach Program. May.
45
-------
3.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
U.S. EPA. 20101. Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process
Heaters and Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators, Last
updated 29 June, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/
index.html
U.S. EPA. 2010m. AgSTAR Projects: Patterson Farms. Last
updated 24 September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/
profiles/pattersonfarms.html
U.S. EPA. 2010n. Winners of the 2009 ENERGY STAR" CHP
Award, http://epa.gov/chp/documents/past_award_wmners.pdf,
Last Accessed 22 July.
U.S. EPA. 2010o. LFG Energy Project Development Handbook.
Chapter 3: Project Technology Options, Landfill Methane Out-
reach Program. January, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/
pdfs/pdh_chapter3.pdf
U.S. EPA. 2010p. AgSTAR Program Accomplishments: New
York, Last updated 24 September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/
projects/mdex.html#ny
UTC Power. 2005. PureCell™ 200 Heat &• Power Solution.
Marketing brochure, http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/content/
images/articles/PCell_Broch.pdf
UTC Power. 2007. Creating Clean Power with Free Fuel From
Anaerobic Digester Gas With the PureCell' Model 200 Fuel Cell
Powerplant. 24 January.
46
-------
Appendix A.
Methods for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies Outcomes
Appendix A. Methods for Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Technologies Outcomes
A.I NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
The ETV Program used two approaches to estimate the
potential market for the verified decentralized waste-
water treatment technology described in Chapter 2.
According to estimates provided by Tetra Tech, under
contract to EPA, current (as of 2010) new home con-
struction in the United States averages approximately
500,000 units per year. Approximately 25% of new
development (i.e., about 125,000 homes annually) cur-
rently uses individual and cluster wastewater treatment
systems. Of this number, around 5% are served specifi-
cally by cluster systems. An average of five homes are
served by each cluster (Tonning, 2010a). Using this ap-
proach, ETV calculated that the potential market for
the verified technology is approximately 1,250 cluster
systems per year. These estimates do not include cluster
system installations that replace existing subdivision sep-
tic systems that are malfunctioning; this number is negli-
gible because cluster systems generally are repaired rather
than replaced if they malfunction (Tonning, 2010a).
In 1999, EPA estimated via modeling that there were
about 353,000 large capacity septic systems (similar to
cluster systems) in the United States, which represented
approximately 0.3% of all U.S. homes at the time (U.S.
EPA, 1999). Currently, there are approximately 128 mil-
lion homes in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau,
2008). Assuming that these systems represent 0.3% of
the 128 million homes, the ETV Program calculated that
there are 384,000 potential/estimated large capacity sep-
tic systems in the United States. Housing stock is replaced
at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% of the total num-
ber of homes each year (Tonning, 2010a). ETV assumed
that these large capacity septic systems are installed at ap-
proximately the same rate as new home construction and
calculated that 1,540 new systems are installed each year.
These two approaches led to respective estimates of
1,250 and 1,540 cluster systems installed annually in the
United States. The ETV Program calculated the approx-
imate average of these two estimates and performed pol-
lutant reduction calculations assuming that 1,400 new
cluster systems are installed in the United States annu-
ally and that each system serves an average of five homes.
The total number of estimated homes ETV used for its
calculations was 7,000. It should be noted that because
of the current U.S. economy, new home construction has
decreased by 50%; the potential market could be as high
as 2,500 to 3,000 systems annually (12,500 to 15,000
homes) as the economy improves (Tonning, 2010b).
A.2 POLLUTANT REDUCTION
The ETV Program estimated pollutant reductions from
actual application of the ETV-verified decentralized
wastewater treatment technology at current and pend-
ing installations, as well as from potential application
of the verified technology at 10% and 25% of the total
market. Using assumptions regarding daily water use, ni-
trogen concentration and reduction, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) concentration and reduction, and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentration and reduction,
the ETV Program calculated the annual pollutant re-
ductions from potential application of the ETV-verified
technology, when compared to the performance of tra-
ditional septic systems. These estimates assume average
water usage of 179.2 gallons per day, per household,
based on the following data: average flow of 70 gallons
per person per day (U.S. EPA, 2009) and 2.56 people
per household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). They as-
sume minimum wastewater influent concentrations of
38 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for nitrogen, 230 mg/L
for BOD, and 170 mg/L for TSS (the concentrations
used in ETV verification testing). Based on technology
performance observed during verification, these esti-
mates assume mean total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitro-
gen and nitrite plus nitrate), BOD, and TSS reduction
efficiencies of 88%, 98%, and 96%, respectively, achieved
by the full treatment system. For these calculations,
traditional septic systems are considered to be systems
that discharge their effluent to soil, sand, or other media
absorption fields for further treatment through biologi-
cal processes, adsorption, filtration, and infiltration into
underlying soils (U.S. EPA, 2002). Based on these pa-
rameters, these estimates assume the following treatment
performance for traditional septic systems: total nitro-
gen removal rate of 80% (U.S. EPA, 2002) and BOD
and TSS removal rates of 58% and 75%, respectively
(Bounds, 1997). Because the calculations use minimum
influent concentrations and are based on a conservative
estimate of the total potential market, the estimates for
pollutant reduction outcomes are conservative.
47
-------
A.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
It also is important to note that, for four of the five cur-
rent and pending installation sites detailed in the case
study, pollution reduction estimates as compared to the
performance of traditional septic system may be conser-
vative. According to the vendor, nitrogen impairment in
each of these areas is significant enough that construc-
tion would not have been approved without the avail-
ability of the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater
treatment technology or an alternative treatment tech-
nology of equivalent performance (Smith, 2010). The
casino site located in Great Falls, Montana, did not have
the same nitrogen impairment issues; calculations of pol-
lutant reductions at this site as compared to traditional
technology are actual.
Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program used
the following equation to calculate pollutant reductions:
TOTAL ~ TECH TRAD
Where:
is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.
* RfgcH is the pollution reduction in tons per year
achieved by the verified system.
* RTRAD is the pollution reduction in tons per year
achieved by a traditional system.
For the current and pending installation sites outlined
in the case study, RTECH and R^^ were each calculated
with the following equation:
R = (W x PC x %PR]
Where:
* R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year for
either the verified system or traditional system.
* W is the combined (annual or 3-year) amount of water
handled by the system converted to liters.
* PC is the minimum influent pollutant concentration
converted to tons per liter.
* %PR is the percent pollution reduction observed in
the verified system or traditional system.
For the potential market penetration scenarios outlined
in the case study, RIECH and R^^ were each calculated
with the following equation:
R = (W x PC x %PR) x %MP
Where:
* R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year for
either the verified system or traditional system.
* W is the combined annual amount of water handled
by the system converted to liters.
* PC is the minimum influent pollutant concentration
converted to tons per liter.
* %PR is the percent pollution reduction observed in
the verified system or traditional system.
* %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
of systems) for the verified decentralized wastewater
treatment system.
Average daily reductions were calculated with one of the
following equations:
Where:
* RAVGDAILY *s ^ daily average reduction in pounds per
day.
* R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.
* 1095 is the number of days the installed sites operated
for the calculated R.
* 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
RANNUALAVCOA.LV = (R/365) X 2000
Where:
* RANNUALAVGDAILY is the dail7 average reduction in
pounds per day.
* R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.
* 365 is the number of days in a year.
* 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
A.3 REFERENCES
Bounds TR. 1997. Design and Performance of Septic Tanks. In:
Bedinger MS, Johnson AI, and Fleming JS. Site Characterization
and Design ofOnsite Septic Systems. Philadelphia: American Society
for Testing Materials.
Smith C. 2010. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. 6 January.
Tonning B. 2010a. E-mail communication. Tetra Tech. 17 March.
Tonning B. 2010b. Personal communication. Tetra Tech. March.
US. Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United
States: 2007. H-150-07. September, http://www.census.gov/hhes/
www/housing/ahs/ahs07/ahs07.html
US. Census Bureau. 2009. Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual
Social and Economic Supplement: Table AVG1. January. http://www.
census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008/tabAVGl.xls
US. EPA. 1999. The Class V Underground Injection Control Study.
Volume 5: Large-Capacity Septic Systems. Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water. EPA/816-R-99-014e. September.
US. EPA. 2002. Owsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Of-
fice of Water. EPA/625-R-00-008. February.
US. EPA. 2009. Indoor Water Use in the United States. Last up-
dated 16 January, http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.htm
48
-------
Appendix B.
Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
Appendix B. Methods for Waste-to-Energy
Technologies Outcomes
As outlined in Chapter 3, ETV has verified the perfor-
mance of two biogas processing systems, four distributed
generation energy systems, and two biomass co-fired boil-
ers. All eight systems were operated onsite using either
landfill gas, anaerobic digester gas generated from animal
waste or municipal wastewater sludge, or solid biomass.
The technologies used to process and generate power
from methane (CH4) or other gaseous waste streams—
the gas processing and distributed generation energy sys-
tems—are generally applicable to more than one sector.
ETV estimated market scenarios and potential outcomes,
including emission reductions, electrical generation, and
cost benefits, associated with use of ETV-verified tech-
nologies by sector or application (see Chapter 3, Section
3.3). Because technology performance could be affected
by the characteristics of the influent waste stream, ETV
calculated outcomes based on the verified performance of
technologies tested at each application.
B.I DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
SYSTEMS
B.I.I Animal Feeding Operations
There are several parameters that are necessary for ani-
mal feeding operations to be considered economically
feasible candidates for biogas recovery system installa-
tion. One parameter is size; dairy operations with more
than 500 cows and heifers and swine operations with
more than 2,000 sows are good candidates for anaero-
bic digestion and biogas use. The potential for manure-
produced biogas is highest for manure that is collected
and stored as a liquid, slurry, or semisolid. Therefore,
viable dairy operations include those that use flushed
or scraped freestall barns and drylots for manure collec-
tion, and viable swine operations include those that use
houses with flush, pit recharge, or pull-plug pit systems.
Given these parameters, EPA AgSTAR estimates that
2,600 dairy operations and 5,600 swine operations in
the United States are potential candidates for anaero-
bic digestion and manure biogas production, for a total
potential market of 8,200 operations (U.S. EPA, 2006).
The ETV Program used the above total number of fa-
cilities as the basis for its market penetration scenarios.
To estimate emissions reductions associated with use of
ETV-verified technologies at animal feeding operations,
the ETV Program used a range of verification results for
two technologies tested in this application. The upper
bound estimates refer to those obtained using verifica-
tion results for the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model
379 (200 kilowatt [kW]) engine/generator set with inte-
grated combined heat and power (CHP) system tested at
Patterson Farms (Auburn, New York). The lower bound
estimates refer to those obtained using verification results
for the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 3306 ST
(100 kW) engine, generator, and heat exchanger tested
at Colorado Pork (Lamar, Colorado). For both tech-
nologies, Southern Research Institute estimated annual
emissions offsets for carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen
oxides (NO ) by comparing emissions rates of the onsite
distributed generation/CHP systems observed during an
extended monitoring period of the verification test with
documented emissions from baseline electrical power
generation technology (e.g., from nationwide or state/re-
gional power grids) (Southern Research Institute, 2004b,
2007). The verification results for the Caterpillar Model
379 engine include estimated reductions in CO2 equiva-
lent emissions associated with the use of waste-generated
CH4 as fuel; the verification results for the Caterpillar
Model 3306 ST engine do not include these additional
reductions. Therefore, the upper bound estimates for an-
nual emissions reductions include reductions from cap-
ture and use of the biogas; the lower bound estimates do
not. Verification results used to calculate both upper and
lower bound estimates for ETV's emissions reductions
outcomes do not include additional reductions associated
with the recovery and use of waste heat. Estimating these
additional reductions would have required significant re-
sources to conduct baseline greenhouse gas emissions as-
sessments for standard waste management practices and
was beyond the scope of the ETV verification. Therefore,
verification results include emissions reductions from
electricity generation only.
Annual emissions reductions estimated for the two inter-
nal combustion engines based on verification testing at
animal feeding operations are presented in Exhibit B.l-1.
49
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Exhibit B.l-1
Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at Animal Feeding Operations
Technology*
Annual Emissions
in Verified
Application (Ib/
kWh)B
Grid Emissions
(lb/kWh)c
Estimated Annual
CO2 Equivalent
Emissions
Reductions from
Capture/Use of
Biogas (Ibs)
Estimated Annual
Emissions Reductions
Martin Machinery Caterpillar I
Model 379 Engine/Generator I 0.0213 ! 1.43 j 0.00296 j 1.39 j
with Integrated Heat Recovery j
Martin Machinery Caterpillar i j j j j
Model 3306 ST Engine/Genera- j 0.012 j 1.97 ! 0.00655 j 2.02 j
tor and Heat Exchanger
14,300,000 | -29,300 j 14,300,000
NEE I -740 1 6,000
A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. Order of appearance of technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology per-
formance results.
B Based on emissions performance during an extended monitoring period of the verification test.
c Based on estimated U.S. regional annual emissions for equivalent fossil fuel grid power.
D Annual emissions reductions are based on electrical generation only and do not include additional benefits that may be realized through recovery
and use of waste heat.
E NE = Not estimated; reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the use of waste-generated CH4 as fuel were not estimated for the
Caterpillar Model 3306 ST engine.
The ETV Program also verified the performance of a
third technology, the Capstone Microturbine Corpora-
tion, Capstone Model C30 microturbine system at the
Colorado Pork facility; however, because of testing
delays, extended monitoring did not occur and annual
emissions offset analyses could not be performed. As
such, emissions reductions associated with use of the
Capstone Model C30 microturbine are not included in
the below outcomes calculations.
For the potential emissions reductions, energy genera-
tion, and cost benefit outcomes calculations, the ETV
Program assumed that the verified technologies would
be operating at full load (i.e., 100% of system capacity
or maximum power command verified during ETV
testing) at all facilities. This assumption is based on the
understanding that the most optimal economics result
when a system is serving as base-load supply and oper-
ating at or near full capacity at all times. Many systems
are being designed to operate at maximum thermal uti-
lization (full load); in these cases, maximum system
efficiency is achieved (Hansen, 2010a). For the Martin
Machinery Caterpillar Model 379, verification results
presented in Chapter 3 were achieved at 100% system
capacity, or 200 kW. ETV also assumed that the bio-
gas streams and the CHP requirements of potential
installations would be comparable to the facility used
during verification. For the Martin Machinery Cater-
pillar Model 3306 ST, verification results presented in
Chapter 3 were achieved at 45% system capacity, or 45
kW of 100 kW total capacity. At the time of verifica-
tion, the configuration of the engine's fuel input jets
and the low heating value of the input biogas restricted
the engine's power output to approximately 45 kW;
this is lower than the manufacturer's recommended
capacity for this system (100 kW).This system was an
early attempt at digester gas utilization and was tested
based on concurrence from all sponsoring parties that
the equipment was ready for verification. The ETV
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center believes that
the verification helped identify issues associated with
performance of the system and demonstrated that the
system, when operating at such a reduced load, did not
exhibit optimal performance (Hansen, 2010b). Emis-
sions reductions from application of the Model 3306
ST could be higher at sites with configurations de-
signed to maximize power output.
Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program
used the following equation to calculate CO2 (or CO2
equivalent) emissions reductions from animal feeding
operations:
50
-------
Appendix B.
Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
TOTAL =RAF0/2OOOX%MP
Where:
is the total CO2 reduction in tons per year.
* RAFO is the annual CO2 emissions reduction in
pounds per year for the ETV-verified internal com-
bustion engine(s) tested at animal feeding operations
as calculated by Southern Research Institute during
verification.
* 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
* %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
of facilities) for the ET V-verified internal combustion
engine(s) based on AgSTAR market estimates.
To calculate the energy generation and cost benefit esti-
mates for animal feeding operations, the ETV Program
used the above assumptions and an average electricity
price of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This average
electricity price is based on the average retail price to ul-
timate consumers in all end-use sectors in the 50 states
and the District of Columbia between January 2008 and
June 2010 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2010). ETV used
the following equation to calculate the estimated energy
generation cost benefits:
EGANNUAL=EAFOx 8760 x°/oMPx 0.001
Where:
* EG,
is the annual electricity generation in
megawatts (MW) per year.
* EAFO is the maximum power output in kW per hour
for the ETV-verified internal combustion engine(s)
tested at animal feeding operations as observed dur-
ing verification.
* 8760 is the hours per year conversion factor.
* %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
of facilities) for the ETV-verified internal combustion
engine(s) based on AgSTAR market estimates.
* 0.001 is the kW to MW conversion factor.
The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:
CBANNUAL = EGANNUALX 10°° X °'10
Where:
* CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
* EGANNUALis the annual electricity generation in MW
per year.
* 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
* 0.10 is the average electricity price in dollars per kWh.
B.I.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Analyses conducted by the EPA CHP Partnership in-
dicate that wastewater treatment facilities with influent
flow rates less than 5 million gallons per day (MGD)
typically do not produce enough biogas from anaerobic
digestion to make CHP technically and economically
feasible (U.S. EPA, 2007). The 2004 EPA Clean Wa-
tersheds Needs Survey identified a total of 1,066 waste-
water treatment facilities in the United States with flow
rates greater than 5 MGD, making them potential can-
didates for distributed generation anaerobic digestion
and biogas utilization. According to EPA, 544 of these
wastewater treatment facilities currently produce biogas
using anaerobic digesters. Of these, only 106 facilities
utilize the biogas produced by their anaerobic digest-
ers to generate electricity and/or thermal energy (U.S.
EPA, 2004, as cited in U.S. EPA, 2007), for an additional
potential market of 438 facilities that could install dis-
tributed generation waste-to-energy technologies. The
ETV Program used this additional market potential as
the basis for its market penetration scenarios. ETV es-
timates that more of the 1,066 facilities with flow rates
suitable for anaerobic digestion and CHP could install
ETV-verified technologies; however, treatment process
modifications would most likely be required. Emissions
reductions outcomes for the ETV-verified technologies
could be even greater if market scenarios are based on
the total number of treatment facilities with flow rates
suitable for performing anaerobic digestion.
To estimate emissions reductions associated with use
of ETV-verified technologies at wastewater treatment
facilities, the ETV Program used the verification results
for the technology tested in this application—the Pu-
reCell™ Model 200, manufactured by UTC Power and
tested at the Red Hook Water Pollution Control Plant
(Brooklyn, New York). For this system, Southern Re-
search Institute estimated annual emissions offsets for
CO2 and NOx by comparing emissions rates observed
during an extended monitoring period of the verification
test with documented emissions from baseline electrical
power generation for the Red Hook plant without the
fuel cell in place (e.g., from the state power grid). Use of
the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell at the Red Hook plant
provided an added environmental benefit by offsetting
emissions from the flare. Southern Research Institute es-
timated the additional reductions in emissions associated
with flare offset (Southern Research Institute, 2004a).
51
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Exhibit B.l-2
Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at a Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Annual Emissions Baseline Emissions (Red Hook Plant without PureCell™
inVerified M9.d.e!.?99.).!.to..".sr.
Technology Application (tons) Grid Emissions Flare Emissions Total Emissions
Estimated
Annual Emissions
Reductions (tons)6
UTCPureCell™ i
Model 200
0.088
1,040
1.63 I 1,050 ! 0.282 ! 1,390 ! 1.91
2,440
1.82
1,430
1 Based on estimated annual emissions for equivalent fossil fuel grid power in the State of New York.
1 Estimated reductions based on expected PC25C availability of 97% and an average measured power output of 166 kW.
Annual emissions reductions estimated for the fuel cell
based on verification testing at a wastewater treatment
facility are presented in Exhibit B.l-2.
Again, the ETV Program assumed that the verified
technology would be operating at full load (i.e., 100% of
system capacity or maximum power command verified
during ETV testing) at all facilities (i.e., at 100% system
capacity, or 200 kW for the PureCell™ Model 200). ETV
also assumed that the biogas streams and CHP require-
ments of potential installations would be comparable to
the facility used during verification.
Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program used
the following equation to calculate CO2 (or CO2 equiva-
lent) and NOx emissions reductions from wastewater
treatment facilities:
Where:
= RWWTx%MP
is the total CO2 or NOx reduction in tons per
year.
* RWW-J. is the annual CO2 or NOx emissions reduction
in tons per year for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested
at the wastewater treatment facility as calculated by
Southern Research Institute during verification.
* %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell based on
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey market estimates.
To calculate the energy generation and cost-benefit es-
timates for wastewater treatment facilities, the ETV
Program used the above assumptions and an average
electricity price of $0.10/kWh:
8760 x %MP x 0.001
HIMIMUHL VV VV I
Where:
» EGANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in MW
per year.
» EWWTis the maximum power output in kW per hour
for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested at the wastewater
treatment facility as observed during verification.
» 8760 is the hours per year conversation factor.
» %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell based on
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey market estimates.
» 0.001 is the kW to MW conversion factor.
The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:
CBANNUAL = EGANNUAL X 10°° X °-10
Where:
* CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
* EGANNUALis the annual electricity generation in M W
per year.
* 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
* 0.10 is the average electricity price in dollars per kWh.
B.1.3 Landfills
The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program esti-
mates that there are approximately 518 landfills already
collecting landfill gas for energy recovery in the United
States (U.S. EPA, 2010a). EPA also estimates that an
additional 520 landfills are good candidates for landfill
gas energy projects (U.S. EPA, 2010b); the ETV Pro-
gram used this additional number of landfills as the basis
52
-------
Appendix B.
Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
for its market penetration scenarios. The ETV Program
verified the performance of the International Fuel Cells
Corporation, PC25 200 kW Fuel Cell (an older ver-
sion of the fuel cell discussed above for application at
a wastewater treatment facility) at landfills in Penrose,
California and Groton, Connecticut. Annual emissions
reductions, however, were not estimated as part of these
verifications. As such, quantitative data are not available
to estimate the potential emissions reductions associated
with the market scenarios for ETV-verified technologies
at landfills. Additionally, according to EPA, processing
of landfill gas for fuel cell usage is not the most cost-
effective option on a kW basis; it is more common to
use landfill gas in internal combustion engines or boil-
ers (Goldstein, 2010). Internal combustion engines are
the most commonly used waste-to-energy technology
for landfill gas applications (used in more than 70%
of current landfill gas energy recovery projects in the
United States) because of their relatively low cost, high
efficiency, and good size match with the gas output of
most landfills. The ETV Program estimated potential
energy generation and cost benefits outcomes from use
of ETV-verified technologies at landfills based on the
range of verification results for the PC25 200 kW Fuel
Cell at the two testing locations. Other ETV-verified
distributed generation technologies described in Chap-
ter 3, however, may be better candidates for landfill gas
recovery. Additional energy generation and cost benefits,
as well as emissions reductions, could be realized.
To calculate the energy generation and cost benefit es-
timates for landfills, the ETV Program used the above
assumptions and an average electricity price of $0.10/
kWh:
8760 x%MPx 0.001
Where:
* EG
ANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in M W
per year.
* ELFG is the maximum power output in kW per hour
for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested at landfills as ob-
served during verification.
* 8760 is the hours per year conversation factor.
* %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., num-
ber of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell based
on the Landfill Methane Outreach Program market
estimates.
* 0.001 is the kW to MW conversion factor.
The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:
CBANNUAL = EGANNUAL X 10°° X °-10
Where:
* CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
* EGANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in M W
per year.
* 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
* 0.10 is the average electricity price in dollars per kWh.
B.2 CO-FIRED BOILERS
Data generated during the verification testing of biomass
co-fired boilers allowed calculation of CO2 emission
rates while firing straight coal and blended fuel. Wood-
based fuel and renewaFUEL wood pellets, however, are
comprised of biogenic carbon—meaning that they are
part of the natural carbon balance and will not add to
atmospheric concentrations of CO2. As a result, com-
bustion of these fuels emits no creditable CO2 emissions
under international greenhouse gas accounting methods
developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and adopted by the International Council of
Forest and Paper Associations. By analyzing the heat
content of coal and wood, total boiler heat input for the
test periods, and boiler efficiency, Southern Research In-
stitute determined that approximately 90% of the heat
generated during co-firing test periods was attributable
to the verified technology. Southern Research Institute
therefore estimated that the CO2 emissions offset during
testing was approximately 90% or 148 pounds per million
British thermal units (MMBtu) at this co-firing blend
(Southern Research Institute, 2008). The ETV Program
estimated emissions reductions outcomes—annual CO2
emissions offset—for biomass co-firing at Minnesota
Power's Boiler 5. According to the facility, they have been
co-firing woody biomass since 1980, and continue to do
so (Tolrud, 2010). The ETV Program did not estimate
emissions reductions outcomes for the second verification
testing site at the University of Iowa because this facility
is no longer co-firing with the same fuel (renewaFUEL
pellets) used during the verification test. The facility does
report that they are experimenting with co-firing other
types of biomass (e.g., poplar wood chips and oat hulls)
(Milster, 2010).
The annual CO2 offset was calculated using the follow-
ing equation:
-------
B.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
= 0CALCULATEDxGRxAxH/2000
is t':le annual CO2 offset in tons.
Where:
* ^
CALCULATED 2 emissi°ns offset in MMBtu
calculated by the Southern Research Institute for the
ETV-verified fuel (Southern Research Institute, 2008).
* GR is the average boiler generating rate in MMBtu
per hour as reported in the verification report (South-
ern Research Institute, 2008).
* A is the assumed availability for the boiler as re-
ported in the verification report (Southern Research
Institute, 2008).
* H is the hours per year the boiler is in operation as
reported in the verification report (Southern Research
Institute, 2008).
* 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
B.3 REFERENCES
Goldstein R. 2010. E-mail communication. U.S. EPA Landfill
Methane Outreach Program. June.
Hansen T. 2010a. E-mail communication. Southern Research
Institute. 10 August.
Hansen T. 2010b. E-mail communication. Southern Research
Institute. 21 September.
Milster, PR 2010. E-mail communication. University of Iowa.
10 March.
Southern Research Institute. 2004a. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Generation Using
UTC Fuel Cells' PC25C Power Plant and Anaerobic Digester Gas.
Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern
Research Institute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-26.
September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004b. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat Produc-
tion—Martin Machinery Internal Combustion Engine. Prepared
by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research In-
stitute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and Under Agreement With Colorado
Governor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation.
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2007. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Production Using
Renewable Biogas at Patterson Farms. Prepared by Greenhouse
Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Under a
Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Under Agreement With New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-43.
September.
Southern Research Institute. 2008. Environmental and Sustain-
able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
Boilers—Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center. Prepared by
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Insti-
tute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work
Assignment No. 2-8-101. April.
Tolrud D. 2010. E-mail communication. Minnesota Power. 10
March.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Electric Power Monthly. 19 July.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/ epm/tableS_3.html
U.S. EPA. 2004. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Dataset. http://
www.epa.fov/cwns/cwns2004db.mdb
L £>
U.S. EPA. 2006. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery
Systems: A Guide to Identifying Candidates for On-Farm and
Centralized Systems. EPA-430-8-06-004. August.
U.S. EPA. 2007. Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat
and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Office of Air and
Radiation, Combined Heat and Power Partnership. EPA-
430-R-07-003. April.
U.S. EPA. 2010a. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the
United States. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. May.
U.S. EPA. 2010b. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Last up-
dated 9 September, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/index.htm
54
-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Makin
Appendix C. Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes
for Environmental Policy, Regulation,
Guidance, and Decision-Making
In addition to the outcomes reported for the technology
areas featured in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, this
appendix provides recent examples of how ETV data,
reports, protocols, and other information have been used
in regulation, permitting, purchasing, and other similar
activities for innovative technologies in other environ-
mental areas.
C.I WATER PROGRAMS
The EPA Office of Water referenced nine ETV verifica-
tion reports and two verification protocols in the Na-
tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).
Additionally, EPA defined a set of test conditions that
must be met for an acceptable challenge test to be used
for compliance with the LT2ESWTR. These conditions
provide a framework for the challenge test. States may
develop additional testing requirements (40 CFR Parts
9, 141, and 142). EPAs Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual (April
2010) identifies the ETV Protocol for Equipment Veri-
fication Testing for Physical Removal of Microbiological
and Particulate Contaminants as containing sections that
provide guidance for developing and conducting a bag
and cartridge filter challenge test for LT2ESWTR (U.S.
EPA, 2010a).
U.S. states use ETV-verified performance information
in drinking water regulations and guidance. In 2009,
NSF International, in cooperation with the Association
of State Drinking Water Administrators, conducted a
survey of U.S. state drinking water agencies. The survey
showed that 35 states reported that they recognize ETV
reports for drinking water treatment systems, mostly
through policy, and 31 states responded that they can
allow for reduced pilot testing of drinking water treat-
ment systems for those products with acceptable ETV
reports (NSF International, 2010).
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro-
tection's (MassDEP) Drinking Water Regulations state
that ETV verification reports can be used to qualify new
drinking water treatment devices or equipment for ap-
proval, potentially with reduced pilot testing (MassDEP,
2007,2009).
A memorandum (dated May 27, 2008) from J. Wes-
ley Kleene, Director of the Office of Drinking Water
(ODW), Virginia Department of Health, to all ODW
staff addresses design features, process control and com-
pliance monitoring, and permitting procedures of arsenic
removal treatment systems. The memorandum states that
test kits may be used for operational control monitoring
and refers staff to the arsenic test kits that have been veri-
fied by ETV—a Web link to the verification reports is
included (Kleene, 2008).
Utah Administrative Code R309-535-12, Point-of-Use
and Point-of'Entry Treatment Devices (effective July
1, 2010) states that "...devices used shall only be those
proven to be appropriate, safe, and effective as deter-
mined through testing and compliance with protocols
established by EPAs Environmental Technology Veri-
fication Program (ETV) or the applicable ANSI/NSF
Standard(s)." Code R309-535-13 cites the ETV Pro-
gram as a source of performance testing and data for new
treatment processes and equipment (Utah, 2010). The
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Web Site
also states: 'A number of treatment processes have un-
dergone rigorous testing under the EPAs Environmental
Technology Verification Program (ETV). If a particular
treatment process is a Verified technology ^ it may be ac-
cepted in Utah without further pilot plant testing" (State
of Utah, 2010).
The Washington State Department of Health's Water
Systems Design Manual provides guidelines and criteria
for design engineers who prepare plans and specifica-
tions for small public water systems serving fewer than
500 residential connections. The design manual states
that manufacturers of alternative technologies for sur-
face water treatment may develop testing protocols that
demonstrate adequate treatment performance by using
ETV protocols (State of Washington, 2009).
ss
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revi-
sions to the Total Coliform Rule; Proposed Rule states that
EPA is considering an approach under which vendors
of currently approved methods for compliance monitor-
ing of total coliform in water would have the option of
participating in ETV verification or an alternative evalu-
ation equivalent in scope and rigor to the ETV Program.
Based on the verification results, EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water would judge the appropriate-
ness of each analytical method and determine if these
methods should continue to be approved for future
monitoring under this regulation (40 CFR Parts 141
and 142,2010).
As referenced in the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act;
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and Na-
tional Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and
Sampling Procedures; Final Rule, ETV reports and data
were used during EPA's decision to retain Syngenta Meth-
od AG-625 as an approved method for atrazine, subject to
certain conditions (40 CFR Parts 122,136, et al.).
On May 26,2010, Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrator for the EPA Office of Water, testified before
the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. The topic of discussion was mer-
cury in dental amalgam and specifically, EPA's actions
to reduce releases of dental amalgam and other sources
of mercury. Portions of Ms. Stoner's presentation con-
cerned technologies for separating amalgam from dental
office wastewater, and she cites an ETV verification re-
port, among others, as evidence that separator technol-
ogy is highly effective (Stoner, 2010). ETV's verification
organization for the Water Quality Protection Center,
NSF International, has been asked to participate in a
symposium on dental amalgam separation in October
2010. In September 2010, EPA announced that it will
propose a rule in 2011, and issue a final rule in 2012,
to protect waterways by reducing mercury waste from
dental offices (U.S. EPA, 2010b).
The California State Lands Commission Marine Inva-
sive Species Program's Ballast Water Treatment Technolo-
gy Testing Guidelines are based on the draft ETV Generic
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment
Technologies, which was developed as a joint effort by
the ETV Water Quality Protection Center and the U.S.
Coast Guard (Dobroski, et al., 2008).
The Maryland Department of the Environment has
formed a Best Available Technology (BAT) Review
Team to determine whether onsite sewage-disposal
nitrogen-reducing technologies should be considered
BAT and eligible for grants from the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund. Technology approval is based on data
obtained from third-party verification of the technology.
The team has adopted an ETV protocol as the baseline
for verifying the performance of nitrogen-reducing onsite
distribution systems. Systems that have been verified by
ETV or another third-party standard at least as strin-
gent as ETV's are considered grant eligible and receive a
conditional BAT approval until they have undergone ad-
ditional field testing by the State of Maryland (Maryland
Department of the Environment, 2010).
ETV verification information, including links to veri-
fication reports, protocol, and ETV's verification orga-
nization's (NSF International) Web site, were included
among posts on February 3,2009, to a forum dedicated
to RCC Holdings Corporation (RCCH) on Investor-
sHub.com. The information was posted as part of a series
of message board posts discussing stock for RCCH, for-
merly International Wastewater Systems. International
Wastewater Systems Model 600 Sequencing Batch
Reactor System, a decentralized wastewater treatment
system, was verified by ETV in 2006 (see Chapter 2).
InvestorsHub is a forum (message board) for investors to
gather and share market insights in a dynamic environ-
ment using an advanced discussion platform. ETV and
verification are mentioned in multiple posts of the mes-
sage board discussion of RCCH (InvestorsHub, 2010).
A press release issued by Hydro International on
March 19, 2010, states that the Public Works De-
partment in Marietta, Georgia, has approved the use
of the ETV-verified Hydro Up-Flo Filter and Down-
stream Defender systems for stormwater treatment
projects. According to the press release, Marietta "add-
ed the products to its list of approved Water Qual-
ity Proprietary Units based on a series of exhaustive
performance tests by the New Jersey Corporation for
Advanced Technology and the U.S. EPA Environmen-
tal Technology Verification programs" (Hydro Inter-
national, 2010).
C.2 AIR AND ENERGY PROGRAMS
The EPA Office of Inspector General's Evaluation Re-
port, EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air
-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
Emissions at U.S. Ports, to the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR), states the need for independent veri-
fication of engine retrofit devices to promote voluntary
emission reductions and references the ETV Program as
having fulfilled this role. In the response from OAR, they
state, "We agree that the ETV Program was a good com-
pliment to the Office of Transportation and Air Qual-
ity's own verification program and that it enhanced our
program when it was fully funded" (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
A memorandum (dated September 26,2007) from Steve
Page, Director of EPAs Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), to EPA Regional Air Divi-
sion Directors states that OAQPS will consider use of
the ETV baghouse filtration protocol in future regula-
tions, recommends that regions consider opportunities
to employ protocols in state and local regulatory pro-
grams, and suggests the use of filter media tested under
the ETV protocol (Page, 2007).
The South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(AQMD) Rule 1156, Further Reductions of Particulate
Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities (adopted
November 4,2005; amended March 6,2009) states, "In
lieu of annual testing, any operator who elects to use all
(ETV) verified filtration products in its baghouses shall
conduct a compliance test every five years" (State of Cali-
fornia, 2009b). AQMD's Rule 1155, Particulate Matter
Control Devices (adopted December 4,2009) requires the
installation and use of ETV-verified filtration products
by baghouse facility operators to meet particulate mat-
ter emission standards if established emission limits are
exceeded by the facility (State of California, 2009a).
The Ventura County (California) Air Pollution Con-
trol District's Rule 74.9, Stationary Internal Combustion
Engine Revisions (effective January 1, 2006) requires
that screening analyses "be performed using a portable
analyzer either verified by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (ETV) or approved in writing by the Air
Pollution Control Officer." The rule also includes a link
to a list of ETV-verified analyzers on ETV's Web Site
(Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 2005).
The California Air Resources Board's Report to the Leg-
islature on Gas-Fired Power Plant NO^ Emission Controls
and Related Environmental Impacts includes information
on the installation status of the Xonon Cool Combus-
tion™ catalytic combustor, manufactured by Catalytica
Energy Systems, and references ETV verification of
nitrogen oxides (NOJ emissions reductions (State of
California, 2004).
EPA OAQPS and states have used ETV information
in guidance and regulations for outdoor wood-fired hy-
dronic heaters (OWHHs). In 2007, OAQPS launched a
voluntary program to promote the manufacture and sale
of cleaner hydronic heaters (U.S. EPA, 2008). In June
2008, ETV published a protocol for verifying OWHH
performance (RTI International, 2008). EPA OAQPS
also provided technical and financial support for the de-
velopment of a model rule to aid states and local agen-
cies that choose to regulate emissions from OWHHs.
The Outdoor Hydronic Heater Model Regulation, which
became available in January 2007, was developed by the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
and required testing by ETV as part of the certification
procedures (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management, 2007).
A number of states also established regulations for
OWHHs. Under the Vermont Agency of Natural Re-
sources Adopted Rule 5-204, Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers
(effective October 1,2009), certification testing require-
ments stated that manufacturers must demonstrate that
an outdoor wood-fired boiler complies with applicable
emission limits set forth in the rule and provide writ-
ten test results; before submitting a test report for cer-
tification, it must first be reviewed and approved by the
ETV Program, the EPA Hydronic Heater Program, or
another agent approved by the state (State of Vermont,
2009). The MassDEP has promulgated regulation 310
CMR 7.26(50-54), Outdoor Hydronic Heaters (wood-
fired boilers) (effective December 26, 2008), that iden-
tified ETV as a source for emission test data for certi-
fication (MassDEP, 2008). The Maine Department of
Environmental Protection's Final Regulation, Chapter
150: Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers (ad-
opted July 4, 2008) also mentioned ETV as a possible
means of testing for outdoor wood boilers to obtain state
certification for meeting applicable particulate emission
standards (Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, 2008).
Under Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Rule 114.315,
Low Emission Diesel, Approved Test Methods (effective
May 17, 2006), diesel fuel additives and formulations
that have been verified by ETV and by the EPA Office of
Transportation and Air Quality's Voluntary Diesel Ret-
rofit Program to reduce NOx emissions by at least 5.78%
as compared to base diesel fuel with properties as de-
scribed for nationwide average fuel in the ETV's General
Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reduc-
tions Obtained by Use of Alternative or Reformulated Liq-
57
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
uid Fuels, Fuel Additives, Fuel Emulsions, and Lubricants
for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines and Light
Duty Gasoline Engines and Vehicles (RTI International,
2003), may be approved by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality as an alternative diesel fuel un-
der the Texas Low Emission Diesel (commonly known
as TxLED) Program without need for further testing
(Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2006,
2010). Additionally, Texas' New Technology Research
and Development Program provides grants to expedite
the commercialization of new and innovative emission
reduction technologies that will help to improve air qual-
ity in Texas. Grants are awarded and administered by
the Texas Environmental Research Commission through
the Houston Advanced Research Center. In 2006, ETV
was one of two verification programs specified in Texas
Environmental Research Commission New Technology
Research and Development solicitations for grant appli-
cations; these grants provided funding to help support
verification (Texas Environmental Research Commis-
sion, 2010).
An entry in the Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog entitled
"TCEQ Answers Rep. Lon Burnam's Questions on
Investigation of Air Quality" and dated December 18,
2009, references ETV verification of COMM Engineer-
ing, USA's Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit. Specifically,
the blog entry reports that State Representative Lon
Burnam questioned the Texas Commission on Environ-
mental Quality concerning its investigations of emissions
of methane and volatile organic compounds from oil and
gas operations in the Barnett Shale area and in Texas in
general. The blog reports that Representative Burnam
asked the commission how long it would take a producer
to recover the cost of installing a vapor recovery unit for
a typical well in Texas. The commission referred Burnam
to the ETV verification, which demonstrates that the cost
of a vapor recovery unit could typically be recovered be-
tween 3 and 19 months, depending on the price of natural
gas. It states,"The Environmental Technology Verification
Program at EPA evaluated the Eductor Vapor Recovery
Unit (EVRU) from COMM Engineering. The $108,000
EVRU recovered 175 Mscf/day. Assuming a prices value
of $5.46 per Mscf, the total value of recovered gas was
estimated at $650,000 per year for an approximate two
month payback" (Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog, 2009).
ETV reports and data were used to inform the devel-
opment of the Update of Continuous Instrumental Test
Methods; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 60), for measuring air
pollutant emissions from stationary sources.
In 2007, the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) approved ASTM standard D7270-07, Standard
Guide for Environmental and Performance Verification of
Factory-Applied Liquid Coatings. With the help of one of
its stakeholders, ETV worked with ASTM Committee
D01 on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Ap-
plications and its Subcommittee D01.55 (Factory Applied
Coatings on Preformed Products) to develop this ASTM
standard, which is based on the Environmental Technology
Verification Coatings and Coating Equipment Program, UV-
Curable Coatings—Generic Verification Protocol (Concur-
rent Technologies Corporation, 2003).
The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED®for Schools—
for New Construction and Major Renovations (U.S. Green
Building Council, 2007) includes methods for calculat-
ing indoor air emissions from furniture, one of which
references an ETV protocol. The guidelines state that
classroom furniture and furnishings must meet indoor
air emissions limits, which were determined using a pro-
cedure based on the Environmental Technology Verifica-
tion Large Chamber Test Protocol for Measuring Emissions
of Volatile Organic Compounds and Aldehydes (Research
Triangle Institute, 1999).
C.3 LAND AND Toxics
PROGRAMS
The EPA Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Lead
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program requires ETV
testing or equivalent approval for lead paint test kits. The
ETV Program is referenced in Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 745),
which includes a lead test kit recognition program. The
recognition program references ETV as the testing orga-
nization that will be used to evaluate the test kits. ETV
is in the process of verifying the performance of lead in
paint test kits under an Environmental and Sustainable
Technology Evaluation (ESTE) project. Additionally, in
2009, the State of Wisconsin requested information on
the test plan for the verification testing under this project
for consideration for inclusion in state regulations regard-
ing lead in paint test kits.
The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is using
ETV and its pesticide spray drift research, which is being
conducted under an ESTE project, to develop pesticide
risk assessment and labeling requirements. OPP intends
to use verified drift-reduction technologies in its pesti-
cide risk assessments and registration decisions (Daily
SB
-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
Environment Report, 2007). The ESTE spray drift proj- of technology performance. Specifically, the solicitation
ect is discussed in the draft pesticide registration notice
for pesticide spray drift entitled "Pesticide Registration
Notice 2008-X Draft: Pesticide Drift Labeling" (U.S.
EPA, 2009b).
In 2007, the U.S. Virgin Islands Waste Management
Authority (VIWMA) issued a solicitation for waste-to-
energy solid waste management facilities to process and
dispose of solid waste on the island of St. Croix. VIWMA
was seeking alternative solid waste disposal options that
would provide maximum diversion of waste from landfills
through proven technologies that generate energy, recover
resources, and provide emissions control. The solicitation
required that proposals demonstrate a successful record
stated that ETV verification could be submitted as an al-
ternative to a 5-year successful technology track record
(ETVoice, 2007).
C.4 OTHER AREAS
The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, on
its Web site, includes information on technology dem-
onstration and verification programs, as well as other
technology inventories and information resources. The
site includes, among its resources, information on the
ETV Program and links to the ETV Web Site (Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Appendix:
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT Best Available Technology
ESTE Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
EVRU Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit
IWS International Wastewater Systems
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
NO nitrogen oxides
x £>
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
ODW Office of Drinking Water
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
OWHH outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters
RCCH RCC Holdings Corporation
TxLED Texas Low Emission Diesel
VIWMA Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority
59
-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
C.5 REFERENCES
40 CFR Parts 122, 136, et al. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental
Protection Agency.. Part 122: Guidelines Establishing Test Proce-
dures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Na-
tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and National Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and Sampling Procedures;
Final Rule. 12 March.
40 CFR Parts 141, 142. 2010. Code of'Federal Regulations Title
40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Parts 141 and 142: National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule; Proposed
Rule. 14 July.
40 CFR Part 60. 2006. Federal Regulations Title 40—Protection
of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Protection Agency.
Part 60: Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods; Final
Rule. 14 August.
40 CFR Part 745. 2008. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program; Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of Availability;
Final Rule. 22 April.
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 2006. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule. 5 January.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation. 2003. Environmental Tech-
nology Verification Coatings and Coating Equipment Program, UV-
Curable Coatings—Generic Verification Protocol. Prepared by the
National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence and Sub-
mitted by Current Technologies Corporation Under a Cooperative
Agreement. DAAE30-98-C-1050.26 September.
Daily Environment Report, 2007. Interview with], Ellenberger, OFF,
21 May.
Dobroski N, Scianni C, Gehringer D, and Falkner M. 2008. Bal-
last Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines. Prepared by
the California State Lands Commission, Marine Invasive Species
Program. 10 October.
ETVoice. 2007. Virgin Islands to Consider ETV Verification in
Selection Criteria for Solid Waste Management Facility, July, http://
www.epa.gov/etv/etvoice0707.html
Hydro International. 2010. Marietta, Georgia Approves Use of Hy-
dro International's Stormwater Treatment Products. Press Release.
17 March.
InvestorsHub. 2010. RCC Holdings Corporation (RCCH)
Message Board, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/lioard.
aspx?board_id=10562. Last accessed 13 August.
Kleene WJ. 2008. "Memorandum from J. Wesley Kleene Ph.D.
(RE. Director) to the Office of Drinking Water Staff Concerning
Permits &• Project Review—Procedures for Arsenic Removal Treat-
ment Systems. 28 May.
Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Control
of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers: Final Regulation, No-
vember.
Maryland Department of the Environment. 2010. Bay Restoration
Fund (BRF) Best Available Technology for Removing Nitrogen from
Onsite Systems, http://www.mde.maryland.gov/water/cbwrf/osds/
brf_bat.asp. Last accessed 13 August.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass-
DEP). 2007. BRP WS 27 Permits for New Technology and Third-
Party Approval: Instructions and Supporting Materials, Bureau of
Resources Protection—Water Supply. June.
MassDEP. 2008. 310 CMR 7.26: Outdoor Hydromc Heaters.
November.
MassDEP. 2009. 310 CMR 22.00: The Massachusetts Drinking
Water Regulations. Section 4: Construction, Operation, and Main-
tenance of Public Water Systems. Paragraph 8: New Product or
Technology. December.
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. 2007.
Outdoor Hydronic Heater Model Regulation. 29 January.
NSF International. 2010. Survey ofASDWA Members Use ofNSF
Standards and ETV Reports. March.
Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog. 2009. TCEQ Answers Rep. Lon Bur-
nam's Questions on Investigation of Air Quality, 18 December.
http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2009/12/tceq-answers-rep-
lon-burnams-q.html
Page SD. 2007. "Memorandum from Stephen D. Page (Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards) to Regional Air Division Di-
rectors Concerning Use of New ASTM Performance Verifications for
Baghouse Media" 26 September.
RTI International. 2003. Generic Verification Protocol for Deter-
mination of Emissions Reductions Obtained by Use of Alternative
or Reformulated Liquid Fuels, Fuel Additives, Fuel Emulsions, and
Lubricants for Highway and Non-Road Use Diesel Engines and Light-
Duty Gasoline Engines and Vehicles, Prepared by RTI International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. CR829434-01-1. September.
RTI International. 2008. Generic Verification Protocol for Deter-
mination of Emissions from Outdoor Wood-Fired Hydronic Heaters.
Prepared by RTI International Under a Cooperative Agreement
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CR831911-01-1.
June.
State of California. 2004. Report to the Legislature on Gas-Fired
Power Plant NO Emission Controls and Related Environmental
Impacts. Air Resources Board. May.
State of California. 2009a. Rule 1155: Particulate Matter Con-
trol Devices. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 4
December.
State of California. 2009b. Rule 1156: Further Reductions of Par-
ticulate Emissions From Cement Manufacturing Facilities. South
Coast Air Quality Management District. 6 March.
State of Utah. 2010. Construction Approval Process: Project Noti-
fication—Plan Approval—Operating Permit, Department of En-
vironmental Quality, http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov /plan_re-
view_intro.htm. Last accessed 13 July.
60
-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
State of Vermont. 2009. Final Rule 5-204: Outdoor Wood-Fired
Boilers. Agency of Natural Resources. October.
State of Washington. 2009. Water System Design Manual, Depart-
ment of Health. December.
Stoner N. 2010. Testimony Before the House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. May 26.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2006. Texas Ad-
ministrative Code Title 30 Rule 114.315, Low Emission Diesel, Ap-
proved Test Methods. 17 May.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2010. Regulatory
Guidance RG-000 Draft: Questions and Answers Regarding the
J ••**-> O O
Texas Low Emission Diesel Fuel (TxLED) Regulations. July.
Texas Environmental Research Commission. 2010. Texas En-
vironmental Research Commission New Technology Research and
Development Request for Grant Applications. http://www.tercair-
quality.org/ NewTechnologyResearchDevelopmentNTRD/Fundin-
gOpportunities/RequestsforGrant Applications/tabid/ 781 /Default.
aspx. Last accessed 13 August.
U.S. EPA. 2008. Hydromc Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership
Agreement between the Ojfice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Agreement.
October 15.
U.S. EPA. 2009a. EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air
Emissions at U.S. Ports; Evaluation Report. Office of Inspector
General. Report No. 09-P-0125. 23 March.
U.S. EPA. 2009b. Draft Pesticide Registration Notice 2009-X:
Additional Information and Questions for Commenters. Office of
Pesticide Programs. October.
U.S. EPA. 2010a. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815-D-09-
00 I.April.
U.S. EPA. 2010b. EPA Will Propose Rule to Protect Waterways
by Reducing Mercury From Dental Office /Existing Technology
Is Available to Capture Dental Mercury, Press Release. 27 Sep-
tember. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e77fdd4fSafd-
88a38S2S76b300Sa604f/a640db2ebad201cd8S2S77ab0063484
8!OpenDocument
U.S. Green Building Council. 2007. LEED'for Schools—for New
Construction and Major Renovations. November.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. 2005. Compliance
Assistance Advisory: Rule 74.9: Stationary Internal Combustion
Engine Revisions, 8 November.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Innova-
tive Technology: Technology Verifications and Inventories. Last up-
dated 8 January, http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/
innovtech/dem2.html
61
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGES FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |