U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
Materials Management and Remediation Center
Summary of the Stakeholder Committee Teleconference on Materials Management
Tuesday, March 31,2009
Present at Role Call: David Allaway (OR DECQ), Richard Carmichael (TX CEQ), Timothy
Christman (OH EPA), Amy Dindal (Battelle), Tim Franceschini (Shell), Robert Giraud
(DuPont), Maria Gordon (Battelle), Jennifer Griffith (NEWMOA), Dan Harris (OH EPA), Jim
Harrington (NY DEC), Sara Hartwell (US EPA), Leslie Karr (US Navy), Louis Maccarone (RI
DEM), Douglas Mellema (USACE), Tom O'Neill (NJ DEP), Carlos Pachon (US EPA), Robert
Phaneuf (NY DEC), Teri Richardson (US EPA), Ramon Simon (Bayer), Russell Sirabian
(Battelle).
Welcome
Teri Richardson (US EPA) thanked those who had been on the previous calls and welcomed new
members. She described Materials Management as a convergence of two previous EPA
initiatives, waste minimization and pollution prevention. In the new program, the emphasis is on
recycling and energy recovery. She expressed hope that the committee would come up with a
list of potential technologies that addressed these issues, and looked forward to working with
everyone.
Introduction of New Participants
Amy Dindal (Battelle) welcomed two new MMR Center stakeholders: Sara Hartwell (US EPA)
and David Allaway (OR DECQ). She asked them to introduce themselves to the committee.
Overview of ETV MMR Center Progress
Amy Dindal presented an update on the MMR Center's activities since the initial February 18
teleconference. Two separate calls had been set up in March to address the two areas of interest
to the Center. Some stakeholders were committed to only one subject, so we have a Remediation
Committee and a Materials Management Committee. But many stakeholders maintain an
interest in both areas. The Materials Management area is wide open, and we are looking for
concurrence of the stakeholders before moving forward with any technology. We need
collaborators and vendors to make this happen.
Discussion of Potential Materials Management Technology Categories
Amy reviewed the scope of the MMR Center, and presented considerations for prioritizing
technologies as well as categories for consideration:
Plastics Recycling
Advance Composites wants verification of its technology, but does not have money to
support it. Amy Dindal said that under ETV the focus would be on the technology rather
than the end product, although the stakeholders (David Allaway and Sara Hartwell in
-------
particular) were clear that evaluation of the end product would be a critical part of the
evaluation in their review. The stakeholders thought there was merit in further considering
the Advance Composites technology, and we should engage municipal waste companies in
the process. Russell Sirabian (Battelle) and Jennifer Griffith (NEWMOA) asked whether the
mechanical properties of the plastic (perhaps the pellets themselves) could be tested in a
laboratory and those properties then used to make predictions about product performance.
Sara Hartwell said it could be done, but it is still important to have lab testing of the actual
product. Robert Giraud (DuPont) mentioned that the Shell West Hollow Lab in Houston at
one time had a test facility with the expertise to determine properties of the pellets and
plastics. An action item was to look into what testing can be done on the plastic materials.
Tim Franceschini (Shell) will check if the West Hollow Lab is an option or, if not, what other
facilities can be used. We also need to identify the merits of verification (what do we need to
know to make a decision whether to use this technology), considering who the users are of
this technology, which tends to be the large waste management contractors.
Plastics Sorting Technologies
It was discussed that sorting technologies are more for purchase and the purchasers would be
the private companies such as Waste Management that would do the sorting of mixed
recycled materials. David Allaway offered that there are privately owned facilities that sort
mixed recyclables. Sara Hartwell said that a lot of sorting technology for single materials is
fairly well established. What is lacking is technology for multiple plastic materials; these are
not easily sorted for recovery. Robert Giraud mentioned that the State of Delaware used to
have curb-side recycling based on codes of plastics but now they all go into the same bin,
which is indicative of the fact that sorting technologies are already out there. Since sorting
technologies are already in widespread use (e.g., there is optical sorting in use for colored
glass), the need to verify these technologies was questioned.
David and Sara brought up the issue of flexible packaging. The mix of municipal plastics is
changing to flexible packaging from single material tubs and separate film. While these
plastics may not be recyclable, they may be good for energy recovery. Flexible packaging,
which is made of multiple polymers sometimes mixed with metal (e.g. coffee pouches), is
gaining market share. This material is not being collected and currently goes in with
garbage. There is a need for a technology that could recycle the mixed materials. There is a
need for people to separate them, and for recycling to occur. Although no definitive action
item was assigned, there was agreement that there is a need to identify technologies to
address recycling or recovery of flexible packages.
Tire Recycling
CryoVortex cryogenically freezes the entire tire (no need to chop it up first), then produces
tire crumbs. Robert Giraud asked if we can take a phased approach because this technology
sounds energy intensive; we need to first look at how much energy is used for this process as
a step in prioritizing its value. Jennifer Griffith mentioned that NEWMOA has seen energy-
intensive proposals and because of this added expense they were rejected. Dan Harris (OH
EPA) talked with his tire folks about this process. The issue is this: the crumb rubber has
minimum surface area and is not useful for reforming into products. There are issues with the
end market and economics. It is a technology that has been around a while, so perhaps this
technology category should not be a priority.
In looking for more ideas with tires, Amy made contact with EPA's Scrap Tire Workgroup
and the US-Mexico Border Tire Group. Dave Allaway suggested that tire pyrolysis was
-------
worth pursuing. There is a facility in Oregon for pyrolyzing tires. He will get us a name.
Dan Harris mentioned that some vendors are trying to figure out how to take the steel belting
out of the tire before recycling - Dan will provide more information.
Electronics Recycling
There is concern about the hazardous materials in electronics. There are data destruction
technologies which destroy data from computer hardware. Different states have different
regulations for cleaning the hard drives. There is also concern about the fate of precious
metals in electronics. Are they candidates for smelting technologies? If the Draft HR bill
passes, funds may become available to deal with these issues and may raise this problem to
the level of national concern.
Amy Dindal asked what the different requirements for data destruction were state by state.
Since there is no national consensus, folks tend to store their old computers for 4-5 years.
Tim Christman (OH EPA) mentioned that a company makes a shredder for hard drives.
Some corporations do not think there is any software that is good enough to ensure data is
destroyed so they go to shredding. This technology takes hard drives and runs them through
the shredder. Robert Giraud said that a technology that would be able to get Hg from
compact fluorescent lights would be of interest. Robert Giraud commented that precious
metal recovery (platinum, nickel, silver) was widely in practice in the Eastern U.S. and
Canada. Tom O'Neill (NJ DEP) knows of a Connecticut operator who runs a smelting
facility for precious metal recovery and said he would provide information. Dan Harris said
that from a state perspective, high emphasis should be placed on verifying technologies that
can do something with electronic waste. We need to make sure waste does not get into
landfills. All the stakeholders should collectively look for opportunities in this area.
Other Recycling Areas
Amy Dindal described the mop that has been developed to mop up oil spills in lube shops
and then recycle the oil. David Allaway spoke of anaerobic digestion of food scraps. His
office is besieged with requests for information on this. Dan Harris said there is a huge
interest in anaerobic digestion of farm waste, food waste, and municipal waste. An Ohio
company takes auto fluff and processes it to remove metal. Sara Hartwell said that USD A
folks would be helpful in reviewing anaerobic digestion technologies.
Ramon Simon (Bayer) brought up plasma arc as a technology of interest as it takes organic
materials and industrial waste and converts it to gas and energy. He feels that it is
underutilized in this country but used extensively in others. There is good work in China
looking at dioxin formation from plasma arc. There are a number of different companies
with this technology, including plasma arc gasification technologies (technology takes waste
and converts it to glass and syngas). In testing for leaching, simulated 100-200 year test
showed that nothing leached out. Robert Giraud commented that here in the US, the
infrastructure is available for incineration so we are not switching to plasma arc. Robert
Phaneuf (NY DEC) said that there was a cost comparison done when plasma arc was
proposed and the demonstrated units were found to be smaller and higher in cost compared to
incineration. The technology is very energy-intensive, but there was debate about energy
recovery. It was concluded that there could be interest in this area but it should include other
methods such as pyrolysis, plasma arc, and others. These technologies are energy recovery
processes and may fall under the ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center. If so, we should
not be evaluating them in the MMR Center. It depends on whether we consider the
technology one that primarily is used to manage a waste or if it considered waste to energy.
-------
Amy will look into this and get a determination. The link to information on the ETV GHG
Center is: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/center-ggt.html.
Wastewater Treatment
Draygon Enterprises is interested in testing but has no money for support. The question is,
can they handle higher flow rates. Dezavid, a Russian technology for sewage treatment, was
also presented. The stakeholders offered no comments, other than these technologies appear
to fall under the ETV Water Quality Protection (WQP) Center. These technologies will be
forwarded to the WQP Center for consideration.
Septic System Remediation
Information was presented on Aero-Streamฎ. In response to Amy's question whether the
state stakeholders think there is a problem with septic tanks, Dan Harris replied, yes, there is
a need, but this is a MM committee, and he will ask his water program people what they
think.
Manufactured Soils
Dan Harris commented that it is important to make a distinction between blended industrial
waste, which will grow things well or have a use niche, and wastes that have been chemically
altered to produce useable soil. Leslie Karr (U.S. Navy) has worked with Dr. Lee from
RSMT on dredged material, which is of concern to the Navy. She said their patent is pretty
broad. They look at your waste and blend them to make useable soil by binding some of the
toxic metals. Dan Harris said we should evaluate how they determine the recipe. The recipe
will change depending on the waste stream of the client. What sort of verification can you
conduct? The vendor is interested in applying their technology to metals mining sites. Leslie
Karr replied that this is what she thought of when the subject of manufactured soil was
raised. People know about this technology. Will it only deal with part of our dredged
material? What else can we use? Contaminants (PCBs, dioxins) bind or are treated to get a
beneficial product, e.g., road aggregate, concrete. In general, there was stakeholder interest in
pursuing this area further.
Nutrient Recovery from Municipal/Animal Sewage
No interest from the stakeholders in this area.
Other Technologies
Dan Harris brought up coal combustion waste, which is getting to be a national issue. A
local Ohio company is making wallboard quality gypsum from waste, and he will provide
additional information on this. Teri Richardson mentioned coal fly ash. Sara Hartwell has
information on a multistakeholder consortium on coal combustion products. Sara forwarded
the link to their website immediately following the call:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/c2p2/index.htm.
Review of Action Items
Russ Sirabian summarized as follows:
Tim Franceschini (Shell): information on Shell's West Hollow Lab (properties of pellets and
plastics)
Battelle: look for technologies for sorting flexible packaging
Dan Harris (OH EPA): to provide info on vendors/technologies to remove steel belting for
tire recycling
David Allaway (OR DECQ): provide info on Oregon for pyrolyzing tires facility
4
-------
Battelle: further pursue technologies for electronics recycling
Tom O'Neill (NJ DEP): provide information on CT smelting facility for precious metals
Dan Harris: ask water folks for input on septic system remediation
Battelle: continue to pursue manufactured soil technologies
Next Meeting
The stakeholders will be polled to find the best date for the next teleconference in June.
Adjourn
Amy Dindal adjourned the meeting at 3:00 pm EDT.
Respectfully submitted,
Russell Sirabian
Maria Gordon
ETV MMR Center
------- |