Environmental
                j.
Technology
Verification (ETV)
Program
     Studies
Demonstrating
Program
Outcomes
     United States
     Environmental Protection
     Agency

-------
Cover background image from the NASA Web site at http://visibleearth.nasa.gov

-------
                        EPA/600/R-06/OOI
                         January 2006
     Environmental
Technology Verification
     (ETV) Program
      Case Studies:
     Demonstrating
  Program Outcomes
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on

§3?PCN " C°ntain8 I"1"111™"1 rf
     National Risk Management Research Laboratory
       Office of Research and Development
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Cincinnati, Ohio 45268

-------
                                Notice
Development of this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program under contract number 68-C-02-067
to Science Applications International Corporation. 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 interpreted
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 the U.S. EPA.
                                                Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                             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 implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental 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 technological 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 ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both 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 EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community
and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
           Acknow/edgements


The ETV Program wishes to thank the verification organization partners, the ETV center project
officers, EPA program office staff, and other EPA personnel who reviewed the case studies throughout
the development process. The following 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:

*  Diesel Engine Retrofit Technologies: Evelyn Hartzell (contributing author), EPA National Risk
   Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL); Michael Kosusko, EPA NRMRL; Andrew Trenholm,
   RTI International; Dennis Johnson, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ); Carl
   Wick, EPA OTAQi Audrey Galizia, EPA National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA);
   Ray Smith, EPA NRMRL; John Abraham, EPA NRMRL; Kerry Bullock, EPA NRMRL
*  Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit (EVRU): David Kirchgessner (contributing author), EPA NRMRL;
   Timothy Hansen, Southern Research Institute; Greg Nizich, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
   Standards (OAQPS); Kevin Tingley, EPA Natural Gas STAR Program; Audrey Galizia, EPA NCEA
•*•  Microturbine/Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technologies: David Kirchgessner, EPA NRMRL;
   Timothy Hansen, Southern Research Institute; Kimberly Grossman, EPA CHP Partnership; Luis
   Troche, EPA Office of International Affairs (OIA) (formerly with the CHP Partnership)
*  Laser Touch Spray Painting Targeting Device: Michael Kosusko, EPA NRMRL; Robert Fisher,
   Concurrent Technologies Corporation; Dave Salman, EPA OAQPS; Ray Smith, EPA NRMRL; John
   Abraham, EPA NRMRL
*  Portable Technologies for Measuring Lead in Dust: Robert Fuerst, EPA National Exposure Research
   Laboratory (NERL); Amy Dindal, Battelle; Sharon Harper, EPA NERL; Eric Koglin, EPA National
   Homeland Security Research Center (NHSRC); John Schwemburger, EPA Office of Pollution
   Prevention and Toxics (OPPT); Maggie Theroux-Fieldsteel, EPA Region 1
*  Ambient Ammonia Monitors: Ann Louise Sumner (contributing author), Battelle; Robert Fuerst,
   EPA NERL; James Homolya, EPA OAQPS; William Schrock, EPA OAQPS; Audrey Galizia, EPA
   NCEA
*  Arsenic Drinking Water Treatment Technologies: Jeff Adams, EPA NRMRL; Bruce Bartley, NSF
   International; Rajiv Khera, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW)
*  Residential Nutrient Reduction Technologies: Raymond Frederick, EPA NRMRL; Thomas Stevens,
   NSF International; Rodney Frederick, EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW);
   Suzanne Kelly, EPA OGWDW; Abby Waits, EPA NRMRL; Ray Smith, EPA NRMRL; John
   Abraham, EPA NRMRL
*  All Case Studies: Teresa Harten, EPA NRMRL; Evelyn Hartzell, EPA NRMRL; Robert Olexsey
   EPA NRMRL; Lynn Ann Hitchens, EPA NRMRL
                                              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
               Table   of  Contents
Notice                                                                                  ii
Foreword                                                                                iii
Acknowledgements                                                                      iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations                                                            vii
Chapter I: Introduction and Summary                                                   I
    I.I    Purpose                                                                           3
    1.2    Organization and Scope                                                               7
    1.3    Summary of Outcomes                                                                9
Chapter 2:Air and Energy Technology Case Studies                                      11
   2.1    Diesel Engine Retrofit Technologies                                                       13
         2.1.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    14
         2.1.2     Technology Description                                                       16
         2.1.3     Outcomes                                                                17
   2.2    EducatorVapor Recovery Unit (EVRU)                                                     23
         2.2.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    24
         2.2.2     Technology Description                                                       25
         2.2.3     Outcomes                                                                26
   2.3    Microturbine/Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technologies                                    29
         2.3.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    30
         2.3.2     Technology Description                                                       31
         2.3.3     Outcomes                                                                33
   2.4    Laser Touch Spray Painting Targeting Device                                                 37
         2.4.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    38
         2.4.2     Technology Description                                                       39
         2.4.3     Outcomes                                                                40
   2.5    Portable Technologies for Measuring Lead in Dust                                             43
         2.5.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    44
         2.5.2     Technology Description                                                       45
         2.5.3     Outcomes                                                                47
   2.6    Ambient Ammonia Monitors                                                            51
         2.6.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    51
         2.6.2     Technology Description                                                       53
         2.6.3     Outcomes                                                                55
Chapter 3: Water Technology Case Studies                                              59
   3.1    Arsenic DrinkingWaterTreatmentTechnologies                                              61
         3.1.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    62
         3.1.2     Technology Description                                                       62
         3.1.3     Outcomes                                                                63
   3.2    Residential Nutrient Reduction Technologies                                                 67
         3.2.1      Environmental, Health, and Regulatory Background                                    67
         3.2.2     Technology Description                                                       69
         3.2.3     Outcomes                                                                71
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                  v

-------
Chapter 4: References                                                           75
Appendix A: Methodology for Diesel Engine Retrofit Outcomes                       87
Appendix B: Methodology for Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit (EVRU) Outcomes         93
Appendix C: Methodology for Microturbine/Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) Outcomes                                                 97
Appendix D: Methodology for Laser Touch Spray Painting Outcomes                 101
Appendix E: Methodology for Arsenic Drinking Water Treatment Outcomes           103
                                             Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                 Acronyms  and
                 Abbreviations
AFO
AMS Center

APCT Center

ASDWA

ASERTTI
ASV

BLL
BMPs

bscfy

BTEX

BTU/scf

CARB

CCEP

CDC

CERCLA
CERR
CHP
Animal Feeding Operation
ETV's Advanced
Monitoring Systems
Center
ETV's Air Pollution
Control Technology
Center
Association of State
Drinking Water
Administrators
Association of State
Energy Research and
Technology Transfer
Institutions
anodic stripping
voltammetry
blood lead level
Best Management
Practices
billion standard cubic feet
per year
benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene
British Thermal Units per
standard cubic foot
California Air Resources
Board
ETV's Coatings and
Coating Equipment Pilot
Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and
Liability Act
Consolidated Emissions
Reporting Rule
combined heat and power
CO
C02
COPD
DEP

DOC

DOE
DPF
DWS Center

EA
EPA

EMPACT Program
EPCRA

ETV

EVRU

FSAF

FTIR
FTP
g/bhp-hr

GHG Center

GPRA
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease
Department of
Environmental Protection
diesel oxidation catalyst
muffler
Department of Energy
diesel particulate filter
ETV's Drinking Water
Systems Center
Economic Analysis
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA's Environmental
Monitoring for Public
Access and Community
Tracking Program
Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-
Know Act
EPA's Environmental
Testing and Verification
Program
Eductor Vapor Recovery
Unit
fuel sulfur adjustment
factor
Fourier transform infrared
Federal Test Procedure
grams per brake
horsepower per hour
ETV's Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center
Government Performance
and Results Act
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
HAPs
HCs
HUD

HVLP
Hz
IEEE

IPCC

IWRC

KW
KWh
Ibs/kWh
LQSR

LSD
MCL

mg/L
mg/L as N

MMBTU/day

MMscfy

MW
NAAQ_Ss

NAS

NCEA

NERL

NHSRC

NIOSH
hazardous air pollutants
Hydrocarbons
Department of Housing
and Urban Development
high-volume low-pressure
Hertz
Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers
Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change
Iowa Waste Reduction
Center
Kilowatts
kilowatt-hours
pounds per kilowatt-hour
Laboratory Quality System
Requirements
low sulfur diesel
maximum contaminant
level
milligrams per liter
milligrams per liter as
nitrogen
million British Thermal
Units per day
million standard cubic feet
per year
Megawatts
National Ambient Air
Quality Standards
National Academies of
Science
National Center for
Environmental Assessment
EPA's National Exposure
Research  Laboratory
EPA's National Homeland
Security Research Center
National Institute for
Occupational Safety and
Health
NLLAP
NCL
   A
NRMRL
NYSERDA

OAQPS

OGWDW

OIA

OPPT

ORNL

OSHA

OTAQ_

OWOW

PADEP
PM
ppb
ppm
REMSAD
RIA

SIP
S02
TE
THCs
THD
National Lead Laboratory
Accreditation Program
nitrogen oxides
EPA's National Risk
Management Research
Laboratory
New York State Energy
Research and Development
Authority
EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water
EPA's Office of
International Affairs
EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
Oak Ridge National
Laboratory
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air
Quality
EPA's Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds
Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental
Protection
particulate matter
parts per billion
parts per million
Regulatory Modeling
System for Aerosols and
Deposition
Regulatory Impact
Analysis
State Implementation Plan
sulfur dioxide
transfer efficiency
total hydrocarbons
total harmonic distortion
                                                  Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
TMDL              Total Maximum Daily         VDRP               EPA's Voluntary Diesel
                     Load                                              Retrofit Program
UBRP               EPA's Urban Bus Retrofit      VMT                vehicle miles traveled
                     Program                      VOCs               volatile organic compounds
ULSD               ultra-low sulfur diesel          WQP Center         ETV's Water Quality
USDA               U.S. Department of                                Protection Center
                     Agriculture                   XRF                 X-ray fluorescence
UV-DOAS           ultraviolet differential          ^/JL               Micrograms per deciliter
                     optical absorption                ....
                                                  Lig/ft2                Micrograms per square
                     spectroscopy
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------

-------
 Introduction
and Summary

-------

-------
                                                                Purpose
         ~^ his document is a collection of case
            studies that highlight the actual and
            potential outcomes and benefits of
            the U.S. 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 cooperative agreements between EPA
and the five nonprofit research institutes listed
in Exhibit 1.1-1,  although some verifications are
performed under contracts. The ETV Program,
through its cooperative agreement recipients,
develops testing protocols and publishes detailed
performance results in the form of verification
reports and statements, which can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/verification-
index.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 guidelines. By providing
credible performance information about new and
improved, commercially ready environmental
technologies, ETV verification can help vendors
sell their technologies and help users  to 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 resources wisely and
achieving program results. Among other things,
GPRA requires agencies to measure their
performance and communicate this information
to Congress and to 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 (GPRA, 1993).
   Historically, the ETV Program has measured
its performance with respect to outputs (e.g.,
the number of technologies verified and testing
protocols developed). ETV is expanding its
approach to include outcomes, such as potential
pollution reductions attributable to the use of
ETV technologies and subsequent health or
environmental impacts. The case studies presented
here  highlight how the program's outputs (verified
technologies and protocols) translate into actual
and potential outcomes. The Program also will
use the case studies to communicate information
about verified technology performance,
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 considerable uncertainty in assessing
   environmental outcomes and human health
   benefits. Therefore, many of the outcomes
   quantified in these case studies are described
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
/. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
    as "potential" outcomes, and should be
    treated as estimates only. Also, in general,
    these estimates were calculated by assuming
    a straight-line relationship between pollutant
    reductions and reductions in health effects
    estimated in publicly available resources (e.g.,
    regulatory impact analyses). In most cases,
    this methodology is likely a simplification
    of the actual relationship between these
    two factors, as well as the relationship
    between pollutant reductions and ambient
    concentrations, and the relationship between
    ambient concentrations and health effects. In
    general, these estimates also do not account
    for localized impacts, which are more likely to
    be observed under lower market penetration
    scenarios.
*   Vendors of ETV-verified technologies are
    not currently required to track their sales
    or report the effects of ETV verification 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 scenarios." 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 potential market)  to project the
    potential number of applications for the
    technology category. Where sales information
    is available, however, ETV has incorporated
    this information into its market penetration
    scenarios (see, for example, the case study in
    Section 2.1).
*   The outcomes presented here were not
    produced during the verification tests
    themselves. Instead, the ETV Program has
    calculated these outcomes by combining the
    verified performance results (which can be
    found at http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/
    verification-index.html) with available data
    from publicly available sources (e.g., regulatory
    impact analyses), reasonable assumptions, and
    logical extrapolations.
*   These case studies are not intended as a basis
    for making regulatory decisions, developing
    or commenting on policy, or as a basis for
    choosing to purchase or sell a technology.
They are merely intended to highlight
potential benefits or other outcomes that
could be attributed to verification and verified
technology use.
The ETV Program does not compare
technologies. Therefore, when a case
study discusses a group of similar verified
technologies, it summarizes performance
results in the form of a range or without
identifying the specific vendor associated with
a given result. When results are listed in a
tabular format, the vendor and product names
are not mentioned and the results are listed in
a random order.
Verified technology performance data and
other information found in the verification
reports were used, in part, to develop the case
studies. The cooperative agreement recipients
make the final decisions on the content of the
verification reports, which are considered the
products of the ETV cooperative agreement
recipients. 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
guidelines.
Verification organization  partners, the ETV
center project officers, and appropriate
program office and other  EPA personnel have
reviewed the case studies  throughout the
development process (see Acknowledgements,
above). These reviews were performed to
ensure 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. Vendors were also provided with an
opportunity to review the pre-final versions of
the case studies.
Five of the eight case studies presented
here were initially based upon draft case
studies (U.S. EPA, 2002h, 2004J, 2004k,
20041; Southern Research Institute, 2004b;
Battelle, 2004h) and  draft outcomes briefs
(U.S. EPA, 2004i, 2005n; Battelle, 2004i)
                                                      Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                    /. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
    that were developed by ETV Program staff
    and verification partners. These case studies
    include text and other information found
    in the draft documents. Some of the case
    studies presented here also underwent parallel
    development with the outcomes briefs, with
    ongoing information exchange and input from
    the respective efforts/authors.
                         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 one
                         verified company or product over another, nor
                         do  the comments made by these organizations
                         necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. EPA.
                                      NTERS AND VERIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS
      ETV Center/Pilot/Effort     Verification Organization
      ETV Advanced Monitoring
      Systems (AMS) Center
      ETV Air Pollution Control
      Technology (APCT) Center
Battelle
RTI International
         Technology Areas and
    Environmental MediaAddressed
Air, water, and soil monitoring
Biological and chemical agent detection in water

Air pollution control
      ETV Drinking Water Systems
      (DWS) Center
NSF International
Drinking water treatment
Biological and chemical agent detection in water
      ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology
      (GHG) Center
      ETVWater Quality Protection
      (WQP) Center

      ETV Pollution Prevention (P2)
      Coatings and Coating Equipment
      Pilot (CCEP)
Southern Research Institute
NSF International
Concurrent Technologies
Corporation (CTC)
Greenhouse gas mitigation and monitoring

Storm and waste water control and treatment
Biological and chemical agent wastewater treatment

Pollution prevention for coatings
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------

-------
                                                                                 1.2
      Organization   and  Scope
          J his document includes case studies
            of eight selected ETV-verified
            technologies or technology groups.
            Six of the case studies fall into
            the category of "Air and Energy
Technologies" (Chapter 2) and two fall into the
category of "Water Technologies" (Chapter 3). A
second set of case studies, to be published in the
near future, will include additional technologies
                                           in both categories. The document also includes a
                                           complete list of references (Chapter 4) and a set
                                           of appendices that provide a detailed discussion
                                           of the methodology used to estimate outcomes in
                                           several of the case studies.
                                              Exhibit 1.2-1 lists the eight case studies,
                                           shows the ETV center that verified each, and
                                           identifies the priority environmental topics and
                                           significant pollutants addressed by each.
          CASE STUDIES. PRIORITY ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS. AND SIGNIFICANT POLLUTANTS
     Case Study and          ETV
     Section Number      Center (I)

                      I
     2.1 Diesel Engine Retrofit   APCT
     Technologies
     2.2 EductorVapor Recovery GHG
     Unit (EVRU)
     2.3 Microturbine/Combined GHG
     Heat and Power (CHP)
     Technologies

     2.4 Laser Touch Spray      CCEP
     Painting Targeting Device
     2.5 Portable Technologies   AMS
     for Measuring Lead in Dust
     2.6 Ambient Ammonia     AMS
     Monitors
  Arsenic Drinking
WaterTreatment
Technologies
                        DWS
                               Priority Environmental Topics

                               Air and Energy Technologies

                              Mobile source emissions, children's
                              health

                              Greenhouse gases, organics, industrial
                              emissions

                              Greenhouse gases, waste-to-energy,
                              community development
                              Organics, industrial emissions


                              Children's health, community
                              development

                              Animal feeding operations
     Water Technologies
Small drinking water systems
                                 Significant Pollutants

                                                 •
                            Particulate matter, hydrocarbons, carbon
                            monoxide
                            Methane, hazardous air pollutants, volatile
                            organic compounds
                            Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
                            dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide,
                            particulate matter, ammonia, total
                            hydrocarbons
                            Hazardous air pollutants, volatile organic
                            compounds
                            Lead

                            Ammonia
                                                          Arsenic
                        WQP
                              Watershed protection, community
                              development
                            Nitrogen compounds
3.2 Residential Nutrient
Reduction Technologies

(I) APCT =Air Pollution Control Technology Center; GHG = Greenhouse Gas Technology Center; CCEP = Coatings and Coating
Equipment Pilot; AMS = Advanced Monitoring Systems Center; DWS = Drinking Water Systems Center;
WQP = Water Quality Protection Center
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
/. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
   Each case study begins with a summary
of actual and potential outcomes, followed by
three sections. The first section, "Environmental,
Health, and Regulatory Background," describes:
(1) the pollutant or environmental issue the
technology is designed to address,  (2) the human
health and environmental impacts  associated
with the pollutant or issue, and (3) regulatory
programs or voluntary initiatives under which
the technology can be applied. The second
section, "Technology Description," describes the
technology, identifies what makes the technology
innovative, and summarizes the performance
results as verified by ETV. The third section,
"Outcomes," presents, in detail, the ETV
Program's estimates of potential outcomes from
verification and from applying the  technology, as
well  as actual outcomes. These  outcomes include:

*  Pollutant (or emissions) reduction outcomes,
   such as pounds of pollutant removed,
   nationwide, by potential applications of the
   technology
*  Environmental and human health outcomes,
   such as cases of disease or death avoided,
   nationwide, by potential applications of the
   technology
*  Resource conservation outcomes, such as the
   types of natural or man-made resources that
   the technology can conserve
*  Economic and financial outcomes, such as the
   economic value of avoided cases of disease or
   cost savings to users of the technology
*   Regulatory compliance outcomes, such as the
    number of facilities that the technology can
    assist in complying with a regulation
*   Technology acceptance and use outcomes,
    such as evidence that ETV verification has led
    to increased use of the technology
*   Scientific advancement outcomes, such as
    improvements in technology performance due
    to ETV verification or scientific uncertainties
    that can be addressed by potential applications
    of the technology.
    Within each outcome category, the ETV
Program  made every effort to quantify, that is,
place a numerical value on, the outcome. Where
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 only one technology
category (or  a few categories) can comprehend the
section(s) of interest without needing to review
this entire document. For this reason, each case
study spells out  acronyms (other than EPA and
ETV) on first use within that case study, even if
those acronyms  have been used in previous case
studies. To further aid readers, each case study
also includes its own acronyms list at the end of
the section. For  readers who wish to review all the
case studies together, a complete acronyms list is
included  at the beginning of this document.
                                                     Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
         Summary  of Outcomes
        ^| he case studies presented here
           address a variety of pollutants and
           environmental issues (see Exhibit
           1.2-1). As discussed above, the
           ETV Program examined a number
of different 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
and provides examples of the most significant
quantifiable actual and potential outcomes.
Exhibit 1.3-1 lists the eight case studies, along
            with the types of outcomes identified in each. It
            also indicates which of the outcomes the ETV
            Program was able to quantify.
               Examples of some of the significant potential
            outcomes from those identified in Exhibit 1.3-1
            include the following:

            *  The ETV-verified diesel engine retrofit
               technologies could reduce particulate matter
               (PM) emissions by approximately 9,000 to
               31,000 tons over seven years, if 10% of the
               current fleet of heavy-duty diesel trucks
 sw.
                    TYPES OF
   IES IDENTIFIED FOR E
                                         +•> 5 .2
                                                c c

                      a) .2    °8 ,u
                                                C 3
                                                                   •= a.  =
                                                                          S.3
    Case Study and Section Number
         O UJ C£ '> 08   0
	  HI
 Air and Energy Technologies
                                                             c u
                                                         o   £
                                   M E
                                    £
                                                X
X
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
/. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
   and buses use ETV-verified devices. These
   emissions reductions could result in human
   health and environmental benefits, including
   680 to 2,400 avoided instances of premature
   mortality, with an associated economic value
   of $4.4 to $15.5 billion.
   The ETV-verified Eductor Vapor Recovery
   Unit (EVRU) technology could reduce
   methane emissions by 2 billion to 6 billion
   standard cubic feet per year and recover
   natural gas with a potential economic value of
   $41 million to $120 million per year.
   The ETV-verified microturbine/combined
   heat and power (CHP) technologies could
   reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by
   70,000 to 127,000 tons per year and nitrogen
   oxide (NOX) emissions by 410 to 440 tons
   per year, with associated climate change,
   environmental, and human health benefits.
   The ETV-verified Laser Touch technology
   could reduce volatile organic compound
   (VOC) emissions from the automobile
   refinishing industry by approximately 1,100
   to 2,700 tons per year and reduce solid waste
   generation by approximately 300 to 8,000
   tons per year, with associated environmental
   and health benefits. The technology also
   can potentially reduce paint usage, resulting
   in cost savings that could equal up to $100
million per year for the automobile refinishing
industry alone.
The ETV-verified portable technologies for
measuring lead in dust could be deployed at
up to approximately 16.5 million housing
units that were built before 1978. Of these
pre-1978 residences, an estimated 2.6 million
house young children, who are particularly at
risk for exposure to lead in dust.
The ETV-verified ambient ammonia monitors
could potentially be applied at up to 975 large
animal feeding operations (AFOs) to verify
their compliance with current or potential
future state and federal regulations and to
avoid potential multimillion dollar penalties.
The ETV-verified arsenic drinking water
treatment technologies could prevent 1.3 to
4.8 cases of lung and bladder cancer and 0.7
to 2.6 deaths from these cancers per year, with
an associated economic value of approximately
$4.8 million to $17.1 million per year.
The ETV-verified residential nutrient
reduction technologies could reduce nitrogen
loading to ground water by approximately
1,300 to 4,000 tons per year, with associated
benefits of improved compliance with
drinking water standards and reduction of
environmental problems associated with
nutrient loading.
10
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
         Air and Energy
Technology Case Studies

-------

-------
                                                                         2.1
                                        Diesel  Engine
                Retrofit  Technologies
        ^\ he ETV Program's Air Pollution
          Control Technology (APCT)
          Center, operated by RTI
          International under a cooperative
          agreement with EPA, has verified
the performance of seven technologies designed
to reduce air emissions from diesel engines.
These technologies are used to retrofit older and
current model heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses,
and non-road equipment. When retrofitted, the
technologies reduce pollutant emissions including
particulate matter (PM), hydrocarbons (HCs),
and carbon monoxide (CO). PM contributes
to serious public health problems in the U.S.,
including premature mortality and respiratory
problems, and has other environmental impacts,
including reduced visibility. HCs can also react
with nitrogen oxides (NOX), another diesel
pollutant of concern, to form ground-level ozone.
Ground-level ozone, otherwise know as smog,
is considered a major health and environmental
problem. CO can exacerbate health effects in
people with heart problems.
   Based on the analysis in this case study and
available sales/marketing data, at least 1,345
vehicles have or are expected to use the ETV-
verified diesel engine retrofit technologies, with
the following benefits:

*  The technologies could reduce PM emissions
   by 6.4 to 9.1 tons over seven years, with
   associated HC and CO reductions of up to 35
   tons and up to 120 tons, respectively, over the
   same time period (assuming 1,345 vehicles use
   the technologies).
*  The PM emissions reductions can potentially
   result in human health and environmental
   benefits, including 0.49 to 0.70 avoided cases
   of premature mortality, with an economic
   value of $3.2 to $4.5 million (assuming 1,345
   vehicles use the technologies).1

*  The PM and other emissions reductions can
   potentially result in additional, quantifiable
   and non-quantifiable, human health and
   environmental benefits.

   As market penetration increases, emission
reductions and other benefits also could increase.
In fact, based on the analysis in this case study,
the ETV Program estimates that if 10% of the
current fleet of heavy-duty diesel buses and trucks
use an ETV-verified diesel retrofit technology, the
following benefits could be realized:

*  The technologies could reduce PM emissions
   by approximately 9,000 to 31,000 tons over
   seven years, with associated HC and CO
   reductions of up to 148,000 tons and up to
   393,000 tons, respectively, over the same
   period.
*  The PM emissions reductions could result
   in human health and environmental benefits,
   including 680 to 2,400 avoided instances
1 In 1999 dollars.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                      13

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    of premature mortality, with an associated
    economic value of $4.4 to $15.5 billion.2
*  The PM and other emissions reductions could
    result in additional, quantifiable and non-
    quantifiable, human health and environmental
    benefits.
*  The resulting PM, CO, and  HC reductions
    also could help states and communities comply
    with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    (NAAQSs), particularly in ten areas of the
    country at risk for exceeding the NAAQSs
    for PM and 45 areas at risk for exceeding the
    NAAQSs for ozone.
    Other benefits of the ETV Program include
the development of three well-accepted diesel
retrofit technology protocols, which have
advanced efforts to standardize protocols across
programs. The ETV protocols are currently
posted on the EPA's Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
Program (VDRP) and ETV Web sites and can
be used by retrofit technology manufacturers and
others to generate data on the performance of
diesel engine  retrofit technologies. Technology
vendors have  submitted the data generated by
ETV using these protocols to the VDRP. VDRP
has used this information to  determine, at least in
part, whether to post ETV-verified technologies
on the VDRP-verified technology list. Posting on
the VDRP list is expected to reduce the amount
of state- or program-specific testing needed  to
evaluate retrofit technologies and determine  the
pollutant reductions associated with their use.
Ultimately, this information will assist decision
makers responsible for retrofitting fleets and
administering grant programs.
   2.1.1   Environmental, Health, and
          Regulatory Background
Diesel engines used in heavy-duty trucks, buses,
and non-road equipment are durable and provide
good fuel economy. Heavy-duty diesel trucks
and buses account for about one quarter of PM
emissions from mobile sources. In some urban
areas, the contribution is even greater (U.S. EPA,
2000a). Heavy-duty diesel trucks, buses, and non-
road equipment also accounted for approximately
3.6% of the national emissions of fine particles
(known as PM2 s) from all sources (mobile and
stationary) in 2001 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
   EPA has determined that diesel exhaust,
including PM, is a likely carcinogen. PM
contributes to serious public health problems
in the U.S., including "premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, aggravation of existing asthma, acute
respiratory symptoms, chronic bronchitis, and
decreased lung function" (66 FR 5002). In general,
children, the elderly, asthmatics, and people with
heart disease, lung disease, or other respiratory
problems are the most sensitive to the health
effects of fine PM (U.S. EPA, 2002a).
   HCs, which are a subset of volatile organic
compounds, contribute to the formation of
ground-level ozone. Ground-level ozone
"damages lung tissue, reduces lung function,
and sensitizes the lungs to other irritants" (U.S.
EPA, 2005a). Like fine PM, ambient ozone
levels affect children, asthmatics, and others with
impaired respiratory systems, as well as healthy
adults (U.S. EPA, 2005a). Additional health
and environmental effects associated with HCs
include cancer, anemia, disruption of production
of blood components,  reduction in the number of
blood platelets, excessive bone marrow formation,
depression of lymphocyte counts, reproductive
and developmental effects, irritation of eyes and
mucous membranes, asthma attacks and asthma-
like symptoms, upper respiratory tract irritation
and congestion, direct toxic effects to animals,
and bioaccumulation in the food chain (U.S. EPA,
2002b).
   Exposure to very high concentrations
of CO can be fatal. At typical atmospheric
concentrations, CO does not present a risk for
young, healthy nonsmokers, but it can exacerbate
chest pain and reduce exercise tolerance in people
with existing heart problems. In urban areas, CO
can either produce or destroy ozone, depending on
the concentrations of other pollutants (U.S. EPA,
2000b).
   In addition to human health effects,
diesel emissions also contribute to a variety of
environmental problems. Ozone causes forestry
2 In 1999 dollars.
14
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
and crop losses, and PM deposition blackens
buildings and soils statues, monuments, and other
materials. PM emissions have also impacted
visibility in many areas of the country, including
national parks and wilderness areas (66 FR 5002).
    EPA is responsible under the Clean Air
Act for setting  National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQSs) for pollutants considered
harmful to public health and the environment.
In 2001, EPA found that there were ten areas
of the country,  with a population of 28 million,
that currently exceeded, or were at significant risk
of exceeding, the NAAQSs for PM in the near
future. EPA also found that there were 45 areas,
with a population of 128 million people, at risk
of exceeding the NAAQSs for ozone. To address
the harmful effects  of diesel exhaust and assist
these areas in meeting the NAAQSs, EPA set new
emissions standards for 2007 model year highway
diesel engines on January 18,2001 (66 FR 5002).
The new standard for PM is 0.01 gram per brake
horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr), representing a
significant reduction from previous standards: 0.1
g/bhp-hr for the 1994 model year, 0.25 g/bhp-hr
for the 1991 model year, and 0.6 g/bhp-hr for the
1984 model year (66 FR 5002, U.S. EPA, 2005n).3
    Although these newer standards will
dramatically reduce diesel emissions, EPA
anticipates that it will take a number of years to
phase out older, higher-polluting diesel engines.
Since existing fleets could remain in operation
for another 25 to 30 years, some areas could have
difficulty achieving more immediate air quality
goals (U.S. EPA, 2005b). As a result, some states
are including retrofit programs/projects in their
State Implementation Plans  (SIPs) to help them
meet NAAQSs in the near-term, before vehicles
that meet the new standards are phased in. A
SIP contains a  state's  strategy for achieving the
emission reductions needed to establish and
maintain compliance  with NAAQSs. Under EPA's
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction
Policy, states that utilize voluntary retrofit projects
and include them in their SIP emission inventory
can receive reduction  credits of up to 3% of the
reductions necessary to meet air quality goals.
States also can  include retrofit programs that
             etrofit technologies] will be especially
             important in the early years of the
  program when new vehicles standards are just
  beginning to have an impact, and when states and
  local areas  need to gain large reductions to attain
  air quality goals." —66 FR 5002
achieve emissions reductions greater than 3% by
working with their EPA regional office. States
can calculate SIP credits for voluntary retrofit
programs using methods outlined on the VDRP
Web site (U.S. EPA, 2004m).
    In addition, voluntary programs, like the
VDRP, the SmartWay Transport Partnership,
and Clean School Bus USA, have spurred the
development and use of pollution-reducing
retrofit devices on existing engines and vehicles.
These programs are designed to encourage the
use of less-polluting alternatives and control
technologies. EPA has also established incentive
programs that can be applied at the federal,
regional, state, and local levels. These programs
further reduce the initial cost of diesel retrofits
and other pollution control technologies.
            ver the last five years, EPA has broug
            forward a number of very successful
  voluntary programs all designed to reduce emissions
  from the diesel fleet. In conjunction with state
  and  local governments, public interest groups, and
  industry partners, EPA has established a goal of
  reducing emissions from the over I I  million diesel
  engines in the existing fleet by 2014. Looking at
  these engines, EPA determined there were general
  sectors that provided the best opportunity to obtain
  significant reductions ... These sectors are school
  buses, ports, construction, freight, and agriculture.
  Each program provides technical and financial
  assistance to stakeholders interested  in reducing
  their fleets' emissions effectively and efficiently."
  —EPA's National Clean Diesel Campaign Web site
  (U.S. EPA, 2005p)
3 To meet the new PM standard, EPA estimates that catalyzed diesel participate niters will be the control technology of choice (U.S. EPA,
  2000c). This technology is among those that ETV verified for retrofit applications, as discussed under "Technology Description," below.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                     15

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
   2.1.2 Technology Description
The ETV Program has verified the performance
of seven diesel engine retrofit technologies listed
in Exhibit 2.1-1. These technologies include
exhaust treatment emission control (or "after
treatment") devices, retrofit fuels, and crankcase
filtration systems, although a number of the
verified technologies were actually systems
consisting of multiple components/elements that
were tested together.
    Exhaust treatment devices include diesel
particulate filters (DPFs) and diesel oxidation
catalyst mufflers (DOCs). DPFs and DOCs are
devices that are installed in the exhaust system,
similar to a muffler. In general, DPFs reduce PM
emissions by physically trapping the PM and
burning  it in the exhaust stream, while DOCs
reduce PM, HC, and CO emissions by converting
them to  less-harmful compounds, such as water
vapor and carbon dioxide. Retrofit fuels, such as
fuel reformulations  and fuel additives, generally
reduce NOx and/or PM emissions by modifying
the fuel properties of diesel fuel (e.g., lowering
the sulfur or aromatics content), thus allowing the
diesel fuel to burn more cleanly and produce less
air pollution. Finally, crankcase filtration systems
reduce PM emissions by capturing the "blowby
gases" and removing the particulate matter (e.g.,
using filters) before routing the gases to the
engine's intake. These technologies are applicable
to a relatively large number of older and current
model turbocharged diesel engines that contain
open crankcase systems (66 FR 5002; Northwest
Air Pollution Authority, 2002; US EPA, 2005c,
2003b, 1997a, 2005a).
    The ETV Program tested each of the
technologies for heavy-duty diesel engine
emission reductions using the ETV Test/QA
Plan for the Verification Testing of Diesel
Exhaust Catalysts, PM Filters, and Engine
Modification Technologies for  Highway and
Nonroad Use Diesel Engines, as well as a test-
specific addendum developed for each technology.
The Heavy-Duty Transient Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) for exhaust emissions testing
was incorporated in this test/CA plan and was
performed during each test condition (40 CFR
Part 86). The test sequence included the baseline
test condition, the degreened test condition, and
the aged test condition. The baseline  engines were
not modified during the test sequence. Cold and
hot start test conditions were used for each test
condition. PM and gas pollutants were measured
at each test condition. The focus of these
verification tests was to determine the percent
emission reduction achieved for PM, relative to
the emission levels produced by the same baseline
engine without the retrofit technology in place,
although operating conditions and ancillary
      Vendor and Technology Name
      Clean Clear Fuels Universal Fuel Cell
      Clean Diesel Technologies' Fuel-borne Catalyst with CleanAir
      System's Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler
      Clean Diesel Technologies' Fuel-borne Catalyst with Mitsui/
      PUREarth Catalyzed Wire Mesh Filter

      Donaldson Company Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler, Series
      6000 Catalyst Formulation and Spiracle™ Closed Crankcase
      Filtration System
      Donaldson Company Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler, Series
      6100 Catalyst Formulation and Spiracle™ Closed Crankcase
      Filtration System
      Donaldson Company Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffler, Series
      6100 Catalyst Formulation
      Lubrizol Engine Control Systems Purifilter Particulate Filter

      Sources: RTI, 2005,2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c.
                                                                       CHNOLOGIES
               Technology Description
   A fuel cell that is a high-density magnet with a field streng
   of at least 1,000 gauss.
   A platinum/cerium catalyst added to fuel and used in
   combination with a DOC for exhaust treatment.
   A platinum/cerium catalyst added to fuel and used in
   combination with a lightly catalyzed wire mesh filter for
   exhaust treatment.
   A DOC used in combination with a crankcase filtration
   system that uses two filtration stages integrated into a single,
   replaceable filter cartridge.
   A DOC used in combination with a crankcase filtration
   system that uses two filtration stages integrated into a single,
   replaceable filter cartridge.
   A DOC used without an additional filtration system.

   A passively regenerated DPF made from precious and base
   metals.
 16
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                     2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
measurements were recorded. NCL emissions also
                                A
were measured, although the tested technologies
are not intended to control that pollutant (RTI,
2003a).
   As noted above, the seven verified
technologies represent a variety of control
technologies, including some that controlled
crankcase emissions and some that did not. The
reductions in exhaust PM emissions achieved
during ETV testing ranged from 22% to 95%,
or 0.016 to 0.15 g/bhp-hr, for four of the five
technologies that were tested on diesel engines
with open crankcase vents. These technologies
also reduced HCs by 37% to 100% (or 0.045
to 0.35 g/bhp-hr) and CO by 38% to 87% (or
0.041 to 0.93 g/bhp-hr). No emission reductions
were observed for the fifth technology tested
on an engine with an open crankcase vent. The
reductions in exhaust plus crankcase vent PM
emissions for the remaining two technologies
that included a crankcase vent filter ranged from
21% to 34% (or 0.019 to 0.032 g/bhp-hr). These
technologies also reduced HCs by 42%4 to 62%
(or 0.12 to 0.14 g/bhp-hr) and  CO by 12% to
35% (or 0.12 to 0.43 g/bhp-hr). As expected, NOX
emission reductions were none  or minimal for all
seven technologies and are not  considered further
in this case study (RTI, 2005, 2004a, 2004b,
2004c, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). The ETV Program
did not verify the cost of installing the retrofit
devices, but general retrofit cost data are  available
from the Manufacturers of Emissions Controls
Association's Independent Cost Survey for Emission
Control Retrofit Technologies (MECA, 2000).
  2.1.3  Outcomes
Based on the sales and marketing data reported
below under "Technology Acceptance and Use
Outcomes," at least 1,345 vehicles have or are
expected to apply the ETV-verified diesel engine
retrofit technologies (1,200 school buses applying
Donaldson's technology, 125 vehicles applying
Clean Diesel Technology's technology, and 20
Diesel engine in a dynamometer test cell at Southwest
Research Institute

vehicles applying Lubrizol's technology). Because
the reports indicate additional, non-quantified
applications of the technologies, this estimate
represents the minimum market penetration.
Based on data from U.S. EPA (1999b and 2002b),
the ETV Program estimates there are currently
more than 7.7 million heavy-duty diesel trucks and
buses in the US that are eligible to be retrofitted.
Appendix A describes the basis of this estimate.
Many of these vehicles could apply the ETV-
verified retrofit technologies.  Owners of older
vehicles that are due for replacement in the near
future are unlikely to invest in retrofits for these
vehicles. Therefore, this estimate only includes
vehicles that are up to 25-years-old or less.5

    The ETV Program used this estimate of
the total potential market to estimate future
applications of the ETV-verified retrofit
technologies based on the two market penetration
scenarios identified in Exhibit 2.1-2: 10% and
25% of the total potential market. The estimates
of pollutant reductions and human health,
environmental, and economic outcomes shown
below also are based on these market penetration
scenarios.
4 Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) data were used in this case because low sulfur diesel (LSD) baseline data were not sufficient to calculate a
  quantitative reduction.

5 As discussed in Appendix A, the ETV Program included vehicles that are up to 25-years-old or less because diesel vehicles typically can
  be in service up to 30 years and retrofit technologies are recommended for vehicles with at least five years of remaining service. Thus,
  25-year-old vehicles would be the oldest vehicles with sufficient service remaining for retrofit technologies.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                              17

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
        NUMBER OF VEHICLES THAT COULD
                 POTENTIALLY APPLY
           ETV~VERIFIED DIESEL ENGINE
             RETROFIT TECHNOLOGIES
                                  Number of
                                   Vehicles
  M  Current Minimum Penetration
     Values rounded to nearest 100,000, except for current
            penetration
Pollutant Reduction Outcomes
Based on the number of vehicles in Exhibit
2.1-2 and additional data from U.S. EPA
(2002b), the ETV Program estimated pollutant
reductions for the current minimum and future
market penetration scenarios. The upper-  and
lower-bound estimates reflect the differences
in pollutant reduction performance among the
verified technologies.
    Exhibit 2.1-3 shows the pollutant reduction
estimates. These estimates assume that, on
average, retrofitted vehicles will use the ETV-
verified technology(ies) for a period of seven
         ESTIMATED POTENTIAL POLLUTANT
          ~ EDUCTIONS FOR ETV-VERIFIED
             DIESEL ENGINE RETROFIT
     Market
     Penetration
                  Pollutant Reduction (tons
                     after seven years)
                                     CO
                    Upper Bound
     Current Minimum
     10%
                              35
                          148,000
                          369,000
   120
393,000
982,000
                    Lower Bound
                          6.4
                        9,000
Current Minimum
10%
    65
 83,000
207,000
     Values rounded to nearest 1,000 tons, except for current
     minimum penetration (rounded to two significant figures)
years.6 Appendix A describes the methodology
and assumptions used to develop these estimates.

Environmental and Health Outcomes
Based on data from EPA's Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the new diesel emissions
standards (U.S. EPA, 2000c), the ETV Program
estimated the human health outcomes associated
with the PM reductions (shown in Exhibit 2.1-
3) that could be attributed to the use of ETV-
verified diesel retrofit technologies. Appendix
A describes the methodology and assumptions
used in these estimates. These outcomes include
avoided cases of premature mortality, acute
and chronic illnesses, hospital and emergency
room visits, and lost work days. The estimates
assume a straight-line relationship between
pollutant reductions and reductions in health
effects estimated in the RIA. This assumption
is most likely a gross simplification of the actual
relationship between these  two factors for a
number of reasons discussed in Appendix A.
The reader should also be aware that there are a
number of uncertainties, discussed in detail in  the
RIA, associated with the underlying air pollution
exposure studies used in the RIA to estimate the
PM-related effects. In  spite of these limitations,
the estimates here represent reasonable,
conservative (low) estimates of health outcomes
associated with PM reductions. Exhibit 2.1-4
shows the estimates for all the scenarios.7 It is
important to note, however, that EPA is currently
looking into data on metal  emissions from diesel
retrofit technologies that use fuel additives.
   In addition to the benefits shown in Exhibit
2.1-4, there are other, non-quantifiable health
benefits associated with reductions in PM,
including avoided cases of infant mortality, low
birth weight, changes in pulmonary function,
chronic respiratory diseases other than chronic
bronchitis, morphological changes, altered host
defense mechanisms, cancer, and non-asthma
respiratory episodes requiring emergency room
visits (U.S. EPA, 2000c). As discussed in Section
6 These are conservative (low) estimates because they do not include emissions reductions from non-road diesel equipment that can apply
  the retrofit technologies and because the assumption of a seven-year retrofit life is believed to be conservative (low), as discussed in
  Appendix A.

7 Although there are a number of uncertainties associated with these estimates, they are based on conservative (low) estimates of emissions
  reductions and do not include other, non-quantifiable health benefits from PM reduction. Therefore, they may be conservative (low)
  estimates.
 18
                                                  Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
                                     TED POTENTIAL Hut
                               TV-VERIFIED DIESEL  ENGI>
             OUTCOMES FOR
             ECHNOLOGIES
       PM-related Outcomes Over Seven YearsA'B
 Current
Minimum
                                                                                 Market Penetration
10%
                                                        Upper Bound
Premature mortalityc (adults, 30 and over)
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over)
Hospital Admissions — Pneumonia (adults, over 64)
Hospital Admissions — COPDE (adults, 64 and over)
Hospital Admissions —Asthma (65 and younger)
Hospital Admissions — Cardiovascular (adults, over 64)
  nergency Room Visits for Asthma (65 and younger)
Asthma Attacks (asthmatics, all ages)0
Acute bronchitis (children, 8-12)
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7-14)
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children,9-1 I)
Minor restricted activity days (adults, age  18-65)
Work loss days (adults, 18-65)

Premature mortalityc (adults, 30 and over)
Chronic bronchitis (adults, 26 and over)
Hospital Admissions — Pneumonia (adults, over 64)
Hospital Admissions — COPDE (adults, 64 and over)
Hospital Admissions —Asthma (65 and younger)
Hospital Admissions — Cardiovascular (adults, over 64)
Emergency Room Visits for Asthma (65 and younger)
Asthma Attacks (asthmatics, all ages)0
Acute bronchitis (children, 8-12)
Lower respiratory symptoms (children, 7-14)
Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatic children,9-1 I)
Minor restricted activity days (adults, age  18-65)
Work loss days (adults, 18-65)
                                                                         15
                                                                         16
                                                                       670
                                                        Lower Bound
                                                                         10
                                                                         II
                                                                       470
                    660,000
                    130,000
                                                                                                        25%
                   560
                   430
                 36,000
                  3,600
                 40,000
                 40,000
              1,600,000
                320,000
       Values rounded to two significant figures.
       A Outcomes were developed based on the avoided instances of the different endpoints reported inTableVII-19 of EPA (2000c).
         These incidences were rounded to the nearest 100 in Table VII-19 of U.S. EPA (2000c).
       B PM-related benefits, as reported in Table VII-19 of U.S. EPA (2000c), are based on the assumption that Eastern U.S. nitrate
         reductions are equal to one-fifth the nitrate reductions predicted by the Regulatory Modeling System for Aerosols and
         Deposition (REMSAD) [see Chapter II of U.S. EPA  (2000c) for a discussion of REMSAD and model performance].
       C Premature mortality associated with ozone was not separately included in the analysis for the rule [also note that the
         estimated value for PM-related premature mortality assumes the 5 year distributed lag structure described in Section D-3 of
         U.S. EPA (2000c)].
       D A detailed listing of unquantified PM, ozone, CO, and  non-methane hydrocarbon related health effects associated with the
         rule is provided in Table VII-1 of U.S. EPA (2000c). For some endpoints such as asthma attacks, EPA was able to quantify the
         reduction in incidence, but presented the monetization as an alternative calculation.
       E COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
       Note:  Footnotes A - D were taken from EPA 2000c, with  minor changes.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                    19

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
2.1.1, PM reductions can also result in non-
health-related environmental benefits, including
improved visibility. The ETV Program's estimates
of visibility benefits are included under Economic
Outcomes, below.
    Quantitative data are not available to estimate
the environmental and health outcomes associated
with reductions in HCs and CO. As discussed in
Section 2.1.1, however, HCs and CO can impact
ground-level ozone, and HCs have significant
direct health effects. Therefore, the benefits of
reducing HCs and CO also could be significant.

Economic Outcomes
The human health and environmental benefits
discussed above have an economic value. Based
on the unit values (e.g., per avoided case of
chronic bronchitis) provided in EPA's RIA
for the new diesel emissions standards (U.S.
EPA, 2000c), the ETV Program estimated
the monetary value associated with the human
health outcomes associated with the use of ETV-
verified diesel retrofit technologies (shown in
Exhibit 2.1-4). The ETV Program also added
the estimated monetary value associated with
visibility improvements, assuming a straight line
relationship between PM reductions and the
monetary benefits estimated for this outcome in
the RIA.
    Exhibit 2.1-5 shows the total estimated
economic benefits for all of these outcomes for
all the scenarios.8 Appendix A describes the
methodology and assumptions used in these
estimates. In addition,  there would be further,
significant economic benefits associated with
the non-quantifiable health benefits from PM
reductions and the health and environmental
benefits from HC reductions. Quantitative data,
however, are not available to estimate these
additional economic benefits.

Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
As discussed in Section 2.1.1, ten areas of the
country are at significant risk for exceeding the
NAAQSs for PM and 45 areas are at significant
risk for exceeding the NAAQSs for ozone.
         ESTIMATED POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
         "'EF/TS FROM ETV-VER/F/ED D/ESEL
           JGINE RETROFIT TECHNOLOGIES
                           Million dollars over
                              seven years
                          jwer        Upper
     i
Market
Penetration
Current Minimum
10%
25%
Values rounded to nearest $ 100 million, except for
current minimum penetration (rounded to two significant
figures)
Although EPA's new emissions standards for
diesel exhaust will assist these areas in meeting the
NAAQSs, the new standards do not take effect
until the 2007 model year. Even when the standards
take effect, older, higher-polluting vehicles will
remain in service for as long as 25 to 30 years.
In the interim, retrofit technologies can be used
to gain the emission reductions and SIP credits
needed to attain state and local air quality goals.
    To help states, cities, and other entities
select retrofit technologies that could be used to
generate SIP credits, EPA has developed a list
of technologies that have been verified by the
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality's
(OTAQls) VDRP and certified under the EPA
Urban Bus Retrofit Program (UBRP). Vendors
have submitted data collected during ETV testing
to VDRP, and VDRP has used these data, at
least in part, to determine whether to post the
technologies on the VDRP-verified technology
list (U.S. EPA, 2004a).9  Since this list is widely
used, ETV expects that posting on the VDRP
list will reduce the need for state- or program-
specific testing to assess the performance of
retrofit technologies and calculate emission
reductions for credits towards compliance
with NAAQS limits, as well as facilitate states
claiming the same reductions for the  same devices.
Ultimately, this information will assist state and
local personnel responsible for achieving near-
term compliance with NAAQS limit, as well as
decision makers responsible for retrofitting fleets
and administering grant programs.
8 These may be conservative (low) estimates, for the same reasons discussed above and because they are in 1999 dollars.

9 Vendors interested in potentially pursuing VDRP verification using ETV data can request VDRPs involvement early in the verification
  process, thus increasing the likelihood that data are collected that meet both ETV's and VDRP's verification needs.
20
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
Recent information indicates that ETV-verified
diesel technologies are being used to reduce
emissions by a number of federal, regional, local,
and state diesel retrofit programs. For example,
Donaldson, Inc. will provide approximately
100 ETV-verified diesel emission control
devices under a grant to the New York State
Energy Research  and Development Authority
(NYSERDA) from EPAs Clean School Bus USA
Program, a voluntary program designed to reduce
pollution from public school buses (NYSERDA,
2004). These devices are in addition to the 1,100
ETV-verified emission control technologies
Donaldson announced it would be providing to
41 New York schools under the New York State
Clean Air School Bus Program sponsored by
NYSERDA (Donaldson, Inc., 2004).
   Companies participating in the SmartWay
Transport Partnership  Program, a voluntary
partnership between EPA and various sectors in
the freight industry sectors, also plan to use verified
diesel retrofit technologies. In December 2003,
Clean Diesel Technologies received commercial
orders from Coca  Cola Enterprises, a SmartWay
Transport Partner, to retrofit beverage delivery
trucks in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas with
the ETV-verified  Platinum Plus Purifier (CDT,
2003). Clean Diesel Technologies also retrofitted
125 waste-hauling and beverage delivery trucks and
landfill equipment owned and operated by Waste
Management, Inc. and Coca Cola Enterprises Inc.
in Pennsylvania under  two State of Pennsylvania
projects (PADEP, 2004; CDT, 2005,2004). Clean
Diesel Technologies also recently announced
that both of its ETV-verified technologies have
been selected by the State of Massachusetts for
use with municipal and public vehicles and buses,
as well as two demonstration programs with the
Texas Council of Environmental Quality and
NYSERDA, respectively (CDT, 2005).
   Lubrizol Engine Control Systems is
partnering with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), Sunoco, and
the Philadelphia Diesel Difference to retrofit 20
of the City of Philadelphia's 6,000 diesel powered
vehicles with its ETV-verified technology (Brown,
K., 2005). Lubrizol also is partnering with the
PADEP to retrofit several vehicles at Temple
University's Philadelphia campus (PADEP, 2004).
           btaining EPA's ETVVerification has
           enabled Donaldson to participate in
 many national voluntary retrofit programs ...
 being listed on EPA's VDRP Web site has led to a
 number of bid invitations and supply contracts for
 retrofit programs." —Julian Imes, Director, Exhaust
 Emissions Control at Donaldson Company, Inc. (U.S.
   'A 2004a)
Scientific Advancement Outcomes
According to Glen Reid of Clean Diesel
Technologies, when the company's technology
was in a pre-commercial stage, there was no single
established protocol for retrofit devices, so the
company could not demonstrate its technology's
performance in a way that was representative of
real life. The company also "found that the testing
protocol for fuel additives was inappropriate
for products which required a conditioning
period or provided a residual performance when
discontinued."The protocol that ETV developed
"leveled the playing field" (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
In addition to developing an appropriate testing
protocol, the ETV Program has advanced efforts
to standardize testing through the stakeholder
relationship it maintains with OTAQi the
California Air Resources Board, and other groups
that are involved in verifying diesel retrofit
technologies. The three testing protocols are
currently available on the ETV and VDRP Web
sites.

          erification under the ETV Program has
          generated considerable commercial
  interest in our  technology from end users, as well
  as regulators and potential distribution partners
  ... .There has also been a significant increase in
  the requests for proposals from school districts
  and commercial fleets since our system was
  posted to the EPA's diesel  retrofit Web site."
  —James Valentine, President and Chief Operating
  Officer of Clean Diesel Technologies (U.S.  EPA,  2004a)
          small company would never be able
          to access Coca-Cola if they  did not
  go through the ETV process."  —Glen Reid, Vice
  President of Sales and Marketing for Clean Diesel
  Technologies (U.S. EPA, 2004a)
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                             21

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
                                      ACRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY
 APCT Center    ETV's Air Pollution Control Technology Center       NYSERDA

 CO             carbon monoxide                                OTAQ

 COPD          chronic obstructive pulmonary disease              PADEP

 DOC           diesel oxidation catalyst muffler                    PM

 DPF            diesel particulate filter                            REMSAD

 FTP             Federal Test Procedure                           RIA

 g/bhp-hr         grams per brake horsepower per hour              SIP

 HCs            hydrocarbons                                   UBRP

 LSD            low sulfur diesel                                 ULSD

 NAAQSs        National Ambient Air Quality Standards             VDRP

 NO             nitrogen oxides
           New York State Energy Research and
           Development Authority
           ERA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality

           Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
           Protection
           particulate matter

           Regulatory  Modeling System for Aerosols and
           Deposition
           Regulatory  Impact Analysis

           State Implementation Plan

           ERA's Urban Bus Retrofit Program

           ultra-low sulfur diesel

           ERA's Voluntary Diesel Retrofit Program

22
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      2.2
                                    Eductor  Vapor
            Recovery   Unit  (EVRU)
        ^| he ETV Program's Greenhouse
          Gas Technology (GHG) Center,
          operated by Southern Research
          Institute under a cooperative
          agreement with EPA, has verified the
performance of the Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit
(EVRU) manufactured by COMM Engineering
of Lafayette, Louisiana. The EVRU is a
technology designed to recover gas from storage
tank vents and other low-pressure hydrocarbon
vent sources for utilization or sale. The technology
reduces emissions of pollutants including
methane, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Methane is
a greenhouse gas linked to global climate change.
HAPs and VOCs have significant human health
effects.
   Available sales and marketing data indicate
that at least 11 U.S. facilities have installed the
ETV-verified EVRU technology. These facilities
selected the technology, at least in part, because of
the verification results and outreach conducted by
ETV. Based on the analysis in this  case study, the
estimated benefits of these existing installations
include the following:
*  Emissions reductions of 280 million standard
   cubic feet per year (MMscfy) of methane,
   1,700 tons per year of HAPs, and 21,600 tons
   per year of VOCs, with associated climate
   change and human health benefits
*  Increased recovery of natural gas with a
   potential economic value of approximately
   $6.3 million per year.
   As described in this case study, the total
potential market for the EVRU technology is
much larger than 11 facilities. Based on the
analysis in this case study, the ETV Program
estimates that:

*  The EVRU technology could assist up to 120
   facilities in complying with EPA's National
   Emission Standards.

*  Up to 3,170 facilities (out of an estimated
   potential market of 12,670) could voluntarily
   install the EVRU, in part because of the
   technology's economic benefits.

*  The EVRU technology could reduce methane
   emissions by 2 billion to 6 billion standard
   cubic feet per year (bscfy), HAPs by 11,300 to
   33,200 tons per year, and VOCs by 142,000 to
   416,000 tons per year, with associated climate
   change and human health benefits (assuming
   that technology is installed by 1,000 to 3,170
   facilities).

*  The estimated economic value of the
   recovered natural gas (which equals the
   emission reduction estimates listed previously)
   could equal $41 million to $120 million per
   year.

   Furthermore, additional (unquantified)
maintenance cost savings also could be realized by
the facilities that install the EVRU.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                    23

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
   2.2.1  Environmental, Health, and
          Regulatory Background
Oil and natural gas condensate storage tank
batteries at production and processing facilities in
the United States emit an estimated 23.3 bscfy of
methane.10 U.S. EPA (1997d) estimated that these
batteries also emit 7,000 tons per year of HAPs,
and more than 22,000 tons per year of VOCs.11
Each of these pollutants can have significant
environmental and health effects.
    Methane is a greenhouse gas that has had a
150-fold increase in atmospheric concentration
since pre-industrial times. Although it is removed
from the atmosphere by reaction with the hydroxyl
radical, there are no other significant "sinks"
(i.e., mechanisms that remove methane from the
atmosphere). Approximately 50% of methane
emissions are the result of human actions. Because
its greenhouse potential is 23 times more potent
than carbon dioxide and it has an atmospheric
lifetime of about 12 years, methane is an
important contributor to  global climate change
(U.S. EPA, 2004i). The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that
the global average surface temperature has  risen
0.6 degrees centigrade in the 20th century, with
the 1990s being the warmest decade on record.
Sea level has risen 0.1 to 0.2 meters in the  same
time frame. Snow cover has decreased by about
10% and the extent and thickness of Northern
Hemisphere sea ice has decreased significantly
(IPCC, 2001a). Climate changes resulting  from
emissions of greenhouse gases, including methane,
can have potential adverse outcomes including  the
following:

*  More frequent or severe heat waves, storms,
    floods, and droughts
*  Increased air pollution
*  Increased geographic ranges and activity of
    disease-carrying animals, insects, and parasites
*  Altered marine ecology
*  Displacement of coastal populations
*   Saltwater intrusion into coastal water supplies.
    Each of these outcomes could result in
increased deaths, injuries, and illnesses (U.S. EPA,
1997b). Many of the potentially most important
impacts, however, depend upon whether rainfall
increases or decreases, which cannot be reliably
projected for specific areas. Scientists currently are
unable to determine which parts of the United
States will become wetter or drier, but there is
likely to be an overall trend toward increased
precipitation and evaporation, more intense
rainstorms, and drier soils (U.S. EPA, 2000d).
    The HAPs emitted by the oil and gas
industries include benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene (known collectively as BTEX
compounds), plus n-hexane. These pollutants
have a  range of carcinogenic and toxic effects on
humans. Benzene is a  known human carcinogen
that causes leukemia in exposed populations.
Other  health effects associated with these HAPs
include the following:  irritation of the skin, eyes,
and upper respiratory tract; blood disorders;
reproductive disorders in women; nervous system
effects; abnormal heart function; and effects on
kidneys (U.S. EPA, 2004i).
    VOCs contribute significantly to ozone
formation and thus to  both human health and
environmental degradation. Adverse health
effects  include: transient changes in pulmonary
function, transient respiratory symptoms and
effects  on exercise performance, increased airway
responsiveness, transient pulmonary inflammation,
increased susceptibility to respiratory infection,
increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, and, possibly, premature mortality
(U.S. EPA, 1997c). For crops, trees, and forested
ecosystems, elevated ozone levels can inhibit
growth and yield, create leaf damage, increase
susceptibility to pests and disease, and affect long-
term survival (IPCC, 2001a).
    To  address the  effects of HAPs and other
pollutants emitted  by the oil and gas industries,
on June 17,1999, EPA issued National Emission
Standards for oil and natural gas production.
Among other requirements, the standards call
10 See Appendix B for the basis of this estimate.

11 Note that, as discussed in Appendix B, there is some uncertainty about national emissions estimates of these pollutants for this specific
   source category. Because of this uncertainty, the ETV Program did not use the estimates of HAP and VOC emissions from U.S. EPA
   (1997d) in estimating outcomes.

24                                                    Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
for operators to install control devices to reduce
vent gas emissions from certain storage tanks
(64 FR 32610). EPA estimated that 120 storage
tank batteries would be required to install control
devices (U.S. EPA, 1997d).12
   In addition, to address emissions of methane
from the oil and natural gas industry, EPA has
established the Natural Gas STAR Program.
This program is "a voluntary partnership that
encourages companies across the natural gas and
oil industries to adopt cost-effective technologies
and practices that improve operational efficiency
and reduce emissions of methane" (U.S. EPA,
2005d). Under the Natural Gas STAR Program,
partner companies voluntarily implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce
methane emissions, when these BMPs are cost-
effective for the partners (U.S. EPA, 2005d).
  2.2.2  Technology Description
The EVRU is a technology designed to recover
gas from storage tank vents and other low-
pressure hydrocarbon vent sources for utilization
or sale. The EVRU is a non-mechanical eductor
(or jet pump) that recovers vent gas by using high-
pressure motive gas to entrain hydrocarbon vapors
from low-pressure sources. The facility's existing
dehydrated high-pressure natural gas pipeline
supplies the motive gas. The recovered gas can
serve as fuel onsite or be repressurized with a
booster compressor and injected into a natural
gas transmission line for sale. It is a closed-loop
system designed to reduce or eliminate emissions
of greenhouse gases (methane and carbon
dioxide), VOCs, HAPs, and other constituents
present in vent gas. Unlike conventional vapor
recovery systems, the system has no moving parts
to maintain, resulting in lower maintenance costs
and less operational downtime (and, therefore,
greater vent gas recovery over the course of a given
period).

    The ETV Program conducted testing of the
EVRU at TotalFinaElf's El Ebanito exploration
and production facility 30 miles northwest of
McAllen, Texas. The facility handles separation
of natural gas and crude oil condensate product,
gas compression, and gas dehydration from
wells within a 5-mile radius. Typically, crude oil
production ranges between 900 and 1,200 barrels
per day. The EVRU was installed to recover
vent gas from a battery of seven storage tanks
(Southern Research Institute, 2002).

    The ETV Program verified that the
EVRU was capable of capturing all of the tank
                        Indicator Indicator
                         (typ)
   High-Pressure
   Motive Gas
   <~850|Kig)
                                       Discharge
                                         Gas
                                       O-lOpsia)
                                        Low-Press u re
                                        Vent Gas from
                                           Tanks
                                       (0.10 to 0.30 psig)
                                    A schematic diagram of the EVRU
12 EPA has not published more recent data on the number of regulated facilities in this category.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                    25

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
The COMM Engineering EVRU installed
battery emissions. During the five month test,
the EVRU operated 99.91% of the time and
recovered 100% of the vent gas during the
time it was operating. Methane emissions were
reduced by 32.1 MMscfy, HAPs were reduced
by 1.5 MMscfy or 176 tons per year, and other
hydrocarbon emissions were reduced by 30.1
MMscfy. In comparison, prior to the test, the
site's conventional system was estimated to recover
no more than 90% of the vent gas (Southern
Research Institute, 2002).
    Analyses showed the average lower heating
value of the vent gas to be 1,919 British Thermal
Units per standard cubic foot (BTU/scf). At the
average vent gas recovery rate of 174,855 scf per
day (as compared to no control system at all),
this would amount to 335 million BTU per day
(MMBTU/day) recovered (Southern Research
Institute, 2002). At today's natural gas price, the
value of the recovered gas would be greater than
$650,000 per year.13 The total capital, labor, and
materials costs for purchase and installation of
the EVRU were $107,958 (Southern Research
Institute, 2002). At today's natural gas price, the
payback period would be less than two  months.
Since, in this case, the EVRU replaced  an existing
emissions control system, a longer payback
period is expected. Clearly, when the value of
the recovered gas is a major consideration, the
                                                   economics of installing EVRUs at uncontrolled
                                                   sites are much more favorable.
                                                      2.2.3  Outcomes
As discussed below under "Technology
Acceptance and Use Outcomes," COMM
Engineering has installed 11 EVRU units in
the United States since ETV verification was
completed, and projects sales of 1,000 units in the
U.S. and overseas over the next two to three years
(U.S. EPA, 2004a, 2004i). The ETV Program
estimates there are 12,670 storage tank batteries
with the potential to benefit from application of
the EVRU. This estimate includes the 120 storage
tank batteries that might need to install control
devices like EVRU to comply with National
Emission Standards (U.S. EPA, 1997d), as well as
batteries that might replace existing controls with
the EVRU (e.g., to lower maintenance costs, to
replace a system that is not operating properly, to
increase vapor recovery), including batteries not
regulated under the National Emission Standards.
Appendix B explains the  derivation of this
estimate, which ETV used to define the potential
market for the ETV-verified technologies.14
   The ETV Program used this estimate of the
total potential market to estimate the number
of facilities that could apply the EVRU in the
future (i.e., beyond the time frame of the vendor
projection) based on the two market penetration
scenarios identified in Exhibit 2.2-1:  10% and
25% of the total potential market. The ETV
              NUMBER OF FACILITIES
         THAT COULD APPLY THE COMM
               ENGINEERING EVRU
     Market Penetration
     Current Penetration
     COMM Projection
     10%
     25%
     Values rounded
     penetration
Number of
 Facilities

      »
    1,000
    1,270
    3,170
• current market
13 Assumes $5.49 per thousand scf (U.S. DOE, 2005) and 1,027 BTU per scf for typical purchased wellhead natural gas (U.S. DOE, 2003).
  See Appendix B for details on calculating the value of recovered gas.
14 As discussed in Appendix B, this is a conservative (low) estimate.

26                                                    Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
Program also used these market penetration
scenarios to estimate the pollutant reductions and
financial and economic outcomes shown below.

Emissions Reduction Outcomes

The net emissions reduction from application
of the EVRU at a given site depends on (a)
emissions quantities at the site, and (b) whether
the site previously was uncontrolled or installed
the EVRU to replace an existing control device.
Since the quantities of vent gas generated by the
test facility might not be representative of an
"average" facility, the ETV Program estimated
the percent of tank batteries in the market that
have existing controls and then calculated the
average potential emissions, with no controls in
place, on a per facility basis.15 ETV then applied
these estimates and assumptions to the vent gas
recovery rate measured  during ETV testing and
developed total emissions reduction estimates.
Appendix B presents the methodology used in
more detail.
    Exhibit 2.2-2 shows the estimated emissions
reductions for all the scenarios.16 Quantitative data
are not available to  estimate the environmental
and health outcomes associated with these
emissions reductions. As discussed in Section
2.2.1, however, methane contributes to global
climate change and the health effects of HAPs
and VOCs are significant. Therefore, the benefits
of reducing these emissions also could be
significant.
                     Financial and Economic Outcomes
                     Vent gas recovered by the EVRU has a significant
                     economic value to the facilities applying the
                     technology. Using the methodology discussed
                     in Appendix B, the ETV Program estimated
                     the annual value of the vent gas that could be
                     recovered by the EVRU. Exhibit 2.2-3 shows this
                     estimate for all the scenarios.17
                               ESTIMATED POTENTIAL VALUE OF
                                 RECOVERED GAS FROM THE
                               COMM ENGINEERING EVRU
                                                      Annual Value
                                                       ($ millions)
                          values rounded to nearest $ I  million, except for current
                          market penetration (rounded to nearest $ 100,000)
     Market Penetration
     Current Penetration
     COMM Projection
     10%
     25%
                        In addition to the value of the recovered gas,
                     there are potential savings associated with the
                     lower maintenance requirements of the EVRU
                     compared to conventional vapor recovery units.
                     Quantitative data, however, are not available to
                     estimate these savings.

                     Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
                     As noted in Section 2.2.1, EPA estimated that
                     120 storage tank batteries would install control
                     devices like the EVRU to comply with the
                     National Emission Standards (U.S. EPA, 1997d).
      Market Penetration
      Current Penetration
      COMM Projection
      10%
      25%
Methane (MMscfy)
        280
       2,000
       2,500
       6,000
Annual Pollutant Reduction
  HAPs (tons per year)     VOCs (tons per year)
           1,700                     21,600


          14,100                    177,400
          33,200
     Values rounded to nearest 100, except for methane in the current market penetration scenario (rounded to nearest 10)
15 As discussed in Appendix B, this assumption results in a conservative (low) estimate of outcomes.

16 Appendix B presents the specific data and assumptions used to develop these estimates. These estimates are conservative (low), as
  discussed in that section.

17 Appendix B presents the specific data and assumptions used to develop these estimates. These estimates are conservative (low), as
  discussed in that section.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                   27

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
                       ETV perfo
              at every sales call, and we direct
  potential customers to EPA's Web site so they
  can see for themselves the detailed verification
  reports.The technical performance data is good,
  but it's ETV's independent verification of our
  system's economic payback period that gets the
  most attention by our customers. ETV verification,
  and the outreach conducted by ETV, has been a
  major factor in the success of this technology.
  The technology has been an economic success
  for COMM, but it also provides new revenue
  streams  for our customers and big benefits to
  the environment." —Mark Goodyear, President of
  COMM Engineering (Southern Research Institute,
  2004b; U.S. EPA, 20041)
Because they are regulated, these facilities likely
have existing controls in place. As demonstrated
in the verification test, the EVRU offers lower
maintenance costs and greater vapor recovery
than conventional controls. Therefore, regulated
    facilities might replace their existing controls with
    the EVRU, thereby allowing continued regulatory
    compliance with greater economic benefits.

    Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
    COMM Engineering has installed 11 EVRU
    units in the United States since ETV verification
    was completed, and it projects sales of 1,000 units
    in the U.S. and overseas over the next two to three
    years (Southern Research Institute, 2004b; U.S.
    EPA, 2004a, 2004i; Boyer, 2005). According to
    the vendor (see quote at left), ETV verification
    appears to be a factor in customers' decision to
    purchase the technology.
        In addition, the EVRU has been among the
    technologies highlighted at technology transfer
    workshops sponsored by EPA's Natural Gas
    STAR Program (e.g., Devon et al, 2005; Pioneer
    et al., 2004). The Natural Gas STAR Program
    has publicized ETV verification of the EVRU in
    its Partner Update (U.S. EPA, 2004b), increasing
    awareness of the technology.
                                ACRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY:
 BMPs        Best Management Practices

 bscfy        billion standard cubic feet per year

 BTEX        benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene

 BTU/scf      British Thermal Units per standard cubic foot

 EVRU        EductorVapor Recovery Unit

 GHG Center  ETV's Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
HAPs        hazardous air pollutants

IPCC        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

MMBTU/day   million British Thermal Units per day

MMscfy       million standard cubic feet per year

VOCs        volatile organic compounds
28
       Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                  2.3
     MicroturbinelCombined
                            Heat  and  Power
                   (CHP) Technologies
         I he ETV Program's Greenhouse
         Gas Technology (GHG) Center,
         operated by Southern Research
         Institute under a cooperative
         agreement with EPA, has verified
the performance of six microturbine systems that
generate electricity at the point of use. Several
of the verified technologies also include heat
recovery systems that capture excess thermal
energy from the system and use it to heat water
and/or spaces. Systems that include this option
are commonly termed combined heat and power
(CHP) systems. Microturbine systems, with or
without heat recovery, can reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and pollutants
including nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter
(PM), ammonia, and total hydrocarbons (THCs).
CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases linked to
global climate change. CO, SO2, PM, ammonia,
THCs, and the various compounds in the NOX
family, as well as derivatives formed when NOX
reacts in the environment, cause a wide variety of
health and environmental impacts.
   Available sales data indicate that a capacity
of at least 7.7 megawatts (MW) of ETV-verified
microturbines18 have been installed in CHP
applications in the United States in the last
year. Based on the analysis in this case study, the
estimated benefits of these existing installations
include:
*  Emissions reductions of 12,000 to 21,000 tons
   per year of CO2 and approximately 70 tons per
   year of NOX, with associated climate change,
   environmental, and human health benefits
*  Reduction in emissions of other greenhouse
   gases and pollutants, with additional
   environmental and human health benefits
*  Reduction in natural resource consumption by
   utilizing renewable fuels (such as biogas) or
   by increasing efficiency (and reducing net fuel
   consumption) when well matched to building
   or facility needs in a properly designed CHP
   application.
   As market penetration increases, emission
reductions and other benefits also could increase.
In fact, based on the analysis in this case study
and without assuming any growth from current
sales levels, the ETV Program estimates the total
installed capacity of ETV-verified microturbine/
CHP systems could reach 46.3 MW in the next
five years,19 with the following estimated benefits:

*  Emissions reductions of 70,000 to 127,000
   tons per year of CO2 and 410 to 440 tons per
   year of NOX, with associated climate change,
   environmental, and human health benefits
*  Reduction in emissions of other greenhouse
   gases and pollutants, with additional
   environmental and human health benefits
18 This estimate is based on sales from only one vendor in one year and represents 110 to 130 installations.

19 This estimate includes the 7.7 MW that the ETV Program estimates have already been installed. It represents between approximately
  660 and 770 installations total. It is a conservative (low) estimate, as discussed in Appendix C.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                        29

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
*  Additional reduction in natural resource
    consumption.
    Other benefits of verification include the
development of a well-accepted protocol that
has advanced efforts to standardize protocols
across programs. The Association of State Energy
Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
(ASERTTI), the Department of Energy (DOE),
and state energy offices are adopting this protocol
as a national standard protocol for field testing
microturbine and CHP applications.
   2.3.1  Environmental, Health, and
          Regulatory Background
EPA estimates that, in 2002, the United States
emitted almost 6.4 billion tons of CO2 and nearly
22 million tons of NOX.20 Electricity generation
is the largest single source of CO2 emissions,
accounting for 39% of the total. Electricity
generation also contributes significantly to NOX
emissions, accounting for 21% of the total (U.S.
EPA, 2004c). A variety of other pollutants
also  are emitted during electricity generation,
including CO, SO2, PM, ammonia, and THCs.
Each of these emissions can have significant
environmental and health effects. Conventional
electricity generation also consumes finite natural
resources, with environmental and economic
repercussions.
   CO2 is  the primary greenhouse gas emitted
by human activities in the United States. Its
concentration in the atmosphere has increased
31% since pre-industrial times. As a greenhouse
gas, CO2 contributes to global climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) has concluded that global average surface
temperature has risen 0.6 degrees centigrade
in the 20th century, with the 1990s being the
warmest decade on record. Sea level has risen
0.1 to 0.2 meters in the same time frame. Snow
cover has decreased by about 10% and the extent
and thickness of Northern Hemisphere sea
ice has decreased significantly (IPCC, 2001a).
Climate changes resulting from emissions of
greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane,
can have potential adverse outcomes including the
following:

20 Values converted from gigagrams as reported in U.S. EPA, 2004.
*  More frequent or severe heat waves, storms,
   floods, and droughts
*  Increased air pollution
*  Increased geographic ranges and activity of
   disease-carrying animals, insects, and parasites
*  Altered marine ecology
*  Displacement of coastal populations
*  Saltwater intrusion into coastal water supplies.
   Each of these outcomes can result in increased
deaths, injuries, and illnesses (U.S. EPA, 1997b).
Many of these impacts, however, depend upon
whether rainfall increases or decreases, which
cannot be reliably projected for specific areas.
Scientists currently are unable to determine which
parts of the United States will become wetter
or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend
toward increased precipitation and evaporation,
more intense rainstorms, and drier soils  (U.S.
EPA, 2000d).
   The various compounds in the NOX family
(including nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, nitrous
oxide, nitrates, and nitric oxide) and derivatives
formed when NOY reacts in the environment
                A
cause a wide variety of health and environmental
impacts. These impacts include the following
(U.S. EPA, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2003d):

*  Contributing to the formation of ground-level
   ozone (or smog), which can trigger serious
   respiratory problems
*  Reacting to form nitrate particles, acid
   aerosols, and nitrogen dioxide, which also
   cause respiratory problems
*  Contributing to the formation of acid rain
*  Contributing to nutrient overload that
   deteriorates water quality
*  Contributing to atmospheric particles that
   cause respiratory and other health problems, as
   well as visibility impairment
*  Reacting to form toxic chemicals
*  Contributing to global warming.
   Each of the other pollutants emitted during
electricity generation also can have significant
30
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
environmental and/or health effects. For example,
SO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain and
can cause a variety of other environmental and
health effects. THCs and CO can impact ground-
level ozone formation, and CO can be fatal at
high concentrations. PM can cause premature
mortality and a variety of respiratory effects.
Finally, ammonia can contribute to PM levels and
result in a number of adverse heath effects.21
    As discussed in detail in Sections 2.3.2 and
2.3.3, distributed generation technologies have the
potential to reduce emissions of CO2, NOX, and
other greenhouse gases and pollutants  (e.g., CO,
methane from biogas, SO2, PM, ammonia, and
THCs), as well as conserve finite natural resources
and utilize resources that would otherwise be
wasted (e.g., biogas, landfill gas, and oilfield flare
gas). In recognition of these benefits, EPA has
established programs like the CHP Partnership
to encourage the use of CHP technologies,
including those that use  microturbines. The CHP
Partnership is a voluntary EPA-industry effort
designed to foster cost-effective CHP  projects.
The goal of the partnership is to reduce the
environmental impact of energy generation and
build a cooperative relationship among EPA, the
CHP industry, state and local governments, and
other stakeholders to expand the use of CHP
(U.S. EPA,2005e).
    In a related effort, EPA and many  states are
developing and using output-based regulations
for power generators. Output-based regulations
establish emissions limits on the basis  of units
of emissions per unit of useful power output,
rather than on the traditional basis of units of
emissions per unit of fuel input. The traditional,
input-based approach relies on the use of
emissions control devices, whereas output-based
regulations encourage energy efficiency. Currently
a number of states, including Connecticut and
Massachusetts, have developed output-based
regulations that recognize the energy efficiency
benefits of CHP projects. Regulated sources
can use technologies like the ETV-verified
microturbine/CHP systems as part of  their
emissions control strategy to comply with these
          y installing a CHP system designed to
          meet the thermal and electrical base
  loads of a facility, CHP can increase operational
  efficiency and decrease energy costs, while
  reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that
  contribute to the risks of climate change." —EPA's
  CHP Partnership Web site (U.S. EPA, 2005e)
regulations. EPA also has developed resources,
such as Output-Based Regulations: A Handbook
for Air Regulators (U.S. EPA, 2004d), to assist
in developing output-based regulations for power
generators (U.S. EPA, 2005f).
  2.3.2  Technology Description
"Large- and medium-scale gas-fired turbines
have been used to generate electricity since the
1950s, but recent developments have enabled the
introduction of much smaller turbines, known as
microturbine/CHP systems" (U.S. EPA, 2002h).
Microturbines are well suited to providing
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-
A typical microturbine CHP installation (Capstone 60
microturbine and Unifin Heat Exchanger)
21 Please note that this paragraph is meant as an overview only. It does not represent a comprehensive list of the pollutants emitted during
  electricity generation or their environmental and health effects. For discussion of the health and environmental effects of CO and PM, see
  Section 2.1.1. For discussion of the health and environmental effects of ammonia, see Section 2.6.2.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                              31

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
emissions profile (NREL, 2003). By generating
electricity at the point of use, microturbines
reduce the need to generate electricity from
sources such as large electric utility plants. When
coupled with heat recovery systems that capture
excess thermal energy to heat water and/or
spaces, microturbines also reduce the need to
use conventional heating technologies such as
boilers and furnaces, which emit significant
quantities of CO2, NOX, and CO. When well
matched to building or facility needs in a properly
designed CHP application, microturbines
can increase operational efficiency and avoid
power transmission losses, thereby reducing
overall emissions and net fuel consumption.
Microturbines also can be designed to operate
using biogas from sources including animal waste,
wastewater treatment plants, and landfills. Biogas
is a renewable resource that would otherwise go
unused because it is traditionally flared or vented
to the atmosphere.
    Because they are a relatively new technology,
reliable performance data are needed on
microturbine/CHP technologies. The ETV
Program responded to this  need by verifying the
                      performance of six microturbine technologies
                      (see Exhibit 2.3-1), four of which include heat
                      recovery. Residential, commercial, institutional,
                      and industrial facilities were used as test sites.
                      One of the technologies tested operated on biogas
                      recovered from animal waste.
                          During each test, the ETV Program verified
                      heat and power production performance, power
                      quality performance, and emissions performance.
                      Heat and power production performance tests
                      measured electrical power output and electrical
                      efficiency at selected loads.  For systems with heat
                      recovery, these tests also measured heat recovery
                      rate, thermal efficiency, and total system efficiency at
                      selected loads. At full load under normal operations,
                      verified electrical efficiencies ranged from 20.4%
                      to 26.2%. For systems with heat recovery, verified
                      thermal efficiencies at full load and normal
                      operation ranged from 7.2% to 47.2%. For these
                      systems, verified total system efficiencies ranged
                      from 33.4% to 71.8%.22 In tests at less than full
                      load, electrical efficiencies were lower, but thermal
                      efficiencies were higher. In  tests with enhanced heat
                      recovery (as opposed to normal operations), thermal
                      and total efficiencies were higher.
                                                                               Additional Information
     Electricity
Generating Capacity
  (kilowatts [kW])
        30
Includes Heat
  Recovery
  for CHP?
Technology Name
Mariah Energy Corporation
Heat PlusPower™ System
     Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems
     IR PowerWorksTM 70 kW
     Microturbine System
     Honeywell Power Systems, Inc.
     Parallon® 75 kW Turbogenerator
     Honeywell Power Systems, Inc.
     Parallon8 75 kW Turbogenerator
     With CO Emissions Control
     Capstone 30 kW Microturbine
     System

     Capstone 60 kW Microturbine
     CHP System
        70
     Yes
                            No
                            Yes
Tested at a 12-unit condominium site that
combines a street-level retail or office
space with basement, and a one- or two-
level residence above.
Tested at a 60,000 square-foot skilled
nursing facility providing care for
approximately 120 residents.
Tested at a 55,000 square-foot university
office building.
Same technology as above, but with
installation of optional CO emissions
control equipment.
Tested system operates on biogas
recovered from animal waste generated ;
a swine farm.
Tested at a 57,000 square-foot commercial
supermarket.
     Sources: Southern Research Institute, 2001 a, 2001 b, 2001 c, 2003a, 2003b, 2004.
     Note:The two verified Honeywell products are no longer sold.
22 Note that the lower end of the range for thermal and total efficiency represents a site where efficiencies under "normal operating
   conditions" were low because of low space heating and dehumidification demand during testing. Excluding this site, the range of thermal
   efficiencies was 21% to 47.2% and the range of total efficiencies was 46.3% to 71.8%.
32
                         Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    Power quality performance tests measured
electrical frequency, voltage output, power
factor, and voltage and current total harmonic
distortion (THD). The ETV Program found that
all of the technologies maintained continuous
synchronization with the utility grid throughout
the corresponding test periods. Verified average
electrical frequencies ranged from 59.999 to
60.001 hertz (Hz). Verified average voltage
outputs ranged from 215.21 to 494.75 volts.
For all technologies, the power factor remained
relatively constant, and ranged from 62.7% to
99.98%. In all but one of the tests, voltage and
current THD were below the threshold specified
in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) guidelines.
    Emissions performance tests measured
emissions concentrations and rates at selected
loads. Verified CO2 emissions rates ranged from
1.34 to 3.90 pounds per kilowatt-hour (Ibs/kWh).
Verified NOX emissions rates ranged from 4.67 x
10s to 4.48 x 103 Ibs/kWh. The ETV Program
also verified concentrations and emissions rates for
other pollutants and greenhouse gases, including
CO andTHCs, and, for some of the technologies,
methane, sulfate, total recoverable sulfur, total
particulate matter, and ammonia. Three of the
verification reports also estimated total CO2
reductions compared to emissions generated
by electricity obtained from the grid and heat
obtained from a conventional technology, either
for the test sites or for hypothetical sites. In two
cases, total NOX reductions were estimated in a
similar manner. These estimates are presented in
detail in Appendix C. More detailed performance
data are available in the verification  reports for
each of the technologies (Southern Research
Institute, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2003a, 2003b,
2004).
  2.3.3  Outcomes
Microturbine/CHP systems can be used at
residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial facilities to provide electricity at
the point of use and reduce the need to use
conventional heating technologies. As discussed
below under "Technology Acceptance and Use
Outcomes," based on data from one vendor, at
least 7.7 MW of ETV-verified microturbines have
been installed for CHP applications in the United
States in the last year. Because this estimate
includes sales from only one vendor during
the last year, it likely is conservative (low) and
represents the minimum market penetration.
    The ETV Program used the estimate of
current market penetration to estimate the
capacity of ETV-verified microturbine/CHP
systems that could be installed in the near future.
Specifically, ETV estimated that 38.6 MW could
be installed in the next five years, for a total
installed capacity, including the current minimum
penetration, of 46.3 MW, as shown in Exhibit
2.3-2. Appendix C explains the derivation of this
estimate of future market penetration.23 The ETV
Program used the current minimum and future
market penetration scenarios to estimate the
emissions  reduction outcomes shown below.
SFf.
              APACITY OF ETV-VERIFI
          MlCROTURBINElCHP SYSTEM
              POTENTIALLY INSTALLED
 H  Market Penetration
 K  Current Minimum
                                Total Capacity
                                   (MW)
     Future Penetration
     Values rounded to nearest 0.1 MW
Emissions Reduction Outcomes
Emissions reductions from the application of
microturbine/CHP technology depend on a
number of factors, including the electricity and
heating demand of the specific application, the
microturbine emissions rates, and the emissions
rates of the conventional source that the
microturbine replaces, such as an electric utility
power plant or hot water heater. These factors vary
geographically and by specific application. Given
this variation, quantitative data are not available
to characterize these factors for every potential
ETV-verified microturbine/CHP application.
Therefore, this analysis uses model facilities
developed by Southern Research Institute for
the test sites to estimate emissions reductions for
23 As discussed in Appendix C, this is a conservative (low) estimate.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                             33

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
each market penetration scenario. Appendix C
describes the model sites and the methodology for
using the model facilities to estimate nationwide
emissions reductions for the microturbine capacities
shown in Exhibit 2.3-2. Exhibit 2.3-3 shows upper-
and lower-bound estimates of annual CO2 and
NOX reductions generated using this methodology
for each market penetration scenario. The upper-
bound estimates assume each ETV-verified
microturbine/CHP application is represented by
the model site that achieves the greatest reduction
for that compound. The lower-bound estimates
assume each ETV-verified  microturbine/CHP
application is represented by the model site that
achieves the lowest reduction for that compound.
    In addition to the CO0 and NOY reductions
                        Z        A
shown in Exhibit 2.3-3, the ETV-verified
microturbine/CHP systems also have the
potential to reduce emissions of other greenhouse
gases, such as methane, and other pollutants,
such as THCs. Quantitative data are not
available, however, to estimate these reductions.
Quantitative data also are not available to
estimate the environmental and health outcomes
associated with the reductions in CO2, NOX, or
other emissions. As discussed in Section 2.3.1,
however, the environmental and health effects
of these emissions are significant. Therefore, the
benefits of reducing these emissions also could be
significant.
                                              Resource Conservation, Economic,
                                              and Financial Outcomes
                                              Section 2.3.2 reports the verified efficiencies of
                                              the ETV-verified microturbine technologies. In
                                              general, these efficiencies compare favorably with
                                              those of separate heat and grid power applications,
                                              particularly when coupled with heat recovery
                                              in CHP applications. In addition, because they
                                              generate and use electricity onsite, microturbines
                                              avoid losses associated with the transmission of
                                              electricity, which can be in the range of 4.7 to
                                              7.8% (Southern Research Institute, 2001a, 2001b,
                                              2003a). Also, as shown in one of the verification
                                              tests, microturbines can be fueled by biogas, a
                                              renewable resource. Therefore, the application
                                              of the ETV-verified microturbine/CHP systems
                                              can result in the conservation of finite natural
                                              resources and potentially result in cost savings
                                              for the user due to efficiency increases and the
                                              use of renewable or waste fuels rather than
                                              conventional fuels. Quantitative data are not
                                              available to estimate these resource conservation
                                              outcomes or associated cost savings, although at
                                              least one vendor reports significant sales of their
                                              ETV-verified biogas-fueled technology in the
                                              last year (see "Technology Acceptance and Use
                                              Outcomes").
                            ESTIMATED POTENTIAL EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
                               —-" "       MlCROTURBINElCHP SYSTEMS'
      Market Penetration
                                                      Annual Pollutant Reduction
                                         CO2 (tons per year) (I)        NOX (*ons Per year) (2)
                                        Upper Bound
Current Minimum
Future Penetration
                                                     21,000
                                                     127,000
                                              Lower Bound
                                                     12,000
                                                     70,000
Current Minimum
   re Penetration
(I) Rounded to nearest 1,000
(2) Rounded to nearest 10
24 Reductions vary based on the source for grid power or thermal supply (hydroelectric, coal, etc.).
34
                                                 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
According to recent reports, one verified
vendor sold more than 16.5 MW of ETV-
verified microturbines in the last year. Of these
sales, approximately 7.7 MW were for CHP
applications in the United States.25 Also, 11%
of last year's sales were for resource recovery
applications, many of which used the ETV-
verified biogas-fueled technology. This vendor
projects increasing sales of ETV-verified
microturbines during each of the next  several
years (ETV Vendor, 2005). Vendors also report
that ETV verification has increased awareness
of this technology, resulting in marketing
opportunities (see quotes at right).

Scientific Advancement Outcomes
Other benefits of verification include the
development of a well-accepted protocol that has
advanced efforts to standardize protocols across
programs. This protocol (i.e., the "Generic Field
Testing Protocol for Microturbine and Engine
CHP Applications") was originally developed
by Southern Research Institute for ASERTTI
and was eventually adopted by the GHG Center
and published as an ETV Generic Verification
          eople are skeptical of new technology,
          which is why Mariah Energy needed
 believable third-party verification. It may be
 years before we know the impact ETV had on
 sales, but it is already an important factor in
 discussions with our new customers, and ETV has
 opened doors we didn't anticipate it would. For
 example, new partnering organizations are using
 ETV data to make decisions on investing in our
 technology.Also, new opportunities to conduct
 field demonstrations have occurred, and we've
 been invited to testify at Senate hearings on clean
 high performance energy technology." —Paul
 Liddy, President and CEO of Mariah Energy (U.S. EPA,
 2002h)
             e are very proud of our ETV results.
             We cite them all the time, in fact
 most recently in our press release last week."
 —Keith Field, Director of Communications, Capstone
 Turbine Corporation (Field, 2005)
Protocol. The protocol also is scheduled to be
adopted by ASERTTI, DOE, and state energy
offices as a national standard protocol for field
testing.
•
ASERTTI
CHP
CO
co2
DOE
GHG Center
Hz
IEEE
IPCC
ACRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE
Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer
Institutions
combined heat and power
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
Department of Energy
ETVs Greenhouse Gas Technology Center
hertz
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
STUDY:
kW
Ibs/kWh
MW
NOX
PM
so2
THCs
THD


kilowatts
pounds per kilowatt-hour
megawatts
nitrogen oxides
particulate matter
sulfur dioxide
total hydrocarbons
total harmonic distortion

25 See Appendix C for detailed derivation of this estimate.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                              35

-------

-------
                                                                        2.4
                         Laser Touch  Spray
   Painting  Targeting  Device
        	| he ETV Program's Coatings
          and Coating Equipment Pilot
          (CCEP), operated by Concurrent
          Technologies Corporation (CTC)
          under a cooperative agreement with
EPA, has verified the performance of a laser
targeting device for spray painting. The Laser
Touch technology helps spray painters maintain
a consistent distance to the surface being coated,
thus improving transfer efficiency, reducing paint
overspray (i.e., paint solids that are not transferred
to the object being painted), and ultimately
reducing paint usage. Since less paint is used and
ultimately lost as overspray, the technology also
reduces paint mist and other painting-related air
emissions, including volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
VOCs and HAPs have significant environmental
and human health effects. Paint mist and
toxic pollutants also cause occupational health
concerns. The technology is applicable to a variety
of industries that use manual spray painting
equipment.
   Based on the analysis in this case study, the
ETV Program estimates  that:

*  The ETV-verified Laser Touch technology
   could reduce VOC emissions from
   the automobile refinishing industry by
   approximately 1,100 to 2,700 tons per year,
   resulting in associated environmental and
   health benefits and increased compliance with
   state and federal air emissions regulations.
*  The Laser Touch technology could reduce
   solid waste generation from the automobile
   refinishing industry by approximately 300
   to 8,000 tons per year, with associated
   environmental and health benefits and
   resulting in cost savings for the user.
*  The Laser Touch technology can potentially
   reduce emissions  of HAPs and paint spray
   mist in the workplace, resulting in associated
   health benefits and potentially assisting in
   compliance with state and federal occupational
   safety and health regulations.
*  The Laser Touch technology can potentially
   reduce paint usage, resulting in cost savings
   for the user. Although there is considerable
   uncertainty in estimating these savings,
   savings up to $100 million per year could be
   realized by the automobile refinishing industry
   alone.
*  The Laser Touch technology can improve
   the visual appearance of painted products,
   providing a potential economic advantage for
   the user.26
   Verification of this technology also has
increased awareness among state regulatory
agencies and potential users of the Laser Touch
technology and its benefits. This awareness has
26 The numerical estimates found in this case study assume that Laser Touch technology is used by 10% to 25% of the surface coating
  operations in the automobile refinishing industry. The estimates are conservative (low) because reductions from other industries that have
  surface coating operations also are possible.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                            37

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
streamlined the technology review, acceptance,
and permitting process, and increased
opportunities for use in federal- or state-
sponsored training programs.
   2.4.1   Environmental, Health, and
          Regulatory Background
Spray painting results in a number of
environmental, health, and regulatory impacts.
Paint contains VOCs, HAPs, and other chemicals
that present occupational concerns. During spray
painting, these pollutants are emitted to the
air and workspace. In 2002, nationwide VOC
emissions from all sources were 16,544,000
tons. Surface coating applications are estimated
to account for 2,049,000 tons, or 12% of the
nationwide total (U.S. EPA, 2005g). Industries
that use manual spray coating and could benefit
from the ETV-verified technology include wood
furniture coating, auto refinishing, miscellaneous
metal parts and products, and plastic parts and
products. Wood furniture coating and auto
refinishing are among the largest sources of
VOCs from surface coating applications (U.S.
EPA, 2005g). Architectural coatings also account
for significant VOC releases and use manual
spray techniques to  some extent. Architectural
application,  however, is conducted in field settings,
which were not evaluated in the ETV program.

   VOCs from coating operations and other
sources contribute to the formation of ground-
level ozone, which is a criteria pollutant under the
Clean Air Act. Ozone can irritate lung airways
and cause inflammation. At very low levels,
ground-level ozone  triggers a variety of health
problems including  aggravated asthma, reduced
lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to
respiratory illnesses  like pneumonia and bronchitis.
Repeated exposure to ozone can cause permanent
damage to the lungs. Ozone also interferes with
the ability of plants  to produce and store food,
making them more susceptible to disease, insects,
and harsh weather. Resulting detrimental effects
are crop or forest yield losses, aesthetic losses, and
ecosystem damage (U.S. EPA, 2004e).
   Some of the VOCs emitted by surface coating
operations are also classified as HAPs. The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 designate
approximately 189 chemicals as HAPs, which
are chemicals that cause a wide range of serious
health and environmental effects such as cancer
or illness. HAPs emitted from surface coating
operations include toluene, xylene, glycol ethers,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
ethylbenzene, and methanol. Adverse health
effects associated with these pollutants include
respiratory effects, effects on the central nervous
system, and damage to the liver (69 FR 22602).
   Spray painting also presents occupational
health concerns. Paint mist itself is a hazard, and
certain polyurethane coatings can contain toxics
such as isocyanates, which can lead to asthma.
Isocyanates (several of which are also HAPs) are
present predominantly as polyisocyanates, with
low levels  of residual monomer. The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
has established occupational exposure limits for
certain isocyanate monomers. Some states, such
as Oregon, have established occupational exposure
limits for polyisocyanates (Heitbrink et al.,  1995).
Reducing paint mist generation assists in reducing
exposure to these chemicals.
   In recognition of these issues, a number of
federal, state, and local programs have sought to
reduce VOC and other surface coating emissions
through regulation, voluntary programs, and other
means. Currently, EPA regulations limit the VOC
content of coatings in  a number of industries,
such as automobile refinishing and architectural
coatings. EPA also has finalized New Source
Performance Standards for some industries using
surface coating. Also, sites that emit more than
a certain quantity of VOCs or HAPs are subject
to federal permitting requirements. For example,
a site located in an ozone attainment area with
a potential to emit more than 100 tons per year
VOCs, 10 tons per year of a single HAP, or 25
tons per year of total HAPs is a "major source"
under the  Clean Air Act and requires a Title
V operating permit. Finally, EPA implements
national emission standards for HAPs relevant
to a number of industries using surface coatings;
"major sources"  are subject to these additional
requirements.
   In addition to federal requirements, surface
coating operations also can be required to comply
38
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
with state requirements or initiatives developed
to reduce emissions. For example, New York
requires that all auto body shops use high-
efficiency, high-volume, low-pressure (HVLP)
spray guns, in addition to using coatings with
specified VOC content. Several northeastern
states and many California air districts have
adopted more stringent limits on the VOC
content of architectural coatings (New York State
Small Business Assistance Program, 2004; CARB,
2000).
    California also conducts independent third-
party verification of equipment with air quality
benefits (such as technologies that reduce VOCs
from coating operations) to promote the use
of innovative equipment. This pre-certification
program provides marketing benefits for the
vendor and enables the air quality management
districts to become more familiar with the
technology (CARB, 2002).
  2.4.2  Technology Description
Spray painting requires the transfer of liquid paint
to an object. The effectiveness of this transfer
is measured as transfer efficiency. A high, and
desirable, transfer efficiency (TE) results when
relatively little of the paint solids are lost as
overspray (waste). One key to reducing overspray
and improving TE during manual spray painting
operations is to eliminate the variability in the
operator's coating technique, although other
factors are important as well. A reduction of
overspray and an increase in TE can reduce air
emissions and solid waste generation.
   The Laser Touch technology is a battery-
operated device that can be fastened to a manual
paint spray gun with an adapter bracket. It emits
two laser light beams, which meet when the gun is
being held at the desired distance and orientation
to the target (CTC, 2000). If used properly, it
will help the spray painter maintain a consistent
distance  to the target and proper gun orientation.
It should also help minimize unnecessary overlap
and improve targeting, thus minimizing paint use
and helping the painter to achieve a high finish
quality. The verified technology is applicable for
any use in which paint or other surface coating
is applied using a manually operated spray gun.
Examples of potential applications include
small- and medium-sized businesses engaged in
automobile refinishing, equipment manufacturing,
and similar industries where spray painting occurs.
   The ETV Program's CCEP verified the
pollution prevention potential of the Laser Touch
model LT-B512 spray painting targeting device
in May 2000. The test  was conducted at the Iowa
Waste Reduction Center's (IWRC's) Painting
and Coating Compliance Enhancement Facility
in Cedar Falls, Iowa. During testing, 10 painters
coated panels with and without the Laser Touch
device under representative factory conditions
using a common industrial coating (CTC, 2000).
The test verified the following performance
parameters:

•*•  Relative Transfer Efficiency (TE) Improvement:
   In comparison to unassisted paint spraying,
   the verified technology provided a relative
   increase in TE at an average of 11.1%.27
*  Emissions Reduction: The improvement in
   TE resulted in a  10% reduction of volatile
   emissions when compared to the unassisted
   baseline.
The laser targeting technology applied to a fender
27 The amount of TE improvement would be different at different test conditions, e.g., lower solids coating or lower baseline TE conditions.
  In general, the specific quantitative reduction depends on numerous factors such as paint formulation, process line and paint booth design,
  and the products being coated.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                     39

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
*  Cost Savings: Economic benefits were realized
    by improving the TE and reducing paint usage
    and solid waste generation and disposal. In
    the verification test, the technology resulted
    in a reduction of 0.2 liters of paint used
    per kilogram of solids applied and a 25%
    reduction in solid waste generation when
    compared to the unassisted baseline.28
*  Visual Appearance: The verification test
    assessed visual appearance for all parts sprayed
    by each painter. The visual appearance of the
    parts sprayed using the verified technology
    was determined to be better than that of the
    unassisted baseline parts, with more even
    coating coverage and reduced appearance of
    striping  (CTC, 2000).
    Advantages of the technology were identified
as decreased variability and pollution prevention
benefits, while disadvantages were identified as
increased weight of the paint sprayer (6.5 ounces).
The technology cost $799 at the time it was
verified (CTC, 2000).
   2.4.3  Outcomes
for this technology, pollutant reductions and other
outcomes are based on two market penetration
scenarios within the automobile refinishing
industry, 10% and 25%.

Pollutant and Solid
Waste Reduction Outcomes
The ETV Program estimated the potential
VOC reductions that could be experienced if
10% and 25% of the surface coating operations
in the automobile refinishing industry used
the ETV-verified Laser Touch devices.
These estimates are based on the verified TE
improvement for the Laser Touch technology and
estimated VOC emissions from the automobile
refinishing industry from U.S. EPA (2005g).
Since a reduction in solid waste generation is
an additional benefit of using the Laser Touch
technology, the ETV Program also used data from
CTC (2000) to estimate solid waste reductions
for the various market penetration scenarios.
Appendix D presents the methodology used in
more detail. Exhibit 2.4-1 shows the estimated
pollutant and solid waste reductions.29
    In addition to the VOC reductions shown in
Exhibit 2.1-1, the ETV-verified technology also
can reduce HAP emissions, although quantitative
data are not available to estimate these reductions.
Quantitative data also are not available to estimate
the environmental and health outcomes associated
with the pollutant and solid waste reductions. As
discussed in Section 2.1.1, the environmental and
health effects of HAPs and VOCs are significant.
Therefore, the benefits of reducing these
pollutants also could be significant.
The verified technology is applicable to a wide
variety of industries where manual spray painting
occurs. For example, U.S. EPA (2005g) identifies
more than 20 industries contributing VOCs from
surface coating operations. These surface coating
applications result in approximately 2 million tons
of VOC air emissions nationwide. Not all of these
emissions, however, result from manual spray
painting.
    To simplify the outcomes analysis, and to
ensure that relatively conservative estimates were
developed, the ETV Program limited the analysis
to the automobile refinishing industry. ETV
selected this industry because its VOC emissions
from surface coating are significant (based on
U.S. EPA, 2005g), and manual spray painting
contributes a significant fraction of the industry's
VOC emissions (based on general industry
information). Since the ETV Program does not
have access to a comprehensive set of sales data

28 The estimated solid waste reduction is based on an unassisted TE of 60% and a relative TE improvement of 11.1%. Percent solid waste
  reduction would be reduced at lower baseline TE values for the same amount of TE improvement.
29 As discussed in Appendix D, these are conservative (low) estimates.
40                                                    Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
        ESTIMATED POTENTIAL POLLUTANT
          AND SOLID WASTE REDUCTIONS
           FOR THE LASER TOUCH SPRAY
              PAINTING TECHNOLOGY
  1
Market
Penetration
10%
Reduction (tons per year)
VOCs      Solid Waste
  1,100       300 to 3,100
            700 to 7,800
     Va ues rounded to nearest  00 tons

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
Resource Conservation, Economic,
and Financial Outcomes
The ETV-verified technology also reduces paint
usage, conserving resources and resulting in
cost savings for the user. By extrapolating from
IWRC data (Little, 2004) for its spray paint
training program, the ETV Program estimated
potential cost savings from  reduced paint usage
for the various market penetration scenarios, as
shown in Exhibit 2.4-2. Appendix D presents the
methodology used in more  detail. Although there
is considerable uncertainty  in this extrapolation,
ETV included these  very rough estimates to
highlight potential impacts that could be realized
from the use of the Laser Touch technology.
   Although quantitative data are not available
to estimate the savings, reductions in solid waste
generation also could result in lower waste
disposal costs. By improving the visual appearance
of painted products, the ETV-verified technology
also could provide an economic advantage to
the user. Finally, the  environmental and health
benefits of reduced VOC and HAP emissions and
solid waste disposal have  an economic value.

Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
As discussed in Section 2.4.1, sites that emit
VOCs and HAPs, including surface coating
facilities, can be subject to state and federal
permitting requirements and emissions standards.
They also can be subject to  OSHA and state
occupational safety and health requirements for
workplace concentrations of toxic chemicals.
Because it reduces emissions of paint mist, VOCs,
HAPs, and other toxics, use of the ETV-verified
technology could assist facilities in complying
with these regulatory requirements. Data are not
currently available to quantify these outcomes.
   Verification has also streamlined the
technology review, acceptance, and permitting
process, and increased opportunities for use in
federal or state-sponsored training programs.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
accepted CCEP data when reviewing technologies
for use. CARB used  ETV verification data
             STIMATED POTENTIAL COST
           IAVINGS FROM REDUCED PAIN
           USAGE FOR THE LASER T
           SPRAY PAINTING TECHNOLOGY
     Market Penetration
     10%
     25%
 Cost Savings
(million dollars
   per year)
     120
     Values rounded to nearest $10 million
in its decision to issue an equipment pre-
certification certificate for Laser Touch. This
action familiarizes local air district governments in
California with the technology (CARB, 2004).

Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
Verification has also increased technology
awareness and has served as a useful marketing
tool. Laser Touch and Technologies, LLC, the
technology vendor at the time of verification,30
reported that sales increased immediately upon
release of the Laser Touch verification report,
estimating a sales increase of 10% to 15% as a
result of ETV verification (U.S. EPA, 2004a,
2004k). Furthermore, the pollution prevention
findings appear to be the most valuable results to
the end users, and evaluation by the California
Environmental Technology Certification
Program, supported by ETV data, enabled Laser
Touch to penetrate into California markets (U.S.
EPA, 2004k). Finally, the IWRC, which worked
with CCEP on the verification, is using the Laser
Touch technology in a training program for the
Department of Defense (U.S. EPA, 2004a).

        use the ETV report in every packet of
        information I send out to potential clients.
  The purchasing clients often comment on the
  importance of the ETV report, which I believe
  has indicated an increase  in sales. It is a wonderful
  sales tool." —Pott/ Schmidt, Director of Marketing,
  Laser Touch and Technologies, LLC (U.S. EPA, 2004a,
  2004k)
30 At the time of verification, Laser Touch and Technologies was the technology vendor under license from the University of Northern Iowa.
  The University has since terminated this license and the IWRC is in the process of manufacturing Laser Touch units for sale in the near
  future.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                             41

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    Future markets are being actively targeted for
the technology. The University of Northern Iowa's
Research Foundation is currently renegotiating
its license agreements related to its laser guided
application technologies and expects to have
new agreements in place within the near future.
Potential markets to be targeted once negotiations
are complete include the automotive, aerospace,
military and other industries. The technology
also could enter the general consumer market,
following the possible development of a
residential version (Calhoun, 2005).
                                ACRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY:
 CARB      California Air Resources Board               IWRC

 CCEP      ETV's Coatings and Coating Equipment Pilot     OSHA

 HAPs       hazardous air pollutants                    TE

 HVLP       high-volume low-pressure                   VOCs
     Iowa Waste Reduction Center

     Occupational Safety and Health Administration

     transfer efficiency

     volatile organic compounds
42
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                         2.5
  Portable Technologies  for
       Measuring   Lead  in  Dust
        ^| he ETV Program's Site
          Characterization and Monitoring
          Technologies (SCMT) Pilot, which
          was operated by Oak Ridge National
          Laboratory under an interagency
agreement with EPA and was an element of the
Advanced Monitoring Systems (AMS) Center,
has verified the performance of six field screening
analyzers for lead in dust. These portable
analyzers report lead levels in dust more quickly
than traditional fixed-site laboratory analysis
methods. The presence of lead in soil, dust, and
paint is a major health risk for children. These
technologies can be used onsite, allowing the user
to quickly identify whether a hazardous level of
lead is present in dust and enabling them to react
to any potential health risks in a timely manner.
   Based on the analysis in this case study, the
ETV Program estimates that:
*  The ETV-verified portable measurement
   technologies could be deployed at up to
   approximately 16.5 million housing units out
   of an estimated potential market of 66 million
   that were built before 1978 to:
   4  Screen for lead hazards (e.g., as part of a
      lead hazard screen) and assess potential
      risks (e.g., during a risk assessment)
   4  Investigate instances of elevated blood lead
      levels in children

   4  Clear residences for occupation following
      future abatements or future applications
      of lead hazard controls, provided the
      technology is used by a portable laboratory
      or field service and measurement
      organization that has been accredited
      by the National Lead Laboratory
      Accreditation Program (NLLAP)

   4  Identify lead hazards after renovation and
      remodeling

   4  Assist prospective purchasers in
      identifying lead hazards
   4  Develop a focused and cost-effective
      sampling and analysis strategy when
      combined with confirmatory fixed-site
      laboratory analysis.31'32
*  Ultimately, the information provided by these
   technologies can assist in the reduction of lead
   exposure, with associated human health and
   economic benefits, particularly for children.
   Of the 16.5 million pre-1978 residences where
   the technologies could be used, an estimated
   2.6 million might house young children.
31 Note that, as detailed in Section 2.5.2, technology performance varied during testing. Some of the technologies are intended to replace
  laboratory analysis. Others are intended as a screening tool, to complement laboratory analysis. Thus, not all of the technologies are suited
  for all of the uses listed.
32 Although the use of lead-based residential paint was banned in 1978, many of the 66 million housing units built prior to 1978 are still in
  use and could have interior or exterior paint that contains lead, although no one knows for sure which units contain lead and which do
  not. ETV based the outcomes estimates found in this case study on the hypothetical assumption that the ETV-verified technologies could
  potentially be used to measure for lead in up to 25% of these homes (i.e., 16.5 million housing units).
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                      43

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    ETV verification also can potentially increase
acceptance and use of the portable measurement
technologies. It could also potentially help
portable laboratories and field service and
measurement organizations obtain accreditation
under the NLLAP in the near future. Previous
ETV verifications of similar technologies have
assisted in the development of approved EPA
methods for using field portable measurement
technologies and promoted the use of these
technologies.
   2.5.1  Environmental, Health, and
         Regulatory Background
Lead is a hazard to both adults and children
and has been associated with anemia, kidney
damage, and adverse nervous system effects.
Despite efforts to reduce its use, however, lead and
lead poisoning continue to be a consistent, but
preventable, hazard. While all humans are at risk
when exposed to lead, children are at the greatest
risk. According to the most recent estimates,
about 1.6% of children aged 1 to 5 years (310,000
children) have elevated blood lead levels (BLL),
based on a survey conducted from 1999 to 2002
(CDC, 2005).
   As determined by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), children with
a BLL of 10 micrograms per deciliter (|ag/dL)
or higher are considered to have elevated levels,
which are associated with adverse health effects
(CDC, 2004). High levels of exposure can result
in brain damage or death. At lower levels of
exposure, lead can affect a child's mental and
physical growth. Fetuses exposed to lead in the
womb can be born prematurely and have lower
weights at birth. Exposure in the womb, in
infancy, or in early childhood also can slow mental
development and lower intelligence later in
childhood (ATSDR, 1999).
   Lead-based paint, interior settled dust,
tracked-in contaminated soil, and exterior soil are
the primary sources of exposure to lead (CDC,
2004). As lead-based paint deteriorates, lead
dust and paint chips can accumulate on interior
surfaces and deposit in the soil surrounding a
home. Lead dust can also be released during
house renovation. Lead-contaminated dust and
soil are easily ingested through hand-to-mouth
activity. Lead also can be ingested when children
chew accessible areas such as window sills (U.S.
EPA, 2001b).
   The use of lead in U.S. residential paint was
banned in 1978 (U.S. EPA, 2001b). Many homes
built prior to 1978, however, are still in use and
have interior or exterior paint that contains
lead. A recent survey sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) estimates that 66  million housing units
were constructed prior to  1978. These housing
units (one estimate is 24 million of them) could
have significant lead-based paint hazards (Jacobs
et al., 2002). A lead-based paint hazard is defined
as paint, dust, or soil that  equals or exceeds
standards specified by EPA.
   In 1992, Congress enacted the Residential
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act (Title
X of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1992), the most comprehensive federal
legislation ever passed regarding lead. This act is
usually referred to as "Title X," although it also
added Title IV to the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). EPA and other federal agencies,
such as HUD, continue to proceed according to
the mandates of Title X, including the following:

* Establishing numerical standards for
   hazardous levels of lead in dust for pre-1978
   housing and child-occupied facilities. These
   levels also are used for establishing clearance
   or "clean-up" levels following abatement
   activities. The clearance levels are: 40
   micrograms per square foot (|_ig/ft2) for floors,
   250 |ag/ft2 for window sills, and 400  |ag/ft2 for
   window troughs (66 FR 1206).

* Requiring the disclosure of known lead-based
   paint and lead-based paint hazards to buyers
   and tenants. The Residential Lead-Based
   Paint Disclosure Act requires landlords  and
   sellers to share any information pertaining to
   any known lead-based paint  and lead-based
   paint hazards in housing constructed before
   the phase out of residential lead-based paint
   use in 1978, and allows a buyer of a pre-1978
   house a period of time to test the house for
   lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards
   (61 FR 9064).
44
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                    2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    Providing grants for low-income families.
    HUD provides grants to localities to address
    lead-based paint hazards in private housing
    occupied by low-income families. The scope
    of the grants includes cleanup/control, testing,
    awareness, and training (U.S. HUD, 2002).
  2.5.2  Technology Description
There is a need for field-portable monitoring
devices that can test or at least quickly screen
samples for lead. Conventional laboratory analytical
methods (e.g., EPA SW 846 3050B/6010B) for
determining trace metals are time consuming:
samples must be collected by field personnel,
packaged, shipped, and analyzed, and results must
be communicated back to the risk assessment
personnel. Equally critical, results of these analyses
might trigger remediation decisions or further
sampling needs and require multiple trips to a
site or delays in remediation. Portable monitoring
devices could address these shortcomings. Some
of these technologies are intended to completely
replace laboratory analysis, and others are
complementary technologies that can provide
screening information at the site for subsequent
laboratory confirmation (U.S. EPA, 2001c).
    Each of the technologies verified by the
ETV Program is portable and designed to be
used to analyze dust samples for lead in the
field. These devices can be used to test or screen
a relatively large number of samples at a given
site to identify areas of concern. While  some
of the verified technologies can be used to
analyze other metals as well, the verification tests
evaluated performance for lead only. The ETV-
verified technologies use one of two analysis
methods: X-ray fluorescence (XRF) or anodic
             stripping voltammetry (ASV). At the time of
             the evaluation, vendors of other technologies for
             dust testing chose not to participate. XRF allows
             for non-destructive analysis of a sample. This
             technique uses a radioisotope source or X-ray
             tube to excite lead atoms within a test sample.
             The atoms, in turn, emit characteristic X-rays
             that are detected, identified, and quantified by
             the spectrometer. ASV is a destructive analysis
             method. A test sample is contacted with
             nitric acid to release elemental lead, which is
             subsequently dissolved in a salt solution. Lead
             in the solution is plated on and then stripped
             off an electrode. Each metal will strip from the
             electrode at a different potential, allowing for
             its identification, while the amount of current
             produced is quantified and correlated to sample
             concentration. Advantages of the ETV-verified
             technologies include field portability and the
             ability to measure  40 to 80 samples per day.
             An additional advantage of technologies based
             on XRF is that the analysis is non-destructive,
             allowing confirmation by laboratory  methods on
             the same sample that was analyzed in the field
             (Battelle, 2004h).
                To date, the ETV Program has verified the
             performance of six instruments by four different
             vendors for lead in dust. These  technologies were
             verified in collaboration with Oak Ridge National
             Laboratory (ORNL). Exhibit 2.5-1 identifies the
             ETV-verified technologies.
                A primary objective of the ETV  test was to
             assess whether the participating field portable
             technologies produce results that are comparable
             to NLLAP-recognized data (Battelle, 2004h).
             Accordingly, an NLLAP-recognized laboratory
             also analyzed samples of the material measured
             during field testing (Battelle, 2004h). The
             verification test provided information on the
               ETV-VERIFIED PORTABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR MEASURING LEAD IN DUST
                  Vendor
      Key Master Technologies
      Monitoring Technologies International
      Thermo Electron Corporation,
      NITON Analyzers Business Unit
      (formerly NITON LLC)
             Verified Technology
 C-Ray Fluorescence Instrument Pb-Test
PDV 5000 Trace Element Analyzer
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer XLt 700 Series
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer XL 700 Series
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer XL 300 Series
Scanning Analyzer SA-5000 Sy
Technology Type
      XRF
      XRF
      ASV
     Sources: U.S. EPA, 2001 c, 2001 d, 2001 e, 2001 f, 2001 g, 2002c.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                         45

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
potential applicability of field technologies for
dust testing in a risk assessment, lead hazard
screen, or clearance testing. The experimental
design was developed based on the dust-lead
hazard/clearance levels contained in the January
2001 final EPA regulations (66 FR 1206) for
floors (i.e., 40 i^g/ft2), window troughs (i.e., 400
|ag/ft2), and window sills (i.e., 250 |ag/ft2) (Battelle,
2004h). During verification testing, 160 dust wipe
samples were analyzed. These wipes contained
between 2 and 1,500 micrograms of lead per dust
wipe, which is representative of levels found in
house dust wipe samples collected using ASTM
methods specified in 40 CFR 745.63 EPA
regulations (66 FR 1206).
    The ETV Program evaluated the technologies
on the following performance parameters:
precision, accuracy, comparability to NLLAP-
recognized laboratory results, detectable blanks
(i.e., whether samples with non-detectable levels
of lead were identified as containing lead), false
positive results (i.e., whether samples containing
lead under a limit were identified as containing
lead over the limit), false negative  results (i.e.,
whether samples  containing lead over a limit were
identified as containing lead under the limit),  and
other parameters. Exhibit 2.5-2 summarizes some
of the performance data for the individual verified
technologies. Because the ETV Program does not
compare technologies, the performance results
shown in Exhibit 2.5-2 do not identify the vendor
associated with each result and are not in the same
order as the list of technologies in Exhibit 2.5-1.
    The ETV Program verified that the average
relative accuracy, calculated as percent recovery,
for  the technologies ranged from 80% to 189%. A
result of 100% indicates perfect accuracy relative
to the tested lead concentration. The precision
(relative standard deviation) ranged from 5% to
22%. A result of 0% indicates perfect precision.
The number of false positive responses ranged
from 0 of 50 samples to 27 of 46 samples. The
number of false negative responses ranged from
4 of 54 samples to 39 of 50 samples. The ETV
Program used linear regression analysis to evaluate
comparability of the technologies to the standard
test method. The slope values ranged from 0.662
to 1.206; the intercept values ranged from -14 to
121 |_ig; and the r2 values ranged from 0.967 to
l.OOO.33 The cost to purchase the verified analyzers
ranged from $3,850 to $40,000. The verification
tests, however, did not include an overall cost
estimate for use  of portable technologies versus
use of the NLLAP laboratory because of the
                                Two of the ETV-verified lead in dust analyzers
                      (R. Jenkins, ORNL Library of Lead in Dust Monitor Verification Photographs.)
33 Slope and intercept are measures of the relationship between technology response and the standard or reference method value. The degree
   to which the slope deviates from one and the intercept deviates from zero are indicators of the monitor's accuracy. The r is a measure of
   how well the data fit a linear relationship. Values of r range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a better fit. Thus, a higher r  value
   indicates a higher comparability to the standard test method.
46
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                       2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
        PERFORMANCE OF ETV-VERIFIED PORTABLE TECHNOLOGIES FOR MEASURING LEAD IN Dusr3
     Vendor   Average relative   Average relative
                  accuracy           precision
                  168 to 189%          15 to 18%
        D
                   88 to 93%
                   91 to 97%
107 to 119%
                   80 to 91%
                  97 to 101%
                   21 to 22%
                    7 to 8%
8%
                    5 to 8%
                      11%
Rate of false
  positives
   26 of 50

   ^^^1
   7of4l
   27 of 46
                Oof 50
                9 of 49
                             Rate of false
                               negatives
                                15 of 50


                                19 of 57
                                36 of 58
4 of 54
                   39 of 50
                   ISofSI
     Comparability
  (slope, intercept, r2)
Slope: 0.662 to 1.060
Intercept: 66 to 121
r2:0.967 to 0.989
Slope: 0.885 to 1.074
Intercept:-14.345 to 15.633
r2:0.988 to 0.999
Slope: 0.849 to 0.936
Intercept: 7.495 to 11.262
r2:0.999
Slope: 1.1 12 to 1.206
Intercept: -3.29 to 13.283
r2:0.999
Slope: 0.839 to 0.926
Intercept: 5.539 to 6.506
r2:0.995 to 1.000
Slope: 0.977 to 0.995
Intercept: 3.076 to 4.775
r2:0.999
     Sources: U.S. EPA, 2001 b, 2001 c, 2001 d, 2001 e, 2001 f, 2001 g, 2002c.
extent of variation in the different cost factors,
such as the number of samples requiring analysis,
the sample type, and the site location and
characteristics (U.S. EPA, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d,
2001e, 2001f, 2001g, 2002c).
   2.5.3  Outcomes
From a point-of-use-perspective, the potential
market for the ETV-verified portable monitoring
technologies includes the approximately 66
million housing units constructed prior to 1978
(Jacobs et al, 2002). From a purchaser/operator-
perspective, this market includes a variety of
organizations and lead inspectors responsible
for measuring lead levels in these housing units,
including the more than 100 NLLAP-accredited
organizations and lead inspectors (NLLAP, 2005).
Hazards in these housing units could range  from
no hazard (e.g., instances where paint, dust, and
soil hazards are not present at all) to a significant
hazard (e.g., instances where there is significant
deterioration of lead-based paint, hazardous
levels of lead in dust, and/or hazardous levels of
lead in bare soil). Any housing unit constructed
                                    prior to 1978 is generally considered "at risk" for
                                    the possible presence of lead and could apply the
                                    ETV-verified technologies as part of a lead risk
                                    assessment or lead hazard screen.
                                       Because the ETV Program does not have
                                    access to a comprehensive set of sales data for the
                                    ETV-verified technologies, the ETV Program
                                    used two market penetration scenarios, 10% and
                                    25% of the total potential market, to estimate
                                    the number of housing units where the verified
                                    technologies could be used, as shown in Exhibit
                                    2.5-3.3S The ETV Program also used these market
                                               NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS
                                            THAT COULD  APPLY ETV-VER/F/ED
                                               PORTABLE TECHNOLOG/ES FOR
                                                                      DUST
                                                             Number of Pre-1978
                                                                Housing Units
                                                         Total        WithYoung
                                                                     Children (I)
                                                        6,600,000         1,100,000
                                                       16,500,000        2,600,000
                                         Values rounded to nearest 100,000.
                                         (I)Young children are defined as those less than six
                                         years old, an age that HUD uses in its lead-based paint
                                         regulations to identify certain actions.
34 Because the ETV Program does not compare technologies, the performance results shown in Exhibit 2.5-2 do not identify the vendor
  associated with each result and are not in the same order as the list of technologies in Exhibit 2.5-1.

35 The estimates shown in Exhibit 2.5-3 are based on data from Table 5 of Jacobs, et al. (2002).
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                                  47

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
penetration scenarios to estimate the regulatory
compliance outcomes shown below. Potential
applications of the verified technologies in pre-
1978 housing include use in risk assessments,
lead hazard screens, clearance testing, testing
by potential buyers, investigations of children
with elevated blood lead levels, and testing after
renovation and remodeling.

Environmental, Health, and
Economic Outcomes
The successful identification and control of lead
hazards in housing reduces the likelihood of future
lead exposures and future cases of lead poisoning
(CDC, 2004). Field portable technologies,
like those verified by the ETV Program, can
rapidly, accurately, and cost-effectively provide
information on potential lead hazards, enabling
users to quickly decide whether further analysis,
evacuation, and/or abatement is warranted. Thus,
the data provided by the verified monitors could
lead to reduced lead exposures and human health
benefits, particularly for children.
    Because lead adversely affects children's
cognitive and behavioral development, reductions
in lead exposure also can have a significant impact
on their future productivity and earnings potential
(CDC, 2004). In fact, a recent CDC-authored
study estimates that two-year old children in 2000
would gain aggregate present value earnings of
$110 to $318 billion over two-year old children
from the mid-1970s, as a direct result of reduced
lead exposure (Grosse et al, 2002).36 Thus, any
reductions in exposure resulting from use of the
verified technologies also could yield significant
economic benefits in terms of increased earnings.

Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
ETV-verified technologies can be used (in
conjunction with other methods for assessing
lead hazards) to support lead risk assessments or
lead hazard screens at up to 16.5 million of the
66 million pre-1978 housing units, any of which
could have significant lead-based paint hazards.
Field personnel/assessors can potentially use the
ETV-verified technologies to help them quickly
and cost-effectively assess the extent of metals
contamination at a site. Although screening data
might not completely replace laboratory methods
during a risk assessment, they can provide
immediate feedback on potential health risks
associated with the site. They also can permit
the development of a focused and cost effective
sampling and analysis strategy for the laboratory
methods (Battelle, 2004h). Ultimately, however,
portable technologies that can completely replace
laboratory methods are the most desirable in
terms of time and cost savings.
   Eventually, NLLAP-accredited organizations
or lead inspectors could potentially use the ETV-
verified technologies during inspections, risk
assessments, lead hazard screens, and clearance
testing after abatement.37 EPA has established
the NLLAP to recognize laboratories that
demonstrate the ability to accurately analyze
paint chip, dust, or soil samples for lead. Federal
regulations require that an NLLAP-certified
laboratory analyze samples collected during
inspections, risk assessments, lead hazard
screens, and clearance testing after abatement.
State and tribal regulations can be somewhat
different, but in most cases will be similar to the
federal regulations. Although at present, ETV
believes that no organizations or lead inspectors
are accredited or in the process  of becoming
accredited for using the portable technologies,
the recent revision to EPA's Laboratory Quality
System Requirements  (LQSR) (U.S. EPA, 2005h)
for laboratories that participate in NLLAP might
make it possible or easier for portable laboratories
and field service and measurement organizations
with portable dust testing technologies to apply
for and obtain NLLAP accreditation in the
future. The draft LQSR was developed, at least in
part, to encourage portable laboratories and field
service and measurement organizations to obtain
NLLAP accreditation. A pilot program is planned
to evaluate how the revised LQSR works in
practice. It also is possible that ETV verification
could potentially encourage such accreditation in
the future, by serving as a source of performance
data on the applicable technologies.
36 This estimate was based on reductions in average BLL in children since the late 1970's. Historical biomonitoring data shows that the
  average BLL in children aged 1 to 5 years has declined between 12 and 15 |ig/dL since the late 1970's.

37 One of the goals of the ETV-verification was to assess and compare the results obtained from an NLLAP accredited laboratory with
  results from ETV-verified technologies (Battelle, 2004h).

48                                                     Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                     2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
The results of the ETV testing have been
utilized and cited in multiple references, thus
expanding the awareness of the technologies and
their performance. EPA's EMPACT Program
(Environmental Monitoring for Public Access
and Community Tracking) promotes approaches
to collecting, managing, and communicating
environmental information to the public and has
cited the ETV reports as a resource for promoting
the use of XRF instruments for lead in residential
soil testing and residential lead dust testing (U.S.
EPA, 2003e; U.S. EPA, 2001c).
    Verification data have also helped potential
users assess the capabilities of the verified
monitors. For example, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part
of the CDC, used the web-posted ETV results
to assess whether a verified lead-in-dust analyzer
could meet their objectives. CDC/NIOSH
eventually decided to purchase a participating
vendor's verified technology (Monitoring
Technologies International) for research, rather
than regulatory compliance, purposes. The
participating vendor subsequently uses CDC/
NIOSH as a referral for new customers (MTI,
2004). The vendor sees the ETV Program as a
tremendous advantage for small businesses (U.S.
EPA, 2004a).
    Another participating vendor, NITON, cited
several advantages to  ETV participation. First,
end-users have a means of evaluating alternative
technologies under clear, established conditions
with expert oversight (Shein, 2005). Second, the
vendor retains samples from verification testing
for use in the future (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
           TV is a tremendous advantage to a small
           business; it creates technology awareness
   and provides a quality, credible referral — that
   is the greatest thing that a vendor can get from
   the program." —Fe/ec/o Owen, Wee President of U.S.
   Operations for MonitoringTechnologies International
   (U.S. EPA, 2004o)
            he advantage of the ETV Program to a
            manufacturer is being able to prove the
   viability of their technology." —Debbie Schatzlein,
   NITON LLC (U.S. EPA, 2004a)
 Scientific Advancement Outcomes
 On a related note, field XRF analyzers are well
 established commercially and were previously
 tested under the ETV Program for a related
 application of measuring metals including
 lead in soil. Verification reports evaluating the
 performance of seven XRFs for the analysis of
 metals in soil, including lead, were made available
 in March 1998. Some of the same vendors
 participating in the more recent ETV verification
 test participated in the 1998 verification test as
 well, although the evaluated technologies were not
 the same. A few months later, in May 1998, EPA's
 SW-846 Program announced the  release of a new
 method (Method 6200) for using field portable
 XRFs for measuring metals in soil and sediment,
 based in part on the 1998 ETV reports (Battelle,
 2004h). The release of this EPA method helped
 standardize  and promote the use of XRF systems
 (Lesnick and Fordham, 2000).
                                 CRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY:
 AMS Center      ETV's Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

 ASV            anodic stripping voltammetry

 BLL            blood lead level

 CDC           Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 EMPACT Program  EPA's Environmental Monitoring for Public
                Access and Community Tracking Program
 HUD           Department of Housing and Urban
                Development
 LQSR           Laboratory Quality System Requirements
NIOSH    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NLLAP    National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program

ORNL    Oak Ridge National Laboratory

XRF      X-ray fluorescence

pg/dL     micrograms per deciliter

pg/ft2     micrograms per square foot
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                               49

-------

-------
                                                                          2.6
                                                         Ambient
                     Ammonia  Monitors
         J he ETV Program's Advanced
           Monitoring Systems (AMS)
           Center, operated by Battelle under
           a cooperative agreement with EPA,
           has verified the performance of seven
ambient ammonia monitors for use at animal
feeding operations (AFOs). These monitors may
serve as an alternative to the standard method
for measuring ambient ammonia, which is time
consuming, labor intensive, and not well suited for
conducting continuous measurements. Ammonia
in the atmosphere contributes to the production
of particulate matter, which has significant adverse
human health effects. AFOs are regarded as
representing the largest single source of ammonia
in the United States. EPA has issued an Air
Quality Compliance Agreement with the industry
to improve ammonia emissions measurements and
promote compliance with federal regulations.

   Based on the analysis in this case study, the
ETV Program estimates that:

*  The ETV-verified ambient ammonia monitors
   can potentially be applied in response to EPA's
   Voluntary Air Compliance Agreement over
   the next two years.

*  The monitors could potentially be applied in
   the future at up to 975 large AFOs  (out of an
   estimated potential market of 3,900) to verify
   their compliance with current or potential
   future state and federal regulations, and to
   avoid potential multimillion dollar penalties.
*  The monitors can help address the significant
   research needs identified by the National
   Academies of Science and others associated
   with improving ammonia emissions data.
*  The monitors can allow researchers to
   update current ammonia emission estimation
   methodologies, provide accurate input for
   computer models, and advise facility owners
   and regulatory agencies regarding the need for
   ammonia emission reduction efforts.
*  The monitors can assist in the evaluation
   of the effectiveness of ammonia emission
   reduction methods, leading to more cost-
   effective selection of methods.
*  The information provided by the monitors
   ultimately can assist in reduction of ammonia
   emissions, with associated human health,
   environmental, and economic benefits.
  2.6.1  Environmental, Health, and
        Regulatory Background
EPA estimates that nationwide ammonia
emissions from animal husbandry operations,
which include AFOs, totaled 2,200 thousand
metric tons in 2002. Ammonia is produced as a
by-product of the microbial decomposition of the
organic nitrogen compounds in manure and urine
(U.S. EPA, 2004f). Although EPA's emission
estimation methodologies for ammonia are being
refined, this source is regarded as representing the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                      51

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
largest single source of ammonia in the United
States.
   Ammonia is volatile and easily emitted from
animal wastes. Anaerobic lagoons and waste
storage ponds are commonly used to manage
animal wastes at AFOs and are significant sources
of ammonia and other nitrogen compound
releases. EPA estimates that a typical five-acre
hog waste lagoon can release between 15 and 30
tons of ammonia into the air each year (U.S. EPA,
2004g).
   Approximately half of the ammonia that is
released into the atmosphere from the surface of
ponds or lagoons falls in  rain or fog to the surface
within 50 miles of these sources. The remainder is
transformed into particulate matter through rapid
conversion to ammonium aerosol by reaction
with acidic species, such as  nitric acid and sulfuric
acid; such particles can travel up to 250 miles
(U.S. EPA, 2004g). Through this conversion
process, ammonia contributes to the production of
particulate matter, specifically the fine particulates
known as PM2 s. Particulate matter in the
atmosphere produces regional haze and decreased
visibility and has been linked to health effects
such as increased rates of cardiovascular disease
and mortality. Both ammonia gas and ammonium
aerosol can enter natural water systems through
deposition from the atmosphere (Battelle,
2004i). In water, ammonia  can contribute to
eutrophication of surface waters and can result in
fish kills and reduced biodiversity.
   Ammonia also can present adverse health
effects to workers and animals at AFOs. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) has established a permissible exposure
limit of 50 parts per million (ppm) (time weighted
average over an 8-hour period) for ammonia.
Ammonia is considered a human toxin and can
be quickly absorbed in the human upper airways,
causing damage to the upper airway epithelium
(U.S. EPA, 2004g). Like many compounds, the
human health effects of ammonia vary with
concentration. At concentrations of less than 100
ppm, exposure can cause skin and respiratory
membrane irritation (U.S. EPA, 2004g). More
severe health effects can be experienced, however,
as concentrations rise, including lower lung
inflammation, pulmonary edema, and chemical
burns to the eyes and skin (U.S. EPA, 2004g).
Ammonia can be fatal at very high concentration
exposures of around 500 ppm. Chronic exposures
to airborne ammonia also can affect the course of
infectious disease and influence livestock growth
(U.S. EPA, 2004g). Exposure to both dust and
ammonia simultaneously, which is common in
livestock operations, has a synergistic effect and
increases the risks of respiratory dysfunction more
than exposure to ammonia alone (Donham et al.,
2002).
   The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation,  and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Emergency  Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act (EPCRA) require reporting of large
ammonia releases of 100 pounds per day or more.
These limits are applicable to AFOs, as well as
many other types of facilities. Lunder et al (2004)
recently recommended that ammonia be evaluated
for possible addition to the Clean Air Act list
of hazardous air pollutants, which would reduce
the regulation limit for a single facility to 10 tons
per year. The recently promulgated Consolidated
Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) now requires
that states include ammonia and PM2 5 in point
source reporting beginning with the 2002
inventory year (Battelle, 2004i).
   State-level regulation of emissions from
AFOs is becoming more common, but there
is uncertainty regarding the applicability of
federal Clean Air Act, CERCLA, and EPCRA
requirements to AFOs. Ambiguity regarding
the magnitude of ammonia emissions is one
of the contributing factors in the difficulty of
determining whether or not a particular AFO
is in compliance with these federal laws (70  FR
4958). Current estimates of ammonia emissions
from AFOs, including those of U.S. EPA (2004f),
apply generic emissions factors (i.e., pounds of
ammonia per animal per day) to estimates of
livestock population. The National Academies
of Science identified these estimation methods
as generally inadequate and recommended
improvement in measurement protocols for
ammonia (NAS, 2003).
   To address the uncertainties associated with
estimates of AFO emissions and the applicability
of federal regulations, EPA has announced a
voluntary air quality compliance agreement
with animal producers. Under the compliance
agreement, producers who sign up to participate
52
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                     2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
agree to fund a monitoring study at AFOs. U.S.
EPA expects each selected AFO to be monitored
for two years to obtain credible data. Within
18 months of completing the monitoring study
under the compliance agreement, EPA will
develop emissions estimating methods based on
monitoring results and other available data to
assist AFOs in estimating annual emissions. The
participating AFOs will then apply for applicable
air permits and submit required CERCLA or
EPCRA notification reports (70 FR 4958). As of
August 15,2005, more than 2,000 AFOs from
over 37 states had signed agreements (U.S. EPA,
2005i).
  2.6.2  Technology Description
To address the concerns of the National
Academies and others, the ETV Program
decided to verify the performance of ambient
ammonia monitors for use at AFOs. The standard
method for measuring ambient ammonia, EPA
Compendium Method IO 4.2: Determination
of Reactive Acidic and Basic Gases and Strong
Acidity of Atmospheric Fine Particles (<2.5 |_im),
is widely used for sampling acidic and basic gases
in the atmosphere. The method, however, is time
consuming, labor intensive, and not well suited for
conducting continuous measurements (Battelle,
2004i, 2004J).
   Ambient ammonia monitors utilize a wide
range of analytical methods. These methods
                             ETV-VER/F/ED A
              include direct detection by spectroscopic
              techniques or indirect detection of ammonia
              using selective membrane permeation with
              conductivity detection, catalytic conversion with
              chemiluminescence detection, treatment with
              a chemical dopant followed by ion mobility
              detection, or other techniques. Ambient ammonia
              monitors also can provide specialized features that
              can be valuable in specific uses, such as long-term
              monitoring or determining ammonia fluxes and
              emission rates. For example, monitors that collect
              high-speed (sub-second response time) ammonia
              concentration data and three-dimensional wind
              speed/direction data simultaneously can be used to
              determine ammonia flux. Alternatively, open-path
              monitors can be used to calculate emission rates
              from AFOs, since these monitors measure the
              average ammonia concentration over a 1 to 100
              meter path. Some monitors also are suitable for
              long-term monitoring, since they can be operated
              without user intervention for weeks at a time
              (Battelle, 2004i, 2004J).
                  To date, the ETV Program has verified the
              performance of seven ambient ammonia monitors.
              These monitors were verified in collaboration with
              the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
              Exhibit 2.6-1 contains a short description of the
              monitors that have been verified by the ETV
              Program.
                  The verification test was conducted in
              two phases, each at separate AFOs. Not all
              technologies were evaluated in both phases. Phase
              I was conducted at a swine finishing farm and
                    ONIA MONITORS
      Technology Name
      Aerodyne Research, Inc. QC-TILDAS

      Bruker Daltonics OPAG 22 Open-Path Gas
      Analyzer
      Molecular Analytics lonPro-IMS Ammonia
      Analyzer
                           Description
   An infrared laser spectrometer, based on pulsed quantum cascade laser
   technology; continuous.
   A broadband, open-path, Fourier transform infrared spectrometer for remote
   sensing.
   An ion mobility spectrometer; continuous.
      Omnisens SATGA3IO Ammonia Analyzer
      Ammonia Analyzer
      Mechatronics Instruments BVAiRRmonia
      Ammonia Analyzer
      Thermo Electron Corp. Model 17C
      \mmonia Analyzer
      Sources: Battelle, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d,
   A trace gas analyzer that uses photoacoustic spectrometer; continuous.
   A resonant photoacoustic spectrometer with a line-tunable carbon dioxide
   (CO2) laser; continuous.
   A single-point monitor composed of a membrane diffusion sampler, a detector
   block with a diffusion membrane, and two conductivity cells; continuous.
   A chemiluminescence analyzer that uses nitric oxide (NO) and ozone (O3)
   reactions; time-averaged.
2004e, 2004f, 2004g.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                           53

-------
   2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
                   An Ambient Ammonia Monitor at an AFO


   Phase II was conducted at a cattle feedlot. These
   sites were selected to provide realistic testing
   conditions and were expected to exhibit a wide
   range of ammonia concentrations during the test
   periods. The sites also were expected to allow
                                            evaluation of potential interferences with other
                                            gas-phase chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfide,
                                            common to AFOs. The verification test evaluated
                                            relative accuracy, linearity, precision, response
                                            time, calibration and baseline drift, interference
                                            effects, comparability, ease of use, and data
                                            completeness for each technology. Exhibit 2.6-2
                                            summarizes some of the performance data for
                                            the individual verified technologies. Because the
                                            ETV Program does  not compare technologies,
                                            the performance results shown in Exhibit 2.6-2
                                            do not identify the vendor associated with each
                                            result and are not in  the same order as the list of
                                            technologies in Exhibit 2.6-1.
                                                The ETV Program found that the average
                                            relative accuracy for  the monitors ranged
                                            from 2.2% to 44%. A result of 0% indicates
                                            perfect accuracy relative to the tested ammonia
                                            concentration. The measured relative precision
                                            ranged from 0.2% to 2.5%. A result of 0%
                                            indicates perfect precision. The measured
                                            response times to a sudden change in ammonia
                                            concentration ranged from less than one second
                                            to more than one hour. The ETV Program used
                     PERFORMANCE OF ETV-VERIFIED AMBIENT AMMONIA MONITORS*
4
    Vendor    Testing   Average relative   Relative     Response    Linearity (slope,
                            accuracy      precision    time (95%)      Intercept, r2)
Phase I &
 Phase II

Phase I &
 Phase II

Phase I &
 Phase II

 Phase II
               Phase II
               Phase II
               Phase I &
               Phase II
                            3.7 to 10.5%
                            2.4 to 34%
10 to 44%
                               2.2%
                18.3%
                26%
              4.7 to 10%
                 0.3%
              0.7 to 2.1%
0.2 to 1.3%
                0.9%
                 1.0%
                 1.8%
               1.9 to 2.5
  3 to 76 min    Slope: 0.90 to 1.03
               Intercept: -24 to -0.6
               r2: 1.000
  8 to 20 min    Slope: 1.02 to 1.28
               Intercept:-2.4 to 136
               r2:0.9957 to 0.9999
  I to 32 min    Slope: 0.716 to 1.25
               Intercept: -58.5 to 167
               r2:0.9854 to 0.9997
  2 to 2.6 min    Slope: 0.966
               Intercept: 15.9
	  r2:I.OOO
  2.5 to  17 mi    Slope: 0.815
               Intercept: 1.08
               r2: 1.000
 4 to 14 sec rise   Slope: 0.583
               Intercept: 24.9
               r2:0.9144
  0.8 to 66 sec    Slope: 0.840 to 0.962
               Intercept: -8.8 to 35
               r2:0.9989 to 0.9998
    Sources: Battelle, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2004g
   Comparability
 (slope, intercept, r2)
Slope: 0.86 to 1.20
Intercept: -0.5 to  16
r2:0.984 to 0.990
Slope: 0.41 to 1.18
Intercept: -1.4 to 58
r2:0.538 to 0.9755
Slope: 0.646 to 1.83
Intercept: -6.7 to 21.6
r2:0.9794 to 0.9842
Slope: 1.15
Intercept: -4.1
r2:0.994
Slope: 1.565
Intercept: -16.5
^0.994
Not reported
                                            Slope: 0.984 to 1.09
                                            Intercept: -9.5 to 14.4
                                            r2:0.9943 to 0.9982
                                                                                      14.4
                                                                                      d
   38 Because the ETV Program does not compare technologies, the performance results shown in Exhibit 2.6-2 do not identify the vendor
      associated with each result and are not in the same order as the list of technologies in Exhibit 2.6-1.
   54
                                               Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                     2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
linear regression analysis to evaluate (1) linearity
of the monitors over the range of ammonia
concentrations tested, and (2) comparability of
the monitors to the standard test method. For
linearity, the slope values range from 0.583 to
1.28; the intercept values range from -59 to 167
parts per billion (ppb); and the r2 values range
from 0.914 to 1.000. For comparability, the slope
values range from 0.41 to 1.83; the intercept
values range from -17 to 58 ppb; and the r2 values
range from 0.538 to 0.998.39 The monitors vary
in price from less than $30,000 to  more than
$100,000 (Battelle, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d,
2004e, 2004f, 2004g).
   2.6.3  Outcomes
The potential market for the ETV-verified
ambient ammonia monitors includes AFOs. EPA
estimates there are approximately 450,000 AFOs
in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2004h). Any of these
facilities could apply the ETV-verified ambient
ammonia monitors to measure their emissions.
Some reasons for monitoring could include the
factors discussed above in Section 2.6.1, such as
(1) to better quantify emissions or concentrations
which are at or near federal regulatory limits;
(2) to comply with state-level regulation; or (3)
to comply with possible future regulations or
monitoring programs.
    Given the limitations of current estimates
of ammonia emissions, quantitative data are not
available to identify the population of facilities
that emit ammonia above certain thresholds.
However, larger facilities are  more likely to
have higher ammonia emissions, be subject to
regulation (either present regulation or possible
future monitoring requirements), and, therefore,
be more likely to implement  monitoring
technologies. To estimate the population of
"larger" facilities, the ETV program adopted
definitions from EPA's water program. In the
background document for its AFO effluent
guideline regulations, U.S. EPA (2002d) estimated
there were 3,900 large AFOs and 9,900 medium
AFOs. Continuous onsite monitoring might not
be required for all sites and, if monitoring were
to be required, there would have to be adequately
trained staff and quality assurance/data reporting
provisions. Therefore, the ETV Program has
restricted its estimate of the total potential market
for the ETV-verified monitors  to the 3,900 large
facilities only.40 This estimate does not represent
the total population that will conduct monitoring
using the ETV technologies. It represents an
estimate of the population that could implement,
or benefit from, the verified technologies (e.g.,
the total potential market), given the above
assumptions.
   Because the ETV Program does  not have
access to a comprehensive set of sales data for the
ETV-verified monitors, ETV used two market
penetration scenarios, 10% and 25%  of the
total potential market, to estimate the number
of facilities that could potentially apply the
technologies, as shown in Exhibit 2.6-3.

Environmental, Health, and
Economic Outcomes
It is anticipated that accurate ammonia
measurement data and identification of effective
reduction methods ultimately will result in
emissions reductions. Reductions in  ammonia
emissions carry significant benefits to the
communities immediately surrounding AFOs
and also on regional and national scales. As
discussed above, ammonia can adversely impact
human health and the environment through the


        NUMBER OF FACILITIES THAT COULD
           APPLY ETV-VERIFIED AMBI
               A-—ONIA MONITORS
      Market Penetration
Number of
 Facilities
      10%
     25%
39 Slope and intercept are measures of the relationship between analyzer response and the gas standard or reference method value. The
   degree to which the slope deviates from one and the intercept deviates from zero are indicators of the monitor's accuracy. The r is a
   measure of how well the data fit a linear relationship. Values of r range from zero to one, with higher values indicating a better fit. Thus, a
   higher r value indicates a higher linearity over the range of concentrations tested and higher comparability to the standard test method.

40 This may be a conservative (low) estimate because it includes only large AFOs, as defined in U.S. EPA (2002d). Other users of the ETV-
   verified technologies might include facilities other than AFOs that emit ammonia, research institutions, and regulatory agencies.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                      55

-------
2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
           10% reduction in livestock ammonia
           emissions can lead to over $4 billion
  annually in particulate-related health benefits."
  —McCubbin et al. (2002)
formation of fine particulate matter. This pollutant
appears to affect certain subpopulations (e.g.,
children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing
cardiopulmonary problems) more than others.
EPA estimates that the reduction of ambient
particulate matter concentrations achieved under
current regulations results in the avoidance of
premature mortality. EPA has estimated the
economic value of this human health benefit at
$100 billion per year. Additional benefits, such as
reducing illness and minimizing the number of
lost workdays and the consequences of restricted
activity, could have an economic value of around
$10 billion per year (U.S. EPA, 1999a).
   Reducing ammonia from AFOs would have
economic value in addition to that achieved by
current regulations. McCubbin et al. (2002)
provide a specific estimate of this potential
economic value (see quote above). This estimate
includes the value of premature mortality only.
Other benefits that were not included, such
as reduced hospital visits, work time missed,
improved quality of life, and increased property
value, would be expected to increase the overall
benefit of ammonia emission reduction (Battelle,
2004i, 2004J).

Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
With over 2,000 signed agreements from AFOs
located around the country, EPA anticipates that
a number of facilities will be selected for inclusion
in a monitoring study under the Air Quality
Compliance Agreement (U.S. EPA, 2005i, 2005J).
The study protocol identifies that ammonia
should be measured using chemiluminescence
or photoacoustic infrared techniques for
mechanically ventilated buildings. It identifies
open-path Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
and ultraviolet differential optical absorption
spectroscopy (UV-DOAS) technologies for
uses  in measuring ammonia emissions from
naturally ventilated buildings, open manure piles,
and lagoons (70 FR 4958). The ETV-verified
monitors include examples of these technologies.
EPA expects the participating facilities will use
a variety of monitor types. Some, but not all, of
the types of monitors likely to be used in the
monitoring study were evaluated in the ETV
verification program (Harris, 2005).
    As ammonia emission rates are better defined
by the results of the Compliance Agreement's
monitoring program, it is possible  that additional
facilities might conduct monitoring to verify their
compliance with the federal regulations identified
in Section 2.6.1. Facilities also might conduct
monitoring to comply with state regulations.
Without measurement data, facilities run the
risk of violating federal statues without their
knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to federal and
civil lawsuits that can carry multi-million dollar
penalties. For example, enforcement of CERCLA,
EPCRA, the CAA, and other statutes in a case
against a large Midwestern meatpacker resulted in
a settlement including approximately $10 million
for environmental improvements and a $4.1
million civil penalty (U.S. DOJ,  2001).

Scientific Advancement Outcomes
The availability of ammonia monitor performance
verification data is expected to promote the
growth in the number and quality  of research
activities in the area of agricultural air quality,
especially those research areas recommended by
the National Academies. These research areas
include ammonia measurement campaigns at
or near AFOs, accurately quantifying ammonia
emission rates, and evaluating and implementing
control technologies, among others (NAS,
2003). Improved AFO ammonia measurement
techniques are expected to provide benefits such as
the following:

•*•  Aiding Research and Reducing Uncertainties.
    Ammonia monitoring data, such as that
    provided by the ETV-verified technologies,
    will assist agricultural air quality researchers
    in updating current ammonia emission
    estimation methodologies, providing
    accurate input or field verification data for
    computer models, and advising owners and
    regulatory agencies regarding the need for
    ammonia emission reduction efforts (Battelle,
    2004i). Addressing these research needs will
    help resolve the significant uncertainties
56
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                        2. AIR AND ENERGY TECHNOLOGY- CASE STUDIES
    regarding the characterization of ammonia
    emissions from AFOs. In turn, this improved
    characterization will address uncertainties
    regarding the formation of particulate matter,
    health outcomes, and health effects on
    susceptible subpopulations.

    Evaluating Reduction Efforts. The National
    Academies recommended application of
    measures to reduce ammonia emissions
    at AFOs (see quote at right). More
    accurate ammonia measurement data could
    greatly improve the ability to evaluate the
    effectiveness of these measures.
             est management practices aimed
             at mitigating AFO emissions should
    continue to be improved and applied as new
    information is developed on the character, amount,
    and dispersion of these air emissions, and on their
    health and environmental effects." —The National
    Academies of Science (NAS, 2003)
                                 ACRONYMS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY:
 AFO        Animal Feeding Operation

 AMS Center  ETV's Advanced Monitoring Systems Center

 CERCLA     Comprehensive Environmental Response,
            Compensation, and Liability Act
 CERR       Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule

 EPCRA      Emergency Planning and Community
            Right-to-Know Act
FTIR      Fourier transform infrared

OSHA    Occupational Safety and Health Administration

ppm      parts per million

USDA    U.S. Department of Agriculture

UV-DOAS ultraviolet differential optical absorption spectroscopy
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                  57

-------

-------
Water Technology
     Case Studies

-------

-------
                                                                    3.1
         Arsenic   Drinking  Water
        Treatment  Technologies
        ^| he ETV Program's Drinking Water
          Systems (DWS) Center, operated
          by NSF International under a
          cooperative agreement with EPA,
          has verified the performance of eight
technologies for removing arsenic from drinking
water. These technologies are easily transportable,
package systems designed for small drinking
water systems. Arsenic is a known carcinogen
with additional, non-cancer human health effects.
To protect the public from the adverse health
effects of arsenic, EPA recently lowered the
drinking water standard for arsenic to 10 parts per
billion (ppb). As a result, several thousand small
drinking water systems  will need to install arsenic
treatment technologies  like those verified by the
ETV Program.
   Based on the analysis in this case study, the
ETV Program estimates that:
*  The ETV-verified arsenic drinking water
   treatment technologies can potentially assist
   up to 980 small drinking water systems (out
   of a potential market of 3,900) in complying
   with the new arsenic standard.
*  The technologies could prevent 1.3 to 4.8
   cases of lung and bladder cancer and 0.7 to 2.6
   deaths from these cancers per year, assuming
   390 to 980 small drinking water systems
   apply the technologies. The technologies can
   potentially prevent other negative human
   health effects, including other types of cancer.
*  The technologies could result in economic
   benefits of approximately $4.8 million to
   $17.1 million41 per year due to the prevention
   of the above cases of lung and bladder cancer.
   Verification also has increased the awareness
of the ETV-verified arsenic drinking water
technologies and their benefits among state
regulatory agencies and potential users. The
following benefits have been or can potentially be
realized from the availability and use of the ETV
data:

*  Twenty-five states reportedly use ETV
   verification data to reduce the frequency
   and/or length of site-specific pilot tests for
   drinking water treatment and at least one
   vendor has reported this result. The State of
   Utah's drinking water regulations specifically
   identify the ETV Program as a source of
   performance verification data.
*  Assuming 390 to 980 systems use ETV data
   to reduce pilot testing requirements, these
   systems can potentially save approximately
   $800,000 to more than $14 million in pilot
   testing costs, depending on the degree to
   which the reduction in requirements leads to
   cost savings.
*  The reduction in pilot testing length also
   could lead to systems achieving the above
   health benefits sooner than would otherwise
   be possible.
41 In May 1999 dollars.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                   61

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
   3.1.1  Environmental, Health, and
          Regulatory Background
Arsenic occurs naturally in rocks, soil, water,
air, plants, and animals. It can be released into
water, including drinking water, through natural
processes, such as erosion, or through human
actions, including agricultural applications
(fungicides or rodenticides), mining, or disposal
of arsenic-laden consumer products (wood
preservative, paints, dyes, soaps, and semi-
conductors). Studies have linked long-term
exposure to arsenic at various levels in drinking
water to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney,
nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Non-cancer
effects of ingesting arsenic include cardiovascular,
pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and
endocrine (e.g., diabetes) effects (U.S. EPA,
2001h).
   In 1975, EPA set its drinking water
standard for arsenic at 50 ppb, based on the level
recommended by the Public Health Service in
1942. The 50 ppb standard was based on health
effects from short-term exposure to high doses of
arsenic (U.S. EPA, 2001h). A March 1999 report
by the National Academies of Science (NAS),
however, concluded that the drinking water
standard of 50 ppb of arsenic did not achieve
EPA's goal of protecting public health. The NAS
recommended the standard be lowered as soon as
possible (NAS, 2001).
   Based in part on the NAS recommendation
and to protect consumers against the effects of
long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking
water, EPA set a new drinking water standard for
arsenic at 10 ppb on January 22, 2001 (U.S. EPA,
2001h). All public water systems must comply
with the 10 ppb standard beginning January 23,
2006 (66 FR 6976). The new standard will apply
to about 74,000 water systems, approximately five
percent of which will have to take actions, such as
installing treatment equipment, to meet the new
standard. Of the systems that will need to take
action to meet the new standard, EPA estimates
that  97% (or about 3,900) are small systems that
serve fewer than 10,000 people each (U.S. EPA,
2001h). The ETV-verified technologies are
designed for use by these small systems.
  3.1.2 Technology Description
Since most of the systems that will need to take
some type of action to meet the new arsenic
standard are small, the ETV Program has focused
on verifying easily transportable drinking water
treatment technologies that are designed for
small system applications (U.S. EPA, 2004J).42 As
of August 2005, the ETV Program had verified
eight such arsenic drinking water treatment
technologies. The verified technologies include
examples of three different technology classes as
follows:

*  Coagulation/Filtration is a traditional
   treatment process that adds a chemical
   coagulant (typically ferric sulfate or ferric
   chloride) to contaminated water. The
   coagulant modifies the physical or chemical
   properties of dissolved or suspended
   contaminants so that they will settle out
   of solution by gravity or can be removed
   by filtration (U.S. EPA, 2000e). EPA has
   designated coagulation/filtration a Best
   Available Technology (BAT) for removal of
   arsenic (66 FR 6976).
*  Adsorptive Media processes pass
   contaminated water through a bed of media
   on which the contaminants are adsorbed. EPA
   has designated one type of adsorptive media,
   activated alumina, a BAT for removal of
   arsenic (U.S.  EPA, 2000e; 66 FR 6976). More
   recently developed adsorptive media, however,
   also have proven effective for arsenic removal.
*  Reverse Osmosis is a treatment process
   traditionally used for the desalination of
   brackish water and sea water. Reverse osmosis
   produces nearly pure water by maintaining
   a pressure gradient across a membrane with
   very small pores (U.S. EPA, 2000e). EPA has
   designated reverse osmosis a BAT for removal
   of arsenic (66 FR 6976).
42 Researchers from EPA NRMRL are also working in partnership with municipalities and equipment producers to demonstrate the
  effectiveness of a variety of treatment technologies at reducing arsenic levels in local drinking water at 40 locations throughout the United
  States. These demonstrations include some of the ETV-verified technologies (U.S. EPA, 2005o).
62
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                  3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
    Exhibit 3.1-1 identifies the ETV-verified
technologies and provides a description of each.
The ETV Program conducted verification testing
for four of the technologies at the Park City Spiro
Tunnel Water Filtration Plant on ground water
from an abandoned silver mine, representing one
of the sources of drinking water for the City of
Park City, Utah. The ETV Program verified the
other four technologies in Alaska, Pennsylvania,
or California, using groundwater from these
areas. The tests lasted between two weeks and
six months. Each of the tests measured water
quality results and observed system operation and
maintenance. Most of the tests also measured
consumables and waste generation (NSF, 2004a,
2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c,
2001d).
    The ETV Program verified that most of the
technologies reduced arsenic to 5 ppb or less, and
many of them reduced arsenic  to the minimum
detection limit of 1  to 2 ppb. Average removal
         efficiencies ranged from 50% to almost 95% (NSF,
         2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c,
         2001d). All of the technologies verified by ETV
         are designed for small system applications.
           3.1.3 Outcomes
         Small drinking water systems that will have to
         install or modify treatment processes to comply
         with the new arsenic standard are the most
         likely market for the ETV-verified technologies.
         Accordingly, the ETV Program used data from
         the Economic Analysis (EA) for the new arsenic
         standard to estimate the total potential market
         for the technologies (U.S. EPA, 2000f). The net
         result of this analysis, which is described in more
         detail in Appendix E, is a total potential market
         of 3,900 small systems. It is a conservative  (low)
         estimate of the total potential market, because the
         technologies also can be scaled up for use by larger
         systems.
                   ETV-VERIFIED ARSENIC DRINKING WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
      Technology Name
      Kinetico Incorporated Macrolite® Coagulation
      and Filtration System, Model CPSIOOCPT
      Watermark Technologies, LLC eVOX® Model 5
       3elta Industrial Services, Inc. CampWater
      Porta-5 System
      Kinetico Inc. and Alcan Chemicals Para-Flo™
      PF60 Model AA08AS with Actiguard AAFS50
      ADI Pilot Test Unit No. 2002-09 with MEDIA
      G2® (see Note I)
      Watts Premier M-Series M-15,000 Reverse
      Osmosis Treatment System
      KOCH Membrane SystemsTFC® —ULP4
      Reverse Osmosis Membrane Module
      Hydranautics ESPA2-4040 Reverse Osmosis
      Membrane Element Module
                        Description

A coagulation/filtration technology that utilizes sodum hypochlorite and
ferric chloride and a proprietary ceramic filtration material specifically.The
test unit is self-contained, skid-mounted and transportable by truck.
A coagulation/filtration technology that uses sodum hypochlorite and ferric
chloride to produce an insoluble large particle hydroxide precipitate that
can be removed using a simple non-proprietary media filter or clarification.
The test unit is self-contained, skid-mounted and transportable by truck.
A coagulation/filtration technology that uses ozone to oxidize naturally
occurring iron to form a ferric hydroxide solid, which is filtered directly
without additional flocculation, solid separation, or clarification.The system
is transportable and is designed to fit into a standard pickup truck or small
aircraft.
An adsorptive media technology that uses a proprietary granular iron-
enhanced activated alumina media.The treatment unit is suitable for very
small to small communities and is scaled up to serve larger communities
(see Note 2).
An adsorptive media technology that uses a proprietary media consisting
of an inorganic, natural substrate upon which iron (ferric hydroxide)  is
chemically bonded.The treatment unit is intended for very small to medium
size systems (see Note 2).
Reverse osmosis technologies designed to reject dissolved salts and ionic
solids, such as arsenic, sodium, chloride, and other dissolved materials from
drinking water.
      Note I: Phase I verification complete; Phase 2 verification is expected in 2005.
      Note 2: EPA defines a small system as a system the serves a community of less than 10,000 people.This may or may not agree with
      how the vendors define systems of this size. For clarification, please contact the vendor contact listed on the front page of the
      verification statement posted at http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifications/vcenter2-l4.html
      Sources: NSF, 2001 a, 2001 b, 2001 c, 2001 d, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                           63

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
        NUMBER OF SYSTEMS THAT COULD
           APPLY ETV-VERIFIED ARSENIC
                 DRINKING WATER
            TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
@%
fe
| Market
H Penetration
D£tO 10%
[ 25%
( 1 ) Rounded to
(2) Rounded to


Number of
Systems (1)
390
980
nearest 10
nearest 100,000
Population
Served
(number of
people) (2)
400,000
1,100,000


    Because the ETV Program does not have
access to a comprehensive set of sales data
for the ETV-verified technologies, the ETV
Program used two market penetration scenarios,
10% and 25% of the total potential market, to
estimate potential health, economic, and financial
outcomes.
    Exhibit 3.1-2 lists the number of systems
that could apply the ETV-verified technologies
based on these market penetration scenarios, as
well as the populations that could be served. The
ETV Program also used these market penetration
scenarios to estimate the environmental, health,
economic, and regulatory compliance outcomes
shown below.
Environmenta/ and Health Outcomes
A number of human health benefits can result
from removing arsenic from drinking water,
         ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CANCER
         ASES AND CANCER DEATHS PER YEAR
            POTENTIALLY PREVENTED BY
         ETV-VERIFIED ARSENIC DRINKING
         WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES



Market
Penetration

10%
25%

10%
25%
Total Cases
Prevented
perYear
Lower Bound
1.3
3.2
Upper Bound
1.9
4.8
Deaths
Prevented
perYear

0.7
1.8

1.0
2.6
     Values rounded to nearest 0.1
including the prevention of bladder and lung
cancer.
   The ETV Program estimated the number of
cases of lung and bladder cancer that could be
avoided by using ETV-verified technologies (see
Exhibit 3.1-3) based on data from the EA for the
new arsenic standard and the market penetration
scenarios described in the previous section (U.S.
EPA, 2000f).
   Exhibit 3.1-3 includes upper- and lower-
bound estimates because the EA presents both
upper- and lower-bound data.43 Appendix E
presents the assumptions used in this analysis in
greater detail.
                     Two of the ETV-verified arsenic drinking water treatment technologies
43 These estimates (both upper- and lower-bound) are conservative (low) because they are based on the conservative (low) estimates of the
  market for ETV-verified technologies. In addition, many of the ETV-verified technologies consistently reduce arsenic to levels well below
  the new standard and, thus, could provide even greater benefits.
64
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                         3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
   In addition to the prevention of lung and
bladder cancer quantified above, the ETV-verified
technologies can prevent other negative human
health outcomes associated with exposure to
arsenic. These include the following: skin cancer,
kidney cancer, cancer of the nasal passages, liver
cancer, prostate cancer, cardiovascular effects,
pulmonary effects, immunological effects,
neurological effects, endocrine effects, and
reproductive and developmental effects (U.S.
EPA, 2000f). Quantitative data are not available
to estimate these other human health outcomes.
   The estimates in Exhibit 3.1-3 are based on
the assumption that only small systems will apply
the ETV-verified technologies. This assumption
is conservative because the technologies can
be scaled up for use by larger systems. If large
systems are considered, the estimated benefits
would increase to 3.7 to 5.6 cases and 2.1 to
3.0 deaths prevented per year at 10% market
penetration, with associated economic benefits.
Financial and Economic Outcomes
In addition to personal and societal impacts,
cancer prevention also has an economic impact.
The  ETV Program estimated the economic
impacts associated with the human health
outcomes shown in Exhibit 3.1-3 based on the
economic data (e.g., per avoided case of non-fatal
cancer) provided in EPA's EA for the new arsenic
standard (U.S. EPA, 2000f).
   Exhibit 3.1-4 presents these estimates.44
Appendix E presents the assumptions used in this
analysis in greater detail. Additional economic
benefits could result from the prevention of the
         ESTIMATED POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
         BENEFITS OF LUNG AND BLADDER
           CANCER PREVENTION BY ETV-
        VERIFIED ARSENIC DR/-
  I
     Market
     Penetration
Million dollars perYear
Lower         Upper
Bound         Bound
  4.8             6.8
     Values rounded to nearest $100,000
other, non-quantifiable human health outcomes
discussed above and by including potential
impacts from large system applications.

Regulatory Compliance and
Technology Acceptance Outcomes
States establish drinking water regulations to
ensure that drinking water is safe and meets
applicable drinking water standards. These
rules can govern drinking water system design,
construction, operation, and upkeep, including
testing requirements for alternative/innovative
treatment systems. In some cases, they also
mention or recommend sources of performance
information.  For example, section R309-535-
13 of Utah's Safe Drinking Water Act states
that new drinking water treatment processes
and equipment need to be tested before plans
can be approved for their use. It also mentions
how the ETV Program facilitates deployment by
verifying the performance of new technologies
and refers engineers and manufacturers to ETV's
partner, NSF International, for more information
about testing package treatment processes (Utah,
2005). Citations of this nature indicate that ETV
testing and data are valued by states, and can
provide information that can be used to approve
technology use at the state level.
    State acceptance of verification data can result
in cost savings for drinking water systems that
use the verification data to reduce the amount
of pilot testing required by some state regulatory
agencies. This outcome is supported by one
vendor, who reports that ETV data significantly
reduced the amount of pilot testing needed for
state drinking water agency approval (Latimer,
2004; U.S. EPA, 2004J). In addition, the results
of a 2003 Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) survey indicate that a
majority of states responding use  ETV verification
data to reduce the frequency and/or length of site-
specific pilot tests. Specifically, the survey found
that 25 of the 38 states that responded to the
survey use ETV data to reduce pilot testing for
surface water systems and 20 states use ETV data
to reduce pilot testing for ground water systems
(ASDWA, 2003). Although this report does not
44 These estimates ate consetvative (low) because: (1) they are based on the conservative (low) estimates of the number of cases prevented,
  and (2) they are in May 1999 dollars.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                        65

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
specifically mention the applications described
in this case study, it is reasonable to assume that
ETV verification has the potential to reduce pilot
study costs for arsenic drinking water treatment
systems.
    To estimate potential national pilot study cost
savings, the ETV Program assumed an individual
pilot study cost of $20,000 (Adams, 2005). To
bound the estimates, the ETV Program developed
two scenarios. The lower bound assumes that
ETV verification eliminates the need for pilot
studies for 10% of systems installing ETV-verified
technologies (or reduces pilot study costs by 10%).
The upper bound that assumes ETV verification
eliminates the need for pilot studies for 75% of
systems installing ETV-verified technologies (or
reduces pilot study costs by 75%).
    Exhibit 3.1-5 presents the estimated pilot
testing cost savings depending on market
penetration scenario.45 Appendix E presents the
assumptions used in this analysis in greater detail.
                                                               ESTIMATED POTENTIAL PILOT
                                                               ^•"i SAVINGS FOR ETV-VERiFi
                                                                   SENIC DRINKING WATER
                                                                TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES

                                                                                 $ Millions
                                                         Market
                                                         Penetration
                                                            10%
                                                               Lower
                                                               Bound
                                                                 0.8
Upper
Bound
  5.9
  14.7
                                                         Values rounded to nearest $ 100,000
                                                       In addition to potential cost savings, reducing
                                                   the length of site-specific pilot tests provides an
                                                   opportunity for water systems to meet compliance
                                                   with the new arsenic standard more quickly.
                                                   Shorter pilot tests potentially could result in
                                                   systems achieving health benefits sooner than
                                                   would otherwise be possible.
                                                               National Academies of Science

                                                               parts per billion
ASDWA

DWS Center

EA
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

ETV's Drinking Water Systems Center

Economic Analysis
45 These estimates (both upper- and lower-bound) are conservative (low) because they are based on the conservative (low) estimates of the
  market for ETV-verified technologies.

66                                                     Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                      3.2
                  Residential  Nutrient
        Reduction Technologies
        J he ETV Program's Water Quality
          Protection (WQP) Center, operated
          by NSF International under a
          cooperative agreement with EPA,
          has verified the performance of six
technologies for reducing the nutrient nitrogen
in domestic wastewater discharged from single-
family homes. These technologies are designed
for homes that rely on onsite wastewater disposal,
and remove total nitrogen from the wastewater
by biological nitrification and denitrification.
Most onsite systems consist of septic tanks with
soil absorption systems, which are not designed
to reduce nitrogen. Thus, unlike traditional septic
systems, the verified technologies are designed
to reduce nitrogen loading to ground and surface
waters. While nitrogen is an essential nutrient
for plants, excessive levels in surface waters can
have detrimental ecological effects, such as algae
formation leading to oxygen depletion. EPA has
also established drinking water quality standards
for nitrogen species such as nitrate and nitrite
because of human health concerns.
   Based on the analysis in this case study, the
ETV Program estimates that:

*  The ETV-verified residential nutrient
   reduction technologies could be applied at
   approximately 260,000 to 640,000 homes
   nationwide where nitrogen could be a threat
   to ground water or surface water (out of an
   estimated potential market of 2.6 million
   homes).46
*  The technologies could reduce nitrogen
   loading to ground water by 1,300 to 4,000
   tons per year (assuming they are applied by
   260,000 to 640,000 homes), with associated
   benefits of improved compliance with
   drinking water standards and reduction of
   environmental problems associated with
   nutrient loading.
   The technologies also can address public
policy concerns associated with nitrogen and
nutrient releases to ground and surface waters
from non-point sources such as septic systems.
Other benefits include the establishment of
a well-accepted protocol that has advanced
efforts to standardize protocols across
programs. At least four states (North Carolina,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Florida)
are currently using, or might use  in the future,
ETV protocols in the evaluation of alternative
technologies for the management of septic
systems or discharge of nitrogen.
  3.2.1  Environmental, Health,
        and Regulatory Background
EPA and states recognize septic systems as major
sources of ground water contamination. States
46 Note that these estimates are based on a rough assumption about the percent of homes with septic systems that represent a threat to
  ground water or surface water, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                          67

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
                                                            Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
                                                             10          15          20          25         30
                Underground Storage Tanks |

                     Septic Systems

                               Landfills

                                 Spills

                     Fertilizer Applications

                   Large Industrial Facilities

                    Hazardous Waste Sites

                         Animal Feedlots

                              Pesticides

                    Surface Impoundments

                            Urban Runoff

                Aboveground Storage Tanks

                      Saltwater Intrusion

                  Mining and Mine Drainage

                  Pipelines and Sewer Lines

              Agricultural Chemical Facilities

                    Shallow Injection Wells

               Salt Storage and Road Salting

                 Land Application of Wastes

                       Irrigation Practices
                                               UTANTS IN IMPAIRE
IN THE UNITED  ST.
47 This figure represents contamination from all sources and includes both nitrogen species and other pollutants not evaluated through the
   ETV verification testing.

68                                                                        Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                         3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
have identified septic systems as the second
most frequently reported contaminant source, as
shown in Exhibit 3.2-1 (U.S. EPA, 2002e). EPA
has recently reiterated this concern (U.S. EPA,
2005k). The specific contaminants causing these
concerns are not comprehensively identified, but
typical pollutants from septic systems include
suspended solids, biodegradable organics, bacteria
and other pathogens, nitrogen and phosphorus,
and other inorganic and organic chemicals (U.S.
EPA, 2003f).
    Nitrogen compounds also present concerns
to the nation's surface water. EPA and states have
identified nutrients, which include both nitrogen
and phosphorus, as the leading pollutant in lakes,
reservoirs, and ponds, as shown in Exhibit 3.2-2
(U.S. EPA, 2002e). Nutrients are also identified
as impairing other surface waters such as rivers,
streams, estuaries, coastal resources, and wetlands.
Septic  systems indirectly impact lakes and other
surface waters through the process of ground
water recharge, in which impacted ground water
discharges to the surface water. For surface water,
no data are available concerning the nation-
wide distribution of either nutrient or nitrogen
loading by source, but septic systems are thought
to represent a significant source of nutrients. For
example, the State of Delaware estimates that
nutrient loading from septic systems accounts for
19% to 45% of non-point source loading to one
of its nutrient-sensitive estuaries, the Inland Bays
(Jones, undated).
    In surface waters, nutrients cause nuisance
overgrowth of algae as well as noxious aquatic
plants, which leads to oxygen depletion via plant
respiration and microbial decomposition of
plant matter by bacteria. The bacteria consume
dissolved oxygen and, as dissolved oxygen is
depleted, fish kills and foul odors can result.
Therefore, excess nutrients can present losses to
ecological, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic
uses of surface waters (NSF, 2003a).
    To address human health concerns, EPA has
established drinking water standards for several
nitrogen compounds, including those generally
present in domestic wastewater or septic system
discharges, such as nitrates and nitrites. The
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for nitrates
is 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) and the MCL
for nitrites is 1 mg/L (each measured as mg/L
as nitrogen, or "mg/L as N"). The primary
health risks of nitrates and nitrites in drinking
water are to infants. Drinking nitrite or nitrate-
containing water can result in increased incidence
of methemoglobinemia, a blood disorder that
interferes with the body's processes for carrying
sufficient oxygen to cells and tissues (U.S. EPA,
2002f).
   To mitigate risks of water quality degradation
from onsite treatment systems, regulatory
oversight typically is provided at the local
level. Most septic systems are not regulated
at the federal level. Instead, EPA works with
organizations, local governments, and states in
information exchange and technical assistance. For
example, EPA has recently signed a memorandum
of understanding with eight organizations
involved in various facets of septic tank
regulation, operation, and environmental effects
to facilitate this exchange (U.S. EPA, 2005k).
EPA also has developed voluntary guidelines for
the management of septic systems and similar
decentralized wastewater treatment facilities (U.S.
EPA, 2003g). The guidelines provide management
models based on environmental sensitivity, as
determined by the locality, but do not provide
detailed information regarding nutrient
reduction goals or applicable technologies. As of
September 2004, five states (Arizona, Florida,
New Jersey, North Carolina, and Rhode Island)
had adopted these management guidelines (U.S.
EPA, 20051).  In addition, at least four states
(Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Rhode
Island) include specific regulations for nitrogen
discharge in areas that impact sensitive ecosystems
(Pinelands Commission, 2001). Section 3.2.3,
below, discusses how some of these programs
incorporate ETV information.
  3.2.2 Technology Description
To reduce the discharge and impacts of
nitrogen compounds to the environment, the
ETV Program's WQP Center verified six
technologies designed to reduce nutrients from
domestic wastewater. Conventional septic system
technology relies on primary treatment (settling)
for solids and organic reduction prior to dispersion
in the ground. The verified technologies combine
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                            69

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
                                                                                  Fan
                    Access Points
                                                                                          Central
                                                                                          Access
                                                                                          Channel
                                                  Vent
                                                    X,
                                                                              ;:
                     Septic Tank
   . loafing
   Sludge
   Separator

   Clarifier

Anchor Cables
                                                                   Bioclere1'
                                                     Cement Pad
                                                                                      PumpS
 Sludge
 Return
 Pump
        Efflu,
        Outlet
              A schematic diagram of one of the ETV-verified residential nutrient reduction technologies
the primary treatment with biological treatment
to achieve a higher level of treatment. Biological
processes used by the verified technologies include
aerobic trickling filters, aerobic submerged media
filters, and sand filters, to promote removal of
nitrogen from the wastewater through the multi-
step bacterial conversion of ammonia and organic
nitrogen compounds to nitrates, and reduction of
nitrates to gaseous nitrogen.
    While the verified technologies could have
additional benefits (e.g., phosphorus reduction)
or applications (e.g., commercial, industrial, or
larger residential), the ETV Program specifically
verified the nitrogen reduction performance of
systems designed to treat residential wastewater.
The design capacities of the tested units
represent installations that would be appropriate
for a single-family home. Further, some of the
verified technologies can be used for either new
installations or to retrofit existing septic systems.
Readers are encouraged to review the verification
statements and reports (NSF, 2003a, 2003b,
2003c, 2003d, 2003e, 2004e) for a description of
the technologies and their applications.
    Each verification test consisted of a 12- or 13-
month test period, incorporating five sequences
with varying stress conditions to simulate real
household conditions. Exhibit 3.2-3 identifies the
             six verified technologies. The verified technologies
             use various biological processes, but have a
             common three-stage approach to achieve nitrogen
             reduction. In the first stage, raw wastewater flows
             to an anaerobic/anoxic pretreatment tank where
             solids are settled and some reduction of organic
             matter is achieved. Conversion of ammonia
             nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen is accomplished
             in the second stage by aerobic treatment of
             the pretreatment tank discharge. The verified
                   Vendor & Model
                   Aquapoint, Inc. (AQP)—
                   Bioclere Model 16/12
                   Bio-Microbics—RetroFAST8
                   0.375 System
                   F.R. Mahony & Associates, Inc.
                   —Amphidrome Model Single
                   Family System
                   SeptiTech, Inc.—SeptiTech
                   Model 400 System
                   Waterloo Biofilter Systems, Inc.
                   (WBS)—Waterloo Biofilter Model
                   4-Bedroom
                   BioConcepts, Inc.—ReCip
                   RTS-500 System
Design Capacity
    (gallons
    per day)
     400
     375
     400
     440
     440
     500
                                                           Sources: NSF, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2003e, 2004e
70
                 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                          3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
technologies all provided a surface for growth
of biomass, which converts organic matter to
new cell mass and completes the conversion of
ammonia to nitrate. The final stage of treatment
is accomplished by recycling a portion of the
nitrified wastewater to the pretreatment tank,
where anoxic conditions result in reduction of
nitrates to nitrogen gas (U.S. EPA, 20041).
    The ETV Program verified that each of the
six technologies reduced influent total nitrogen by
approximately 50% to 65%, resulting in effluent
total nitrogen concentrations of 14 to 19 mg/L as
N. Exhibit 3.2-4 summarizes the results. Because
the ETV Program does not compare technologies,
the performance results shown in Exhibit 3.2-4
do not identify the vendor associated with each
result and are not in the same order as the list of
technologies in Exhibit 3.2-3.
          PERFORMANCE OF ETV-VERIFIED
              RESIDENTIAL NUTRIENT
           REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES**
                   Average Total
     Vendor    Nitrogen, mg/L as N      %
     & Model   Influent    Effluent  Reduction
     Sources: NSR 2003a, 2003b, 2003c, 2003d, 2003e, 2004e
  3.2.3 Outcomes
The most recent available U.S. Census data
estimate that 25,741,000 homes used septic
tanks as of 2003, representing 21% of homes
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004a). Onsite treatment
systems continue to be used in new construction,
with an estimated 33% of new housing and
commercial development reportedly relying on
onsite treatment systems (U.S. EPA, 2005k).
The number of homes that might utilize a
verified technology, however, is expected to
be substantially less than the Census estimate.
Homeowners and builders that need to utilize
septic systems in areas where they might present
a threat to ground water or surface water quality
due to nitrogen are those most likely to benefit
from the technology, as are the communities in
which these homes are located.
   The ETV Program does not have access to
a comprehensive set of sales data for the ETV-
verified technologies. Also, no reliable estimate
exists for the number or percent of septic systems
that represent a threat to ground water or surface
water quality because of nitrogen. Therefore, this
analysis relies on a rough assumption that 10% of
the 2003 Census estimate of homes with septic
systems are candidates for the ETV-verified
technologies. This very rough approximation is
intended to represent areas where treatment using
the ETV technology would be advantageous
because surface or ground water quality is
sufficiently threatened. The approximation
also  assumes that it is more cost-effective to
incorporate verified technologies in new housing
than to retrofit existing septic systems.49 This
approximation is not intended to imply that 10%
of all homes are, in fact, located in impaired areas;
instead it is intended to provide an approximation
for the total potential market given a lack of
available quantitative estimates. Based on this
assumption and the 2003 Census estimate, the
ETV Program estimates that the total potential
market for the nutrient reduction technologies is
about 2.6 million homes.
   The ETV Program used this estimate of the
total potential market to estimate the number  of
homes that could utilize the verified technologies
based on two market penetration scenarios, 10%
and 25% of the total potential market, as shown
in Exhibit 3.2-5. The ETV Program also used
these market penetration scenarios to estimate the
pollutant reduction outcomes shown below.
48 Because the ETV Program does not compare technologies, the performance results shown in Exhibit 3.2-4 do not identify the vendor
  associated with each result and are not'm the same order as the list of technologies in Exhibit 3.2-3.

49 As discussed in Section 3.2.2, however, some of the ETV-verified technologies can be used to retrofit existing septic systems. Therefore,
  the estimate of the total potential market could be conservative (low).

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                    71

-------
3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
         NUMBER OF HOMES THAT COULD
          APPLY ETV-VER/F/ED NUTRIENT
            REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
     Market Penetration
             25%
Number of Homes
     260,000
     640,000
     Values rounded to nearest 10,000
   ^^^^^^^^^—  —
Pollutant Reduction Outcomes
Using assumptions regarding daily water use,
nitrogen concentration, and nitrogen reduction,
the ETV Program estimated the annual pollutant
reductions from potential application of the ETV-
verified nutrient reduction technologies.50 Exhibit
3.2-6 shows these estimates. The reductions
illustrated in Exhibit 3.2-6 account only for the
reductions observed  in the ETV verification
testing, and do not account for nitrogen reduction
processes that can occur in leach field soils to
which septic tanks commonly drain.
         ESTIMATED POTENTIAL NITROGEN
         *   UCTION FOR THE ETV-VER/F/ED
              RESIDENTIAL NUTRIENT
              EDUCTION TECHNOLOGI
                         Nitrogen Reduction
                           (tons per year)
     Market            Lower          Upper
     Penetration        Bound          Bound
        10%              1,300            1,600
        25%              3,100           4,000
     Values rounded to nearest 100
     ^^^^^^^
    Quantitative data are not available to estimate
the environmental and health outcomes associated
with these pollutant reductions. As discussed
in Section 3.2.1, however, 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.

Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
States establish water quality standards to ensure
that a water body will sustain its uses for drinking
water, recreation, and/or ecological activity.
States also can calculate a Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL), which is the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a water body can
receive and still meet water quality standards, and
an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's
sources. Approximately 360 TMDLs have been
established for nitrogen-containing nutrients (e.g.,
total nitrogen, nitrate) from 1996 to 2005. States
could consider the use of the  ETV technologies to
assist in meeting these objectives.
    The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that
contaminants (such as nitrate and nitrite)  must be
below their respective MCL in public drinking
water supplies. During EPA's fiscal year ending
September 30,2004, a total of 546 systems serving
a total population of more than 200,000 persons
reported at least one violation of the MCL
for nitrates (U.S. EPA, 2005m). This includes
community water systems (e.g., city or town) and
non-transient non-community water systems
(e.g., school or factory). These data suggest that
nitrogen levels in some drinking water supplies
are of concern. Improving the quality of the
drinking water source is an important component
to ensuring continued compliance. The reduction
of nitrogen loading from septic systems through
the application of ETV technologies could
assist drinking water systems in complying with
drinking water standards for nitrates and nitrites.
    Nitrates and nitrates also  could affect private
drinking water wells, in addition to public water
supplies. Approximately 15 percent of Americans
rely on private supplies. Although EPA does
not regulate private drinking water supplies,
some states and  localities do (U.S. EPA, 2005q).
Application of the ETV technologies  could assist
private parties in complying with these state and
local regulations. Data are not available, however,
to estimate how many private wells might be
threatened by nutrients from septic systems.
    As discussed in Section 3.2.1, a number of
states have adopted regulations or guidelines for
the management of septic systems or discharge
50 These estimates assume average water usage of 187.1 gallons per-day per-septic tank, based on the following data: average flow of 69.3
  gallons per person per day (U.S. EPA, 2002c, Table 3-2) and 2.57 people per household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b). They assume
  minimum influent nitrogen concentration of 36 mg/L (the concentration used in ETV verification testing). For the upper and lower
  bound, respectively, they assume the maximum (64%) and minimum (51%) nitrogen reduction efficiency achieved by the technologies.
  Because the calculation uses a minimum influent concentration and is based on a conservative estimate of the total potential market, these
  estimates are conservative (low).
72
                          Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                           3. WATER TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES
of nitrogen. Such regulations and guidelines rely,
in part, on the use of alternative technologies
that are, in some cases, approved by the states.
In the residential wastewater treatment industry,
regulators rely on third-party testing and
standards, such as ANSI/NSF Standard 40 for
Residential Wastewater Treatment Systems. In
addition, some states have processes that allow
for innovative approvals of systems that perform
outside the scope of the existing certification
protocols (U.S. EPA, 20041). At least four states
are currently using, or might use in the future,
ETV protocols in the evaluation of alternative
technologies:

*  North Carolina has indicated that vendors
   requesting innovative approval can use ETV
   verification protocols to  support their request
   (U.S. EPA, 20041). The state additionally
   suggests that data gathered outside of these
   protocols might not be considered equally
   valid (Jeter, 2001).
*  In Massachusetts, Barnstable  County has
   operated the Massachusetts Alternative
   Septic System Test Center since 1998, where
   ETV testing was conducted for five of the six
   evaluated technologies. The Massachusetts
   Department of Environmental Protection
   (DEP) approves alternative septic system
   technologies on a case-by-case basis based,
   in part, on a review of ETV protocol data.
   As of January 2005, the Massachusetts DEP
   has issued certifications for four of the six
                                          evaluated technologies to allow for general
                                          use wherever a conventional system would be
                                          installed (MADEP, 2005).
                                       *  Pennsylvania and Florida are looking at the
                                          ETV protocols to see if there is a way to
                                          incorporate the information contained in the
                                          protocols for evaluation of these systems in
                                          their states (U.S. EPA, 2004a).

                                       Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes
                                       Vendor information indicates that ETV-
                                       verified technologies are being installed in field
                                       applications to reduce pollution. One vendor,
                                       SeptiTech, has reported that verification led to
                                       sales of its technology (see quote below). In one
                                       example, SeptiTech had an opportunity to bid
                                       on a large system and the award of the project to
                                       SeptiTech was directly tied to the ETV testing.
                                       SeptiTech also indicated that ETV verification is
                                       making a "huge difference" in obtaining approvals
                                       outside of New England, and they expect that
                                       approvals will be expedited (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
                                       Although quantitative data are unavailable, this
                                       information provides evidence that the ETV-
                                       verified technologies are being applied in practice.

                                                eptiTech's business tripled  last yea
                                                At least one-third of that growth was
                                         because we were involved in the  ETV Program
                                         and could demonstrate that our product was
                                         effective." —Don Ostrye, Vice President, SeptiTech
                                         (U.S. EPA, 2004o)
 DEP

 MCL
 mg/L
Department of Environmental Protection

maximum contaminant level

milligrams per liter
mg/L as N     milligrams per liter as nitrogen

TMDL       Total Maximum Daily Load

WQP Center  ETVs Water Quality Protection Center
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                                    73

-------

-------

-------

-------
                                                                                      4. REFERENCES
40 CFR Part 86. Control Of Emissions From New
   And In-Use Highway Vehicles And Engines. 40
    Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86.
61 FR 9064. Lead; Requirements for Disclosure
    of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-
    Based Hazards in Housing; Final Rule. Federal
    Register 61, no. 45 (6 March 1996).
64 FR 32610. National Emission Standards for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants: Oil and Natural Gas
    Production and Natural Gas Transmission and
    Storage; Final Rule. Federal Register 61, no. 116
    (17 June 1999).
66 FR 1206. Lead; Identification of Dangerous
    Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal Register 61,
    no. 4 (5 January 2001).
66 FR 5002. Control of Air Pollution from New
    Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle
    Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur
    Control Requirements. Federal Register 66, no.
    12 (18 January 2001).
66 FR 6976. National Primary Drinking Water
    Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to
    Compliance and New Source Contaminants
    Monitoring; Final Rule. Federal Register 66, no.
    14 (22 January 2001).
69 FR 22602. National Emission Standards for
    Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of
   Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks; Final Rule.
    Federal Register: 69, no. 80 (26 April 2004).
70 FR 4958. Animal Feeding Operations Consent
   Agreement and Final Order; Notice. Federal
    Register 70, no. 19 (31 January 2005).
Adams, J. 2005. E-mail communication to Evelyn
    Hartzell, U.S. EPA, regarding ETV Drinking
    Water Systems Center Steering Committee
    Teleconference, 31 March.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease  Registry
    (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Lead;
    Chapter 1: Public Health Statement for Lead.
    Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
   July
Association of State Drinking Water
    Administrators (ASDWA). 2003. Results of
    2003 Annual Survey of State Drinking Water
   Administrators about the ETV Drinking Water
    Systems Center.
Battelle. 2004a. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: AERODYNE RESEARCH,
   INC. QC-TILDAS. Prepared by Battelle in
   collaboration with the U.S. Department of
   Agriculture under a cooperative agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   July
Battelle. 2004b. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: MECHATRONICS
   INSTRUMENTS BVAIRRMONIA
   AMMONIA ANALYZER. Prepared
   by Battelle in collaboration with the
   U.S. Department of Agriculture under
   a cooperative agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. July.
Battelle. 2004c. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: BRUKER DALTONICS,
   INC. OPAG22 OPEN-PATH GAS
   ANALYZER. Prepared by Battelle in
   collaboration with the U.S. Department of
   Agriculture under a cooperative agreement
   with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   July
Battelle. 2004d. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: MOLECULAR
   ANALYTICS IONPRO-IMS AMMONIA
   ANALYZER. Prepared by Battelle in
   collaboration with the U.S. Department of
   Agriculture under a cooperative agreement
   with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   July
Battelle. 2004e. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: OMNISENS TGA310
   AMMONIA ANALYZER. Prepared
   by Battelle in collaboration with the
   U.S. Department of Agriculture under
   a cooperative agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. July.
Battelle. 2004f. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: PRANALYTICA, INC.
   NITROLUX™ 1000 AMBIENT AMMONIA
   ANALYZER. Prepared by Battelle in
   collaboration with the U.S. Department of
   Agriculture under a cooperative agreement
   with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   July
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                           77

-------
4. REFERENCES
Battelle. 2004g. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report: THERMO ELECTRON
    CORPORATION MODEL 17C AMMONIA
   ANALYZER. Prepared by Battelle in
    collaboration with the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture under a cooperative agreement
    with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   July
Battelle. 2004h. "Case Study—Advanced
    Monitoring Systems: X-Ray Fluorescence
    Instruments. ETV Verified Technology For
    Metals Detection In Soil and Dust Wipes."
    Draft. 10 February.
Battelle. 2004L "Draft Outcomes Brief: Ambient
    Ammonia Monitoring Technologies For Use
    At Animal Feeding Operations." Draft. 10
    November.
Boedecker, E., J. Cymbalsky, and S. Wade. 2000.
    "Modeling Distributed Electricity Generation
    in the NEMS Buildings Models." Issues in
    Midterm Analysis and Forecasting 2000. Energy
    Information Administration, U.S. Department
    of Energy.
Boyer, Brian. 2005. E-mail communication.
    7 October.
Brown, Kevin. 2005. Telephone conversation.
    6 November.
Brzezinski, D. 2004. E-mail communication.
    28 September.
Cadmus and Pirnie. 2003. Technologies and Costs
   for Control of Microbial Contaminants and
    Disinfection Byproducts. Prepared for U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency—Office of
    Ground Water and Drinking Water. June.
Calhoun, Bill. 2005. E-mail communication.
    8 December.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000.
    Suggested Control Measure for Architectural
    Coatings. June.
CARB. 2002. Equipment and Process
    Precertification Program: Evaluation of the Air
    Quality Performance Claims for Laser Touch
    and Technologies, LLC Laser Touch™Model
    LT-B512. California Air Resources Board.
    February.
CARB. 2004. General Information: Equipment and
   Process Precertification Program. California Air
   Resources Board. May.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention
   (CDC). 2004. Preventing Lead Exposure in
   Young Children: A Housing-Based Approach to
   Primary Prevention of Lead Poisoning. October.
CDC. 2005. "Blood Lead Levels: United States,
   1999-2002." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
   Report 54(20): 513-516. 27 May. http://
   www. cdc. gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr html/
   mm5420a5.htm
Clean Diesel Technologies (CDT). 2003. Clean
   Diesel Receives Initial Order From Coca-Cola
   Enterprises For New Platinum Plus® Purifier
   Diesel Retrofit System; Order Follows Verification
   by EPA of Dramatic Emissions Reductions. Press
   Release. 12 December, http://www.cdti.com/
   PR-CCE%20Order%20Dec.12.htm
CDT. 2004.  Clean Diesel Technologies Selected
   As Partner In Two Diesel Retrofit Projects In
   Pennsylvania. Press Release. 27 May. http://
   www.cdti.com/pr/2004/05_27.html
CDT. 2005.  Clean Diesel Technologies Reports
   2005 Second-Quarter Results.  Press Release.
   12 August. http://www.cdti.com/pr/2005/08_
   12.html
CTC. 2000. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Laser Touch and Technologies, LLC Laser
   Touch™ModelLT-B512. Prepared by CTC
   under a cooperative agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. May.
Devon Energy Corporation and EPA's Natural
   Gas STAR Program. 2005. Installing Vapor
   Recovery Units to Reduce Methane Losses.
   Presented at Producer's Technology Transfer
   Workshop. Dallas, Texas. 20 April.
Donaldson, Inc. 2004. Donaldson Company to
   Provide New York School Buses With EPA-
   approved Emissions Control Devices through
   NYSERDA Grant Program. Press Release.
   7 January, http://www.donaldson.com/en/
   about/news/005595.html
Donham, K.J., D. Cumro, and S. Reynolds. 2002.
   "Synergistic Effects of Dust and Ammonia  on
   the Occupational Health Effects of Poultry
   Production Workers."/ Agromedicine 8(2):
   57-76.
78
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                      4. REFERENCES
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (EEA).
   2003. Advanced Microturbine System: Market
   Assessment. Submitted to Oak Ridge National
   Laboratory. Final Report. May.
Field, Keith. 2005. E-mail communication.
   11 October.
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
   1993. Section 4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
   omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m. html
Grosse, S.D.,T.D. Matte,}. Schwartz, and R.J.
   Jackson. 2002. "Economic Gains Resulting
   from the Reduction in Children's Exposure
   to Lead in the United States." Environmental
   Health Perspectives 110(6): 563-569. June.
Harris, Bruce. 2005. Telephone conversation.
   1 February.
Heitbrink, W.A., M.E. Wallace, C.J. Bryant,
   and W.E. Ruch. 1995. "Control of Paint
   Overspray in Autobody Repair Shops."Am.
   Ind. Hyg.Assoc.}. 56:1023-1032.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
   (IPCC). 2001a. Third Assessment Report:
   Climate Change 2001: Working Group I:
   The Scientific Basis. New York: Cambridge
   University Press.
IPCC. 2001b. Third Assessment Report: Climate
   Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts,
   Adaptation, and Vulnerability. New York:
   Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs, D.E.,  R.P. Clickner, J.Y. Zhou, S.M. Viet,
   D.A. Marker, J.W. Rogers, B.C. Zeldin, P.
   Broene, and W. Friedman, W. 2002. "The
   Prevalence of Lead-Based Paint Hazards
   in U.S.  Housing." Environmental Health
   Perspectives 110(10): A599-A606. October.
Jeter, W. C. 2001. "Memorandum,  from William
   C. Jeter (North Carolina Department
   of Environment and Natural Resources)
   Concerning Innovative Wastewater Treatment
   System Verification." 30 April.
Jones, L.A., undated. Septic Systems and
   Nitrogen and Phosphorous Loading. Delaware
   Department of Natural Resources.
Latimer, G. 2004. Personal communication. 12
   February.
Lesnick, B., and O. Fordham. 2000. An
    Update on the Current Status of the RCRA
   Methods Development Program. Prepared
   by the Environmental Protection Agency.
   4BLWP804.98. 29 October.
Little, M.J. 2004. "Back to School." Products
   Finishing Online. October.
Lunder, S., T.J. Woodruff, and D.A. Axelrad.
   2004. "An Analysis of Candidates for Addition
   to the Clean Air Act List of Hazardous
   Air Pollutants."/ Air Waste Manage. Assoc.
   54:157-171.
Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association
   (MECA). 2000. Independent Cost Survey
   for Emission Control Retrofit Technologies.
   November 9,2000.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
   Protection (MADEP). 2005. Summary of
   Innovative/Alternative Technologies Approved
   for Use in Massachusetts and Under Review.
   January.
McCubbin, D.R., B.J. Apelberg, S.  Roe, and
   F. Divita Jr. 2002. "Livestock Ammonia
   Management and Particulate-Related Health
   Benefits." Environ. Sci. Technol. 36:1141-1146.
MTI, Inc. 2004. ETVProgram Benefits (MTI,
   Inc.): A Vendor's Perspective by Felecia Owen.
   June.
National  Academies of Science  (NAS). 2001.
   Arsenic in Drinking Water: 2001 Update.
   National Academies of Science, Board on
   Environmental Studies and Toxicology.
   National Academies Press. 12 September.
NAS. 2003. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding
    Operations. Washington, D.C.: National
   Academies Press.
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 State Energy Research and
   Development Authority (NYSERDA). 2004.
   Telephone conversation with Patrick Bolton,
   NYSERDA. 28 July.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                           79

-------
4. REFERENCES
New York State Small Business Assistance
    Program. 2004. Fact Sheet: Air Pollution
    Control Requirements for Automotive
    Refinishing. June.
National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program
    (NLLAP). 2005. NLLAPList of Recognized
    Laboratories. Office of Pollution Prevention
    8c Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency; Public Health Service, U.S.
    Department of Health and Human Services;
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
    and National Institute for Occupational Safety
    and Health. November.
Northwest Air Pollution Authority. 2002. Diesel
    Retrofit Fact Sheet. August.
NSF International (NSF). 2001a. Environmental
    Technology Verification Report, Removal of
    Arsenic in Drinking Water: Kinetico Incorporated
    Macro lite® Coagulation and Filtration System,
    Model CPS100CPT. Prepared by NSF
    International Under a Cooperative Agreement
    with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    NSF 01/23/EPADW395. September.
NSF. 2001b. Environmental Technology  Verification
    Report, Removal of Arsenic: Watermark
    Technologies, LLC eVOX® Model5. Prepared
    by NSF International Under a Cooperative
    Agreement with U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. NSF 01/26/EPADW395.
    March.
NSF. 2001c. Environmental Technology Verification
    Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water:
    Hydranautics ESPA2-4040 Reverse Osmosis
    Membrane Element Module. Prepared by NSF
    International Under a Cooperative Agreement
    with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    NSF 01/20/EPADW395. March.
NSF. 2001d. Environmental Technology  Verification
    Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water:
    KOCH Membrane Systems TFC®—ULP4
    Reverse Osmosis Membrane Module. Prepared
    by NSF International Under a Cooperative
    Agreement with U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. NSF 01/25/EPADW395.
    August.
NSF. 2003a. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential
   Homes Aquapoint, Inc. (AQP)—Bioclere
   Model 16/12. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. April.
NSF. 2003b. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential
   Homes SeptiTech, Inc.—SeptiTech Model 400
   System. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. April.
NSF. 2003c. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential Homes
   Waterloo Biofilter Systems, Inc. (WBS)—
   Waterloo Biofilter Model 4-Bedroom. Prepared
   by NSF International Under a Cooperative
   Agreement with U. S. Environmental
   Protection Agency. April.
NSF. 2003d. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential Homes
   F.R. Mahony & Associates, Inc.—Amphidrome
   Model Single Family System.  Prepared by NSF
   International Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   May.
NSF. 2003e. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential
   Homes BioMicrobics—RetroFAST 0.3 75
   System. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. September.
NSF. 2004a. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water:
   Delta Industrial Services, Inc. CampWater
   Porta-5 System. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. NSF
   04/09/EPADWCTR. EPA/600/R-04/188.
   September.
80
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                       4. REFERENCES
NSF. 2004b. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water:
   Kinetico Inc. andAlcan Chemicals Para-
   FloTM PF60 ModelAAOSAS with Actiguard
   AAFS50. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. NSF
   04/08/EPADWCTR. August.
NSF. 2004c. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water:
   Watts Premier M-Series M-15,000 Reverse
   Osmosis Treatment System. Prepared by NSF
   International Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   NSF 04/16/EPADWCTR. EPA/600/R-
   04/186. September.
NSF. 2004d. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Removal of Arsenic in Drinking
   Water, Phase 1—Integrity Verification:ADI
   International Inc. ADI Pilot Test Unit No.
   2002-09 with MEDIA G2®. Prepared by NSF
   International Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   NSF 04/10/EPADWCTR. EPA/600/R-
   04/187. September.
NSF. 2004e. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Reduction of Nitrogen in Domestic
   Wastewaterfrom Individual Residential
   Homes BioConcepts, Inc.—ReCip RTS-500
   System. Prepared by NSF International
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. September.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
   Protection (PADEP). 2004. Pennsylvania
   DEP—Greener Truck and Bus Fleets, http://
   www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/
   aq/cars/retrofit_green.htm
Pinelands Commission. 2001. Ad Hoc Committee
   on Alternative Septic Systems. Final Report.
   State of New Jersey Pinelands Commission.
   24 August.
Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc., Gas Processors
   Association, and EPA's Natural Gas STAR
   Program. 2004. Installing Vapor Recovery
   Units to Reduce Methane Losses. Presented at
   Processors Technology Transfer Workshop.
   Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 23 September.
RTI International (RTI). 2003a. Environmental
    Technology Verification Report, Mobile Source
    Retrofit Air Pollution Control Devices:
    Donaldson Company, Inc. Series 6000 Diesel
    Oxidation Catalyst Muffler and Spiracle™
    Closed Crankcase Filtration System. Prepared
    by Research Triangle Institute and Southwest
    Research Institute Under a Cooperative
    Agreement with U. S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. September.
RTI. 2003b. Environmental Technology Verification
    Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
    Control Devices: Donaldson Company,
    Inc. Series 6100 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst
    Muffler. Prepared by Research Triangle
    Institute and Southwest Research Institute
    Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. September.
RTI. 2003c. Environmental Technology Verification
    Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
    Control Devices: Donaldson Company, Inc.
    Series 6100 Diesel Oxidation Catalyst Muffter
    and Spiracle™ Closed Crankcase Filtration
    System. Prepared by Research Triangle
    Institute and Southwest Research Institute
    Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency. September.
RTI. 2004a. Environmental Technology Verification
    Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
    Control Devices: Clean Diesel Technologies' Fuel-
    borne Catalyst with CleanAir Systems Diesel
    Oxidation Catalyst. Prepared by Research
    Triangle Institute and Southwest Research
    Institute Under a Cooperative Agreement
    with U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.
    February.
RTI. 2004b. Environmental Technology Verification
    Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
    Control Devices: Clean Diesel Technologies'
    Fuel-borne Catalyst with Mitsui/PUREarth
    Catalyzed Wire Mesh Filter. Prepared by
    Research Triangle Institute and Southwest
    Research Institute Under a Cooperative
    Agreement with U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. August.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                            81

-------
4. REFERENCES
RTI. 2004c. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
   Control Devices: LubrizoI Engine Control
   Systems Purifilter SCI 7L Particulate Filter.
   Prepared by Research Triangle Institute
   and Southwest Research Institute Under
   a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. June.
RTI. 2005. Environmental Technology Verification
   Report, Mobile Source Retrofit Air Pollution
   Control Devices: Clean  Clear Fuel Technologies,
   Inc. s Universal Fuel Cell. Prepared by Research
   Triangle Institute and  Southwest Research
   Institute Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   February.
Shein, Jon. 2005. E-mail communication.
   11 October.
Southern Research Institute. 2001a.
   Environmental Technology Verification Report:
   Mariah Energy Corporation Heat PlusPowerTM
   System. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas
   Technology Center, Southern Research
   Institute, Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-13.  September.
Southern Research Institute. 2001b.
   Environmental Technology Verification Report:
   Honeywell Power Systems, Inc. Parallon® 75
   kWTurbogenerator. Prepared by Greenhouse
   Gas Technology Center, Southern Research
   Institute, Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-10.  September.
Southern Research Institute. 2001c.
   Environmental Technology Verification Report:
   Honeywell Power Systems, Inc. Parallon® 75 kW
   Turbogenerator With CO Emissions Control.
   Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology
   Center, Southern Research Institute,
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/
   USEPA-GHG-VR-15. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2002. Environmental
   Technology Verification Report: COMM
   Engineering, USA Environmental Vapor
   Recovery Unit (EVRU™). Prepared by
   Greenhouse Gas Technology Center,
   Southern Research Institute, Under
   a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/
   USEPA-GHG-VR-19. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2003a.
   Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems IR
   PowerWorks™ 70 kWMicroturbine System.
   Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology
   Center, Southern Research Institute,
   Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
   Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/
   USEPA-GHG-VR-21. April.
Southern Research Institute. 2003b.
   Environmental Technology Verification Report:
   Combined Heat and Power at a Commercial
   Supermarket—Capstone 60 kW Microturbine
   CHP System. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas
   Technology Center, Southern Research
   Institute, Under a Cooperative Agreement
   with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-27. September.
Southern Research Institute. 2004a.
   Environmental Technology Verification
   Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat
   Production—Capstone 30 kW Microturbine
   System. Prepared by Greenhouse 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.  "Case
   Study: Greenhouse Gas Reduction; Comm
   Engineering, USA Environmental Vapor
   Recovery Unit (EVRU)." Draft.  11 February.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004a. American Housing
   Survey for the United States: 2003. H150/03.
   Issued September, http://www.census.gov/
   hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs03/ahs03. html
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004b. March 2004 Current
   Population Survey: Table AVG1. http://www.
   census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-
   fam/cps2004.html
82
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                     4. REFERENCES
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2003.
   Annual Energy Review 2002. Office of Energy
   Markets and End Use, Energy Information
   Administration, U.S. DOE. October.
U.S. DOE. 2005. U.S. Natural Gas Prices. Energy
   Information Administration, U.S. DOE.
   Accessed 15 September, http://tonto.eia.doe.
   gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm
U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2001.
    World's Largest Meatpacker Reaches Agreement
   with U.S. To Resolve Environmental Problems
   Throughout Midwest. Press  Release.
   Environment and Natural Resources Division.
   12 October.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
   EPA). 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant
   Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point and
   Area Sources, Fifth Edition, AP-42, Section  7.1,
   Organic Liquid Storage Tanks. Office of Air
   Quality Planning and Standards, Research
   Triangle Park, North Carolina.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Emission Control Potential for
   Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. Office of Mobile
   Sources. EPA 420-F-97-015. May.
U.S. EPA. 1997b. Climate Change and Public
   Health. Office of Policy, Planning, and
   Evaluation. EPA 236-F-97-005. October.
U.S. EPA. 1997c. Economic Analysis for the
   National Emission Standards for Hazardous
   Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp
   and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations
   Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
   Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper,  and
   Paperboard Category—Phase 1. Office of Water,
   Washington, D.C. EPA-821/R-97-012. 27
   October.
U.S. EPA. 1997d. National Emissions Standards for
   Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
   Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural
   Gas Transmission and Storage—Background
   Information for Proposed Standards.  Emission
   Standards Division, Office of Air and
   Radiation, Research Triangle Park, North
   Carolina. EPA-453/R-94-079a. April.
U.S. EPA. 1998. NOX 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. 1999a. The Benefits and Costs of the
    Clean Air Act 1990 to 2010. EPA Report to
    Congress. EPA-410-R-99-001. November.
U.S. EPA. 1999b. Update of Heavy Duty Emission
    Levels (Model Years 1988-2004+) for Use in
    MOBILE 6. EPA420-R-99-010. April.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Regulatory Announcement:
    Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
    and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
    Requirements. Office of Transportation and
    Air Quality. EPA420-F-00-057. December.
U.S. EPA. 2
-------
4. REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 2001c. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: Key Master
    Technologies, X-Ray Fluorescence Instrument®.
   EPA-600-R-02-058. September.
U.S. EPA. 2001d. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: Monitoring
    Technologies International, PVD 5000 Trace
   Element Analyzer®. EPA-600-R-02-060.
    September.
U.S. EPA. 2001e. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: NITONLLC, X-
   Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer®, XLt 700
    Series.  EPA-600-R03-087. September.
U.S. EPA. 2001f. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: NITON Corporation,
   X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer®, XL
   300 Series. EPA-600-R02-059. September.
U.S. EPA. 2001g. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: NITON Corporation,
   X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrum Analyzer®, XL
    700 Series. EPA-600-R-02-055. September.
U.S. EPA. 2001h. Fact Sheet:Drinking Water
   Standard for Arsenic. EPA 815-F-00-015.
   January.
U.S. EPA. 20011. Technical Fact Sheet: Final Rule
   for Arsenic in Drinking Water. EPA 815-F-OO-
   016. January.
U.S. EPA. 2002a. Diesel Exhaust in the United
    States.  EPA 420-F-02-048. September.
U.S. EPA. 2002b. Update Heavy-Duty Engine
   Emission Conversion Factors for MOBILES:
   Analysis ofBSFCs and Calculation of Heavy-
   Duty Engine Emission Conversion Factors.
   Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
   EPA420-R-02-005. January.
U.S. EPA. 2002c. Environmental Technology
    Verification Report, Lead in Dust Wipe
   Measurement Technology: Palintest, Scanning
   Analyzer SA-5000 System®. EPA-600-R-02-
   057. September.
U.S. EPA. 2002d. Technical Support Document for
    the Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge
    Elimination System Regulation for Concentrated
   Animal Feeding Operations. December.
U.S. EPA. 2002e. 2000National Water Quality
    Inventory Report. EPA 841-R 02 001. August.
U.S. EPA. 2002f. Integrated Risk Information
    System (IRIS) Health Assessment Information for
    Nitrates and Nitrites. Updated December.
U.S. EPA. 2002g. Onsite Wastewater Treatment
    Systems Manual. Office of Water and Office
    of Research and Development. EPA-625/
    R-00/008. February, http://www.epa.gov/
    ordntrnt/ORD/NRMRL/pubs/625r00008/
    html/html/625R00008.htm
U.S. EPA. 2002h. "Report to Congress; The
    Environmental Technology Verification
    Program; Case Study: Greenhouse Gas
    Reduction—Microturbine With Heat
    Recovery." Draft. 11 July.
U.S. EPA. 2003a. Average Annual Emissions, All
    Criteria Pollutants, Years Including 1970-2001.
    Updated August, www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/
    trends
U.S. EPA. 2003b. Questions and Answers on Using
    a Diesel Oxidation Catalyst in Heavy-Duty
    Diesel Trucks and Buses. EPA420-F-03-017.
   June.
U.S. EPA. 2003c. Lessons Learned from Natural
    Gas STAR Partners: Installing Vapor Recovery
    Units on Crude Oil Storage Storage Tanks.
    Office of Air and Radiation. EPA430-B-03-
    015. October.
U.S. EPA. 2003d. Latest Findings on National Air
    Quality: 2002 Status and Trends. Office of Air
    Quality Planning and Standards, Emissions,
    Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Research
    Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA 454/ K-
    03-001. August.
U.S. EPA. 2003e. Developing and Implementing a
    Lead Dust Outreach, Monitoring, and Education
    Program in Your Community: The Syracuse Lead
    Dust Project. EPA/625/R-02/014. February.
U.S. EPA. 2003f. "Handbook for Management
    for Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized)
    Wastewater Treatment Systems." Draft. EPA
    832-D 03 001. February.
84
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                      4. REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 2003g. Voluntary National Guidelines
   for Management ofOnsite and Clustered
    (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems.
    EPA 832-B 03 001. March.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Environmental Technology
    Verification (ETV) Program Stakeholder's
    Briefing: Meeting Summary. 11-12 May.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Natural Gas STAR Partner
    Update, Winter 2004. 13 December.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
    Emissions And Sinks: 1990-2002. EPA 430-R-
    04-003. April 15,2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. "Output-based Regulations:
    A Handbook for Air Regulators." Office of
    Atmospheric Programs, Climate Protection
    Partnerships Division. Draft Final Report.
    August.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Health and Environmental
    Impacts of Ground-level Ozone. Office of
    Air and Radiation, http://www.epa.gov/air/
    urbanair/ozone/hlth.html
U.S. EPA. 2004f. "National Emission Inventory-
    Ammonia Emissions from Animal Husbandry
    Operations." Draft Report. 30 January.
U.S. EPA. 2004g. Risk Assessment Evaluation
   for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
    EPA/600/R-04/042. May.
U.S. EPA. 2004h. Potential Environmental Impacts
    of Animal Feeding Operations. 10 December.
U.S. EPA. 2004i. "Draft Outcomes Brief:
    Verification Testing of COMM Engineering's
    EVRU; Environmental and Economic
    Potential." Draft.
U.S. EPA. 2004J. "Sustainability: Drinking Water
    Systems—Arsenic Packaged Treatment
    System for Small Communities." Draft.
    17 August.
U.S. EPA. 2004k. "Case Study: Pollution
    Prevention—Cleaner Coatings Processes."
    Draft. 6 May.
U.S. EPA. 20041. "Case Study Water Quality
    Protection—Residential Nutrient Reduction
    Technologies." Draft. 12 February.
U.S. EPA. 2004m. Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
    Program and Calculating SIP Credits. Last
    updated 10 June, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
    retrofit/aqsipcalc.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005a. EPA Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
    Program—Glossary of Terms, http://www.epa.
    gov/otaq/retrofit/glossary.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005b. EPA Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
    Program—Overview of Diesel Emissions.
    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/
    overdieselemissions.htm
US EPA2005c. EPA Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
    Program—Diesel' Particulate Matter (PM)
    Filter Overview, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
    retrofit/documents/bigdig_case_08.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005d. U.S. EPA—Gas STAR—Basic
    Information. Last updated 22 September.
    http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/overview.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005e. Environmental Protection Agency
    Combined Heat and Power Partnership. Last
    updated 2 May. http://www.epa.gov/chp/
    index.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005f. EPA— CHP— State Resources-
    Output-based Regulations. Last updated
    2 May 2005. http://www.epa.gov/chp/state_
    resources/output_based_reg.htm
U.S. EPA. 2005g. National Emission Trends
    1970-2002: Volatile Organic Compound
    Emissions. Updated July 18, 2005.
U.S. EPA. 2005h. "Laboratory Quality System
    Requirements (LQSR), Revision 3.0." Draft. 5
    August.
U.S. EPA. 2005L Thousands Sign Up for Animal
    Feeding Operations Air Compliance Agreement:
    Press Release. 15 August 15. http://yosemite.
    epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d9bf8d9315e9425785
    25701c005e573c/518eOd3417e2488d8525705e
    0052da43!OpenDocument
U.S. EPA. 2QQ5]. Animal Feeding Operations Air
    Quality Compliance Agreement: Fact Sheet.
    21 January.
U.S. EPA. 2005k. EPA Joins With  Organizations to
    Reduce Water Pollution. Press Release.
    12 January.
U.S. EPA. 20051. Decentralized Wastewater
    Treatment Systems: A Program Strategy. EPA
    832-R-05-002. January.
U.S. EPA. 2005m. Factoids: Drinking Water and
    Ground Water Statistics for 2004. EPA 816-K-
    05-001. May.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                           85

-------
4. REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 2005n. "Draft Outcomes Brief:
    Diesel Engine Retrofit Technologies For Air
    Pollution Control." Draft. 27 October.
U.S. EPA. 2005o. Arsenic Rule Implementation
    Research. Last updated 8 December, http://
    www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/arsenic/
U.S. EPA. 2005p. National Clean Diesel Campaign.
    Last updated 7 December, http://www.epa.
    gov/cleandiesel/
U.S. EPA. 2005q. Private Drinking Water Wells.
    Last updated 14 February, http://www.epa.
    gov/safewater/privatewells/index2.html
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
    Development (U.S. HUD). 1997. Guidelines
   for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based
    Paint Hazards in Housing. June 1995 (revised
    1997).
U.S. HUD. 2002. Fact Sheet: Lead-Based Paint
    Hazard Control Grant Program. January.
Utah. 2005. Utah Safe Drinking Water Act. R309-
    535-13. June.
86
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------

-------

-------
                                       Appendix A.
                         Methodology  for
                                   Diesel  Engine
                     Retrofit  Outcomes
  Number of Heavy
  Duty Diesel Vehicles
To estimate the potential market for the ETV-
verified technologies, the ETV program estimated
the number of vehicles by age and category using
the following equation:
HDDV
 Where:
           = HDVengjne x
   HDDV
       age,engine
           is the number of heavy-duty
   diesel vehicles by age in each often categories
   [eight truck engine categories, plus one
   category each for school buses and transit
   buses, as defined in U.S. EPA (2001 a)]
*  HDVengjne 's tne number of heavy-duty
   vehicles (gasoline and diesel) in each of the
   ten categories in 2005 from Table 17 of U.S.
   EPA (2001 a)
*  PCTage is the percentage distribution of
   vehicles by age from Table 5 of U.S. EPA
   (2001 a). (This distribution ranges from new to
   25-year-old vehicles.)
*  PCTdieSei is the percentage of trucks with
   diesel engines from Table 18 of U.S EPA
   (2001 a), and a percentage of buses with diesel
   engines imputed from Tables 4, 5, and 6 of U.S.
   EPA (2002b)
   ETV then estimated the number of vehicles
in each class, by summing across all ages for
each engine category/class. In the sum, the ETV
Program only included vehicles that are up to 25-
years-old or less. ETV chose this age limit because
diesel vehicles typically can be in service up to 30
years and retrofit technologies are recommended
for vehicles with at least five years of remaining
service. Thus, 25-year-old vehicles would be the
oldest vehicles with sufficient service remaining
for retrofit technologies.
  The values for the number of heavy-duty
diesel vehicles were used in subsequent pollutant
reduction calculations. ETV also estimated
the total market for the ETV technologies by
summing HDDVage;engine across all ages and
categories.
                                      Pollutant Reductions
                                    The ETV program used the equation below to
                                    estimate pollutant reductions for each vehicle
                                    category (e.g., 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8A, 8B, and
                                    school and transit buses) based on the remaining
                                    miles each class is expected to travel after being
                                    retrofitted:
    rRpollutant,engine ~~

           X CF
                                                          X ^ KpO||utant X

                                                   engine xY ) / 454 / 2,000
                                       Where:
                                       TRpo||utant,engine is tons per year of pollutant
                                       reduced by each vehicle category (e.g., 2B, 3,
                                       4, 5, 6, 7, 8A, 8B, and school and transit buses)
                                       in the current fleet (which includes vehicles
                                       up to 25 years of age).
                                       CLpo||utant is the composite weighted emission
                                       level for each pollutant in g/bhp-hr obtained
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                     89

-------
APPENDICES
    during baseline ETY testing using LSD fuel and
    without the technology in place.51
*  %Rpoiiutant "s average percent pollutant
    emission reduction achieved by the diesel
    retrofit technology during testing.These
    reductions were determined by comparing
    baseline emission levels (obtained using LSD
    fuel and without the retrofit technologies
    in place) with retrofitted  emission  levels
    (obtained using ULSD fuel, after the retrofit
    technologies were installed and degreened).
*  VMTengine is the number of vehicle  miles
    traveled (VMT) each year by the different
    heavy-duty vehicle categories.These
    estimates were based  on  the National
    Emission Inventory VMT estimates, which
    are developed using 2002 Federal Highway
    Administration measurements ofVMT by
    vehicle category (Brzezinski, 2004).
*  CFengine is the conversion factor for bhp-hr to
    miles. It is calculated for each engine  category
    using the following formula:

         CFengine  = FD / (BSFC x FEengine)
    Where:
*  FD is the fuel density (in grams/gallon)
    determined during ETY testing.
*  BSFC is the average brake specific  fuel
    consumption  (g/bhp-hr) determined  during
    baseline ETV  testing using LSD fuel.
*  FEengine is average fuel economy in miles per
    gallon for the each engine category in the
    current fleet of heavy-duty vehicles (up to
    25 years old). It was calculated from the fuel
    economies in Tables 16 & 20 of EPA (2002b),
    using estimates of the number of heavy-duty
    diesel vehicles by age and engine category
    (see HDDVage engjne text listed previously).
*  Y is the number of years  of service after  being
    retrofitted, which ETV assumed would  be
    seven years.
    Since six retrofit technologies/systems
achieved emission reductions during ETV
testing, six sets of pollutant reduction scenarios
were developed for the current fleet using data
obtained from the six verification tests  (emission
levels, fuel densities, etc.), as well as data from
the MOBILE6 literature and other sources.
Although each set of ETV test data was obtained
from a single engine (using a specific retrofit
technology/system), the ETV Program assumed
that similar results would be observed across the
different engine categories and model years found
in the current fleet heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
This assumption was made to maximize the use
of ETV test data within the calculations. Total
reductions, in tons per seven years, were developed
for each pollutant by summing the reductions
achieved for each vehicle class (TRpoiiutant;engine)
for each of the six sets of calculations. The highest
and lowest removals obtained using the six sets
of data were then reported in Exhibit 2.1-3 and
used as the basis for estimating the human health
outcomes in Exhibit 2.1-4.
    For those tests that were performed using
a 1990 model year engine, the ETV Program
replaced the baseline PM emission value measured
during ETV testing with a weighted average
(calculated using MOBILE 6 certification levels
for different vehicle classes) when calculating
potential emission reductions for 1994 and newer
model year heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses.
This was done to account for the fact that 1994
and newer model year heavy-duty diesel trucks
and buses need to meet a lower emission standard
(i.e., 0.10 g/bhp-hr) than earlier  model year
engines. This weighted average was developed
using engine certification levels reported for
1994 and higher model year vehicles found in
Tables 19 and 23 of EPA (1999b). Although
certification levels can differ from real-world
emissions (e.g. due to maintenance issues, fuel
variation, and engine deterioration over time), in
this case certification levels should produce a more
conservative estimate of the potential pollutant
reductions from 1994 and newer model vehicles
than the baseline PM emissions obtained during
testing using a pre-1994 engine.  For consistency,
VMT associated with 1994 and higher model
year vehicles was determined and used during
calculations  involving the weighted average.
    In calculating pollutant reductions, the ETV
Program chose a seven-year retrofit life. Although
51 Typically the CL for PM is modified to reflect a fuel sulfur adjustment factor (FSAF) in g/bhp-hr. In this case, however, the FSAF
   for PM was assumed to be zero, since emission levels were obtained from engines using lower sulfur fuel. FSAFs are not used when
   calculating HC and CO removals.

90                                                     Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                         APPENDICES
this life is greater than minimum remaining life
for vehicles recommended for retrofitting, this
assumption still is believed to be conservative
(low). Although the verifications did not consider
the expected life of the retrofit equipment, most of
the vehicles being retrofitted will have a remaining
service life much longer than seven years. The
choice of this conservative assumption helps
account for the decline in benefits over time due
to vehicle "scrappage" (i.e., replacement of older,
retrofit vehicles with newer vehicles that meet the
new emissions standards).
  Human Health Outcomes
The ETV Program estimated the human health
outcomes associated with the PM reductions by
assuming a straight-line relationship between each
human health endpoint and the total estimated
PM reduction in EPA's RIA for the new diesel
emissions standards. That is, the ETV Program
applied the following equation:

OutcomeETV = (OutcomeR|A /TRPM>R|A) xTRPMjETV
    Where:
*   OutcomeETV is the quantified measure for a
    given human health endpoint (e.g., avoided
    cases of premature mortality over seven
    years) attributable to PM reductions from the
    ETV-verified technologies
*   OutcomeR|A is the quantified measure for the
    same PM-related human health endpoint from
    Table VII-19 of U.S. EPA (2000c)
*   TRPM RIA is  109,000 tons per year, the total
    reduction in PM estimated for the new diesel
    emissions standards
*   TRPM ETV is  the total reduction in PM in
    tons over seven years for a given scenario,
    estimated as discussed above
    This methodology is most likely a gross
simplification of the actual relationship between
these two factors. First, it assumes that the
relationship between tons of emissions reduced
and the ambient concentration of PM in a
given area is linear. Second, it assumes that the
relationship between ambient PM concentrations
and human health effects is linear. In fact, both
of these relationships are complex and subject to
external factors (e.g., PM emissions from other
sources, other environmental factors, and the
population in a given area). Data are not available
to determine how close the overall relationship
between emissions reductions and human health
effects is to linear. Finally, the methodology
assumes that the nationwide distribution of PM
reductions from the ETV technologies would
be similar to that from the new diesel emissions
standards. This assumption could be reasonable
for very high market penetration scenarios. It is
likely less accurate for lower market penetration
scenarios, where  penetration might occur first in
certain areas of the country.
   This methodology does not account for the
fact that human health benefits attributable to
retrofit technologies are expected decline over
time due to vehicle "scrappage" (i.e., replacement
of older, retrofit vehicles with newer vehicles that
meet the new emissions standards). The effect
of this limitation on the outcomes estimates,
however, might be offset by the conservative
assumptions used to estimate the number of
vehicles and emissions reductions.
   Economic Outcomes
To estimate the economic value of human health
benefits, the ETV Program used unit values
from Table VII-15 of EPA's RIA for the new
diesel emissions standards (U.S. EPA, 2000c).
Specifically, the ETV Program multiplied the
appropriate unit value (e.g., dollars per avoided
case of chronic bronchitis) by the corresponding
quantified outcome (e.g., avoided cases per year
of chronic bronchitis) for each human health
effect estimated above, except for asthma attacks
and work loss days. The RIA did not include an
economic value for asthma attacks in its primary
benefits analysis, so the ETV Program did not
include this outcome in its estimate of economic
value. For work loss days, the RIA performed a
more complex analysis that incorporated regional
variations in wages. Because data were not
available to estimate the regional distribution of
work loss days, the ETV Program applied the
national median daily wage reported on page VII-
62 of the RIA.
   The ETV Program also added the economic
benefits associated with visibility improvements
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                            91

-------
APPENDICES
by assuming a linear relationship between tons
per year of PM reduction and the total visibility
benefit reported in Table VII-22 of the RIA. This
calculation is similar to that described above for
human health outcomes, with similar limitations.
    The RIA's estimates of total benefits
incorporated an adjustment to account for growth
in real income over time. This adjustment reflects
the economic theory that willingness to pay for
most goods (including environmental protection)
increases if real incomes increase (U.S. EPA,
2000c). This  adjustment was significant in the
RIA, because it estimated total benefits at full
phase-in of the new standards (i.e., in 2030), at
a time when projected real incomes would be
much higher. Because the benefits from retrofit
technologies would occur sooner, while the new
standards are still being phased in, the ETV
Program did not employ a similar adjustment.
The unit values for human health outcomes and
the total benefits of visibility increases used here
are unadjusted for growth in real income.
    The economic outcomes estimates also are in
1999 dollars, as reported in the RIA. Therefore,
they provide a  conservative (low) estimate of
economic outcomes in current year dollars.
92
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                     Appendix  B.
                        Methodology  for
      Eductor Vapor Recovery
        Unit  (EVRU)  Outcomes
  Number of Facilities
  and Current Emissions
U.S. EPA (1997d) estimates there are 12,670
condensate storage tank batteries in the United
States. The ETV Program used these data as
its estimate of the total potential market for the
EVRU. This is a conservative (low) estimate
because it includes only storage tank batteries.
The EVRU also is appropriate for other low-
pressure hydrocarbon vent sources such as
heater treaters, gas-dehydration units, water-
polishing operations, low-pressure separators, and
compressors.
   Devon et al. (2005) estimate 23,000 MMscfy
methane emissions from condensate  storage
tank batteries at production facilities. Pioneer et
al. (2004) estimate an additional 300 MMscfy
in methane emissions from condensate storage
tank batteries at processing facilites. Combining
these two estimates, the ETV Program estimates
current methane emissions from these facilities at
23,300 MMscfy.
   Recent data for HAP and VOC emissions
from this source category are not available,
but U.S. EPA (1997d) estimates 7,000 tons
per year of HAPs and more than 22,000 tons
per year of VOCs from these facilities. These
estimates, however, were made using model
facilities extrapolated up to a national level. An
alternate source, 64 FR 32610, estimates that the
NESHAP for Oil & Natural Gas Transmission
and Storage would reduce HAP and VOC
emissions by 33,000 and 67,100 tons per year.52
Also, the technology vendor estimates that the 11
existing EVRU installations in the United States
alone recover considerably more than 22,000 tons
per year of VOCs (Boyer, 2005).
  Given the uncertainties surrounding the
available national estimates of HAP and VOC
emissions from this source category, the ETV
Program estimated national emissions of these
pollutants based on the national methane
emissions estimate and the characteristics of the
vent gas at the test site, reported in Southern
Research Institute (2002), as follows:
* 23,300 MMscfy methane total x (176 tons per
  year HAPs at test site / 32.1 MMscfy methane
  at the test site) = 128,000 tons per year
  HAPs total
* 23,300 MMscfy methane total x (2,203 tons
  per year VOCs at test site / 32.1 MMscfy
  methane at the test site) = 1,600,000 tons per
  yearVOCs total53
  Existing Emissions Controls
  and Total Potential Emissions
A number of facilities currently have emissions
control devices (e.g., conventional VRUs) in place.
The emissions estimates, above, account for these
52 Converted from megagrams per year in 64 FR 32610.

53 Assumes nearly all of the "other hydrocarbons" reported in Table 2-4 of Southern Research Institute (2002) are VOCs, based on
  Table 2-3 of the same source.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                93

-------
APPENDICES
control devices. To estimate EVRU's impact at
facilities that currently have emission control
devices in place, these emissions estimates need
to be translated into total potential emissions
estimates (i.e., emissions that would occur in
the absence of existing controls). To do this, the
number of facilities with controls in place needs
to be estimated. U.S. EPA (2003d) estimates
that, currently, 8,000 to 10,000 VRUs are in place
at storage tank batteries. Using the upper end
of this range, the ETV Program estimates that
approximately 79% (or 10,000 of the 12,670 total
batteries) of facilities have existing controls.
    The ETV Program assumed that the vent
gas recovery rate for the existing control devices
is 95%. The ETV Program chose 95% because
this is the efficiency required by the National
Emission Standards (66 FR 32610). This is a
reasonable estimate because reported efficiencies
for conventional vapor recovery devices are
from 90% to 98% (U.S. EPA, 1995).  Using this
assumption, for controlled facilities, current
emissions equal  5% (100%-95%) of total potential
emissions for a facility. For uncontrolled facilities,
current emissions equal total potential emissions
for a facility.
    Given 95% recovery, if 10,000 facilities have
controls in place, the average facility has total
potential emissions of:
*  23,300 MMscfy total / (2,670 uncontrolled
    facilities + 0.05 x  10,000 controlled facilities)
    = 7.35  Mmscfy methane
*  128,000 tons per year total / (2,670
    uncontrolled facilities + 0.05 x 10,000
    controlled facilities) = 40.3 tons per year
    HAPs
*  1,600,000 tons per year total / (2,670
    uncontrolled facilities + 0.05 x 10,000
    controlled facilities) = 504 tons  per year
    VOCs
    To calculate total potential vent gas from an
average facility, the ETV Program assumed that
the vent gas is 50% methane. This assumption is
approximately equal to the percentage observed at
the test facility and within the range (40% to 60%)
reported in U.S. EPA (2003d). Therefore, total
potential vent gas from an average facility is:
*  7.35 MMscfy methane / 50% methane =  14.7
    MMscfy total vent gas
    Because larger sites (like the test site) would
be more likely to install the EVRU because of the
greater quantity (and therefore value) of vent gas
available to be recovered, this value is considered
relatively conservative (i.e., low). Emission data
observed at the test site and  reported for the
other existing EVRU installations support the
conclusion that this average  is conservative.
  Pollutant Reductions and
  Vent Gas Recovery
The net pollutant reduction from application of
the EVRU at a given site depends on (a) total
potential emissions quantities at the site, and (b)
whether the site previously was uncontrolled or
installs the EVRU to replace an existing control
device. In comparison to total reported emissions
for storage tank batteries, emissions at the ETV
test site (and other existing EVRU applications)
appear relatively high. Thus, extrapolating the
test site pollutant reduction quantities to even a
moderate number of facilities would result in total
reductions greater than the estimated national
emissions total reported for methane (Devon
et al., 2005; Pioneer et al, 2004) and calculated
for HAPs and VOCs in the beginning of this
appendix. Therefore, ETV Program assumed that
additional facilities (after the test facility and the
other existing EVRU installations) have average
total potential emissions, as calculated above.
    The ETV Program converted total potential
emissions to net emissions reductions using the
following equation:
   NRpol
   Where:
Mutant ~ (%R-EVRU 	%^-existing) x
-pollutant
*   NRpo||utant is the net reduction per year of a
    given pollutant (or total vent gas) per facility.
*   %REVRU is the vent gas recovery rate for the
    EVRU, or 99.91%.
*   %Rexisting is the vent gas recovery rate for
    the existing control device that the EVRU
    replaces. For controlled facilities, the ETV
    Program chose 95%, as discussed above.
    For uncontrolled facilities, the ETV Program
    assumed no existing controls were in place
    and, therefore, used 0% for this variable.
94
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                             APPENDICES
*  PEpo||utant is the total potential emissions per
    year of a given pollutant (or total vent gas)
    per facility, calculated as discussed above.
    Application of the above equation results
in the values for NRpouutant shown in Exhibit
B-l. For the ETV test site, the ETV Program
obtained net emissions reductions for methane
(3.2 MMscfy) and HAPs (17.6 tons per year)
from Table 2-4 of the verification report
(Southern Research Institute, 2002).  For net
VOC reductions at the test site, the ETV
Program assumed all of the "other hydrocarbons"
(220.3 tons per year) listed in Table 2-4 of the
verification report were VOCs. This assumption
appears reasonable given the vent gas composition
listed in Table 2-3 of the verification  report. For
net vent gas recovery at the test site, the ETV
Program used the value shown on page 2-10 of
the verification report (6.4 MMscfy). In addition
to the test site, the technology vendor reports
it has installed the EVRU at 10 other facilities
in the United States. Based on data provided by
the vendor (Boyer, 2005), the additional facilities
were previously uncontrolled and currently are
recovering 273 MMscfy of methane and a total of
620 MMscfy of vent gas. To estimate HAP and
VOC recovery at the 10 additional sites, the ETV
Program used the characteristics of vent gas at the
test site (i.e., the ETV Program applied the same
methodology described above for total national
emissions).54
    For each market penetration scenario, the
 •—]
 @w
         NET EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR
         AVERAGE FACILITIES API
          COMM ENG-—•*
     Methane (MMscfy)
     HAPs (tons per year)
     VOCs (tons per year)

     Total Vent Gas (MMscfy)
Uncontrolled
   Facility
     7.34
     40.3
     14.7
                              ETV Program assumed 79% of facilities (other
                              than the test site) have existing controls in place,
                              based on the data presented above. The ETV
                              Program estimated the total reduction for a given
                              market penetration scenario by multiplying the
                              values shown in Exhibit 2.2-4 times the number
                              of additional facilities applying the EVRU, plus
                              reductions from the ETV test site and the 10
                              additional facilities.
                                 By limiting the total potential market for
                              the EVRU to storage tank batteries,55 and by
                              using average total potential emissions estimates
                              that are most likely lower than the emissions
                              expected from the facilities that initially install the
                              EVRU (e.g., larger sites with higher emissions),
                              the estimates of net emissions reductions
                              are considered relatively conservative (low).
                              The approach used to estimate net emissions
                              reductions also assumes that EVRUs would be
                              installed at both uncontrolled and controlled
                              sites (in proportion to the existing number
                              of uncontrolled and controlled sites). Since,
                              intuitively and based on the data from the vendor
                              (Boyer, 2005), the EVRU is more likely to be
                              installed at uncontrolled sites (e.g., with higher
                              emissions than controlled sites), this assumption
                              also helps to make the estimates for net emission
                              reductions relatively conservative.
                                Financial and Economic Outcomes
To estimate the value of recovered gas, the
ETV Program estimated the net quantity of
gas recovered using the methodology discussed
above. U.S. DOE (2005) reports the average
annual wellhead price for natural gas for 2004 was
$5.49 per thousand cubic feet. Vent gas recovered
by the EVRU, however, typically has a higher
than average heating value. Therefore, the ETV
Program calculated the value of the recovered gas
using the following equation:

      $Value = QR x (1,860 / 1,027) x $5.49
54 Note that the vendor also provided an estimate of VOC recovery for the existing installations, using an alternate methodology (Boyer,
  2005). The ETV Program did not use the vendor's estimate for VOCs. Instead ETV used the relative vent gas compositions seen during
  testing to calculate VOC recoveries, because this approach built upon the ETV-verified data and resulted in more a conservative estimate
  of total VOCs recovered.

55 The EVRU also is appropriate for other low-pressure hydrocarbon vent sources such as heater treaters, gas-dehydration units, water-
  polishing operations, low-pressure separators, and compressors.
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                                                            95

-------
APPENDICES
    Where:
    $Value is the total value of recovered vent gas.
    QR is the quantity of vent gas recovered by
    application of the EVRU in thousand cubic
    feet.
    1,860 is an average heating value for
    recovered vent gas from Boyer (2005) in
    BTU/scf.The ETV Program used this value
    (which was provided by the vendor), rather
    than the value reported for the test site
    (1,919 to 2,089 BTU/scf), because it results in
a conservative (low) estimate of the value of
recovered vent gas.
 1,027 is an average heating value in  BTU/scf
for purchased natural gas from  U.S. DOE
(2003).The Department of Energy's Energy
Information Administration routinely uses this
value in calculating and reporting natural gas
prices.
$5.49 is the average annual wellhead price for
natural gas for 2004 per thousand cubic feet
from U.S. DOE (2005).
96
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                  Appendix  C.
                       Methodology for
     MicroturbinelCombined
                        Heat  and  Power
                      (CHP)  Outcomes
  Microturbine/CHP Markets
As discussed in Section 2.3.3, one vendor reported
worldwide sales of 16.5 MW of ETV-verified
microturbines in the last year. Of these sales, the
vendor reported that 52% were in the United
States and 90% were for CHP applications (ETV
Vendor, 2005). Based on these data, the ETV
Program calculated current minimum market
penetration as follows:

     16.5 MW x 52% x 90% = 7.7 MW
  This is a conservative (low) estimate because it
includes sales by only one vendor during one year.
The ETV Program used this minimum market
penetration to calculate future penetration over
the next five years as follows:

 (16.5 MW x 52% x 90%) x 5 years = 38.6 MW
  Adding this value to the current minimum
penetration of 7.7 MW results in a total
installed capacity of 46.3 MW. This estimate
also is conservative (low) because it is based on
the conservative estimate of current sales and
assumes no growth in sales. The vendor forecasts
sales will double this year and double again the
following year (ETV Vendor, 2005). Also, various
economic estimates of the microturbine/CHP
market project an increasing market for these
technologies, as discussed below.
  EEA (2003) reports that current microturbine
sales in CHP applications average 50 units per
year. Assuming an average capacity per unit in the
range reported for the ETV-verified technologies
(30 to 75 kW), current sales as reported by EEA
(2003) translate to 1.5 to 3.75 MW of capacity
per year. The same source, however, estimates an
increasing market for these technologies: 1,530
MW in CHP applications, both new and retrofit,
over the next 20 years. This translates to sales of
76.5 MW per year. This latter estimate assumes
advances in technology that result in greater
efficiency and cost-effectiveness than achieved
by current technology. Another estimate of the
microturbine market can be derived from data
in Boedecker et al. (2000). This source estimates
microturbines will generate 1 billion kWh in
2010 and 3 billion kWh in 2020. The capacity
required to generate this much electricity would
be a minimum of 57 MW in 2010 and 171 MW
in 2020.56 This capacity increase would require
microturbine sales of 114 MW over ten years, or
11.4 MW per year. Exhibit C-l compares the
estimates used in this analysis with the projections
from these economic analyses. The estimates used
in this analysis are at the lower end, but within,
56 These capacity estimates assume 100% utilization of installed capacity, and are, therefore, low.

Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                   97

-------
APPENDICES
                               Sales per year  Total over five
            Source
    EEA.2003

g°]  Estimate used in ETV's
    analysis

    Boedecker et al., 2000

    EEA.2003
                                   (MW)
                                  1.5 to 3.75
                                     7.7

                                     11.4
                                     76.5
      years (MW)
        7.5 to 18.8
           38.6

           57
           383
the range from the economic analyses.
   Emissions Reductions
Emissions reductions from microturbine
applications vary on a site-by-site basis. Because
of this variation, quantitative data are not available
to produce detailed nationwide estimates. To
produce a rough estimate, the ETV Program
calculated the total emissions reductions assuming
all applications are identical and represented by
model sites. The ETV Program examined several
possible model sites, all developed by Southern
Research Institute in the verification reports for
the technologies. Exhibit C-2 summarizes the
model sites examined. The verification reports
(Southern Research Institute, 2001a, 2003a,
                      Comments/Limitations
         Based on current sales averaged over the last 20 years.
         Includes CHP applications only.
         Based on 2004 sales by a single vendor (ETVVendor, 2005).
         Assumes no growth in sales.
         Includes CHP applications only.
         Based on 100% capacity utilization.
         Assumes limited technology advancement.
         Assumes technology advancement.
         Includes CHP applications only.
               2003b) describe the model sites and the baseline
               assumptions (e.g., displaced conventional power
               source) used to generate the reduction estimates
               in more detail. For the estimates in this analysis,
               the ETV Program used only the first two sites in
               Exhibit C-2 for the following reasons:
               *  the estimates for these sites are based on actual
                   test site operations (as opposed hypothetical
                   sites)
               *  the estimates include both CO2 and NOX
                   reductions
               *  the estimates were developed using more
                   recent assumptions about displaced emissions
                   rates
                   The ETV Program generated upper- and
               lower-bound estimates for CO2 and NOX by
        Location and Facility Type
      New York, Community Center (e)( I)
      New York, Supermarket (e)(2)
      Chicago, Large Office (h)
      Chicago, Medium Hotel (h)
      Chicago, Large Hotel (h)
      Chicago, Hospital (h)
      Atlanta, Large Office (h)
      Atlanta, Medium Hotel (h)
      Atlanta, Large Hotel (h)
      Atlanta, Hospital (h)
420
 year)
 212,000
 328,000
 527,000
 558,000
 884,000
3,920,000
1,050,000
1,160,000
1,700,000
9,770,000
                           year)
                            1,330
                            1,060
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                        Not estimated
                                                                Not estimated
      Notes: (h) hypothetical site, (e) ETV test site, (I) used
      (2) used to generate upper-bound CO2 estimates and
       to generate lower-bound CO2 estimates
       lower-bound NOx estimates.
            Source
Southern Research Institute, 2003a
Southern Research Institute, 2003b
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
Southern Research Institute, 2001 a
and upper-bound NOx estimates,
98
                   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                                                                         APPENDICES

choosing the model sites that result in the highest      *  TC is the total capacity in MW of ETV-verified
and lowest CO2 and NOx reductions, respectively.         microturbines installed and varies depending
The national estimates use the following equation:        on the market penetration scenario
                                                   *  MC is the model site capacity in MW and
          TR = (TC / MC) x MR / 2000                 varies depending on the  model site chosen
   ywi                                             *  MR is model site CO2 or NOx reduction in
                                                      pounds per year and varies depending on the
*  TR is total C02 or NOx reduction in tons per        mode|  sjte chosen
   year
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program                                                    99

-------

-------
                                     Appendix D.
                         Methodology  for
                      Laser Touch  Spray
                   Painting  Outcomes
  Pollutant Reduction
The ETV Program estimated VOC reduction
for the ETV-verified technology by assuming
a straight-line relationship between market
penetration for the technology and the total
quantity of VOC released from the automobile
refinishing industry, multiplied by the anticipated
percentage reduction by the ETV-verified
technology. The total VOC air emissions from
the automobile refinishing industry were 109,000
tons in 2002. The ETV-verified technology
reduces VOC emissions 10% from the unassisted
baseline.57 Because the verified technology can be
used in  other industries, in addition to automobile
refinishing, the estimated VOC reduction is
conservative (low). The ETV Program applied the
following equation:

          VOC ReductionETV =
       AnnualVOCEAx IO%x%MP
  Where:
* VOC ReductionETV is the quantity ofVOC
   emissions reduced per year when using the
   ETV-verified technology
* Annual VOCEA is the 2002 quantity of VOC
   emitted by the automobile refinishing industry
*  10% is the VOC reduction obtained when
   using the ETV-verified technology, when
   compared to the unassisted baseline
   %MP is the percent market penetration for
   the ETV-verified technology
  Solid Waste Reduction
Solid waste reduction is dependent on the solids
content of the paint used. During verification,
ETV used a common industrial coating with
a solids content of 74%. For this analysis, the
overall range of the solids content of paint used in
automobile refinishing was assumed to range from
20% to 74% solids, by weight. In most cases the
solids content used in the industry is much greater
than 20% and much less than 74%; these limits
were selected in order bound the estimate. Solid
waste reduction was estimated using this range of
solids content and in conjunction with the VOC
reduction estimate. The ETV Program applied
the following equation:

        Solid Waste ReductionETV =
  VOC ReductionETV x (% Solids/[l-% Solids])
   Where:
*  Solid Waste ReductionETV is the quantity
   of solid waste reduced per year for a given
   market penetration when using the ETV-
   verified technology
*  VOC ReductionETV is the quantity ofVOC
   emissions reduced per year for a given market
57 This is equivalent to an 11.1%TE increase as cited earlier. (CTC, 2000)
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                                101

-------
APPENDICES
    penetration when using the ETV-verified
    technology, calculated above
    % Solids is the solids content of the paint,
    ranging from 20% to 74% solids, by weight
   Financial and Economic Outcomes
The ETV program evaluated the economic
savings resulting from material use (i.e., paint).
The ETV Program used data generated by
IWRC, which estimated that as a result of
improved training, a typical trainee would
generate a lower quantity of VOC emissions (285
pounds) during painting and annual material
savings would be $6,500 (Little, 2004) This
material savings was extrapolated to the VOC
reduction quantities calculated above. As  such,
these cost savings contain significant uncertainty.
The ETV Program applied the following
equation:
   VOC ReductionETV x Unit Cost SavingS|WRc
   Where:
   BenefitSEiv is the total monetary benefit
   in raw material savings for a given market
   penetration when using the ETV-verified
   technology
   VOC ReductionETV is the quantity ofVOC
   emissions reduced per year for a given market
   penetration when using the ETV-verified
   technology, calculated above
   Unit Cost SavingSiwRc 's the cost savings per
   pound ofVOC reduced ($6,500/285 lb),as
   estimated by IWRC
 102
   Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
                                     Appendix  E.
                        Methodology  for
        Arsenic  Drinking  Water
             Treatment  Outcomes
  Number of Systems
  and Population Served
To estimate the total potential market for the
ETV-verified technologies, the ETV Program
used data from U.S. EPA (2000f)—specifically
from Exhibit 8-3 for small community water
systems (CWSs) and from Exhibit 6-14 for
non-transient, non-community water systems
(NTNCs). These data result in a total potential
market of 3,900 small systems. The ETV Program
also estimated the total population served by these
systems. For CWSs, this estimate used an average
population served per system, by system size
category and type (ground water versus surface
water), derived from Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 of U.S.
EPA (2000f). For NTNCs, the estimate used
the total population served by affected NTNCs
reported in U.S. EPA (2001i). These data result in
a total population served of 4,400,000. To produce
the estimates in Exhibit 3.1-2, the ETV Program
multiplied the total number of systems and total
population served by each market penetration
percentage.
  Human Health Outcomes
The ETV Program estimated the number of
cancer cases avoided by applying the ETV-
verified technologies by assuming a straight-line
relationship between each human health endpoint
and the total population served by systems
installing or modifying treatment as a result of the
new standard. That is, the ETV Program applied
the following equation:
OutcomeETV = (OutcomeTOT
 Where:
                           xTP
                              ETV
*  OutcomeETV is the quantified measure for a
   given human health endpoint (total avoided
   cases of cancer per year and fatal cases
   per year) attributable to the ETV-verified
   technologies
*  OutcomeTOT is the quantified measure for
   the same human health endpoint for the new
   standard as a whole.
*  TPjoi is the total population served by all
   systems affected by the new standard
*  TPETV is the total population served
   by systems applying the ETV-verified
   technologies
   OutcomeTOT varied for the upper- and lower-
bound scenarios provided in EPA's EA for the
new arsenic standard (U.S. EPA, 2000f). TPETv
varied by market penetration scenario. Exhibit
E-l documents the values used in each case. This
methodology assumes the characteristics (arsenic
concentration, average population served) of
systems applying the ETV-verified technologies
are distributed in the same manner as those of
all affected systems. This assumption could be
reasonable for very high market penetration
scenarios. It is likely less accurate for lower
market penetration scenarios, where penetration
might occur first in certain areas of the country.
There also are a number of uncertainties,
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
                               103

-------
APPENDICES
                    ASSUMPTIONS
DEVELOP HEALTH O
                                                                    IE ESTIM
Variable
 ^H_
 utcomejOT'tota' avoided cancer cases, upper bound

OutcomejOT'tota' avoided cancer cases, lower bound

OutcomejOT'tota' avoided fatal cancer cases, upper bound

OutcomejOT'tota' avoided fatal cancer cases, lower bound

TPTOT
     r, 10% market penetration
                                                    Assumption
                                                       55.7
     , 25% market penetration

     , 10% market penetration with large systems included
                                                      1,100,000

                                                     1.27 million
                    Source and Derivation
                    U.S. EPA (2000f), Exhibit 5-9c
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
                    U.S. EPA (2000f), Exhibit 5-9c

                    U.S. EPA (2000f), Exhibit 5-9c
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
                    U.S. EPA (2000f), Exhibit 5-9c

                    U.S. EPA (2001 i)

                    See discussion under "Number of Systems and
                    Population Served," above
                    See discussion under "Number of Systems and
                    Population Served," above
                    See discussion under "Number of Systems and
                    Population Served," above
discussed in detail in the EA, associated with the
underlying epidemiological studies used in the
EA to estimate health benefits. In spite of these
limitations, the resulting estimates represent
reasonable, conservative (low) estimates of human
health outcomes attributable to the ETV-verified
technologies.
   Economic and Financial Outcomes
To estimate the economic value of human health
benefits, the ETV Program used $6.1 million per
fatal cancer case prevented and $607,000 per non-
fatal cancer case prevented, the same values used
in U.S. EPA (2000f). These unit values are in May
1999 dollars, as reported in U.S. EPA (2000f).
Therefore, the resulting outcomes estimates
provide a conservative (low) estimate of economic
outcomes in current year dollars.
            To develop the pilot cost-savings estimates,
        the ETV Program assumed total pilot study cost
        of $20,000 per individual system. This assumption
        is based on a vendor estimate of $100,000
        total in pilot testing costs for five installations
        of an ETV-verified drinking water treatment
        technology (other than one of the ETV-verified
        arsenic drinking water treatment technologies)
        (Adams, 2005). There can be significant variation
        in individual pilot study costs, depending on
        site-specific factors, state agency requirements,
        and technology type. The assumption, however,
        is within the lower part of the range typically
        assumed for pilot testing costs in EPA regulatory
        analyses.  In addition, as discussed above, the
        ETV Program assumed a wide range of potential
        cost reductions  (10% to 75%) in estimating total
        national pilot study cost savings. This wide range
        helps address some of the uncertainty associated
        with individual pilot study costs.
 104
           Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program

-------
v°/EPA
     United States
     Environmental Protection
     Agency
     National Risk Management
       Research Laboratory
     Cincinnati, OH 45268
     Official Business
     Penality for Private Use
     S300

     EPA/600/R-06/001
     January 2006
Please make all necessary changes on the below label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE d;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35


-------