EPA 600/R-10/119 I September 2010 I www.epa.gov/ord
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
                  Environmental Technology
                  Verification  (ETV)  Program
                  Case Studies
                  DEMONSTRATING PROGRAM OUTCOMES
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
Development of this document was funded by die United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program under contract number EP-C-08-010 to The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. ETV is a public-private partnership conducted, in
large part, through competitive cooperative agreements with nonprofit research institutes. This document has been subjected to the Agency's review
and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey, and should not be inter-
preted as conveying, official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. The use of company- and/or product-specific sales information, images,
quotations, or other outcomes-related information does not constitute the endorsement of any one verified company or product over another, nor do
the comments made by these organizations necessarily reflect the views of EPA.

-------
          Environmental Technology
          Verification (ETV) Program
          Case Studies
          DEMONSTRATING PROGRAM OUTCOMES
                                          CD
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
3

-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes

-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air,
and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support
and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPAs research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources
wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation of techno-
logical and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health
and the environment. The focus of the laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness
for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in
public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments, and groundwater; prevention and control of
indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with public and private sector partners
to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research
provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment, advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions, and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations
and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.

This publication has been produced as part of the laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is published and
made  available by EPAs Office of Research and Development to assist  the user community and link researchers
with their clients.

Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
                                                                                                        III

-------
            Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
      ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
      The ETV Program wishes to thank the ETV verification organizations, ETV center project officers, EPA program
      office staff, and other EPA personnel who reviewed the case studies throughout the development process. The fol-
      lowing individuals were instrumental in ensuring that the information presented in the case studies was technically
      accurate, consistent with the Agency's current understanding of the underlying issues, summarized fairly, and, in
      the case of potential outcomes, estimated in a reasonable manner:
      Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies: Joyce Hudson, EPA Office of Water; Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech;
      Thomas Stevens, NSF International; Raymond Frederick, EPA Office of Research and Development, National
      Risk Management Research Laboratory; and Claude Smith, International Wastewater Systems, Inc.

      Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Rachel Goldstein, EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program; Neeharika Naik-
      Dhungel, EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership; Christopher Voell and Kurt Roos, EPA AgSTAR Program;
      P. Ferman Milster, University of Iowa; Doug Tolrud, Minnesota Power; James Foster, New York State Energy Re-
      search and Development Authority; Timothy Hansen, Southern Research Institute; Lee Beck and Julius Enriquez,
      EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory; Joseph Staniunas,
      UTC Power; and Jim Mennell, renewaFUEL, LLC.

      All Case Studies: J. E. Smith; Patrick Topper, The Pennsylvania State University; and Teresa Harten, Evelyn Hartz-
      ell, and Abby Waits, EPA Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
IV

-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword	iii
Acknowledgements                                                                         iy
Exhibits                                                                                     yi
Acronyms and Abbreviations	yii
1. Introduction and Summary                                                                 1
    1.1 Purpose                                                                                1
    1.2 Organization and Scope	3
    1.3 Summary of Outcomes	4
2. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies                                         7
    2.1 Environmental, Human Health, and Regulatory Background                                    8
    2.2 Technology Description                                                                10
    2.3 Outcomes                                                                            11
       2.3.1 Pollutant Reduction Outcomes                                                          11
       2.3.2 Technology Acceptance, Use, and Financial and Economic Outcomes                               14
       2.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes	15
    2.4 References	17
3. Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery                    19
    3.1 Environmental, Human Health, and Regulatory Background	21
       3.1.1 Energy, GHGs, and Climate Change	22
       3.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations	23
       3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment                                                                24
       3.1.4 Landfills	25
       3.1.5 Boilers	26
    3.2 Technology Description                                                                26
       3.2.1 Biogas Processing Systems	26
       3.2.2 Distributed Generation Energy Systems                                                   28
       3.2.3 Biomass Co-Fired Boilers                                                              31
    3.3 Outcomes 	32
       3.3.1 Emissions Reduction Outcomes                                                         32
       3.3.2 Resource Conservation, Economic, and Financial Outcomes                                     36
       3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes                                                        39
       3.3.4 Technology Acceptance and Use Outcomes                                                 40
       3.3.5 Scientific Advancement Outcomes                                                        41
    3.4 References	43
Appendix A. Methods for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Technologies Outcomes	47
    A.I Number of Systems	47
    A.2 Pollutant Reduction	47
    A.3 References	48
Appendix B. Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes                         49
    B.I Distributed Generation Systems	49
       B.I.I Animal Feeding Operations	49
       B. 1.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities	51
       B. 1.3 Landfills	52
    B.2 Co-Fired Boilers	53
    B.3 References	54
Appendix C. Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy,
Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making	55
    C.I Water Programs	55
    C.2 Air and Energy Programs                                                               56
    C.3 Land and Toxics Programs 	58
    C.4 Other Areas	59
    C.5 References	60
                                                                                                  V

-------
             Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                                                        Demonstrating Program Outcomes
      EXHIBITS

      Exhibit 1.1-1:
      Exhibit 1.2-1:

      Exhibit 1.3-1:
      Exhibit 2.2-1:

      Exhibit 2.2-2:

      Exhibit 2.3-1:

      Exhibit 2.3-2:
      Exhibit 2.3-3:

      Exhibit 3-1:
      Exhibit 3.2-1:
      Exhibit 3.2-2:
      Exhibit 3.2-3:
      Exhibit 3.3-1:

      Exhibit 3.3-2:

      Exhibit 3.3-3:
      Exhibit 3.3-4:

      Exhibit B.l-1:

      Exhibit B.l-2:
ETV Centers and Verification Organizations	1

Case Studies, ETV Centers, and Priority Environmental Topics and
Significant Pollutants	3

Types of Outcomes Identified for Each Case Study.	5

Performance of ETWerified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
BOD, TSS, and COD	11

Performance of ETWerified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
Nutrients and Total Coliform.	12

Calculated Pollutant Reductions Achieved During 3-Years of Operation at
Installed Sites	13

Expected Annual Pollutant Reductions for Scheduled Installation Sites	13

Estimated Potential Pollutant Reductions for the ETWerified Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Technology	13

Completed and Ongoing ETV Verifications for Waste-to-Energy Technologies	20

Performance of ETWerified Biogas Processing Units                                    27

Performance of ETWerified Distributed Generation Technologies	29

Characteristics and Performance of ETV-Verified Biomass Co-Fired Boilers                 32

Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies
Used at Animal Feeding Operations	33
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies
Used at Wastewater Treatment Facilities
34
Number of Landfills That Could Apply ETWerified Technologies                        35

Estimated Potential Energy Generation and Cost Benefits of Using ETV-Verified
Distributed Generation Technologies                                                   37

Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at
Animal Feeding Operations	50

Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at a
Wastewater Treatment Facility.	52
VI

-------
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AQMD       Air Quality Management District
ARRA        American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
ASERTTI     Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
ASTM        American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT          best available technology
BOD         biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5         5-day biochemical oxygen demand
Btu           British thermal unit
CH4          methane
CHP         combined heat and power
CO           carbon monoxide
CO2          carbon dioxide
CO2e         carbon dioxide equivalent
COD         chemical oxygen demand
DoD          U.S. Department of Defense
DOE         U.S. Department of Energy
ESTCP       Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
ESTE         Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
EVRU        Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit
g/h           grams per hour
GHG         greenhouse gas
GPRA        Government Performance and Results Act
H2S          hydrogen sulfide
IPCC         Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IWS          International Wastewater Systems
kW           kilowatt
kWh          kilowatt-hour
Ibs            pounds
Ibs/h          pounds per hour
Ibs/kWh      pounds per kilowatt-hour
LT2ESWTR  Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MACT        maximum achievable control technology
MassDEP     Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
mg/L         milligrams per liter
MGD         millions of gallons per day
MMBtu/h     British thermal unit per hour
MOU         Memorandum of Understanding
MW          megawatt
MWh         megawatt-hour
N2O          nitrous oxide
NaOH        sodium hydroxide
NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx          nitrogen oxides
NYPA        New York Power Authority
NYSERDA    New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
OAQPS       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR         Office of Air and Radiation
ODW        Office of Drinking Water
                                                                                                 VII

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       OPP          Office of Pesticide Programs
       OWHH       outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters
       PM            particulate matter
       PON          Program Opportunity Notice
       ppb            parts per billion
       ppm           parts per million
       ppmv          parts per million by volume
       RCCH         RCC Holdings Corporation
       REC          Rapids Energy Center
       SBR           sequencing batch reactor
       SO2            sulfur dioxide
       SWTS         subsurface wastewater treatment system
       Tg            teragram
       THCs         total hydrocarbons
       TSS           total suspended solids
       TxLED        Texas Low Emission Diesel
       UI            University of Iowa
       USDA         U.S. Department of Agriculture
       UV            ultraviolet
       VIWMA      Virgin Islands Waste  Management Authority
       VOC          volatile organic compound
VIM

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
1.  Introduction and Summary
                                                                                                         1.1
l.l  PURPOSE
This document contains two case studies that highlight
some of the actual and potential outcomes and benefits
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program. The ETV Program was initiated in 1995 to
verify the performance of innovative technologies that
have the potential to improve human health and the
environment. The program operates, in large part, as a
public-private partnership through competitive coopera-
tive agreements between EPA and the nonprofit testing
and evaluation organizations—called ETV verification
organizations—listed in Exhibit 1.1-1. ETV also verifies
technologies to address EPA high-priority environmental
problems through Environmental and Sustainable Tech-
nology Evaluation (ESTE) projects; these verifications are
performed under contracts.
                                  The ETV Program develops testing protocols and pub-
                                  lishes detailed performance results in the form of veri-
                                  fication reports and statements, which can be found on
                                  ETV's Web Site (http://www.epa.gov/etv/verifiedtech-
                                  nologies.html). EPA technical and quality assurance staff
                                  review the protocols, test plans, verification reports, and
                                  verification statements to ensure that the verification
                                  data have been collected, analyzed, and presented in a
                                  manner that is consistent with EPA's quality assurance
                                  requirements.  ETV also relies on the active participa-
                                  tion of environmental technology information custom-
                                  ers in technology-specific stakeholder groups. ETV
                                  stakeholders represent the end-users of verification
                                  information and assist in developing protocols, priori-
                                  tizing technology areas to be verified, reviewing docu-
                                  ments, and conducting outreach to the customer groups
Exhibit 1.1-1
E TV Centers and Verification Organizations
 ETV Center
           ! Verification
           ! Organization
 ETV Advanced Monitoring   i „
 -       _             b   i Battelle
 Systems Center            ;
i Technology Areas and
i Environmental Media Addressed
                              Air, water, and soil/surface monitoring
                              Site characterization
! ETV Air Pollution Control
i Technology Center
           | RTI International   | Air pollution control
 ETV Drinking Water
 Systems Center
           | NSF International  j Drinking water treatment
i ETV Greenhouse Gas
i Technology Center
           | Southern         | Greenhouse gas reduction, mitigation, and sequestration
           | Research Institute  | Advanced and renewable energy generation
 ETV Materials Management i „
    , n    ,. ..   _ b.      i Battelle
 and Remediation Center    ;
                             ! Materials management, recycling, and reuse
                             i Contaminated land and groundwater remediation
 ETV Water Quality
 Protection Center
           i NSF International  i Storm and wastewater control and treatment

-------
       Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
they represent. Through rigorous and quality-assured
testing, ETV provides credible performance informa-
tion for commercial-ready environmental technologies.
This information can help vendors market and sell their
technologies and help users make purchasing decisions.
Ultimately, the environment and public health benefit.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
of 1993 holds federal agencies accountable for using re-
sources wisely and achieving program results. Among
other things, GPRA requires agencies to measure their
performance and communicate this information to Con-
gress and the public. In measuring performance, GPRA
distinguishes between "output" measures, which assess a
government program's activities in their simplest form,
and "outcome" measures, which assess the results of these
activities compared to their intended purpose.

Initially, the ETV Program measured its performance
with respect to outputs; for example, the number of
technologies verified and testing protocols developed.
ETV expanded its approach to include measurement
and estimation of outcomes, such as potential pollution
reductions attributable to the  use of ETV technolo-
gies and subsequent health or  environmental impacts.
In 2006, ETV published two case study booklets, En-
vironmental Technology Verification  (ETV) Program
Case Studies'. Demonstrating Program Outcomes, Volume
I (EPA/600/R-06/001, January 2006) and Volume II
(EPA/600/R-06/082, September 2006). These  book-
lets contain 15 case studies and one update.  This new
booklet builds on the original case studies and features
newer technology areas. The case studies presented here
highlight how the program's outputs (verified  technolo-
gies and protocols) translate into actual and potential
outcomes. The program also uses the case studies to
communicate information about verified technology per-
formance, applicability, and ETV testing requirements to
the public and decision-makers.

In reviewing these case studies, the reader should keep
in mind the following:

» Given the current state of science, there can be consider-
  able uncertainty in assessing environmental  outcomes
  and human health benefits. Therefore, many of the out-
  comes quantified in these case studies are described as
  "potential" outcomes and should be treated as estimates
  only.

» Vendors of ETV-verified technologies are not required
  to track their sales or report the impacts of ETV verifi-
  cation to EPA. Therefore, the ETV Program does not
  have access to a comprehensive set of sales data for the
  verified technologies. Faced with this limitation, ETV
  has estimated outcomes using market penetration sce-
  narios. That is, ETV has estimated the total potential
  market for a given technology or technology group and
  applied scenarios (e.g., 10% and 25% of the market) to
  project the potential number of installations for the
  technology category. Of course, in cases in which sales
  information is available, ETV incorporates this infor-
  mation into the outcomes estimates (see, for example,
  the case study in Chapter 2).

» The ETV Program calculated the outcomes in these
  case studies  by combining the verified performance
  results (which can be found in the verification reports
  and statements  at  http://www.epa.gov/etv/veri-
  fiedtechnologies.html)  with data from publicly avail-
  able sources (e.g., regulatory impact analyses), reason-
  able assumptions, and logical extrapolations.

» These case studies are not intended as a basis for mak-
  ing regulatory decisions, developing or commenting
  on policy, or choosing to purchase or sell a technology.
  They merely are intended to show potential benefits or
  other outcomes that could be attributed to verification
  and verified technology use.

» The ETV Program does not rate or compare technolo-
  gies. Where possible, when a case study discusses a
  group of  similar verified technologies, it summarizes
  performance as a range of results. When results are
  listed in a tabular format, vendor and product names
  are arranged by technology category or are listed in
  alphabetical  order by company or technology name.
  Technologies or technology areas were selected for in-
  clusion in these case studies because information on
  program outcomes was available.

» Verified technology performance data and other in-
  formation found in the verification reports were used,
  in  part, to develop the case studies. The cooperative
  agreement recipients, or ETV verification organiza-
  tions,  make the final decisions on the content of the
  verification  reports. These reports are the products
  of  the ETV cooperative agreement recipients.  EPA
  technical  and quality assurance staff review the pro-
  tocols, test plans, verification reports, and verification
  statements to ensure that the data have been collected,
  analyzed, and presented in a manner that is consistent
  with EPA's quality assurance requirements.

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
                                                                                                            1.2
  ETV verification organization representatives, EPA
  project officers, and appropriate program office and
  other EPA personnel have reviewed the case studies
  throughout the development process (see Acknowl-
  edgements). These reviews, as well as external peer re-
  view, were performed to ensure that the information
  presented in the case studies is technically accurate,
  consistent with the Agency's current understanding
  of the underlying issues, summarized fairly, and, in the
  case of potential outcomes, estimated in a reasonable
  manner. Vendors also were provided with an opportu-
  nity to review the case studies.

  EPA does not endorse the purchase or sale of any of the
  products and services from companies mentioned in this
  document. Also, the use of company- and/or product-
  specific sales information, images, quotations, or other
  outcomes-related information does not constitute the
  endorsement of any verified company or product over
  another, nor do the comments made by these organiza-
  tions necessarily reflect the views of EPA.
                                   1.2 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
                                   This document includes two case studies featuring the
                                   following technology areas:  decentralized waste water
                                   treatment technologies (Chapter 2) and waste-to-ener-
                                   gy technologies for power generation and heat recovery
                                   (Chapter 3). Each chapter also includes a complete list
                                   of references. A set of appendices provide a detailed dis-
                                   cussion of the methods used to estimate outcomes in
                                   the case studies. In addition to outcomes information
                                   presented for the technology categories above, Appendix
                                   C lists recent examples of ETV outcomes—how ETV
                                   data, reports, and protocols have been used in regulation,
                                   permitting, purchasing, and other decision-making and
                                   similar activities—for other technologies or technology
                                   areas.
                                   Exhibit 1.2-1 identifies the case studies, the ETV center
                                   that verified each technology or technology area, and the
                                   priority environmental topics and significant pollutants
                                   addressed by each.
Exhibit 1.2-1
Cose Studies, ETV Centers, and Priority Environmental Topics and Significant Pollutants
Case Study
i Decentralized Wastewater
i Treatment Technologies
I (Chapter 2)
i Waste-to-EnergyTechnol-
i ogies: Biomass Co-Fired
1 Boilers (Chapter 3)
i Waste-to-EnergyTechnol-
i ogies: Distributed Gen-
i eration Energy Systems
1 (Chapters)
i Waste-to-EnergyTech-
i nologies: Gas Processing
i Systems (Chapter 3)
ETV Center
Water Quality
Protection
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Greenhouse
Gas Technology
Priority
Environmental Topics
i Decentralized wastewater
i systems, drinking and
i groundwater protection,
i watershed protection,
i community development
i Greenhouse gases, waste-to-
i energy, industrial emissions
i Greenhouse gases, waste-
i to-energy, animal feeding
i operations, landfills,
i wastewater treatment
i Greenhouse gases, waste-
i to-energy, animal feeding
i operations, landfills,
i wastewater treatment
! Significant Pollutants
i Nitrogen, phosphorus, total suspend- i
i ed solids, biochemical oxygen de-
i mand, chemical oxygen demand, total i
i coliform bacteria
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sul- i
i fur dioxide, carbon monoxide, par-
i ticulate matter
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, sul- i
i fur dioxide, methane, carbon mon- i
i oxide, particulate matter, ammonia, i
i total hydrocarbons
i Carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hy- i
i drogen sulfide and other sulfur com- i
i pounds, hydrocarbons, methane, ha- i
i lides, volatile organic compounds

-------
       Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
Each case study begins with an introduction, followed by
three sections. The first section,"Environmental, Health,
and Regulatory Background," describes the pollutant or
environmental issue(s) that the technology is designed to
address, human health and environmental impacts associ-
ated with the pollutant or issue, and regulatory programs
or voluntary initiatives that  apply. The  second section,
"Technology Description," describes the technology(ies),
identifies what makes the technology(ies) innovative, and
summarizes the performance results as verified by ETV.
The third section, "Outcomes," presents the  ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of actual and potential outcomes from
verification and from applying the technology. These out-
comes may include:

» Pollutant reduction outcomes, such as tons of pol-
  lutant emissions reduced by potential applications
  of the technology.

» Resource conservation outcomes, such as the types of
  natural resources that the technology can conserve.

» Economic and financial outcomes, such as the eco-
  nomic value of cost savings to users of the technology.

» Regulatory compliance outcomes, such as how the
  technology can assist users in complying with federal
  and state regulations.

» Technology acceptance and use outcomes, such as evi-
  dence that ETV verification has led to increased use
  of the technology.

» Scientific advancement outcomes, such as improve-
  ments in technology performance and standardiza-
  tion of technology evaluation or development of a
  protocol that has advanced  efforts  to standardize
  protocols across programs.

Within outcome categories, the ETV Program has made
every effort to quantify (i.e., place a numerical value on)
the outcome. For instances  in which insufficient data
were available to  quantify an outcome, the case studies
present information about that outcome and describe its
potential significance qualitatively.

Each case study is written to stand on its own, so that
readers interested in one or more technology categories
can comprehend the section(s) of interest without need-
ing to review the full document. For this reason, each
case study spells out all acronyms (other than EPA and
ETV) on first use (even if they have been used in previ-
ous case studies) and includes its own acronyms list at
the end of the section. For readers who wish to review
both case studies together, a complete list of acronyms is
included at the beginning of this document. Additionally,
Appendix C also contains its own list of acronyms and
abbreviations.


1.3 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
The case studies presented here address a variety of pol-
lutants and environmental issues (see Exhibit 1.2-1). As
discussed previously, the ETV Program examined differ-
ent types of outcomes and attempted, within the limits of
the available data, to quantify each outcome. This section
identifies the types of outcomes associated with each case
study or subtopics within  the case studies  and provides
examples of the most significant, quantifiable actual and
potential  outcomes. Exhibit 1.3-1 lists the case studies
with the types of outcomes identified in each. It also in-
dicates which of the outcomes the ETV Program was
able to quantify.

Examples of significant potential outcomes from those
identified in Exhibit 1.3-1, which are described in further
detail within the case studies, include the following:

» Based on current installations, the ETV-verified de-
  centralized wastewater treatment technology, when
  compared to traditional technologies, reduced total
  nitrogen discharges during the 3-year  period since
  installation by 0.14 tons (0.25 pounds  [lbs]/day on
  average) at one site and by 0.21 tons (0.38 Ibs/day
  on average) at a second site; total suspended solids
  (TSS)  discharge was reduced by 1.6 tons (3.0 Ibs/
  day on average) and 2.4 tons (4.5 Ibs/day on average)
  at each site, respectively. During  the same time pe-
  riod, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was
  reduced by 4.2 tons (7.7 Ibs/day on average) and 6.3
  tons (11 Ibs/day on average) at each site, respectively.

» Based on near-term pending installations (to occur
  during 2010), the ETV-verified decentralized waste-
  water treatment technology could  produce additional
  annual pollutant reductions of 110 to 220 Ibs (an av-
  erage of 0.30 to 0.61 Ibs/day) of nitrogen, 0.65 to  1.3
  tons (3.6 to 7.1 Ibs/day on average) of TSS, and 1.7 to
  3.4 tons (9.2 to 18 Ibs/day on average) of BOD5 when
  compared to traditional technologies.

» A decentralized wastewater treatment technology
  vendor reports that demonstrated technology perfor-

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction and Summary
Exhibit 1.3-1
Types of Outcomes Identified for Each Case Study
                                                                                                                  1.3
          Case Study
                               Pollutant or |  ResQurce  |   Economjc  | Regu|atory | Technology |
                                Reduction
                                                                and Use
! Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
! Technologies (Chapter 2)
! Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
I Biomass Co-Fired Boilers (Chapter 3)
i Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
! Distributed Generation Energy
i Systems (Chapter 3)
                   Q
Q
! Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Gas
i Processing Systems (Chapter 3)
i Q = ETV identified this type of outcome and was able to quantify its potential impact.
i X = ETV identified this type of outcome but was not able to quantify its potential impact.
i Blank = ETV did not identify this type of outcome.
  mance through verification resulted in five projects
  totaling $1.4 million in revenue and that ETV veri-
  fication testing has had indirect benefits in the form
  of added company value and partnerships; the vendor
  estimates that the total value added to the company as
  a result of participation in ETV could be as much as
  $5 million.

  Using 10% and 25% market penetration scenarios,
  the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater treat-
  ment technology could potentially be applied at ap-
  proximately 140 to 350 residential clusters of homes
  with annual pollutant reductions of 0.58 to 1.4 tons
  of nitrogen (3.2 to 7.9 Ibs/day on average), 6.8 to 17
  tons of TSS (37 to 93 Ibs/day on average), and 18
  to 44 tons of BOD5 (96 to 240 Ibs/day on average)
  when compared to traditional septic systems; associ-
  ated environmental and human health benefits also
  could be realized.

  At least nine states currently use ETV protocols in the
  evaluation of alternative technologies for wastewater
  treatment, and three identify the protocol used for the
  verification described in the decentralized wastewater
  treatment technologies case study.
                                       Based on  current installations, eight ETV-verified
                                       fuel cell distributed generation systems in operation
                                       at wastewater treatment plants in or near New York
                                       City reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more
                                       than 11,000 tons per year. The vendor reports that, cu-
                                       mulatively, these fuel cell installations have generated
                                       more than 56,000 megawatt-hours of electricity with
                                       an associated economic value of $5.6 million.

                                       The ETV-verified distributed power generation sys-
                                       tems highlighted in  the waste-to-energy technologies
                                       case study could potentially be applied, using 10% and
                                       25% market penetration scenarios, at:

                                           >  Approximately 820 to 2,100 animal feeding op-
                                             erations with  annual CO2 equivalent emissions
                                             reductions of up to 5.9 million to 15 million
                                             tons and associated climate change, environ-
                                             mental, and human health benefits.

                                           >  Approximately 44 to 110 wastewater treatment
                                             facilities with annual CO2 equivalent emissions
                                             reductions of 63,000 to 160,000 tons  and an-
                                             nual nitrogen oxides emissions reductions of 80
                                             to 200 tons; associated climate change, environ-

-------
     Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                  Demonstrating Program Outcomes
      mental, and human health benefits also could
      be realized.

The estimated potential energy generation and cost
benefits of using the ETV-verified distributed gen-
eration technologies described in the waste-to-energy
technologies case study at 10% and 25% market pen-
etration are as follows:

    >  If candidate animal feeding operations used
      these technologies, up to 1.4 million to 3.5 mil-
      lion  megawatts (MW) of electricity could be
      generated annually with associated cost benefits
      of up to $140 million to $350 million.
    >  If candidate landfills used these technologies, up
      to 75,000 to 190,000 MW of electricity could
      be generated annually with associated cost ben-
      efits of up to $7.5 million to $19 million.

    >  If candidate wastewater treatment facilities used
      these technologies, 74,000 to  190,000 MW of
      electricity could be generated  annually  with
      associated cost benefits of $7.4  million to $19
      million.

ETV verification results from the biomass co-fired
boilers described in the waste-to-energy technologies
case study were used to assist in permit analysis and
permitting of test burns at universities, public utilities,
and large industrial operations in five states.

-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
                                                                                                             2.0
2.  Decentralized  Wastewater Treatment Technologies
The ETV Program's Water Quality Protection Cen-
ter, operated by NSF International under a cooperative
agreement with EPA, has verified the performance of
a decentralized wastewater treatment technology de-
signed for use in areas that are not served by centralized
wastewater treatment facilities (sewers and municipal
sewage treatment plants) and expects to verify another
technology in 2010. Decentralized wastewater systems
treat wastewater close to the source, and most discharge
directly to the soil. Decentralized systems include septic
systems that provide treatment to individual homes and
larger capacity systems that treat discharges from clusters
of homes, businesses, subdivisions, or small towns (U.S.
EPA, 2005a; NSF International, 2006). This case study
focuses on larger capacity systems, like the International
Wastewater Systems, Inc. Model 6000 sequencing batch
reactor (SBR)  verified by ETV1, that are used to treat
discharges of approximately 5,000 gallons per  day or
more.
High-volume decentralized wastewater treatment sys-
tems can have economic and ecological advantages com-
pared to centralized systems when used in appropriate
locations. They can be more protective of groundwater
and surface water quality, allowing for new development
in areas with nondegradation limits, and can lead to de-
creased threats to public health if used to replace failing
or improperly maintained septic systems. The technol-
ogy verified by ETV uses a combination of biological
treatment, sand filtration, and ultraviolet (UV) treat-
ment to treat wastewater generated by a small cluster
of homes, thereby greatly decreasing levels of bacterial
contaminants and pollutants such as nitrogen and phos-
phorus in the water.

Section 2.3 of this case study presents the ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of verification outcomes from actual
and potential applications of the technology. Appendix
A provides a detailed description of the methodology
and assumptions used to estimate these outcomes. Using
the analyses in this case study, ETV reports the follow-
ing outcomes:
1. At the time of verification (2006), the technology was manufactured by
International Wastewater Systems, Inc. In 2007, RCC Holdings Corporation
purchased International Wastewater Systems, Inc., renaming the company
International Wastewater Systems. In 2009, the company filed paperwork to
modify its corporate name to IWS Water Solutions, Inc., but will maintain
use of the name International Wastewater Systems.
                                   The 50-home Trellis Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho, that uses the International
                                             Wastewater Systems, Inc. Model 6000 SBR.
                                     Based on current installations, the ETV-verified de-
                                     centralized wastewater treatment technology, when
                                     compared to traditional technologies, reduced total
                                     nitrogen discharges during the  3-year period since
                                     installation by 0.14 tons (0.25 pounds [lbs]/day on
                                     average) at one site and by 0.21 tons (0.38 Ibs/day on
                                     average) at a second site; total suspended solids (TSS)
                                     discharge was reduced by 1.6 tons (3.0 Ibs/day on av-
                                     erage) and 2.4 tons (4.5 Ibs/day on average) at each
                                     site, respectively. During the same time period, 5-day
                                     biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) was reduced by
                                     4.2 tons (7.7 Ibs/day on average) and 6.3 tons (11 Ibs/
                                     day on average) at each site, respectively.

                                     Based on near-term pending installations (to occur
                                     during 2010), the technology could produce additional
                                     annual pollutant reductions of 110 to 220 Ibs (an av-
                                     erage of 0.30 to 0.61 Ibs/day) of nitrogen, 0.65 to 1.3
                                     tons (3.6 to 7.1 Ibs/day on average) of TSS, and 1.7 to
                                     3.4 tons (9.2 to 18 Ibs/day on average) of BOD5, when
                                     compared to traditional technologies.

                                     The vendor reports that verification of technology per-
                                     formance resulted in five projects totaling $1.4 million
                                     in revenue and that ETV verification testing has had
                                     indirect benefits in the form of added company value
                                     and partnerships; the vendor estimates that the total
                                     value added to the company as a result of participation
                                     in ETV could be as much as $5 million.

                                     Using 10% and 25% market penetration scenarios,
                                     the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater treat-
                                     ment technology could potentially be applied at ap-
                                     proximately 140 to 350 residential clusters of homes

-------
            Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       with annual pollutant reductions of 0.58 to 1.4 tons
       of nitrogen (3.2 to 7.9 Ibs/day on average), 6.8 to 17
       tons of TSS (37 to 93 Ibs/day on average), and 18
       to 44 tons of BOD5 (96 to 240 Ibs/day on average),
       when compared to traditional septic systems; associ-
       ated environmental and human health benefits also
       could be realized.

     Additionally, technologies such as the one verified by
     ETV provide an opportunity to re-use  the reclaimed
     water to benefit the local community. The treated effluent
     from such systems is of high enough quality that it can
     be used for landscape irrigation. For example, reclaimed
     water from treatment  systems similar to those verified
     by ETV has been used to water golf courses and school
     athletic fields in the immediate vicinity (International
     Wastewater Systems, 2010). Other benefits of ETV
     verification include the establishment of a well-accepted
     protocol that has advanced efforts to standardize pro-
     tocols across programs. At least nine states currently
     use ETV protocols in the evaluation of alternative tech-
     nologies for wastewater treatment, and three specifically
     identify the protocol used for the verification described
     in this case study.


     2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL, HUMAN
     HEALTH, AND REGULATORY
     BACKGROUND
     Well-designed and well-managed decentralized wastewa-
     ter treatment systems, including onsite and septic systems
     and larger capacity cluster systems, can help protect hu-
     man health and water quality. These systems can have eco-
     nomic and ecological advantages compared to centralized
     systems when used in appropriate locations. Decentralized
     wastewater systems treat and disperse wastewater as close
     as possible to its source and maximize re-use opportuni-
     ties. They use relatively low-cost equipment and release
     small volumes of treated wastewater to the environment
     at multiple locations (EPA, 2010a). When used in exist-
     ing developments, decentralized systems can serve dense
     areas with small lots, considerably improve treatment lev-
     els, and increase groundwater recharge to  a great extent,
     which in turn conserves water within the watershed. In
     new developments, these systems can provide advanced
     treatment for sites with poor soils, steep slopes, or high
     groundwater. They are useful to promote smart growth
     and low-impact development and foster the preservation
     of woodlands and  open space by promoting the cluster-
ing of homes and businesses. Other advantages include
enhanced assimilation via multiple smaller discharges,
avoidance of large mass loadings at outfalls, and malfunc-
tion risks that are small and easier to manage compared to
centralized systems (EPA, 2008d).

In the past, decentralized wastewater treatment systems
commonly were viewed as temporary approaches  to
waste management and were intended for use only until
centralized treatment systems could be installed. There
are many situations (e.g., low-density communities, hilly
terrain, ecologically sensitive areas) in the United States,
however, in which centralized systems are neither the
most cost effective nor the most sustainable treatment
option for a variety of reasons. Under these circumstanc-
es, decentralized systems should be considered long-term
solutions (Rocky Mountain Institute, 2004; Siegrist,
2001; U.S. EPA, 1997a).

Decentralized wastewater treatment systems  can be
major sources of groundwater and surface water con-
tamination if they are improperly sited, operated, or
maintained (U.S. EPA, 2005c). Typical pollutants from
these systems can include suspended solids, bacteria
and other pathogens, biodegradable organics, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and other inorganic and organic chemicals
(U.S. EPA, 2005b). Conventional onsite wastewater
treatment systems remove solids, biodegradable organic
compounds, and fecal coliform. These systems, however,
may not be adequate for minimizing nitrate contamina-
tion of groundwater, removing phosphorus, and treat-
ing pathogenic organisms (U.S. EPA, 2002). States have
identified improperly maintained septic systems as the
second most frequently reported groundwater contami-
nant source (U.S. EPA, 2010b). When used to  replace
failing or malfunctioning systems or as an alternative
to conventional septic  systems, modern decentralized
wastewater treatment systems can decrease nitrogen,
phosphorus, and bacterial discharges to groundwater
and surface water, thereby protecting environmental
quality and reducing public health threats.

Approximately one-half of the U.S. population relies on
groundwater for its drinking water supply, with ground-
water being the sole  source of drinking water in many
rural areas and some large cities. Groundwater used for
drinking water can have substantial problems with ni-
trate contamination, a significant source of which is im-
properly installed or maintained decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment systems. In areas that rely on groundwater
for drinking water, high levels of nitrate and nitrite in the
8

-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
water can pose a health hazard. Excessive nitrate or ni-
trite in drinking water can increase the risk of methemo-
globinemia in infants who drink formula made with the
water (Greer, et al, 2005). Methemoglobinemia is a dis-
order in which excessive levels of methemoglobin, a form
of hemoglobin that cannot carry oxygen, accumulate in
the body, causing illness. To protect against this hazard,
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA requires that
nitrate concentrations in drinking water not exceed 10
milligrams per liter  (mg/L) as nitrogen (56 FR 3526).
Although many sources, including inorganic fertilizer, ani-
mal manure, and particles from industry or automobiles,
may contribute to nitrogen contamination of groundwater,
improperly maintained decentralized wastewater systems
are a significant source of nitrogen contamination in some
areas. For example, in one area of Nevada, these systems
were found to be responsible for almost all of the nitrogen
pollution of the local groundwater—an important prob-
lem because the community relies on groundwater for its
drinking water supply, and nitrogen contamination has
increased to  near the EPA  maximum contaminant  level
(U.S. Geological Survey, 2006).

Decentralized wastewater  treatment systems also  may
contribute to bacterial contamination of drinking water
sources. EPA estimates that 185,000 viral illnesses occur
each year as  a result of consumption of drinking water
from systems that rely on groundwater contaminated by
improperly treated wastewater (71 FR 65573). The  con-
taminants of primary concern are waterborne pathogens
from fecal contamination. Wastewater treatment systems
are a potential source of this fecal contamination and also
may contribute to the increased levels of fecal bacteria
that prompt beach and shellfish harvesting area closures.

Additionally, these systems may pollute lakes and other
surface waters with the nutrients nitrogen and phos-
phorus, which promote excessive growth of algae and
impair water quality (U.S. EPA, 2003a, 2008a). Exces-
sive growth  of algae can lead to harmful algal blooms
and make shallow waters green and cloudy, with ac-
cumulations of "pond scum." The decomposition of al-
gae consumes oxygen in water, creating oxygen-starved
"dead zones" in which fish and other aquatic organisms
cannot survive and sometimes leading to extensive kills
of fish and shellfish  (Camargo and Alonso, 2006;  U.S.
EPA, 2008c). The decline in oxygen levels also can  pro-
mote formation of toxic substances, such as hydrogen
sulfide, that  have harmful effects on aquatic life. Some
of the algae and other organisms whose growth is  pro-
                                   moted by nutrient pollution, such as cyanobacteria, are
                                   themselves toxic and pose hazards to both aquatic ani-
                                   mals that live in the water and land animals that drink
                                   it (Camargo and Alonso, 2006). As a result of these
                                   impacts, excess nutrients may present significant losses
                                   to ecological, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic
                                   uses of surfaces waters.

                                   One specific area of risk is the Chesapeake Bay water-
                                   shed. EPA estimates that there were 2.3 million decen-
                                   tralized systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed as
                                   of 2008, and this number is expected to increase to 3.1
                                   million by 2030 (U.S. EPA, 2009b). These systems con-
                                   tributed about 4% of nitrogen loading—approximately
                                   6,000 tons of nitrogen—to the Chesapeake Bay in 2008,
                                   particularly because typical systems are not designed to
                                   reduce nitrogen (U.S. EPA, 2009b). On May 12, 2009,
                                   Executive Order 13508 was issued, requiring EPA to
                                   protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resourc-
                                   es, and social and economic value of the Chesapeake Bay,
                                   which is the Nation's largest estuary system. EPA recom-
                                   mends using nitrogen-reduction technologies to protect
                                   Chesapeake Bay watershed surface waters from nitrogen
                                   discharged by decentralized wastewater treatment sys-
                                   tems (U.S. EPA, 2010c).

                                   BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by
                                   microorganisms in decomposing organic matter in wa-
                                   ter, including wastewater from decentralized wastewater
                                   treatment systems. BOD5 is a measure of the amount of
                                   oxygen consumed by these organisms during a 5-day pe-
                                   riod at 20°C. The greater the BOD, the more rapidly oxy-
                                   gen is depleted. This results in stress and death of aquatic
                                   organisms because less oxygen is available to higher forms
                                   of aquatic life (U.S. EPA, 1997b). The Clean Water Act
                                   recognizes BOD as a conventional pollutant, and EPA
                                   uses BOD to establish effluent guidelines under this Act.
                                   TSS is a measure of the suspended solids in wastewater,
                                   effluent, or water bodies. High concentrations of TSS
                                   also can have a variety of negative impacts on aquatic
                                   life, including decreased photosynthesis, death of aquatic
                                   plants, and increased surface water temperature, all of
                                   which result in decreased dissolved oxygen, which in turn
                                   results in fish kills. TSS also can clog fish gills, affect
                                   the ability of fish to feed, reduce fish growth rates and
                                   resistance to disease, smother insect and fish eggs, and
                                   have a variety of detrimental effects on aquatic inverte-
                                   brates, including death (U.S. EPA, 2003b). TSS limits
                                   are set via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
                                   System (NPDES).

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       To mitigate risks of water quality degradation from tra-
       ditional decentralized wastewater treatment systems,
       which typically discharge directly to soil or a substrate
       for secondary treatment, regulatory oversight often is
       provided at the local, state, or tribal level rather than at
       the federal level. The  verified technology includes sec-
       ondary (biological) treatment, which allows it to meet
       EPA-established standards for BOD5 andTSS removal;
       therefore, it is able to discharge directly to surface water.
       Larger capacity systems that discharge directly to sur-
       face waters, such as the verified technology, generally are
       regulated at the state level through NPDES permits and
       managed by wastewater  districts, homeowners' associa-
       tions, water users' associations, and others. In contrast,
       soil-discharging wastewater systems that serve  more
       than one residence are classified by EPA as large capac-
       ity septic systems and are regulated via the Underground
       Injection Control Program of the federal Safe Drinking
       Water Act (U.S. EPA, 2007).

       EPA works with organizations, local governments, and
       states in information exchange and technical assistance
       for decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. In
       2008, EPA renewed a Memorandum of Understanding
       (MOU), originally signed in 2005, with 14 other orga-
       nizations involved in  various aspects of decentralized
       wastewater treatment  system regulation, operation, and
       environmental impacts. These organizations include the
       Consortium of Institutes for Decentralized Wastewater
       Treatment, National Environmental Health Association,
       National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, Inc.,
       Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and
       others. The MOU is intended to upgrade professional-
       ism within the industry and facilitate collaboration among
       EPA and its  regions, state and local governments, and
       national organizations representing practitioners in this
       area, leading to improved decentralized wastewater treat-
       ment system performance (U.S. EPA, 2008e). EPA also
       has developed voluntary guidelines and a handbook for
       the management of decentralized wastewater treatment
       technologies (U.S. EPA, 2003a, 2005b). As of Septem-
       ber 2008, 13 states (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida,
       Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina,
       Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin) had
       adopted these management guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2008b).

       Beginning in 2008, EPA  recommended that states adopt
       numeric nutrient standards (U.S. EPA, 2008c), which
       provide quantitative measures for nitrogen, phosphorus,
and other water quality parameters. States and tribes re-
tain the authority to adopt these water quality standards;
as of 2008, seven states had adopted numeric nutrient
standards for at least one water quality parameter for at
least one waterbody type, 18 states had adopted numeric
nutrient standards for at least one water quality param-
eter for selected individual waters in a waterbody type,
and 46 states had EPA-reviewed nutrient criteria plans
that were being used to guide numeric nutrient criteria
development (U.S. EPA, 2008c).

EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan states that the Agency
will continue to encourage state, tribal, and local govern-
ments to adopt voluntary guidelines for managing decen-
tralized wastewater treatment systems and will use Clean
Water State Revolving Funds to finance systems where
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2006). The American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides an ad-
ditional $4 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving
Funds. Twenty percent of each state's capitalization grant
can support "Green Reserve" projects, which are defined
as green infrastructure, energy efficiency projects, water
efficiency projects, or innovative environmental projects.
Decentralized wastewater treatment systems qualify for
Green Reserve funding in the category of "innovative en-
vironmental projects." States may use ARRA funding for
solutions to  existing deficient  or failing onsite systems
(U.S. EPA, 2009a).


2.2  TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
In 2006, ETV verified the International Wastewater
Systems, Inc. Model 6000 SBR, which includes a 6,000
gallon equalization tank, a 6,000 gallon modified SBR,
a 3,000 gallon holding tank, a coagulation injection sys-
tem, a gravity sand filtration system, and a UV disinfec-
tion system. The Model 6000 SBR is designed to meet
secondary wastewater treatment standards of 30  mg/L
TSS and 30 mg/L BOD, and the entire Model 6000
system is designed to meet direct discharge standards
and water reclamation and reuse standards, depending
on local requirements. The Model 6000 SBR verified
by ETV is a full-scale, commercially available unit that
treated a maximum volume of 6,000 gallons per day dur-
ing verification testing. The technology was verified at
Moon Lake Ranch, a housing development of 18 homes
in Eagle, Idaho, which is served by a centralized wastewa-
ter collection system. The vendor operates and maintains
the wastewater treatment system under contract to the
10

-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Moon Lake Ranch Homeowners Association. Treated
water is discharged to a lake within the housing devel-
opment. Waste sludge from the SBR is transferred to
the sludge holding tank and allowed to settle. Sludge is
pumped from the holding tank and disposed  of at the
local wastewater treatment plant approximately every 6
to 12 months. Specific details of the Model 6000 SBR
technology can be found in the verification report (NSF
International, 2006), available at http://www.epa.gov/
nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/600r06130.pdf.

The ETV verification test determined the performance
of the Model 6000 SBR for treating TSS, BOD5, nu-
trients  (phosphorus and nitrogen), and total  coliform
bacteria in domestic wastewater. The SBR was evalu-
ated separately and in combination with the subsequent
treatment steps of filtration and UV disinfection. The
verification protocol is described in the Protocol for the
Verification of Wastewater  Treatment Technologies (NSF
International, 2001), available at http://www.epa.gov/
etv/pubs/04_vp_wastewater.pdf.

The. treatment system was monitored throughout a
1-year test period. Samples were collected from the un-
treated wastewater, treated effluent from the SBR, and
final effluent from the system after filtration and UV dis-
infection. The samples were analyzed for BOD5, chemi-
cal oxygen demand (COD), TSS, nitrogen compounds,
phosphorus compounds, and total coliform. Other op-
erating parameters such as flow, pH, alkalinity, turbidity,
temperature, and operation and maintenance character-
istics (e.g., reliability of the equipment and the level of
required operator maintenance) also were monitored.
The verification results for BOD5, TSS, and COD are
summarized in Exhibit 2.2-1. The mean value was very
close to the detection limit for the COD test (20 mg/L),
as most of the test results were below the detection limit.
                                    Collection System
                                        ToLSAS/
                                        Receiving Water
                                        WLAP
                                               SBR Model 6000 Process Flow Diagram

                                   The results of the nutrient and total coliform sample
                                   analyses are summarized in Exhibit 2.2-2. The UV sys-
                                   tem reduced total coliform levels to below the detection
                                   limit on most sample days. More detailed performance
                                   data are available in the verification report (NSF Inter-
                                   national, 2006), which can be found at the above link.


                                   2.3 OUTCOMES

                                   2.3.1 Pollutant Reduction Outcomes
                                   The Model 6000 SBR currently is installed at two com-
                                   mercial sites in Montana—a commercial center at East
                                   Gallatin Airport outside Bozeman and a casino project
                                   on  an Indian reservation north of Great Falls (Smith,
                                   2010a).Two additional systems are completing installa-
                                   tion in Montana. One of the systems is being installed
                                   in a 50-home subdivision, and the other will be shared
                                   by a fitness center and a children's rehabilitation center
                                   (Smith, 2010d). An additional system also was sched-
                                   uled be installed in a 30-home subdivision during 2010,
Exhibit 2.2-1
Performance ofETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology: BOD, TSS, and COD
BOD5(mg/L)

i Mean
! Concentration*
|% Reduction
Influent
I 230
| n/a
SBR
Effluent
12
95
Final
Effluent6
4
98
Influent
I 170
| n/a
TSS (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
26
85
Final
Effluent6
6
96
Influent
480
n/a
COD (mg/L)
SBR
Effluent
49 I
90 !
Final
Effluent6
22
95
A Based on 64 samples.
B Final effluent refers to effluent following gravity sand filtration and UV disinfection.
                                                                                                        11

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                                          Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       Exhibit 2.2-2
       Performance ofETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology:
       Nutrients and Total Conform
                      Total Kjeldahl
                        Nitrogen
Nitrogen* (mg/L as N)
i  Nitrite Plus Nitrate i
|   (NO2 + NO3 N)   ]
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus*
   (mg/L as P)
Total ColiformB
(MPNC/100 ml)
                        i  SBR  i  Final  i !„(!,,=„, i  SBR  i  Final  i ,_».„_, I  SBR  i  Final  i ,„„..„„, i  SBR  i  Final  i ,„„..„„, i  SBR  i  Final
                        i Effluent i Effluent0 ilnfluent j Effluent i Effluent0 ilnfluent | Effluent i Effluent0 i lnfluent | Effluent ! Effluent0 i lnfluent | Effluent i Effluent0
i Mean
| Concentration j
i % Reduction j
38 i

n/a j
3.2 i

92 i
1.2

97
i 0.08 !

1 n/a i
3.1 i

n/a i
3.1

n/a
! 38 i

i n/a i
6.3

83
4.4

88
i 5.4

1 n/a
i 2.4 i

i 56 i
1.3

76
!7.1xl06il.2xl05i 4

j n/a i 98 j 99.999
       A Based on 16 samples,
       B Based on 63 influent and SBR effluent samples and 53 final effluent samples. Total coliform values are geometric means,
       = MPN = Most probable number,
       D Final effluent refers to effluent following gravity sand filtration and UV disinfection.
       but the subdivision project currently is pending funding
       (Smith, 2010e). The average daily flows of these five sites
       range from 10,000 to 24,000 gallons per day, as shown
       in Exhibits 2.3-1 and 2.3-2. Four  of the five sites have
       severe nitrogen problems, as improperly managed and
       maintained septic tanks have contaminated the soil and/
       or the soil is saturated with nitrogen from historical min-
       ing use (Smith, 2010a, 2010f). All of the sites discharge
       to drainfields designed by state-licensed engineers whose
       calculations determined the drainfield dimensions. A
       backup drainfield is adjacent to each site in the event the
       initial drainfield becomes unusable (Smith, 2010g).

       The two currently operating sites were installed in ear-
       ly 2007. The Bozeman site has  an average wastewater
       volume of 10,000 gallons per day; the  Great  Falls  site
       has an average wastewater volume of 15,000 gallons per
       day (Smith, 2010a). Using these average volumes and
       system performance observed during verification, ETV
       determined the reductions in nitrogen, TSS, and BOD5
       achieved to date as compared to what would have been
       achieved with traditional onsite wastewater treatment, as
       shown in Exhibit 2.3-1. The methodology and assump-
       tions used to calculate these reductions are described in
       Appendix A. The calculations for the Bozeman site may
       be conservative, as they compare reductions achieved by
       the verified system to those achieved by traditional onsite
       wastewater treatment systems. According to the vendor,
       because the nitrogen impairment in the  area is substan-
       tial, traditional technology would have been unsatisfac-
       tory. Without the use of the ETV-verified technology or
       an  alternative treatment technology of  equivalent per-
                      formance, the Bozeman airport commercial center most
                      likely would not have been built (Smith, 2010a).

                      Again, using system performance observed during ETV
                      testing, the potential annual reductions in nitrogen, TSS,
                      and BOD5 compared to what would be achieved with
                      traditional onsite wastewater treatment can be calculated
                      for the three systems scheduled to be installed in 2010.
                      The first installation is in a 30-home rural subdivision
                      in Kalispell with an average daily wastewater volume of
                      12,000 gallons; the second is a 50-home upscale subdivi-
                      sion in Butte with an average daily wastewater volume of
                      15,000 gallons; and the third is a commercial installation
                      in Missoula with an average daily wastewater volume of
                      24,000 gallons (Smith, 2010a). ETV calculated the ex-
                      pected annual reductions in nitrogen, TSS, and BOD5
                      at the three sites, as shown in Exhibit 2.3-2. Appendix
                      A describes the methodology and assumptions used to
                      calculate these estimated reductions. Once again, these
                      estimates may be conservative as the nitrogen impair-
                      ment in each area is significant enough that traditional
                      technology would be unsatisfactory. According to the
                      vendor, without  the availability of the ETV-verified
                      technology or an alternative  treatment technology of
                      equivalent performance, the two subdivisions  and the
                      commercial installation most likely could not be built
                      (Smith, 2010a).

                      The verified technology primarily is installed in new
                      subdivisions and developments in rural or rural/subur-
                      ban areas. Estimates indicate that an average of 1,400
                      new  cluster systems currently are being installed each
12

-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
year in the United States (Tonning, 2010a). The ETV
Program used this approximation of the total potential
market to estimate the number of clusters of homes
that could utilize the Model 6000 SBR based on two
market penetration scenarios, 10% and 25% of the total
potential market, as shown in Exhibit 2.3-3. The ETV
Program also used these scenarios to estimate the pol-
lutant reduction outcomes shown below. Homeowners
and builders in areas where residential discharges might
present a threat to groundwater or surface water quality
from nitrogen, phosphorus, and other contaminants are
those most likely to benefit from the technology, as are
the communities in which these homes are located. It
should be noted, however, that because of the current
U.S. economy, new home construction has decreased
                                    by 50%; the potential market could be as high as 2,500
                                    to 3,000 clusters of homes annually as the economy
                                    improves (Tonning, 2010b). Additionally, the verified
                                    technology also can be installed in smaller commercial
                                    facilities and businesses. Because these types of installa-
                                    tions are not included in the ETV estimate, the potential
                                    pollutant reductions are even greater.

                                    Using assumptions regarding total potential  market,
                                    daily water use, and nitrogen concentration, combined
                                    with system performance observed during ETV testing,
                                    the ETV Program estimated annual pollutant reduc-
                                    tions from potential application of the ETV-verified
                                    decentralized wastewater treatment  technology for
                                    residential clusters of homes, compared to reductions
Exhibit 2.3-1
Calculated Pollutant Reductions Achieved During 3-Years of Operation at Installed Sites
           I   Flow   !          Nitrogen          ]            TSS            j            BOD5
  location  ; (gallons per;  3 year Total  I Average Daily  1 3 Year Total  I  Average Daily  I  3 Year Total  I  Average Daily
           !   aay)   I    (tons)    i   (Ibs/day)    I   (tons)    i    (Ibs/day)    i     (tons)    I    (Ibs/day)
jBozeman    j   10,000  i     0.14
I Great Falls   j   15,000  j     0.21
Values rounded to two significant figures.
                       0.25
                       0.38
      1.6
      2.4
       3.0
       4.5
         4.2
         6.3
          7.7
          11
Exhibit 2.3-2
Expected Annual Pollutant Reductions for Scheduled Installation Sites

Location
! Kalispell
i Butte
i Missoula
Flow
(gallons per
day)
i 12,000
i 15,000
i 24,000
Values rounded to two significant fij
Nitrogen
Annual Total
(Ibs)
110
140
220
;ures.
Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
0.30
0.38
0.61

TSS
Annual Total
(tons)
0.65
0.81
1.3

Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
3.6
4.5
7.1

BOD5 1
Annual Total
(tons)
1.7
2.1
3.4

Average Daily
(Ibs/day)
9.2
11
18

Exhibit 2.3-3
Estimated Potential Pollutant Reductions for the ETV-Verified Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Technology
                                      Nitrogen
    Market     Number of Clus  	~
  Penetration     ters of Homes    Annual Total
                                 (tons)       ,|
!     10%     j       140       j
I     25%            350
Values rounded to two significant figures.
                 0.58
                  1.4
                            Average
                             Daily
                            (Ibs/day)
3.2
7.9
         Annual Total
           (tons)
6.8
17
          Average
            Daily
          (Ibs/day)
37
93
          Annual
           Total
           (tons)
18
44
          Average
           Daily
          (Ibs/day)
96
240
                                                                                                          13

-------
             Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
          A view of the Model 6000 SBR following installation at the Trellis
                      Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,

       seen with traditional septic systems (see Exhibit 2.3-3).
       Appendix A describes  the methodology and assump-
       tions used to develop these estimates.

       Quantitative data are not available to estimate the en-
       vironmental and health outcomes associated with these
       pollutant reductions. As discussed in Section 2.1, how-
       ever, nutrient loadings  are a significant environmental
       concern, and nitrates and nitrites have human health
       impacts. Therefore, the benefits of reducing nitrogen
       loading also could be significant.

       2.3.2 Technology Acceptance, Use, and Finan-
       cial and Economic Outcomes
       The manufacturer of the ETV-verified system has in-
       dicated that participation in the ETV Program and the
       availability of credible information on demonstrated
       technology  performance and  capabilities  has helped
       the company to market and sell its Model 6000 SBR
       system. According to the vendor, the State of Montana
       gave the company a preferred position  within the state
       in areas where  rural wastewater systems are required,
       based on the ETV verification test results. This recog-
       nition resulted  in five projects  totaling $1.4 million in
       revenue for the vendor. These project sites are located in
       nitrogen-sensitive ecosystems. Because the ETV results
       demonstrated that the system was able to meet nitrogen
       standards, the vendor was given a recommendation for
       the Bozeman project. The vendor was awarded the Ka-
       lispell project because the ETV verification resulted in a
       state nitrogen approval  rating of 7.5 mg/L for the tech-
       nology, which met the total nitrogen discharge limit of
       12.5 mg/L for the project. New construction at the Butte
       and Missoula sites was considered impossible because of
       severe nitrogen problems from nearby improperly con-
       structed and maintained septic  tanks and historical use,
       resulting in discharge limits for nitrogen in these areas of
7.5 mg/L. According to the vendor, these projects were
approved solely on the basis of the Model 6000 SBR's
ability to meet the nondegradation requirements of the
State of Montana, as demonstrated through ETV test-
ing. Although the Great Falls project did not have major
environmental requirements associated with it, the Indi-
an reservation wanted the best environmental treatment
system possible. The vendor's system had documented
performance through ETV verification and was awarded
the project. The vendor also has $9 million worth of new
bids in progress (Smith, 2010a). Additionally, Minne-
sota and New Jersey have nondegradation limits similar
to those of Montana, so the verified technology could
be used to meet the requirements in these states as well
(State of Minnesota, 2008; State of New Jersey, 1993).

The vendor reports that the payback period for the cost
of the ETV verification was 11 months (Smith, 2010g)
and that demonstrated technology performance as veri-
fied by the ETV Program has had indirect benefits in
the form of valuation and partnerships. Based on an au-
dit of company assets by an outside valuation firm, the
vendor reports that the value added to the company as a
result of ETV verification could range from $2 million
or $3 million up to as much as $5 million. The audit
determined that the company's primary asset was par-
ticipation in ETV verification because of the competitive
advantage it  provides in states that recognize the ETV
Program (Smith, 2010c). According to the vendor, an-
other important benefit of ETV verification testing has
been the reputation that it provides with new custom-
ers and partners, allowing the company to compete in a
much broader range of activities than it could have with-
out ETV verification. The value of these partnerships
is worth much more than the $5 million valuation of
the ETV asset and would not have been available to the
company without the ETV results (Smith,  2010a). The
vendor states that because of the  ETV name recogni-
  "It can't be emphasized enough that ETV
  ignited our company and its growth and
  continues to be used by us every day in the
  expansion of our company. So, in a very
  unique way, you can never put a fixed value
  on ETV, because it has become a cornerstone
  of our company's existence, and it allows us
  to increase in value every day."
    Claude Smith, President,
     International Wastewater Systems (Smith, 2010a).
14

-------
Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
tion, various partners and relationships have been created
that have allowed the company to compete in the new
construction market and the already-existing installed
building market. These relationships also have aided
the vendor in gaining access to the commercial building
and Federal Government building markets. Without the
ETV Program and the name recognition  from EPA, it
is unlikely that these relationships could have been de-
veloped. Independent of the technical aspects of ETV
testing, the marketing recognition that has been attained
as a result of the ETV verification is quite valuable to the
vendor (Smith, 2010b).

As stated in Section 2.1, decentralized wastewater treat-
ment  systems can have  economic advantages compared
to centralized systems when used in appropriate areas.
Decentralized systems allow capacity to  more closely
match actual growth because decentralized capacity can
be built on an as-needed basis, providing a number of
important benefits. Capacity capital costs  are moved to
the future, typically reducing the net present value, re-
sulting in a more affordable approach compared to build-
ing centralized treatment capacity or extending sewers.
Communities are able to incur less debt because it is not
necessary to borrow large up-front capital, which also can
reduce financing costs. Because decentralized systems
can be expanded depending on growth, if less growth
occurs than predicted initially, the community does not
have overbuilt capacity  and a large debt load that must
be spread  across fewer-than-expected residents. Also,
making decentralized investments over time allows the
community to adjust its technology choices as improved
or less expensive technologies become available. Finally,
more  expensive nutrient removal technologies can be
targeted only to locations that are nutrient sensitive, as
opposed to upgrading treatment of all of the commu-
nity's wastewater at a centralized plant (Rocky Mountain
Institute, 2004). The verified system detailed in this case
study is an example system that can potentially provide
these  economic advantages.

2.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
In addition to adopting regulations  or guidelines for
decentralized wastewater discharge, states  also establish
water quality standards to protect water bodies for drink-
ing, recreation, and ecological activities. Total maximum
daily loads and maximum contaminant levels are used
to ensure  that drinking water meets safety criteria for
pollutants and contaminants (e.g., total nitrogen). The
ETV-verified technology described in this case study can
                                       A view of the Model 6000 SBR following installation at the Trellis
                                                    Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,

                                    be used to help states and other governing bodies to meet
                                    drinking water regulations, standards, and guidelines.

                                    The Chesapeake Bay Program has outlined how EPA
                                    can protect the Bay watershed, including requiring all
                                    newly developed communities and densely populated
                                    areas to use cluster systems employing advanced nitro-
                                    gen removal technology (U.S.  EPA, 2009b). The new
                                    discharge standards specify total nitrogen levels  of not
                                    more than 20 mg/L throughout the Bay watershed and
                                    in some areas no more than 5  mg/L. The Chesapeake
                                    Bay Program specifically cites ETV and several veri-
                                    fied products when discussing available technologies to
                                    meet these new standards (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The veri-
                                    fied technology discussed in this case study meets the
                                    nitrogen recommendations for use in the Chesapeake
                                    Bay watershed.

                                    As mentioned in  Section 2.1 and above, a number of
                                    states have adopted regulations or guidelines for manage-
                                    ment of decentralized wastewater and nutrient discharge.
                                    Such regulations and guidelines rely in part on the use of
                                    alternative technologies, some of which are approved by
                                    the states. In the residential wastewater treatment sec-
                                    tor, regulators rely on third-party testing and standards.
                                    Additionally, some states have  processes that allow for
                                    innovative approvals of systems  that perform outside the
                                    scope of the existing certification protocols. At least nine
                                    states currently use ETV protocols in the evaluation of
                                    alternative technologies for wastewater treatment and
                                    three identify the  protocol used for the verification de-
                                    scribed in this case study:

                                    » North Carolina has stated that vendors requesting in-
                                      novative approval for wastewater treatment systems
                                      can use ETV verification protocols, including the pro-
                                      tocol used for the verification described in this case
                                      study to support their requests. The state also suggests
                                                                                                          15

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                  Demonstrating Program Outcomes
          A finished view of the Model 6000 SBR installation at the Trellis
                      Subdivision in Eagle, Idaho,

         that data gathered outside these protocols  might not
         be considered equally valid (Jeter, 2001).

         Florida indicates that applications for innovative sys-
         tem permits for onsite sewage treatment and disposal
         systems shall include "compelling  evidence that the
         system will function properly  and reliably to meet
         the requirements [e.g., permitting, inspection] of this
         chapter...Such compelling evidence shall include one
         or more of the following from a third-party testing or-
         ganization approved through the NSF [sic] Environ-
         mental Technology Verification Program:  (1) testing
         of innovative systems in other states with similar soils
         and climate; (2) side stream testing where effluent is
         discharged into a treatment system regulated pursuant
         to Chapter 403, FS; and (3) laboratory testing" (State
         of Florida, 2006).

         The State of Idaho Technical Guidance Manual for In-
         dividual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems states
         that extended (wastewater) treatment package systems
         and nitrogen reduction systems may be approved if
         they have successfully completed an EPA-sanctioned
         ETV verification test (State of Idaho, 2007).

         Pennsylvania's Experimental Onlot Wastewater Tech-
         nology Verification Program requires that onlot sew-
         age  system  technologies accepted for  performance
         verification complete appropriate testing that follows
         a protocol developed by or in cooperation with the
         American National  Standards  Institute and/or the
         U.S. EPA (Pennsylvania Department of Environmen-
         tal Protection, 2004).

         Washington testing requirements for proprietary
         treatment products require that certain categories of
residential and high-strength wastewater treatment
systems complete testing following an ETV verifica-
tion protocol, including the protocol used for the veri-
fication described in this case study (State of Wash-
ington, 2007).

Minnesota testing requirements for proprietary treat-
ment products require that technologies designed for
treating high-strength sewage typical of commercial
sources (restaurants, grocery stores, group homes,
medical clinics, etc.) and reducing total nitrogen and
phosphorous complete testing following an ETV veri-
fication protocol, including the protocol used for the
verification described in this case study, or the equiva-
lent (Minnesota Administrative Rules, 2008).

The Oregon State Administrative Rules for Approval
of New  or Innovative Technologies, Materials, or De-
signs for Onsite Systems specify that the  Department
of Environmental Health and Quality may approve
new or innovative technologies, materials, or designs
for  onsite systems pursuant to the rule if  it deter-
mines that they will protect public health, safety, and
waters of the state as effectively as systems authorized
by the division. One of the factors on which the de-
partment may base approval is meeting the criteria
established by EPAs ETV Program, including several
NSF International and ETV protocols for wastewa-
ter treatment (State of Oregon, 2009).

The Administrative Rules of Montana 17.30.718:  Cri-
teria for Nutrient Reductionfrom Subsurface Wastewater
Treatment System (SWTS) state that results from an
SWTS that has been tested by ETV may be used to
demonstrate compliance with requirements (e.g., col-
lection and analysis of raw sewage for total  Kjeldahl
nitrogen, BOD, and TSS; sampling frequency) for
nutrient reduction as outlined in the regulation (State
of Montana, 2004).

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
encourages innovative wastewater treatment technol-
ogy developers and vendors to use technology tem-
plates, such  as the EPA ETV Program, to serve as
means for potential customers and regulators to see
consistent descriptions, application information, and
performance data on new wastewater treatment tech-
nologies (Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, 2009).
16

-------
 Chapter 2
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Case Study:
ARRA      American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
BOD        biochemical oxygen demand
BOD5       5-day biochemical oxygen demand
COD        chemical oxygen demand
Ibs           pounds
mg/L        milligrams per liter
MOU       Memorandum of Understanding
NPDES     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SBR         sequencing batch reactor
SWTS      subsurface wastewater treatment system
TSS         total suspended solids
UV          ultraviolet
                                                                                                                             2.4
 2.4 REFERENCES
 56 FR 3526. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
 Final Rule. Federal Register 56, no. 20 (30 January 1991).

 71 FR 65573. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
 Groundwater Rule; Final Rule, Federal Register 71, no. 216 (8
 November 2006).

 Camargo JA and Alonso A. 2006. Ecological and toxicological
 effects of inorganic nitrogen pollution in aquatic ecosystems:  a
 global assessment. Environment International 32:831—849.

 Greer FR, Shannon M, the Committee on Nutrition, and the
 Committee on Environmental Health. 2005. Infant Methe-
 moglobinemia:  The Role of Dietary Nitrate in Food and Water,
 Pediatrics 116(3):784-786.
 International Wastewater Systems. 2010. International Waste-
 water Systems Projects, Last accessed 22 June. http://www.rcciws.
 com/mdex-5.html

 Jeter WC. 2001. Memorandum from William C.Jeter (North
 Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources)
 Concerning Innovative Wastewater Treatment System Verification,
 30 April.

 Minnesota Administrative Rules. 2008. 7083.4010: Testing
 Requirements for Proprietary Treatment Products,
 18 February.

 NSF International. 2001. Protocol for the Verification of Waste-
 water Treatment Technologies, April.

 NSF International. 2006. Environmental Technology Veri-
fication  Report: Evaluation of a Decentralized Wastewater
 Treatment Technology—International Wastewater Systems, Inc.
 Model 6000 Sequencing Batch Reactor System (With Coagula-
 tion, Sand Filtration, and Ultraviolet Disinfection), Prepared
 by NSF International under a cooperative  agreement with
 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 06/28/WQPC-
 SWP EPA/600/R-06/130. August.

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2004.
 Experimental Onlot Wastewater Technology Verification Program,
 Bureau  of Water Supply and Wastewater Management. 3 July.
                                        Rocky Mountain Institute. 2004. Valuing Decentralized Waste-
                                        water Technologies: A Catalog of Benefits, Costs, and Economic
                                        Analysis Techniques, November.

                                        Siegrist RL. 2001. Advancing the Science and Engineering of
                                        Onsite Wastewater Systems, In: Proceedings of Ninth National
                                        Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems,
                                        ASAE, March 11-14,2001, Fort Worth, TX.

                                        Smith C. 2010a. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 6 January.

                                        Smith C. 2010b. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 3 March.

                                        Smith C. 2010c. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 27 April.

                                        Smith C. 2010d. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 18 August.

                                        Smith C. 2010e. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 19 August.

                                        Smith C. 2010f. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 7 September.

                                        Smith C. 2010g. E-mail communication. International Waste-
                                        water Systems, Inc. 17 September.

                                        State of Florida. 2006. Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administra-
                                        tive Code: Standards for Onsite Sewave Treatment and Disposal
                                                         J             &                 L
                                        Systems, Department of Health. 26 November.

                                        State of Idaho. 2007. Technical Guidance Manual for Individual
                                        and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems, Department of Environ-
                                        mental Quality. 4 October.

                                        State of Minnesota. 2008. Minnesota Rules. Chapters 7050 and
                                        7053. April 1.

                                        State of Montana. 2004. Administrative Rules of Montana
                                        17.30.718: Criteria for Nutrient Reduction from Subsurface
                                        Wastewater Treatment System, 18 June.

                                        State of New Jersey. 1993. New Jersey Administrative Code 7:9-
                                        6—Groundwater Quality Standards, January 7.
                                                                                                                      17

-------
2.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                   State of Oregon. 2009. Approval of New or Innovative Tech-
                   nologies, Materials, or Designs for Onsite Systems, 340-071-
                   0135. Department of Environmental Quality. Last accessed
                   21 October. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARs_300/
                   OAR_340/340_071.html

                   State of Washington. 2007. Rules and Regulations of the State
                   Board of Health: On-site Sewage Systems Chapter 246-272 A
                   WAC. Department of Health. 1 July. (Formatting revised Sep-
                   tember 2009).

                   TonningB. 2010a. E-mail communication. Tetra Tech. 17
                   March.

                   Tonning B. 2010b. Personal communication. Tetra Tech.
                   March.

                   U.S. EPA. 1997a. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized
                   Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA-832-R-97-001b. April.

                   U.S. EPA. 1997b. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods
                   Manual Office of Water. EPA-841-B-97-003. November.

                   U.S. EPA. 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual
                   Office of Water. EPA-625-R-00-008. February."

                   U.S. EPA. 2003a. Voluntary National Guidelines for Management of
                   Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems,
                   Office of Water. EPA-832-B-03-001. March.

                   U.S. EPA. 2003b. Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspend-
                   ed and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential Approaches (Draft),
                   Office of Water. August.

                   U.S. EPA. 2005a. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems: A
                   Program Strategy, Office of Water. EPA-832-R-05-002. January.

                   U.S. EPA. 2005b. Handbookfor Managing Onsite and Clustered
                   (Decentralized)  Wastewater Treatment Systems: An Introduction
                   to Management Tools and Information for Implementing EPA's
                   Management Guidelines, Office of Water. EPA-832-B-05-001.
                   December.

                   U.S. EPA. 2005c. Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems:
                   A Program Strategy. Office of Water. EPA-832-R-05-002. Janu-
                   ary.

                   U.S. EPA. 2006. EPA's 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, EPA-
                   190-R-06-001.29 September.
                                                   U.S. EPA. 2007. Large Capacity Systems, Last updated 12 De-
                                                   cember, http://www.epa.gov/ogwdwOOO/uic/classS/types_lg_ca-
                                                   pacity_septic.html

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2008a. L7.S. EPA's 2008 Report on the Environment
                                                   (Final Report). EPA-600-R-07-045F. May.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2008b. What is EPA Doing To Address Septic
                                                   Systems? Office of Wastewater Management. Presented at the
                                                   Groundwater Protection Council's 2008 Annual Forum. 23
                                                   September.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2008c. State Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Standards
                                                   (1998-2008). Office of Water. EPA-821-F-08-007. December.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2008d. EPAs MOU Partnership: Improving Com-
                                                   munication, Cooperation, and Coordination in Decentralized
                                                   Wastewater Management, Webinar. 3 November.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2008e. Memorandum of Understanding:  EPA Partners
                                                   for Decentralized Wastewater Management, 19 November.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2009a. Activity Update: Funding Decentralized
                                                   Wastewater Treatment Systems Using the Clean Water State Re-
                                                   volving Fund, Office of Water. EPA 832-F-09-005. Summer.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2009b. The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to
                                                   Restore Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay: A Revised Report
                                                   Fulfilling Section 202a of Executive Order 13508. 9 September.

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2010a. Septic (Onsite) Systems—Education and
                                                   Outreach, Last updated 22 June, http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/sep-
                                                   tic/septic.cfm?page_id=277

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2010b. National Water Quality Inventory Report to
                                                   Congress Electronic Integrated Reporting, Last updated 15 June.
                                                   http://www.epa.gov/waters/ir

                                                   U.S. EPA. 2010c. Guidance for Federal Land Management in the
                                                   Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Chapter 6:  Decentralized Wastewater
                                                   Treatment Systems. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
                                                   sheds. EPA841-R-10-002.12  May.

                                                   U.S. Geological Survey. 2006. Quantification of the Contribution
                                                   of Nitrogen from Septic Tanks to Groundwater in Spanish Springs
                                                   Valley, Nevada. Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5206.
                                                   September.

                                                   Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Innovative
                                                   Technology: Technology Verifications and Inventories, Last updated
                                                   8 January, http://www.deq.state.va.us/innovtech/dem2.html
           18

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                          3.0
3. Waste-to-Energy Technologies:
Power Generation  and Heat Recovery
The ETV Program has verified the performance of eight
technologies that produce or use fuels generated from
biomass or other wastes (opportunity fuels). Six of the
technologies, including four distributed generation en-
ergy systems and two biogas processing systems, were
verified by ETV's Greenhouse Gas Technology Center,
which is operated by Southern Research Institute under
a cooperative agreement with EPA. These technologies
have applications at municipal solid waste landfills, ani-
mal feeding operations, wastewater treatment facilities,
or other sources of methane (CH4) or high-energy-
content gaseous waste  streams. Two biomass co-fired
boilers also were verified under an ETV Environmental
and Sustainable Technology Evaluation (ESTE) project;
these are applicable for  co-firing in industrial, commer-
cial, or institutional boilers in the 100 million to 1,000
million  British  thermal unit per hour (MMBtu/h)
range. Collaborators during these verifications included
the Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management
and Conservation, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NYSERDA), University of
Iowa (UI), Minnesota Power, and EPAs Office of Solid
Waste, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), and Office of Air and Radiation. The Green-
house Gas Technology Center also is conducting a joint
demonstration and verification of a microturbine using
landfill gas with the Department of Defense's (DoD) En-
vironmental Security Technology Certification Program
(ESTCP); the verification is expected to be completed in
2011. Completed and ongoing verifications are summa-
rized in Exhibit 3-1. Additionally, the Greenhouse Gas
Technology Center is performing a preverification tech-
nology assessment of the environmental and economic
impacts from gasification of aqueous sludge from paper
mills and wastewater treatment. The project may include
verification of these technologies for use in onsite energy
or fuel production for the pulp and paper and municipal
wastewater treatment industries.

Waste-to-energy technologies use opportunity fuels that
usually are byproducts or waste streams from other pro-
cesses, thus reducing the need to use fossil fuels and the
quantity of wastes treated, disposed of,  or emitted. Al-
though these fuels may  not have the same heating value
as conventional fossil fuels, they are beneficial as a po-
tential source of alternative energy, especially when used
                                             The University of Iowa main power plant,

                                  with distributed generation energy systems that generate
                                  electricity at the point of use. These technologies also can
                                  employ heat recovery systems that capture excess thermal
                                  energy and use it to provide domestic water and space
                                  heating, process heat, or steam. Distributed generation
                                  systems that include heat recovery are referred to as com-
                                  bined heat and power (CHP) systems.

                                  Common opportunity fuels include landfill gas, anaero-
                                  bic digester gas, wood, and grass. These fuels are derived
                                  mostly from biomass waste such as crop residues, farm
                                  waste from animal feeding operations, food waste, mu-
                                  nicipal solid waste, sludge waste, and waste from forestry
                                  and agricultural operations. Benefits and outcomes of the
                                  use of selected opportunity fuels include decreased de-
                                  pendence on fossil fuels; decreased waste volume requir-
                                  ing disposal; and reduced CH4, carbon  dioxide (CO2),
                                  nitrogen oxides (NOJ, carbon monoxide (CO), and
                                  total hydrocarbons  (THCs) emissions. CO2 and CH4
                                  are greenhouse gases (GHGs) linked to global climate
                                  change. CO, THCs, compounds in the NOx family, and
                                  derivatives formed when NO  reacts in the environment
                                                           X
                                  cause a wide variety of health and environmental impacts.

                                  Waste-to-energy technologies can significantly reduce
                                  the environmental impacts of municipal solid waste by
                                  redirecting and reducing the volume of waste disposed
                                  of in landfills and decreasing the amount of GHGs that
                                  otherwise would be released. For example, according to
                                  EPAs Landfill Methane Outreach Program,  waste-to-
                                                                                                    19

-------
3.0
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
      Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                  Exhibit 3-1
                  Completed and Ongoing ETV Verifications for Waste-to-Energy Technologies*B
                        Company/Technology Name
                    Biogas Processing Systems
                  \ NATCO Group, Inc., PaquesTHIOPAQ®
                                     Technology Description/
                                           Application
                               i A sour gas processing system for
                               i biogas purification that removes
                               ! hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
        Opportunity Fuel Source
I Anaerobic digester gas from a water
! pollution control facility (verified in 2004).
                  ! US Filter/Westates Carbon, Gas Processing
                  i Unit (verified with the UTC Fuel Cells, LLC,
                  i PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant-Model C)
                               A carbon-based filter that removes
                               H2S, other sulfur species and
                               hydrocarbons from biogas.
I Anaerobic digester gas from a water
i pollution control facility (verified in 2004).
                  | UTC Fuel Cells, LLC, PC25C Fuel Cell Power
                  I Plant—Model C (formerly the combined
                  | PC25™ 200 kW Fuel Cell and gas pro-
                  icessing unit by International Fuel Cells
                  i Corporation and currently the PureCell™
                  ! Model 200 by UTC Power) (technology
                  \ was tested using two different opportunity
                  \fuel sources)
                   Internal Combustion Engines
                  i Martin Machinery, Caterpillar Model
                  ! 379 (200 kW) Engine/Generator Set with
                  i Integrated CHP System
                  I Martin Machinery, Caterpillar Model 3306
                  1ST (100 kW) Engine, Generator, and Heat
                  I Exchanger
                               A 200 kilowatt (kW) phosphoric acid
                               fuel cell with an included gas process-
                               ing unit for commercial or institutional
                               use with the potential for heat recov-
                               ery in a CHP application.
                               ! A distributed generation/CHP system
                               i consisting of a Caterpillar Model
                               ! 379, 200 kW engine-generator with
                               ! integrated heat recovery capability.
 Biogas from two municipal solid waste
 landfills; included a landfill gas processing
 unit (verified in 1998).

 Anaerobic digester gas from a wastewater
 treatment facility; included a gas processing
 unit verified separately (verified in 2004).
! Anaerobic digester gas from a dairy
Ifarm with 1,725 cows and heifers (verified
| in 2007).
                               i A distributed generation/CHP system  i
                               I consisting of a Caterpillar Model 3306 i Anaerobic digester gas from a swine facility i
                               i ST, 100 kW engine-generator with     i with up to 5,000 sows (verified in 2004).    i
                               i integrated heat recovery capability.    i                                        i
                  i Capstone Turbine Corporation, Capstone
                  ! Model 330 30 kW (currently the Capstone
                  i Model C30) microturbine system
                  ; Flex Energy, Flex-Powerstation®

                  i (planned verification 2011)
                   Biomass Co Fired Boilers
                               !A 30 kW biogas-fired microturbine   i
                               i combined with heat recovery system i Anaerobic digester gas from a swine facility i
                               I for distributed electrical power and  I with up to 5,000 sows (verified in 2004).    !
                               i heat generation.                   i                                        i
                               ! A microturbine using a thermal oxi-
                               ! dizer system to oxidize and destroy
                               i hydrocarbons in the waste fuel stream
                               ! before entering the turbine.
! Landfill and other waste gases.
                  i Pelletized wood fuel, developed by re-
                  ! newaFUEL, LLC, co-fired with coal at the
                  ! University of Iowa Main Power Plant
                  i Boiler 10
                               | A Riley Stoker Corporation boiler unit
                               ! rated at 170,000 pounds/hour (Ibs/h)
                               ! steam co-firing pelletized wood fuel
                               I with coal.
iWood pellets from a renewaFUEL, LLC
I facility in Michigan co-fired with coal
! (verified in 2008).
           20
                   Wood waste co-fired with coal at the
                   Minnesota Power, Rapids Energy Center
                   BoilerS
                               A Foster Wheeler spreader stoker boil-
                               er with a steaming capacity of 175,000
                               Ibs/h co-firing western subbituminous
                               coal with wood waste, railroad ties,
                               onsite generated waste oils and sol-
                               vents,  and paper wastes.
 Waste wood and bark from a paper mill
 and waste wood from other facilities co-
 fired with coal (verified in 2008).
                  A Complete verification reports and statements for the verified technologies may be found at http://www.epa.gov/£tv/vt-ggt.btml#advanc££n£rgy,

                  B Adapted from ETV, 2009.

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                            3.1
energy technologies that utilize landfill gas from munici-
pal solid waste landfills have the potential to reduce CH4
emissions from these sources by up to 90%; this would
have resulted in a reduction of 2.7 million metric tons
of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2010e).
Certain  waste-to-energy technologies also can serve as
an integral element in the waste and energy management
chains at different facilities, helping to limit releases to
land and water bodies, as well as assisting with facility-
specific waste processing or treatment needs.

The  utilization or conversion of waste streams  for al-
ternative energy involves many different types of tech-
nologies and sources of waste (e.g., municipal solid
waste combustion). This case study, and in particular
the "Technology Description" and "Outcomes" sections
of this study, focus on the types of waste-to-energy tech-
nologies verified by the ETV Program, namely those that
utilize CH4 or other gaseous waste streams for power
generation and biomass co-fired boilers.

Section  3.3 of this case study presents the ETV Pro-
gram's estimates of verification outcomes from actual
and potential applications of the technologies. Appen-
dix B provides a detailed description of the methodol-
ogy and assumptions used to estimate these outcomes.
Using the analyses in this case study, ETV reports the
following outcomes:

» Based on  current installations, eight ETV-verified
  fuel cell distributed generation systems in operation
  at  wastewater treatment plants in or near New York
  City reduce CO2e emissions by more than 11,000 tons
  per year. The vendor reports that cumulatively, these
  fuel cell installations have generated more than 56,000
  megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity with an associ-
  ated economic value of $5.6 million.

» The ETV-verified distributed power generation sys-
  tems could potentially be applied, using 10% and 25%
  market penetration scenarios, at:

      >  Approximately 820 to 2,100 animal feeding
        operations with annual CO2e emissions reduc-
        tions of up to 5.9 million to 15 million tons and
        associated climate change, environmental, and
        human health benefits.
        Approximately 44 to 110 wastewater treatment
        facilities with annual CO2e emissions reduc-
        tions of 63,000 to 160,000 tons and annual
                                          NOx emissions reductions of 80 to 200 tons;
                                          associated climate change, environmental, and
                                          human health benefits also could be realized.

                                   »  The estimated potential energy generation and cost
                                     benefits of using ETV-verified distributed generation
                                     technologies at 10% and 25% market penetration are
                                     as follows:

                                         > If candidate animal feeding operations used
                                          these technologies, up to 1.4 million to 3.5 mil-
                                          lion megawatts (MW) of electricity could be
                                          generated annually with associated cost benefits
                                          of up to $140 million to $350 million.

                                         > If candidate landfills used these technologies, up
                                          to 75,000 to 190,000 MW of electricity could
                                          be generated annually with associated cost ben-
                                          efits of up to $7.5 million to $19 million.

                                         > If candidate wastewater treatment facilities
                                          used these technologies, 74,000 to 190,000
                                          MW of electricity could be generated annually
                                          with associated cost benefits of $7.4 million to
                                          $19 million.

                                   »  ETV verification results from the biomass co-fired
                                     boilers described in this case study were  used to as-
                                     sist in permit analysis and permitting of test burns at
                                     universities, public utilities, and large industrial opera-
                                     tions in five states.
                                   3.1  ENVIRONMENTAL,  HUMAN
                                   HEALTH, AND REGULATORY
                                   BACKGROUND
                                   Opportunity fuels often originate from sources or
                                   sectors that  are regulated independently under vari-
                                   ous environmental laws. As a result, the environmen-
                                   tal, human health, and regulatory issues associated
                                   with waste-to-energy technologies are broader and
                                   more  complex than just those found  in the energy
                                   and climate  change sector. To effectively address the
                                   range  of environmental, human health, and regula-
                                   tory issues associated with different waste-to-energy
                                   applications, this section has  been divided into five
                                   subsections:  (1) energy,  GHGs, and climate change;
                                   (2) animal feeding operations; (3) landfills; (4) wastewa-
                                   ter treatment; and (5) boilers.
                                                                                                      21

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                    Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       3.1.1 Energy, GHGs, and Climate Change
       EPA estimates that, in 2007, the United States emit-
       ted CO2in the amount of 6,100 teragrams of CO2e
       (Tg CO2e) and nitrous oxide (N2O) in the amount of
       312 Tg CO2e. Electricity generation is the largest single
       source of CO2 emissions, accounting for approximately
       42% of the U.S. total in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2009a). N2O
       emissions from electricity generation represent 25% of
       emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
       A variety of other pollutants also are emitted  during
       electricity generation,  including sulfur dioxide  (SO2),
       particulate matter (PM), ammonia, andTHCs. Each of
       these emissions can have significant environmental and
       health effects. Conventional electricity generation also
       consumes  finite natural resources, with environmental
       and economic repercussions.

       According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
       Change (IPCC), CO2  concentration in the atmosphere
       has increased 35% (from 280 parts per million [ppm] to
       379 ppm) since preindustrial times (AD 1000 to 2005)
       (IPCC, 2007a). The IPCC has concluded that global
       average surface temperature rose 0.6°C in the 20th cen-
       tury, with  the 1990s being the warmest decade on re-
       cord. Sea level rose 0.12 to 0.22 meters during the same
       time. Snow cover has decreased by about 10%, and the
       extent and thickness of Northern Hemisphere  sea ice
       have decreased significantly (IPCC, 2007b). Resultant
       flooding can cause health impacts, including direct in-
       juries  and increased incidence of waterborne diseases
       from pathogens such as  Cryptosporidium and Giardia,
       altered marine ecology, displacement  of coastal popu-
       lations, and saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater
       supplies. Higher average surface temperatures caused by
       GHG impacts on climate are expected to result in severe
       heat waves that are intensified in magnitude and dura-
       tion. This  will in turn result in increased heat-related
       morbidity and mortality. The range of some zoonotic
       disease carriers  (e.g., ticks  carrying the agent of Lyme
       disease) may expand with  rise in temperature (74 FR
       66496; U.S. EPA, 2009b). GHG-related climate  change
       is expected to elevate regional ozone levels, accompanied
       by increased risk for respiratory illness and premature
       death. Additionally, evidence indicates that elevated CO2
       concentrations can lead to changes in aeroallergens that
       could increase the potential for allergenic illnesses. Many
       of these impacts depend on whether rainfall increases or
       decreases, which cannot be reliably projected for specific
       areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which
  The Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 3306 internal combustion
   engine combined heat and power system installed at Colorado Pork
                  in Lamar, Colorado.

parts of the United States will become wetter or drier,
but there is likely to be an  overall trend toward more
precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms,
and drier soils (74 FR 66496; U.S. EPA, 2009b).

The various compounds in  the NOx family (including
N2O, nitrogen dioxide, nitric acid, nitrates, and nitric
oxide) and derivatives formed when NOx reacts in the
environment  cause a wide variety of health and envi-
ronmental impacts, including formation of ground-level
ozone (or smog) and acid rain, water quality deteriora-
tion, respiratory problems, and global warming, as well
as reacting to form nitrate particles and toxic chemicals
(U.S. EPA, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2003). Ozone is capable
of reducing or damaging vegetation growth and causing
respiratory problems in humans (U.S. EPA, 2008c).

Other pollutants emitted during electricity generation also
can have significant environmental and health effects. For
example, SO2 contributes to the formation of acid rain
(U.S. EPA, 2009c). THCs  and CO can contribute to
ground-level ozone formation, and CO can be fatal at
high concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA, 2010g).
PM can cause premature mortality and respiratory effects,
including aggravated asthma, difficult or painful breath-
ing, decreased lung function, and chronic bronchitis (70
FR 65984). Finally, ammonia can contribute to PM levels
and result in adverse environmental effects after deposi-
tion to surface water, such as eutrophication and fish kills.
Ammonia also can be fatal at high concentrations (U.S.
EPA, 2004a).

CH4 is another important GHG of concern. CH4 can re-
main in the atmosphere for approximately 9 to 15 years.
As one of several non-CO2 gases that contribute to cli-
mate change, CH4 is 20 times more effective in trapping
22

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                              3.1
atmospheric heat than CO2 during a 100-year period. It
is emitted from a variety of sources, including landfills,
natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities,
coal mining, wastewater treatment, and others. CH4 is
a primary constituent of natural gas and an important
energy source. Use of CH4 emissions for waste-to-energy
technologies can provide significant energy, economic,
and environmental benefits (U.S. EPA, 2010a).

There are several regulatory drivers for using waste-to-
energy technologies to reduce GHGs and improve ener-
gy independence. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that GHGs are air pollutants that fall under the
Clean Air Act and that EPA has the responsibility and
jurisdiction to regulate them (549 U.S. 497). The Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 includes provi-
sions to increase energy efficiency and the availability
of renewable energy (Public Law no. 110-140). In De-
cember 2009, the EPA Administrator signed an endan-
germent finding that states that current and projected
concentrations  of CO2 and  five other GHGs—CH4,
N2O, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride—in the atmosphere threaten the public
health and welfare of current and future generations (74
FR 66496).

EPA has established a number of partnerships and pro-
grams to mitigate GHGs and promote clean and efficient
energy technologies, including for waste-to-energy. EPA
established the voluntary CHP Partnership to reduce the
environmental impact of power generation by promot-
ing the use of CHP. The partnership works closely with
energy users, the CHP industry, state and local govern-
ments, and other clean energy stakeholders to facilitate
the development of new projects and promote their en-
vironmental and economic benefits. As of January 2010,
the CHP Partnership had more than 350 partners dedi-
cated to promoting and installing CHP and had assisted
more than 460 CHP projects, representing 4,900 MW
of new CHP capacity. Of these projects, 321 are waste-
to-energy CHP applications, with a capacity  of 1,700
MW (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., 2010).

EPA also  initiated  Climate Choice, a  new partnership
program that recognizes innovative emerging technolo-
gies that can substantially reduce GHG emissions when
widely adopted. The program offers innovative technolo-
gies and practices that dramatically reduce energy use and
carbon emissions. EPA is partnering  with progressive
organizations to bring these technologies to market (U.S.
EPA, 2009d). An international initiative, the Methane
                                   to Markets Partnership, engages 32 countries and the
                                   European Commission in advancing cost-effective, near-
                                   term CH4 recovery and use as clean fuel from four major
                                   CH4 sources:  landfills, underground coal mines, natu-
                                   ral gas and oil systems, and animal waste management.
                                   The partnership's goal is to reduce global CH4 emissions
                                   while enhancing economic growth, strengthening energy
                                   security, improving air quality, and reducing GHG emis-
                                   sions (Methane to Markets Partnership, 2010).

                                   3.1.2 Animal Feeding Operations
                                   EPA defines animal feeding operations  as agricultural
                                   operations in which animals are kept and raised in con-
                                   finement. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the
                                   animals grazing for or seeking food (e.g., in pastures,
                                   fields, or rangelands). The U.S. Department of Agri-
                                   culture (USDA) estimates that there are approximately
                                   450,000 animal feeding operations in the United States
                                   (USDA, 2009). If not properly managed, animal feeding
                                   operations may have environmental and human health
                                   impacts, as pollutants from these operations may de-
                                   grade groundwater, surface water, air,  and  soil. Animal
                                   waste and wastewater from these operations may enter
                                   groundwater or surface water from production areas
                                   and areas in which manure is applied to land and cause
                                   nutrient contamination. Animal feeding operations also
                                   can be a significant source of odorous and potentially
                                   harmful air emissions, such as ammonia, hydrogen sul-
                                   fide (H2S), CH4, volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
                                   and PM. Clusters of animal feeding operations in certain
                                   areas of the country can contribute to air quality prob-
                                   lems. For example, the California Air  Resources Board
                                   estimates that dairy operations, mainly concentrated in
                                   the Sanjoaquin Valley, are the third-largest source of air
                                   pollution in the state, after vehicle exhaust and compost-
                                   ing (U.S. EPA, 2008).

                                   Biogas, which is composed of approximately 60% CH4,
                                   approximately 40% CO2, and trace amounts of H2S and
                                   water vapor, is produced and emitted during the anaero-
                                   bic decomposition of organic material in livestock ma-
                                   nure at animal feeding operations. The quantity of CH4
                                   emitted is a function of the manure composition, type
                                   of treatment or storage facility, and climate (U.S. EPA,
                                   2006a). In the United States, manure management is
                                   the fifth-largest source of human-related CH4 emissions,
                                   accounting for approximately 7.5% of these emissions in
                                   2007 (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Globally, CH4 emissions from
                                   these types of operations are projected  to increase by
                                   21% between 1990 and 2020 (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
                                                                                                        23

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       Operations that meet the regulatory definition of a
       concentrated animal feeding operation are regulated
       as point sources of pollution to U.S. waters under the
       Clean Water Act and are required to obtain discharge
       permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
       nation System (NPDES) (68 FR7175; 73 FR 70417).
       Animal feeding operations also may be subject to permit-
       ting requirements under the Clean Air Act and reporting
       requirements under the Comprehensive Environmen-
       tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and the
       Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
       Act if they emit large quantities of air pollutants. In Janu-
       ary 2005, EPA announced the Air Quality Compliance
       Agreement to monitor, evaluate, and reduce emissions
       from certain animal feeding operations and ensure com-
       pliance with regulatory requirements (U.S. EPA, 2010i).

       Voluntary programs, such as the AgSTAR Program and
       Methane to Markets Partnership, help animal feeding
       operations reduce CH4 emissions while promoting other
       environmental benefits. The AgSTAR Program, jointly
       sponsored by EPA, USDA, and the U.S.  Department
       of Energy (DOE), is a voluntary program  that encour-
       ages the use of CH4 recovery (biogas) technologies at
       animal feeding operations that manage manure as liquids
       or slurries. This program has successfully encouraged the
       development and adoption of anaerobic digestion tech-
       nology. Annually, these systems reduce CH4 emissions by
       about 800,000 metric tons of CO2e and produce more
       than 370,000 MWh of energy (U.S. EPA,  2010b).

       The implementation of biogas recovery for livestock
       manure treatment and energy production has increased
       quickly over the past few years as a result  of a number
       of factors: increased technical reliability  of anaerobic
       digesters through deployment of successful systems,
       growing concerns about environmental quality, increas-
       ing number of state and federal programs designed to
       help provide funding for development of these systems,
       increasing energy costs, emphasis on energy security, and
       emergence of state energy policies and incentive pro-
       grams to promote renewable energy and  green power
       markets. Financial incentives have been instrumental
       in increasing the development of anaerobic digester
       systems. For example, the USDA Rural Development
       Business and Cooperative Programs provide loans and
       grants to farm owners  to partially fund installation of
       commercially proven livestock waste digestion technolo-
       gies (U.S. EPA, 2010p; USDA, 2010b).
3.1.3 Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater from municipal sewage is treated to remove
soluble organic matter, suspended solids, pathogenic or-
ganisms, and chemical contaminants. Anaerobic treat-
ment of wastewater produces CH4, which can be released
to the atmosphere if controls to capture these emissions
are not in place. Wastewater treatment facilities are the
eighth-largest source of human-related CH4 emissions in
the United States, emitting 24.4 Tg CO2e and accounting
for approximately 4.2% of total emissions in 2007 (U.S.
EPA, 2010e).

More than 75% of the U.S. population is served by cen-
tralized wastewater collection and treatment systems
(U.S. EPA, 2004b). Based on the results of EPAs 2004
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey, more  than 16,000
municipal wastewater treatment facilities operate in the
United States, ranging in capacity from several  hundred
millions of gallons per day (MGD)  to less than 1MGD
(U.S. EPA, 2008b). According to EPA, 1,066 of these
facilities operate with a total influent flow rate greater
than 5 MGD (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA,
2007), making them potential candidates for perform-
ing anaerobic digestion and off-gas  utilization for CHP
applications (U.S. EPA, 2007). Only 544 of these treat-
ment facilities, however, employ anaerobic digestion to
process wastewater, and only 106  of the  facilities  uti-
lize the biogas produced by their anaerobic digesters to
generate electricity and/or thermal energy (U.S. EPA,
2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA, 2007).

Wastewater treatment  facilities  are critical for main-
taining public sanitation and a healthy environment and
must be continually operated during power outages or in
the event of a natural or man-made disaster. Because of
its ability to produce electricity and heat onsite, indepen-
dent of the power grid,  CHP is a valuable addition for
wastewater treatment facilities. A well-designed CHP
system that is powered by digester gas offers many ben-
efits for wastewater treatment facilities because it pro-
duces  power at a cost below retail  electricity, displaces
fuels normally purchased for the facility's thermal needs,
qualifies as a renewable  fuel for green power programs,
offers an opportunity to reduce GHG and other air pol-
lution emissions, and enhances power reliability for the
treatment plant (U.S. EPA, 2010f).

Wastewater treatment facilities use several methods to
manage and dispose of sludges produced during sew-
24

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                              3.1
age treatment, including aerobic or anaerobic digestion.
Under aerobic digestion, microorganisms convert or-
ganic material to CO2 and water, resulting in a 35%
to 50% reduction in volatile solids content (USDA,
2010a). The disadvantage compared to anaerobic di-
gestion is that its byproducts cannot be used to make
energy, whereas anaerobic digestion produces CH4 that
can be harnessed. Additionally, anaerobic digestion has
a higher rate  of pathogen destruction as compared to
aerobic digestion, eliminating more than 99% of patho-
gens (U.S. EPA,  2010H).

Several regulations cover various aspects of wastewater
treatment. The Clean Water Act sets limits, via permit-
ting under the NPDES, on the amount of pollutants
that may be discharged and states that pollution dis-
charge must be controlled by best available technology.
Section 503 of the Clean Water Act covers biosolids,
which are defined as treated residuals from wastewa-
ter treatment that can be used beneficially, and governs
land application  of wastewater treatment residuals (40
CFR Part 503). Part 133 of the Clean Water Act requires
municipal waste  treatment facilities to meet  secondary
treatment standards, ensuring that the discharged efflu-
ents meet minimal removal standards for biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and pH (40 CFR
Part 133). Several states, including Minnesota and Mon-
tana, require wastewater treatment facilities to obtain air
emission permits  if there is the potential to emit certain
pollutants (e.g., NOJ above federal and state thresholds
(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1998; Montana
Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).

3.1.4 Landfills
Municipal solid  waste landfills are  the second-largest
source of human-related CH4 emissions in the United
States, accounting for approximately 22% of these emis-
sions  in 2008 (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Possibly the biggest
health and environmental concerns are related to the
uncontrolled  surface emissions of landfill gas into the
air. Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a mu-
nicipal solid waste landfill decomposes. On average, this
gas is made up of  approximately 50% CH4, approximate-
ly 50% CO2, and a small amount of non-CH4 organic
compounds, including VOCs that contribute to ozone
formation and hazardous air pollutants that can affect
human health (U.S. EPA, 2010k).

Landfill gas can be captured, converted, and used as an
energy source. Using it helps to reduce odors and other
                                        The anaerobic digester at Colorado Pork in Lamar, Colorado,

                                    hazards associated with emissions and helps to prevent
                                    CH4 from migrating into the atmosphere and contribut-
                                    ing to  global climate change. Landfills are regulated to
                                    control air emissions under the authority of Section 111
                                    of the Clean Air Act (71 FR 53271). Current regulatory
                                    standards correspond to emissions of non-CH4 organic
                                    compounds, which generally make up less than  1% of
                                    landfill gas. Landfill gas possesses a heat content equal to
                                    roughly one-half that of natural gas (Southern Research
                                    Institute, 1998). Landfills emitting greater than 50 met-
                                    ric tons per year of non-CH4 organic compounds are
                                    required to install a gas collection system and a treatment
                                    system capable of destroying 98% of the non-CH4 or-
                                    ganic compounds in the gas or reducing their concentra-
                                    tion to less than 20 parts per million by volume (ppmv)
                                    (71 FR 53271). In this process, CH4 also is converted to
                                    CO2 while being utilized to produce electricity or heat
                                    (Southern  Research  Institute, 1998). Under the Final
                                    Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule, effective
                                    December 29,2009, certain municipal solid waste land-
                                    fills that generate CH4 in amounts equivalent to 25,000
                                    metric tons of CO2e must report these emissions (74 FR
                                    56260). Finally, in many cases, landfill gas is collected
                                    and flared, which often requires additional fossil fuels
                                    to sustain the flare and assure complete combustion. In
                                    such cases, valuable fossil fuels are consumed and poten-
                                    tial renewable energy is not utilized.

                                    The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program is a vol-
                                    untary assistance program that helps reduce CH4 emis-
                                    sions from landfills by encouraging the recovery and use
                                    of landfill gas for energy production. The program forms
                                    partnerships with companies, state agencies, organiza-
                                    tions, landfills, and communities and provides industry
                                    networking and technical and marketing resources to
                                    aid project development (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Additional
                                    voluntary programs, such as the international Methane
                                                                                                        25

-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                to Markets Partnership, also help landfills reduce CH4  20101). The court-ordered date for promulgating the rule
                emissions while promoting other environmental benefits,  is December 16,2010 (Eddinger, 2010).
                3.1.5 Boilers
                With increasing concern about climate change and fos-
                sil fuel energy supplies, there continues to be interest in
                biomass as a renewable and sustainable energy source.
                Biomass is organic material typically derived from plant
                matter such as trees, grasses, and agricultural crops. Co-
                firing involves substituting biomass, commonly wood or
                waste wood from paper mill  operations, for  a portion
                of the fossil fuel used in a boiler. Use of biomass can
                generate CO2 credits for power producers while enhanc-
                ing their renewable energy portfolios. Many studies have
                shown the efficacy  and  environmental impacts of bio-
                mass co-firing at large, coal-fired utility boilers, but data
                have been limited for biomass co-firing in industrial-size
                boilers. Areas with  limited renewable energy  resources,
                such as solar and wind,  may need to rely on biomass as
                an alternative  renewable energy option. To decrease the
                investment needed to establish a biomass combustion
                facility and utilize existing resources, current coal-fired
                generation units can explore opportunities to co-fire bio-
                mass with coal.

                The co-firing of wood waste with coal in boilers can re-
                duce emissions of GHGs and criteria pollutants. Using
                wood waste reduces the need to burn fossil  fuels and
                conserves finite natural resources. Co-firing also signifi-
                cantly reduces SO2  emissions because biomass contains
                significantly less sulfur than coal (U.S. DOE, 2000). In
                recognition of these benefits, an increasing number of
                organizations are promoting the co-firing of wood or
                waste wood from paper mill operations in coal boilers.
                Co-firing does not require significant changes to the
                boiler beyond burner modifications, nor any additions
                necessary to burn the new type of fuel. In the United
                States, the Northeast Regional Biomass Program and
                NYSERDA are working to increase co-firing in indus-
                trial, institutional, and other nonutility coal-fired boilers.
                The Northeast is ideally suited for the use of wood waste
                as there is a large supply available (Northeast Regional
                Biomass Program, NYSERDA, 1999).

                On April 29,2010, EPAs OAQPS proposed a new max-
                imum achievable control technology (MACT) standard
                for boilers—the Boiler  Area Source Rule—that regu-
                lates emissions from biomass co-fired boilers at indus-
                trial, commercial, and institutional facilities (U.S. EPA,
                                            3.2 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
                                            ETV's  Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, managed
                                            by Southern Research Institute, has verified the per-
                                            formance of two biogas processing systems and four
                                            distributed generation energy systems that utilize CH4
                                            or other gaseous waste streams as fuel, including one
                                            fuel cell, two internal combustion engines, and one
                                            microturbine. ETV also verified the performance of
                                            two biomass co-fired boilers under an ESTE  project
                                            (see Exhibit 3-1). All eight systems were operated on-
                                            site using either landfill gas, anaerobic digester gas gen-
                                            erated from animal waste, municipal wastewater sludge,
                                            or solid biomass. Although the regulations and drivers
                                            that govern these sectors are different, with the possible
                                            exception of the co-fired boilers, the technologies used to
                                            process and generate power from these sources are gener-
                                            ally applicable to  more than one sector. As a result, the
                                            following information has been divided into subsections
                                            based on technology categories, rather than environmen-
                                            tal sectors, with the understanding that these technolo-
                                            gies may be applicable across sectors.

                                            3.2.1 Biogas Processing Systems
                                            Biogases  from wastewater  treatment plants, livestock
                                            manure management facilities, and landfills are prom-
                                            ising alternatives to natural gas for fueling distributed
                                            generation technology. The gases  are produced onsite,
                                            either through natural decomposition of organic wastes
                                            in a landfill or controlled  decomposition of manure
                                            and human waste in anaerobic digesters, and require
                                            treatment to remove contaminants before they can be
                                            used as fuel. Biogas can be made  more usable and en-
                                            vironmentally benign if contaminants, primarily  H2S,
                                            are removed prior to use as an energy source. Biogas
                                            processing systems remove the H2S and other sulfur
                                            species  from the biogas before it is introduced to a dis-
                                            tributed generation system as fuel, where these contam-
                                            inants can cause  corrosion in engines, increase main-
                                            tenance requirements, and poison catalyst materials.
                                            A variety of technologies and techniques are available
                                            for removing H2S from biogas, including air injection,
                                            reaction with iron oxide or hydroxide (iron sponge),
                                            water scrubbing, and biological treatment (Krich, et
                                            al., 2005). Certain H2S removal technologies, such as
         26

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
caustic scrubbers, may be costly to operate and produce
hazardous effluents. Redox processes also are available,
but these require use of chelating agents and generate
potentially hazardous  effluents  (Southern  Research
Institute, 2004e).

The ETV Program verified two biogas processing sys-
tems. The first technology, the Paques THIOPAQ® gas
purification system manufactured by NATCO Group,
Inc., is designed to remove H2S from biogas and other
sour gases. The system minimizes  the generation of
harmful  emissions or effluents by aerobically digesting
the waste into a more  benign sulfurous product and
regenerating and reusing the caustic  sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) used in the scrubber. This caustic scrubber-
based system was verified at a 40-MGD Midwestern wa-
ter pollution control facility designed to process indus-
trial wastewater streams from local industries, including
grain and food processing plants and a paper mill. The
second technology, an anaerobic digester gas processing
unit manufactured by USFilter/Westates Carbon2, was
verified with the PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant-Model
C manufactured by UTC Fuel Cells, LLC at the Red
Hook Water Pollution Control Plant, a 60-MGD sec-
ondary wastewater treatment facility in Brooklyn, New
York (see Section 3.2.2 for additional information on the
fuel cell verification). This technology is a carbon-based
filter that removes H2S, other sulfur  species, and heavy

2. Westates Carbon was acquired by the former  USFilter Corporation in
December 1996. USFilter was acquired by Siemens in July 2004 and now
operates as Siemens Water Technologies,
                                      The USFilter/Westates Carbon gas processing unit installed at Red Hook
                                                    Water Pollution Control Plant,

                                     hydrocarbons from biogas. It differs from the first tech-
                                     nology in that it was integrated with a waste heat recov-
                                     ery system and was designed specifically to remove impu-
                                     rities, such as H2S, that are potentially damaging to the
                                     fuel cell. Specific details of the gas processing units can
                                     be found in the verification reports (Southern Research
                                     Institute, 2004c, 2004e), available at http://www.epa.
                                     gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr32.pdf andhttp://
                                     www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr26b.pdf.
                                     ETV-verified performance for these systems is described
                                     in the text following and in Exhibit 3.2-1.

                                     Additionally, a combined fuel cell and gas processing
                                     unit produced  by International  Fuel  Cells Corpora-
                                     tion (now UTC Power) was verified at two municipal
                                     solid waste landfills, one in California and one in Con-
                                     necticut. The gas processing unit, described in the text
                                     following  and in Exhibit 3.2-1, is designed to remove
Exhibit 3.2-1
Performance ofETV-Verified Biogas Processing Units
         Technology*
                  Testing Location
  Processed Gas      Heat Content      HIS Removal
 Composition (%)  Lower Heating Value  Efficiency (%)/
	   (Btu per standard   Average Final
 CH    CO    N        cubic foot)      Concentration
I International Fuel Cells Gas Pro-
icessing Unit
! NATCO Group, Inc. Paques
| THIOPAQ®
1 USFilter/Westates Carbon Gas
1 Processing Unit
! Penrose Landfill Facility (Los
I Angeles, CA)
I Groton Landfill Facility (Groton,
1 en
j Water Pollution Control Facility
i (Midwest)
i Red Hook Water Pollution
i Control Plant (Brooklyn, NY)
! 44.11
I 57.30
! 68.89
61.37
37.88
41.21
28.71
37.10
17.31 !
1.16 I
2.03 i
1.23 !
401.3
522.8
617.2
551.2
j 99/0.04 ppmv
| 99/0.02 ppmv
! 99.8/27.5 ppm
! >99.996/<4 ppb
A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. In this exhibit, technologies are listed alphabetically by vendor company name. Order of appearance of
 technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology performance results.
                                                                                                            27

-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                The Capstone Model 330 microturbine combined with heat recovery system
                                 installed at Colorado Pork.

                impurities from biogas, making it amenable for use by
                the company's PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell. Additional
                details of the technology can be found in the verification
                report (Southern Research Institute, 1998), available at
                http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/epavsgbgpl.pdf.
                Information and results for the fuel cell verification are
                discussed in Section 3.2.2.

                During testing of the three biogas processing units, the
                ETV Program verified the composition and properties of
                raw and processed biogas. Sulfur compound removal ef-
                ficiency was verified for all three biogas processing units.

                Halide removal efficiency was verified for the USFilter/
                Westates Carbon unit and the International Fuel Cells
                unit. Moisture and VOC removal also were verified for
                the USFilter/Westates Carbon unit. System effects on
                biogas composition and heating value were verified for
                the NATCO and USFilter/Westates Carbon technolo-
                gies tested at wastewater treatment facilities. NaOH
                consumption rates were monitored and reported for the
                NATCO system.

                The International Fuel Cells gas processing unit installed
                at the two landfills consistently reduced contaminants
                in the landfill gas to levels significantly below the initial
                goals  of less  than 3 ppmv total sulfur and less than 3
                ppmv total halides. Additionally, VOC removal efficien-
                cies for the USFilter/Westates Carbon gas processing
                unit ranged from 17.5% to 99.9% for the 12 VOCs de-
                tected in the raw biogas samples at concentrations of 50
                parts  per billion (ppb) or greater. Total halide  removal
                efficiency averaged 65%. For the NATCO gas processing
                unit, the average 50% NaOH consumption rate normal-
                                             ized to biogas feed rate was 0.12 gallons per thousand
                                             cubic feet of biogas processed, or 0.44 pounds (Ibs) of
                                             NaOH per Ib of sulfur. Further verification results are
                                             described in Exhibit 3.2-1.

                                             3.2.2 Distributed Generation Energy Systems
                                             Fuel cells, internal combustion engines, and microtur-
                                             bines are well suited to provide electricity at the point of
                                             use because of their small size, flexibility in connection
                                             methods, ability to be arrayed in parallel to serve larger
                                             loads, ability  to provide reliable energy, and low emis-
                                             sions profile (National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
                                             2003). These technologies may be used to convert oppor-
                                             tunity fuels (e.g., gas from municipal solid waste landfills)
                                             to energy. When used in stationary applications to gen-
                                             erate electricity at the point of use, distributed genera-
                                             tion systems reduce the need to generate electricity from
                                             sources such  as large electric utility plants, which emit
                                             significant quantities of CO2, NOx, and CO. When well-
                                             matched to building  or facility needs in a properly de-
                                             signed CHP application, distributed generation systems
                                             can utilize waste heat to increase operational efficiency
                                             and avoid power transmission losses, thereby reducing
                                             overall emissions and net fuel consumption compared to
                                             traditional power and heat generation systems.

                                             Below are descriptions of the verified waste-to-energy
                                             distributed generation systems, as well as their applica-
                                             tions. ETV-verified unit performance is described in the
                                             text following and in  Exhibit 3.2-2.
                                               Fuel cellst  Fuel cells use hydrogen to generate elec-
                                               tricity. They consist of two electrodes separated by an
                                               electrolyte (U.S. DOE, 2008; U.S. EPA, 2008a). Dur-
                                               ing operation, hydrogen-rich fuel reacts with the anode
                                               to produce positive ions and electrons. The positive
                                               ions pass through the electrolyte to the cathode, where
                                               they react to  produce water and heat. The electrons
                                               must travel around the  electrolyte in a circuit, gener-
                                               ating an electric current (U.S. DOE, 2008). Fuel cells
                                               typically are categorized by the type of electrolyte used
                                               (U.S. EPA, 2008a). As mentioned in  Section 3.2.1,
                                               the ETV Program verified the performance of the
                                               PC25C Fuel Cell Power Plant—Model C (now called
                                               PureCell™ Model 200) manufactured by UTC Fuel
                                               Cells, LLC  (now UTC Power). The PureCell™ Model
                                               200 fuel cell uses liquid phosphoric acid as the elec-
                                               trolyte (Southern Research Institute, 2004b). Per the
                                               manufacturer, this fuel cell is capable of producing 200
                                               kilowatts (kW) of electrical power with the potential
         28

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
  to produce an additional 205 kW of heat. The Pure-
  Cell™ Model 200 fuel cell was tested in 2004 at the
  Red Hook Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn,
  New York. The fuel cell also was tested in 1998 (then
  as the combined PC25™ 200 kW fuel cell and gas pro-
  cessing unit manufactured by International Fuel Cells
  Corporation) at the Penrose Landfill in Los Angeles,
  California, and the Groton Landfill in Groton, Con-
  necticut. The PureCell™ Model  200 system consists
  of three major components:  (1) a gas processing unit
  (developed by USFilter/Westates Carbon), (2) a pow-
  er module, and (3) a cooling module. Two PureCell™
  Model  200 systems were installed at the Red Hook
  plant, and both were  configured to use anaerobic di-
  gester gas produced at the site as the primary fuel and
  natural gas for fuel cell startup  or as a backup fuel.
  The landfill gas  from the Penrose site was waste gas
                                         recovered from four nearby landfills, containing most-
                                         ly industrial waste material. The Groton test site is a
                                         relatively small landfill but with greater-heat-content
                                         gas. Specific details of the technologies can be found in
                                         the verification reports (Southern Research Institute,
                                         1998,2004b), available at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
                                         std/etv/pubs/sriusepaghgvr26.pdfa.ndhttp://www.epa.
                                         gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/epavsghg01.pdf.

                                         Microturbinest Large- and medium-scale combustion
                                         turbines have been used by electric utilities since the
                                         1950s. Recent advances have allowed the development
                                         and limited application of microturbines (U.S. EPA,
                                         2002). The Capstone Model 330 (now the Model C30)
                                         30 kW microturbine system, manufactured by Capstone
                                         Turbine Corporation, is a microturbine combined with
                                         a heat recovery system for distributed electrical power
Exhibit 3.2-2
Performance ofETV-Verified Distributed Generation Technologies
     Technology"
            Testing
           Location
  Test
Condition
 (Power
                                                Efficiencies
                                          (site specific maximums)
Maximum
 Electrical
  Power
                                                                                                Emissions Rates
                                                                                                  (Ibs/kWh)
                                              Command) j E|ectrjca| j Therma| |  Total  j Output(kw) |  co
                                                                            System
! Capstone Model C30  i Colorado Pork, LLC Swine
! Microturbine         ! Farm (Lamar, CO)
                                30
          I  20.4%  !   33.3%  I  53.7% i    19.9B    i 3.45 i 8.2 x 10'5
! Martin Machinery     i
i Caterpillar Model 379  i_
i Engine/Generator     : ^rsonRarms Dairy Farm ;            ;          ;        ;        ;
|wi^ Integrated Heat   pburn< NY>
! Recovery            i                        i            i          i        i        i            I      i
! Martin Machinery
i Caterpillar Model
! 3306 ST Engine/
! Generator and Heat
iExchanger
   i Colorado Pork, LLC Swine
   I Farm (Lamar, CO)
   45°     i  19.7%  !   32.4%  i  52.1% i     44.7    i 1.97 i   0.012
IUTC Power PureCell™  i Red Hook Water Pollution   i
! Model 200 Fuel Cell   I Control Plant (Brooklyn, NY) I
                                200
          i  36.8%  !   56.9%  i  93.8%E i     193    ! 1.44 i 1.3 x 10'5
A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. In this exhibit, technologies are listed alphabetically by vendor or technology name. Order of appearance
 of technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology performance results.
B The relatively high altitude of the facility and the parasitic load introduced by the gas compressor limited the micro turbine's power output.
" The site was not designed to maximize heat use. Higher total system efficiency could be realized at other sites. Also, if low-quality hot water (approximately
 140°F) could be utilized, higher thermal efficiency could be realized.
D The configuration of the engine's fuel input jets and the low heating value of the biogas restricted the engine's power command output to 45 kW during
 verification, which is lower than the equipment manufacturer's recommended minimum rating for this engine.
B This value represents the maximum potential heat usage based on heat exchanger inlet and outlet temperatures; however, the site did not actually utilize this
 heat because of the availability of steam onsite at no cost.
                                                                                                                   29

-------
3.2
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                  and heat generation. The heat recovery system in the
                  verified application was manufactured by Cain Indus-
                  tries and recovered waste heat from the microturbine.
                  The Capstone Model C30 microturbine was verified
                  at the Colorado Pork facility in Lamar, Colorado—a
                  sow farrow-to-wean farm that houses up to 5,000 sows.
                  The facility employs a complete mix anaerobic digester
                  that promotes bacterial decomposition of volatile sol-
                  ids in animal wastes. The resulting effluent stream is
                  allowed to evaporate from a secondary lagoon. Solids
                  accumulate in the digester and are manually removed.
                  Recovered heat from the microturbine CHP is circu-
                  lated through the waste in the digester to maintain the
                  digester temperature.3 Details of the Capstone Model
                  C30 microturbine and  a heat recovery system can be
                  found in the verification report (Southern Research
                  Institute, 2004a), available at http://www.epa.gov/etv/
                  pubs/sriusepaghgvr22.pdf.

                  Reciprocating internal combustion engines; Recip-
                  rocating internal combustion engines are widespread
                  and well-understood technology suited for a variety of
                  distributed generation and CHP applications. Internal
                  combustion engines depend on the process of combus-
                  tion (i.e., the reaction of a fuel with an oxidizer, usually
                  air) to generate useful  mechanical energy. Although
                  commonly fueled with  fossil fuels, recent technologi-
                  cal advances have allowed introduction of biogases
                  and other renewable fuel sources (Southern Research
                  Institute, 1998, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, 2004e,
                  2007) capable of providing significant environmental
                  and economic benefits  (Southern  Research Institute,
                  2007). The ETV Program verified the performance of
                  two internal combustion engines with CHP. The veri-
                  fied distributed generation/CHP systems, designed
                  and installed by Martin Machinery, Inc., are: (1) Cat-
                  erpillar Model 379, 200 kW  engine and generator
                  set with integrated heat recovery;  and (2) Caterpillar
                  Model 3306 ST, 100 kW engine, generator (manufac-
                  tured by Marathon Electric), and heat exchanger. The
                  first test was conducted using biogas  from the Colo-
                  rado Pork facility described above. The second test was
                  conducted using anaerobic digester gas from Patterson
                  Farms, a dairy farm with 1,725 cows and heifers near
                  Auburn, New York. Details of the internal  combus-
                  tion engines can be found in the verification reports
                  (Southern Research Institute, 2004d,  2007), available
                3. The information provided was applicable at the time of verification; the
                digester at this facility no longer is in operation.
                                               at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/pubs/03_vr_
                                               martin.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/etv/
                                               pubs/vr600etv07049.pdf.

                                             ETV verification of the distributed generation technolo-
                                             gies outlined above included tests to verify heat and pow-
                                             er production, emissions, and power quality. The four
                                             technologies reported in Exhibit 3.2-2 included heat re-
                                             covery for CHP. Power production tests measured elec-
                                             trical power output and electrical efficiency at selected
                                             loads. In the tests in which potential heat production was
                                             verified, ETV measured heat recovery, potential thermal
                                             efficiency, and potential total system efficiency at selected
                                             loads. For the Capstone Model C30 microturbine, when
                                             tested at less than full load, electrical efficiencies were
                                             lower, but thermal efficiencies were higher. It should be
                                             noted that  the test site was not designed to maximize
                                             heat use, and higher total system efficiency could be real-
                                             ized at other sites.

                                             The verification tests measured emissions concentrations
                                             and rates at selected loads. Verified emissions  rates for
                                             CO2 and NOx are reported in Exhibit 3.2-2. Addition-
                                             ally, three of the verification reports estimated  total an-
                                             nual CO2 reductions by comparing measured emissions
                                             rates  during testing with corresponding emission rates
                                             for baseline power-production systems  (e.g., average re-
                                             gional grid emission factors or baseline scenarios for the
                                             testing  sites). Annual changes in NOx emissions were
                                             estimated in a similar manner. Annual emissions reduc-
                                             tions as compared to the grid were not evaluated for the
                                             Capstone Model C30 microturbine verified at the animal
                                             feeding operation. Additional information on the annual
                                             emissions reductions estimates is available in Appendix
                                             B. The  ETV Program also verified concentrations  and
                                             emissions rates for other pollutants and GHGs, includ-
                                             ing CO, THCs, and CH4 (in two of the cases), as well
                                             as flare destruction efficiency at the two landfill applica-
                                             tions. More detailed performance data are  available in
                                             the verification reports for each technology (Southern
                                             Research Institute, 2004b), which can  be found at the
                                             links above.

                                             For the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell verified at the two
                                             landfills in  California and Connecticut, the maximum
                                             electrical power outputs were 140 kW and 165 kW at
                                             the Penrose and Groton sites, respectively. Energy con-
                                             version efficiency was determined to be 37.1% at Penrose
                                             and 38% at Groton. Average emissions rates were 0.12
                                             ppmv or 0.29 grams per hour (g/h) for NOx; 0.77 ppmv
         30

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
or 1.15 g/h for CO; SO2 emissions were below the de-
tection limit. Annual emissions reductions as compared
to the grid were not evaluated for the fuel cells verified
at the landfills.

3.2.3 Biomass Co-Fired Boilers
Coal-fired boilers use thermal energy to produce elec-
tri-city and steam. Because of increasing concerns about
fossil fuel use, alternatives to burning coal have been
sought, and many coal-fired boilers now are co-fired us-
ing a mixture of biomass and coal. Since approximately
1990, an increasing number of electric utilities across the
United States have implemented biomass co-firing (U.S.
DOE, 2000). This transition is occurring because renew-
able wood waste is an energy source  that can be used
to: reduce the amount of coal used in coal-fired boilers;
reduce emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, and acid gases; and
decrease waste sent to landfills (U.s! DOE, 2000,2004).
Depending on the price of coal and the availability of
wood waste in the area, co-firing also has  the potential
to lower  fuel costs (U.S. DOE, 2004). Many studies
have been conducted on the efficacy and environmental
impacts of biomass co-firing on large, coal-fired  utility
boilers, but data regarding biomass co-firing in indus-
trial-size  boilers have been limited (Southern Research
Institute, 2008a).

The  ETV Program verified  the performance, includ-
ing emissions reductions, of two biomass co-fired in-
dustrial boilers. The pelletized wood fuel developed by
renewaFUEL, LLC was used for one verification. The
renewaFUEL pellets, which have a moisture content of
6.6% by weight, were tested  at the University of Iowa
(UI) Main Power Plant Boiler 10 (a Riley Stoker Corpo-
ration unit) in Iowa City, Iowa. The Main Power Plant is
a CHP facility that serves the main campus and univer-
sity hospitals and clinics. The plant continuously supplies
steam service and cogenerated electric power. This boiler
co-fired the pellets with coal in an 85:15 ratio of coal to
biomass.  In the second verification, wood waste was co-
fired with coal at the Minnesota Power Rapids Energy
Center (REC) Boiler 5 (a Foster Wheeler spreader stok-
er boiler) in  Grand Rapids, Minnesota. REC provides
power and heat for the neighboring Blandin Paper Mill.
This boiler co-fired wood waste and bark from the paper
mill, railroad ties, and onsite generated waste oils and
solvents with coal in an 08:92 ratio of coal to biomass
and moisture content of 46.5% by weight.

ETV evaluated changes in boiler performance resulting
from co-firing woody biomass with coal. Boiler opera-
                                                  renewaFUEL pelletized wood fuel

                                    tional performance with regard to efficiency, emissions,
                                    and fly ash characteristics was evaluated while combust-
                                    ing 100% coal and then reevaluated while co-firing bio-
                                    mass with coal. The UI Boiler 10 verification indicated
                                    that SO2 emissions were 12.4% lower while combusting
                                    the blended fuel, which correlates well with the approxi-
                                    mately 15% biomass-to-coal ratio. The reduction in SO2
                                    indicates that co-firing woody biomass may be an option
                                    for reducing SO2 emissions without adding emission-
                                    control technologies. NOx emissions rose by 10.2% at the
                                    UI Boiler 10 site, which may be attributable to the higher
                                    temperatures within the boiler that occurred while fir-
                                    ing the dryer, lighter blended fuel. The two verifications
                                    serve as  a useful comparison between relatively dry and
                                    very moist woody fuels and how these factors can impact
                                    emissions. The characteristics and verification results are
                                    highlighted in Exhibit 3.2-3.

                                    Metals emissions were extremely low during testing at
                                    both sites, ranging from 4.80 xlO"7 ± 8.42xlO~9 for arse-
                                    nic to 4.34xlO'5 ± 6.8 xlO'6 for selenium. The REC Boil-
                                    er 5 site showed significant reductions  in mercury and
                                    selenium emissions, and the UI Boiler 10 site showed
                                    a significant reduction in selenium emissions. Fly ash
                                    composition changes also were verified. The two sites
                                    differed in changes in fly ash content. In general, changes
                                    were small—with the exception of carbon content, which
                                    was significantly lower—following co-firing in UI Boiler
                                    10. Changes were significant at the REC Boiler 5 site,
                                    with the exception of carbon content, which was not
                                    significantly changed. Loss on ignition was significantly
                                    impacted at both sites. More detailed performance data,
                                    including impacts on ash quality can be found in the
                                    verification reports for each technology (Southern Re-
                                    search Institute, 2008a, 2008b), available at http:/'/'epa.
                                    gov/etv/pubs/600etv08018.pdfandfatp://www.epa.gov/
                                    etv/pubs/600etv08017.pdf.
                                                                                                         31

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                                      Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                Exhibit 3.2-3
                Characteristics and Performance ofETV-Verified Biomass Co-Fired Boilers
                                     Ratio of  i  Moisture  j     Boiler
                                     Coal to   i Content (by j  Operational
                                     Biomass  j   weight)   j   Efficiency*
                                                                                     Emissions Reductions*
                | Ul Boiler 10,         j
                i renewaFUEL pelletized j
                ! wood fuel co-fired with I
                I coal               i
               85:15
6.60%
-0.90%    j  12.4%*  i -0.82% i  -10.2%* j   5.02%
28.1%
                | REC Boiler 5, wood    j
                i waste co-fired with coal j
               08:92
46.5%
-17.7%*    i  99.7%*  I 18.3%* !   63.2%*  i  -142%* i  81.2%*
                1 Compared to operation while combusting 100% coal
                * Statistically significant ((-test with 90% confidence interval)
                3.3 OUTCOMES
                Waste-to-energy technologies harness the energy po-
                tential of waste streams, including organic wastes. Gas
                from digesters and landfills can be used in distributed
                generation applications to generate reliable electricity
                and power for facilities, thus  replacing fossil fuels and
                decreasing the amount of waste sent to landfills or oth-
                erwise emitted. Benefits for the facility and the environ-
                ment include producing onsite power, displacing pur-
                chased fuels for thermal needs, qualifying as a renewable
                fuel for green power programs and incentives, enhancing
                power reliability for the facility, and reducing GHGs and
                other air emissions. Waste-to-energy technologies also
                offer an important security and safety benefit for  many
                facilities, particularly wastewater treatment facilities. To
                help maintain public health, these facilities must operate
                continuously or come back online quickly in the event of
                a grid power loss, such as from a catastrophic event or
                natural disaster. Waste-to-energy technologies can con-
                tinue to provide onsite power generation to these and
                other critical facilities in the event of utility failures and
                are a valuable infrastructure addition (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
                There are, however, some barriers to implementing such
                systems for waste-to-energy applications. Considering
                current market conditions, many facilities do  not view
                installation as economically viable based on installation
                and operating and maintenance costs that may not al-
                low payback of the investment, especially as some public
                utilities are not willing to accept excess power from these
                facilities. Regulatory and statutory frameworks are need-
                ed to promote waste-to-energy conversion technologies,
                and public and elected officials need to be educated re-
                                             garding the benefits of waste-to-energy (California In-
                                             tegrated Waste Management Board, 2001).

                                             The  ETV-verified technologies for processing and
                                             generating power from CH4 or other gaseous waste
                                             streams are generally applicable to more than one sec-
                                             tor. As such, the ETV Program estimated the following
                                             market scenarios and potential outcomes—including
                                             emissions reductions, energy generation, and cost ben-
                                             efits—associated with use of verified technologies by
                                             sector or application.

                                             3.3.1 Emissions Reduction Outcomes
                                             The emissions reductions discussed here were estimat-
                                             ed for distributed generation systems and biomass co-
                                             fired boilers. Biogas processing units were not evaluated
                                             directly for their applicability to reduce emissions and
                                             so are not discussed in this section, although they allow
                                             distributed generation systems to use biogas as an alter-
                                             native fuel source. Biogas production is considered to be
                                             CO neutral, and utilization of landfill gas and manure
                                             digester biogas directly prevents atmospheric pollu-
                                             tion by preventing CH4 from being emitted into the
                                             atmosphere (U.S. EPA, 2010e). ETV estimates that
                                             the potential  markets for the biogas processing units
                                             would be similar to those identified for the distributed
                                             generation systems.

                                             Distributed  Generation Systems
                                             Emissions reductions  from using distributed  generation
                                             systems depend on a number of factors, including the
                                             electricity and heating demand of the specific application,
         32

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
the technology's emissions rates, and the emissions rates
of the conventional source that the technology replaces.
These factors vary by geographic location. Characterizing
these factors for all potential applications of ETV-verified
distributed generation systems is not reasonably feasible.
ETV used geographic-specific estimates developed by
Southern Research Institute for the verified technologies,
as well as estimates generated by the CHP Partnership,
USDA, and DOE to estimate potential  markets and
project CO2, NOx, CH4, and other emissions reductions
from these sectors, as indicated below. Additionally, the
ETV-verified technologies have the potential to reduce
emissions of other pollutants such as CO and THCs. As
environmental  and human health effects of GHGs and
other pollutants are significant, the benefits of reducing
these emissions also should be significant. Appendix B
describes ETV's methods for using these estimates to
project nationwide emissions reductions for the applica-
tions below. Based on these analyses and verified technol-
ogy performance, potential emissions reductions from use
of waste-to-energy distributed generation systems include
the following:
                                        Animal feeding operations!  Dairy operations with
                                        more than 500 cows and heifers and swine operations
                                        with more than 2,000 sows are good candidates for an-
                                        aerobic digestion and biogas use. The potential for ma-
                                        nure-produced biogas is highest for manure that is col-
                                        lected and stored as a liquid, slurry, or semisolid. Given
                                        these parameters, EPA AgSTAR estimates that 2,600
                                        dairy operations and 5,600 swine operations are poten-
                                        tial candidates for significant manure biogas production
                                        and anaerobic digestion in the United States, greatly ex-
                                        ceeding the estimates for systems that currently are in
                                        use (see text box; U.S.EPA, 2010c). Based on AgSTAR
                                        estimates  and ETV verification results, Exhibit 3.3-1
                                        presents annual CO2 or CO2e emissions reductions that
                                        could be realized through use of ETV-verified technolo-
                                        gies at 10% and 25% of these operations. Appendix B
                                        describes  the methodology and assumptions used to
                                        develop these estimates. Based on verified technology
                                        performance, average annual NOx emissions could po-
                                        tentially increase by approximately 0.37 to 14.7 tons
                                        per installation when compared to baseline regional grid
                                        emissions rates. Because ammonia generated by anaero-
Exhibit 3.3-1
Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies Used at Animal
Feeding Operations
     Market Penetration
             10%

             25%
                Number of Animal
                Feeding Operations
                       820

                      2,100
                                                         Annual CO Emissions Reductions (tons per year)*
                                                         Lower Bound
2,500

6,300
                                                                   Upper Bound
5.9 million
15 million
Values rounded to two significant figures,
A The verification results used to calculate the upper bound for annual emissions reductions outcomes include estimated reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions
 associated with the use of waste generated CH4 as fuel; the verification results used to calculate the lower bound did not include these additional reductions,
B Emissions reductions outcomes do not include additional reductions associated with the recovery and use of waste heat; the annual CO emissions reduc-
 tions above are for electricity generation only.
   As of April 2010, AgSTAR estimated that 151 anaerobic digester systems are operating at commercial livestock farms in
   the United States, and 125 of these generate electrical or thermal energy from the captured biogas, producing about
   360,000 MWh annually. The combustion of biogas at these digesters prevents the emission of about 36,000 metric tons
   of CH4 annually (760,000 metric tons of CO2e). In addition, the combustion of biogas displaces the use of fossil fuels, thus
   achieving additional emissions reductions of GHGs and air pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2010H). If biogas recovery systems are
   installed at all feasible dairy and swine operations, total CH4 emissions can be reduced by an estimated 66%—or 1.6 mil-
   lion tons—compared to 2002 CH4 emissions (U.S. EPA, 2010c). The ETV-verified technologies discussed in this case study
   are potential candidates for these types of projects.
                                                                                                               33

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
        Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                  bic digester systems is burned in an energy recovery sys-
                  tem, ammonia output is ultimately reduced compared
                  to a standard lagoon or pit. Although not quantified,
                  additional significant environmental benefits also can
                  be realized from the recovery and use of waste heat and
                  odor reduction.

                  Wastewater treatment facilities! Wastewater treat-
                  ment facilities with influent flow rates greater than 5
                  MGD are good candidates for distributed generation
                  anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization.4 The EPA
                  2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey estimates that
                  544 wastewater treatment facilities in the United States
                  currently produce biogas using anaerobic digesters. Of
                  these, only 106 facilities utilize the biogas produced by
                  their anaerobic digesters to generate electricity and/or
                  thermal energy (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S. EPA,
                  2007), for an additional potential market of 438 facili-
                  ties that could install distributed generation waste-to-
                  energy technologies.  Based on this additional market
                  potential and ETV verification results, Exhibit 3.3-2
                  presents annual CO2 and NOx emissions reductions
                  that could be realized through use of ETV-verified
                  technologies at 10%  and 25% of these facilities. Ap-
                  pendix B describes the methodology and assumptions
                  used to develop these estimates. The 2004 EPA Clean
                  Watersheds Needs Survey identified a total of 1,066
                  wastewater treatment facilities in the United States
                  with flow rates greater than 5 MGD (U.S. EPA, 2004c,
                  as cited in U.S. EPA, 2007)—more of these facilities
                4. Analyses conducted by the EPA CHP Partnership indicate that treatment
                facilities with influent flow rates less than 5 MGD typically do not produce
                enough biogas from anaerobic digestion to make CHP technically and eco-
                nomically feasible (U.S. EPA, 2007).
                                               could perform anaerobic digestion, but treatment
                                               process modifications most likely would be required.
                                               Emissions reductions for the ETV-verified technolo-
                                               gies could be even greater if market scenarios are based
                                               on the total number of treatment facilities with flow
                                               rates  suitable for  performing anaerobic digestion.

                                               C(X and NO emission reductions also have been es-
                                                  2         x
                                               timated for commercial applications of a verified fuel
                                               cell at wastewater  treatment facilities in New York.
                                               Under a partnership between NYSERDA, the New
                                               York  Power Authority  (NYPA), and others, eight
                                               UTC PureCell™ Model 200 fuel  cells  are operating
                                               at four wastewater treatment plants managed by the
                                               New York City Department of Environmental Protec-
                                               tion and  located in or near New York City (NYPA,
                                               2010; Staniunas, 2010a). A ninth PureCell™ Model
                                               200 system operating at a fifth site near Yonkers, New
                                               York, has been decommissioned (Staniunas, 2010a).
                                               Each system is fueled by biogas from anaerobic diges-
                                               tion of sewage sludge. As described in Section 3.2.2, in
                                               2004, ETV verified one of the PureCell™ Model 200
                                               fuel cell installations at the Red Hook Water Pollution
                                               Control Plant in Brooklyn; ETV collaborated with
                                               NYSERDA and NYPA on this verification. These fuel
                                               cell projects are part of a program to offset emissions
                                               from  NYPAs PowerNow!—six small natural gas-
                                               powered plants designed to increase electrical generat-
                                               ing capacity for New York City. NYPA initiated a zero
                                               net emissions program to offset the small amount of
                                               emissions from the generators by reducing pollutants
                                               from other sources, including the installation of the
                                               UTC fuel cells to harness waste gas from sewage treat-
                 Exhibit 3.3-2
                 Estimated Potential Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies Used at
                 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
                       Market          Number of Wastewater Treatment
                     Penetration                    Facilities
                                                            Annual Emissions Reductions
                                                                  (tons per year)*
                         10%

                         25%
                              44

                             110
63,000

160,000
 80

200
                Values rounded to two significant figures.
                A Estimates for annual emissions reductions include emissions reductions for flare offset.
         34

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
  ment facilities and produce clean electricity (NYPA,  Exhibit 3.3-3
  2010). According to the vendor, collectively, the nine
  fuel cells reduced NOx emissions by 50,000 Ibs annu-
  ally (UTC Power, 2007). Based on verified technol-
  ogy performance, the ETV Program estimates that the
  eight UTC fuel cells currently operating at wastewater
  treatment plants in or near New York City collectively
  reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 11,000 tons
  annually.
                                     Number of Landfills That Could Apply ETV-Verified
                                     Technologies
                                       Market Penetration  i     Number of Landfills
                                              10%
                                              25%
52
130
  Landfills;  The EPA  Landfill Methane Outreach
  Program estimates that there are approximately 518
  landfills already collecting landfill gas for energy re-
  covery in the United States. These landfills generate
  approximately  13 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of
  electricity per year and deliver 100 billion cubic feet
  of landfill gas to direct-use applications annually. This
  represents the equivalent of the carbon sequestered
  annually by approximately 20 million acres of pine
  or fir forests, CO2 emissions from approximately 216
  million  barrels of oil  consumed, or annual GHG
  emissions from approximately 18 million passenger
  vehicles (U.S. EPA, 2010k). EPA estimates that an
  additional 520 landfills are good candidates for land-
  fill gas energy projects based on gas generation and re-
  covery estimates; feasibility assessments on biogas gen-
  eration and recovery potential, potential end uses, and
  approximate costs of using  gas for energy; and other
  analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010e). Based on this additional
  market potential and ETV verification results, Exhibit
  3.3-3  presents the number of landfills that could ap-
  ply ETV-verified technologies at 10% and 25% of the
  market. The ETV Program did not calculate annual
  emissions reductions during the waste-to-energy veri-
  fications performed at  landfill sites; therefore, quan-
  titative data are not available to estimate emissions
  reductions associated with the market scenarios out-
  lined  in Exhibit 3.3-3. It also should be noted that
  according to  EPA, internal combustion engines are
  the  most commonly used waste-to-energy technol-
  ogy for  landfill gas applications  (used in more  than
  70% of current landfill gas energy recovery projects in
                                     Values rounded to two significant figures.

                                       the United States) because of their relatively low cost,
                                       high efficiency, and good size match with the gas out-
                                       put of most landfills (U.S. EPA, 2010o). Several of the
                                       ETV-verified distributed generation technologies de-
                                       scribed in Section 3.2.2 could be applied for landfill gas
                                       recovery and achieve associated emissions reductions.

                                       EPAs estimates for the number of landfills that are
                                       candidates for waste-to-energy applications do not
                                       necessarily include older landfills that produce low-
                                       British thermal unit (Btu) landfill gas. The microtur-
                                       bine scheduled to be verified in 2011 jointly by ETV
                                       and DoD's ESTCP claims the ability to operate on
                                       low-Btu landfill gas, which may extend the usefulness
                                       and decrease CO2 emissions further in the long term.
                                       The  ETV Greenhouse Gas Technology Center esti-
                                       mates that the technology could have applicability at
                                       approximately 100 DoD landfill sites with potential to
                                       generate 90 MW of electricity annually. This translates
                                       to an estimated offset of 710,000 tons of CO2e annu-
                                       ally assuming that all sites are operating at maximum
                                       capacity and flare is offset (Hansen, 2010a).5

                                     Co-Fired Boilers
                                     According to the vendor, use of renewaFUELs pelletized
                                     wood fuel in place of coal at the permitted capacity of
                                     210,000 tons per year will result in direct reduction of
                                     5. The estimate for potential applicability at DoD landfill sites is based solely
                                     on landfill size, closure date, and other similar information; actual application
                                     at these sites would require further analysis, including site logistics, economi-
                                     cal feasibility, etc.

   If a 3-MW landfill gas electricity project starts up at a landfill with previously uncontrolled landfill gas, the project would
   reduce CH4 by approximately 6,000 tons per year and 110,000 tons of CO2e per year. The combined emissions reduction
   of 130,000 tons of CO2e per year would be equivalent to any one of the following annual environmental benefits for
   2010: annual GHG emissions from 24,000 passenger vehicles, carbon sequestered annually by 27,000 acres of pine or fir
   forests, or CO2 emissions from 14.3 million gallons of gasoline consumed. Additionally, annual energy savings for a 3-MW
   project equate to powering 1,800 homes (U.S. EPA, 2010e). The ETV-verified technologies discussed in this case study are
   candidates for these types of projects.
                                                                                                            35

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                     Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center woody biomass feed,

                 creditable GHG emissions of approximately 550,000
                 tons per year, which is equivalent to the emissions from
                 the annual use of more than 56,000 vehicles. There is an
                 even greater reduction in total lifecycle GHG emissions
                 (direct and indirect) compared to coal given the reduced
                 transportation  emissions from renewaFUEL's local
                 sources and the absence of CH4 releases from coal min-
                 ing. Based on a 90% reduction in the sulfur content of
                 renewaFUEL pellets compared to the coal they displace,
                 SO2 emissions also are reduced. Per the vendor, there
                 has been a demonstrated reduction in CO emissions by
                 greater than 25% as a result of the combustion qualities
                 of renewaFUEL pellets. Solid waste and ash disposal
                 are reduced because the ash content of renewaFUEL's
                 product, which is less than  1% by weight, contains  ap-
                 proximately 80% less  ash postcombustion than the coal
                 it displaces (Mennell, 2010a, 2010c).

                 Minnesota Power— one of the host sites for the biomass
                 co-fired boilers verification testing—co-fires woody bio-
                 mass in Boilers 5 and 6. This facility has been co-firing
                 since it was built in  1980  (Tolrud, 2010). Based on
                 verification testing results, ETV estimates the following
                 emissions reductions for biomass co-firing at Minnesota
                 Power's Boiler 5: 107,000 tons of CO2 per year, based
                 on a typical heat generating rate of 200 MMBtu/h, an
                 availability and utilization rate of 75%, and an estimated
                 CO2 emission reduction of 90% as compared to the grid
                 or 148 Ibs/MMBtu output during co-firing. Appendix
                 B describes the methodology and assumptions used to
                 develop these estimates.
                                              3.3.2 Resource Conservation, Economic, and
                                              Financial Outcomes
                                              Use of biogas and landfill gas as alternative energy sources
                                              results in the conservation of finite natural resources, such
                                              as natural gas, oil, and coal used as conventional fuels.
                                              Waste-to-energy technologies can produce cost benefits by
                                              allowing the use of an on-hand fuel source instead of rely-
                                              ing on more costly purchased fuels. The NATCO Paques
                                              THIOPAQ® system produces elemental sulfur that can
                                              be recycled for sale or use, increasing the cost efficiency of
                                              the biogas processing unit. Because distributed generation
                                              systems generate and use electricity onsite, these systems
                                              avoid economic losses  associated with the transmission
                                              of electricity, which can be in the range of 4.7% to 7.8%
                                              (Southern Research Institute, 2004b). Waste heat recov-
                                              ery also provides an opportunity to significantly reduce
                                              fossil fuel consumption in boilers, furnaces, and other gen-
                                              eration devices. Although cost savings vary depending on
                                              the configuration of the individual installation and the cost
                                              of electricity and fuels,  these savings can be significant, as
                                              noted below:

                                              » The EPA AgSTAR Program estimates  that 2,600
                                               dairy operations and 5,600 swine operations are  po-
                                               tential candidates  for anaerobic  digestion and biogas
                                               use in the United States. It is estimated that these op-
                                               erations could generate 13 million MWh of electricity
                                               per year (U.S. EPA, 2010c). Based on an average elec-
                                               tricity price of $0.10/kWh6 (U.S. DOE, 2010), this
                                               equates to $1.3 billion worth of electricity annually.

                                              » The EPA 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey esti-
                                               mates that there are 544 municipal wastewater  treat-
                                               ment facilities in the United States with influent flow
                                               rates greater than 5 MGD that operate anaerobic digest-
                                               ers. If all of these facilities used their biogas to fuel CHP
                                               systems, approximately 340 MW of electricity could be
                                               generated annually (U.S. EPA, 2004c, as cited in U.S.
                                               EPA, 2007) worth $300 million based on an average
                                               electricity price of $0.10/kWh. Of  the 544 wastewa-
                                               ter treatment facilities that operate anaerobic digesters,
                                              6. Average electricity price is based on the average retail price to ultimate
                                              consumers in all end-use sectors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia
                                              from January 2008 to June 2010 as reported by DOE,
                   In general, a wastewater treatment facility with a total influent flow rate of 4.5 MGD can produce approximately 100 kW
                   of electricity to offset purchased electricity or sell to the grid, and 12.5 million Btu per day of thermal energy that can be
                    used to heat an anaerobic digester and/or for space heating (U.S. EPA, 2010f).
          36

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
  438 facilities could install ETV-verified technologies to
  utilize the biogas produced by the digesters and gener-
  ate electricity or thermal energy, with associated cost
  benefits.

» The  EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program esti-
  mates that 518 landfills currently collect landfill gas for
  energy recovery in the United States. As many as 520
  additional landfills could cost-effectively install waste-
  to-energy systems to convert CH4 emissions into an
  energy resource, producing enough electricity to power
  688,000 homes across the United States (U.S. EPA,
  2010e). Based on an average annual usage of 12,000
  kWh per household (Padgett, et al., 2008) and an aver-
  age electricity price of $0.10/kWh, this would provide
  an estimated annual economic value of $830 million.

Based on the above market potential, energy generation,
and cost benefits associated with waste heat recovery
for various applications, the ETV Program estimated
annual energy generation and cost benefits from appli-
cation of the ETV-verified distributed generation tech-
nologies at 10% and 25% market penetration, as shown
in Exhibit 3.3-4. Estimates for potential energy genera-
tion and cost benefits that could be realized through ap-
plication of ETV-verified distributed generation systems
at wastewater treatment facilities are conservative. As
previously noted, additional benefits could be realized if
market scenarios are based on the total number of treat-
ment facilities with flow rates suitable for performing an-
                                       NATCO THIOPAQ  system with aerobic bioreactor and scrubber
                                                installed at a water pollution control facility.

                                     aerobic digestion. Appendix B describes the assumptions
                                     and methodologies used for these calculations.

                                     Outcomes also have been estimated for actual applica-
                                     tions of verified technologies, as discussed below:

                                     * The Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 379 (200
                                       kW) Engine/Generator Set with Integrated CHP
                                       System has been installed at Patterson Farms in Au-
                                       burn, New York—the ETV-verification site—since
                                       2005. Because Patterson Farms is located near Cayuga
                                       Lake, a popular recreation area, the farm constructed
                                       an anaerobic digester to help control odor and other
                                       emissions and improve manure management. The
                                       CHP system provides heat to maintain the digester
                                       and electricity for the facility. Food waste from a near-
                                       by Kraft Foods factory is combined with dairy manure
Exhibit 3.3-4
Estimated Potential Energy Generation and Cost Benefits of Using ETV-Verified Distributed
Generation Technologies
   Application
    Market      Number of
  Penetration     Facilities
                                                   Annual Energy
                                                  Generation (MW)
                                                               Annual Cost Benefits*
                                            Lower Bound   Upper Bound   Lower Bound    Upper Bound
 Animal Feeding   i      10%          82°         320,000    |    1.4 million   |    $32 million    j   $140 million
i Operations

I Landfills

i Wastewater
1 Treatment
! Facilities
25%
! 10%
25%

10%
25%
1 2,100
! 52
130

44
110
820,000 | 3.5 million
64,000 75,000
160,000 190,000
I Annual Energy Generation
i (MW)
74,000
190,000
| $82 million j $350 million j
! $6.4 million i $7.5 million i
! $16 million ! $19 million i
i Annual Cost Benefits* \
$7.4 million
$19 million
Values rounded to two significant figures.
A Estimated cost benefits are not net benefits and do not take into account capital costs, operation and maintenance, or depreciation; estimates
 include cost benefits associated with electrical and gas offsets only.
                                                                                                            37

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                                    Patterson Farms in Auburn, New York—host site for verification testing of the Martin Machinery
                                               Caterpillar Model 379 internal combustion engine with CHP.
                  for use in the digester. Kraft Foods pays a tipping fee
                  to Patterson Farms, which improves the economics of
                  the system. The digester project includes the following
                  benefits: odor and pathogen reduction; reduced risk of
                  nutrient run-off and leaching; conversion of nutrients
                  for use as plant fertilizer; and potential revenue from
                  sale of excess electricity, tipping fees, and carbon credit
                  sales (U.S. EPA,  2010m). According to a case study
                  by Cornell University, during a 10-month period, the
                  engine/generator set produced on average 4,451 kWh
                  per day of electricity (Gooch and Inglis, 2008). Based
                  on verified performance, the ETV Program estimates
                  that, during the 5-year period of its operation at Pat-
                  terson Farms, the Martin Machinery system has gen-
                  erated nearly 8.4 million kWh of electricity with an
                  estimated economic value of $840,000,  assuming an
                  average electricity price of $0.10/kWh. The farm sells
                  excess electricity back to the grid at a rate of $0.06/
                  kWh. The farm also receives revenue from the sale of
                  carbon credits to  the Chicago Credit Exchange; for a
                  1-year period (2006-2007), these credits were valued
                  at about $8,000 (Gooch and Inglis, 2008). In 2009,
                  Patterson Farms received an EPA ENERGY STAR'
                  CHP Award in recognition of the pollution reduction
                  and energy efficiency associated with its  CHP instal-
                  lation (U.S. EPA, 2010n).

                 » As discussed in Section 3.3.1, nine UTC PureCell™
                  Model 200 fuel cells were in operation at five waste-
                  water treatment  plants managed by the New York
                  City Department of Environmental Protection  and
                  located in or near New York City (eight still are in op-
                  eration at four sites). The vendor reports that, through
                  July 2010, the nine sites have cumulatively generated
                  56,000 MWh of electricity (Staniunas, 2010a). Based
                  on an average electricity price of $0.10/kWh, the ETV
                  Program calculates that this has resulted in economic
                  benefits of $5.6 million. Per the vendor, three addi-
                                               tional sites—one in Portland, Oregon (operated from
                                               1999 through 2004), and two in Las Virgenes, Cali-
                                               fornia (operated from 1999 to 2002 and 2004, respec-
                                               tively)—generated 13,000 MWh of electricity while in
                                               operation (Staniunas, 2010a). The economic benefit for
                                               these three sites, based on the same average electricity
                                               price, is estimated to be $1.3 million. Nine of the 12
                                               domestic sites at which the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel
                                               cell has been installed have exceeded the 40,000-hour
                                               design life of the fuel cell stack (Staniunas, 2010a). The
                                               vendor also reports that a wastewater treatment facility
                                               in Koln, Germany, used the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel
                                               cell to provide electricity for its  facility using digester
                                               gas from the wastewater treatment process from March
                                               14,2000 to August 6,2009; during that time it logged
                                               approximately 50,000 load hours and generated 6,400
                                               MWh of electricity (Staniunas, 2010b).

                                             For the co-fired boiler systems, because co-firing biomass
                                             with coal at a coahbiomass ratio of 85:15 has no signifi-
                                             cant effect on efficiency, cost savings are realized solely
                                             from the use of wood waste in the place of coal. Although
                                             potentially significant, the total cost savings will depend
                                             on the amount of coal typically used in the boiler, the
                                             price of coal in the given location, and the availability and
                                             cost (if any) of the wood waste (Milster, 2010).

                                             The performance results demonstrated through ETV
                                             verification have been helpful to renewaFUEL's efforts to
                                             commercialize its products. A production-scale research
                                             and development facility in Battle Creek, Michigan, is
                                             owned and operated by renewaFUEL; since ETV veri-
                                             fication, the company has expanded the facility to 60,000
                                             tons-per-year capacity (Mennell, 2010a). The company
                                             is nearing completion on a new $20 million commercial
                                             biomass fuel production facility at  the Teklite Technolo-
                                             gy Park at Sawyer International Airport near Marquette,
                                             Michigan. The renewaFUEL plant will produce 150,000
         38

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
tons of high-energy, low-emitting biomass fuel (Mennell,
2010a; Michigan Renewable Fuels Commission, 2009).
According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture,
there is a lucrative market for crop farmers, woodlot own-
ers, and the forestry industry in Michigan, whose residues
and waste streams can be productively processed into
renewaFUEL's biomass cubes (Michigan Renewable Fu-
els  Commission, 2009). The company provides direct
employment of approximately 35 people in Michigan,
and indirect employment, through the feedstock supply
chain, of approximately 168 people with an annual in-
vestment of more than $5 million into the local economy.
The company's clients include major public universities
and public utilities (Mennell, 2010a).

Federal and state incentive programs provide market driv-
ers  for innovative alternative energy technologies, includ-
ing waste-to-energy  technologies like those verified by
the ETV Program (see text box). For example, the UTC
Power PureCell™ Model 200 could be used to convert
landfill gas to qualify  for Alabama's Biomass Energy Pro-
gram, which provides up to $75,000 in interest subsidy
payments on loans to install approved biomass projects,
including landfill gas projects (Alabama Department of
Economic and Community Affairs, 2010). The NATCO
Group, Inc., Paques THIOPAQ® or USFilter/Westates
Carbon Gas Processing Unit could be used to enable use
of livestock CH4 to qualify for Illinois' Biogas and Bio-
mass to Energy Grant Program, which allows incentives
up to 50% of the total project cost, awards for biogas- or
                                     biomass-to-energy feasibility studies, and grants for bio-
                                     gas-to-energy systems up to $225,000 and for biomass-
                                     to-energy systems up to $500,000 (Illinois Department
                                     of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, 2010).

                                     3.3.3 Regulatory Compliance Outcomes
                                     As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, there are regulatory driv-
                                     ers for creating clean and renewable energy by adopting
                                     innovative technologies. The ETV-verified technologies
                                     described in this case study can be used to meet these regu-
                                     lations, including those set forth by the Clean Air Act, the
                                     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and the
                                     American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

                                     EPA's OAQPS, which collaborated with ETV during
                                     the verification of the biomass co-fired boilers, has de-
                                     veloped a new MACT standard for boilers—the Boiler
                                     Area Source Rule—which includes biomass co-fired
                                     boilers in the 100 to 1,000 MMBtu/h range at indus-
                                     trial, commercial, and institutional facilities. The court-
                                     ordered date for promulgating the rule is December 16,
                                     2010 (Eddinger, 2010). ETV verified the performance of
                                     biomass  co-fired boilers to  support development of the
                                     new MACT standard. Because electricity produced by
                                     biomass  meets the Energy Policy Act of 2005 definition
                                     of renewable energy, co-fired boilers using biomass to
                                     produce  electricity can be used to meet the Act's renew-
                                     able energy requirements (Public Law no. 109-58). This
                                     strong incentive can  increase  the use and acceptance of
                                     co-fired boilers. The Federal Energy Management Pro-
  Under the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, public utilities may qualify
  for incentive payments for generation of electricity from landfill gas, livestock CH4 (anaerobic digestion), or biomass (42
  USC § 13317). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 established a biomass commercial utilization grant program that
  provides grants to facilities that use biomass as a raw material to produce electric energy (Public Law no. 108-148). The
  Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 allows businesses to claim an investment tax credit for using qualifying
  fuel cells, microturbines, or CHP systems; qualifying energy resources include biomass and municipal solid waste (Public
  Law no. 110-343). A renewable energy grant program, created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
  will be administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury that recognizes qualifying fuel cells, microturbines, and CHP sys-
  tems, including those that use biomass (Public Law no. 111-5); this program extended investment tax credits for qualifying
  technologies permitted under the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.

  In addition to federal incentives, most states have enacted renewable portfolio standards or goals—legislative requirements
  for utilities to generate or sell a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Maryland, Montana,
  and the District of Columbia allow energy derived from wastewater treatment plants to count as a renewable source for
  their standards (Council of the  District of Columbia, 2005; State of Maryland, 2007;  State of Montana, 2005), and many
  states accept co-firing with biomass as a renewable energy source. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia have
  renewable portfolio standards or goals that include landfill gas (U.S. EPA, 2010J). Virtually all states have implemented
  loans, grants, rebates, environmental regulations, or tax credits for CHP and biomass projects (2010d). The Database of
  State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (http://www.dsireusa.org) is a comprehensive source of information on
   state, local, utility, and federal incentives and policies that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.
                                                                                                             39

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                   "Prior to 2001, there was little or no credible independent test results available for real world
                   emissions or performance data for many new distributed generation/(CHP) technologies such as
                  fuel cells, reciprocating engines, andmicroturbines. Recognizing this need, a collaborative program
                   between NYSERDA, Southern Research Institute, and EPA was developed under the ETV Program
                   that established a protocol for field testing of these new technologies...The timely, accurate data
                   obtained from this testing has helped guide NYSERDA's program and has been valuable in program
                   metrics assessment. In addition, with the performance data developed under this program, technol
                   ogy buyers, financiers, and permitting authorities in the United States and abroad will be better
                   equipped to make informed decisions regarding environmental technology purchase and use."
                    James Foster, Project Manager for Transportation and Power Systems Research, NYSERDA (Foster, 2010).
                gram is examining the feasibility of switching existing
                federal coal-fired boilers to  co-fired boilers utilizing
                biomass (Federal Energy Management Program, 2004).
                This move would significantly increase the number of
                co-fired boilers currently operating in the United States.
                According to renewaFUEL, LLC, a third-party organi-
                zation under consent decree modified its decree based on
                proposed use of the company's wood  pellets and the re-
                sulting anticipated emission decreases  (Mennell, 2010b).

                3.3.4 Technology Acceptance and
                Use Outcomes
                With growing concerns about fossil fuel depletion and
                GHG atmospheric increases,  waste-to-energy technolo-
                gies are becoming more commonplace. Access to reliable
                information on the performance of these technologies is
                an essential element of this acceptance. The ETV Program
                allows the capabilities of verified technologies to be dem-
                onstrated and documented. Vendors  believe that ETV
                verification provides them with greater marketing power
                for their verified technologies, as  shown by the mention
                of ETV verification in vendor press releases, marketing
                materials, and company Web sites (Capstone Turbine
                Corporation, 2003; UTC Power, 2005; Cleveland-Cliffs,
                Inc., 2007). Others also use  ETV data to discuss  the
                performance of waste-to-energy technologies in relevant
                literature. For example, the Intermountain CHP Center,
                formed by DOE to increase CHP use and installation in
                five Western states, profiled Colorado Pork, LLC, high-
                lighting the ETV verification of  the Martin Machinery
                Caterpillar Model 3306  CHP system and the Capstone
                Model C30 microturbine that the company installed to
                use digester gas produced at its facility  (Intermountain
                                            CHP Center, 2004). The American Society of Healthcare
                                            Engineering also featured an article about the ETV Pro-
                                            gram in its Inside ASHE journal. The article profiled ETV
                                            verification of energy technologies, including the Capstone
                                            Model C30 microturbine and the UTC Power PureCell™
                                            Model 200 system discussed in this case study (American
                                            Society of Healthcare Engineering, 2008).

                                            ETV has strong partnerships with NYSERDA and
                                            DoD s  ESTCP, both of which are committed to increasing
                                            innovative technology evaluation and acceptance to solve
                                            energy and environmental challenges; these joint efforts
                                            lead to wider acceptance. NYSERDA has contributed
                                            support for several distributed generation/CHP technol-
                                            ogy verifications through Program Opportunity Notices
                                            (PONs), which can be used to co-fund innovative envi-
                                            ronmental technology demonstrations and verifications.
                                            Two of these notices mentioned the ETV Program and
                                            have resulted in funding support for verifications. PON
                                            768, released in 2003, solicited proposals for converting
                                            waste streams into energy resources (NYSERDA, 2003).
                                            Three  of the technologies discussed in this case study
                                            were verified with co-funding obtained through this op-
                                            portunity: the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 379
                                            Internal Combustion Engine, installed at Patterson Farms
                                            (Auburn, New York), and the combined PureCell™ Model
                                            200 fuel cell and USFilter/Westates Carbon gas process-
                                            ing unit, installed at the Red Hook Water Pollution Con-
                                            trol Plant (Brooklyn, New York).

                                            DoD's ESTCP currently is working with ETV on joint
                                            performance verification of microturbines that utilize re-
                                            newable fuel. The objective is to determine the economic
                                            and environmental benefits of the technology at DoD
         40

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
landfills and other sources of low-value, low-Btu waste
streams. Potential benefits to DoD from use of this tech-
nology include:  (1) expanded use of both renewable and
domestic energy resources for sustainable and secure en-
ergy production; (2) emissions reductions associated with
vented or flared landfill and other waste gases and offset of
utility power production; (3) cost savings associated with
the reduction in electrical purchases from the grid and fuel
needed to flare waste gas; (4) an estimated payback of 3 to
6 years, depending on the site; (5) applicability to many
DoD landfill installations, as well as other waste streams;
and (6) extended power generation life-cycles for landfills
(by more than 40 years) resulting from low-energy landfill
gas requirements (Hansen, 2009).

Per publicly available information, verified vendors are
marketing their technologies abroad. Capstone Turbine
Corporation is working with China to increase biogas
use in Asia. The technology, similar to the microturbine
discussed in this case study, will be installed in several
Chinese provinces to harness CH4 waste from landfills
and wastewater treatment facilities (Capstone Turbine
Corporation, 2009).

According to renewaFUEL, LLC, the company pro-
vided the results from the ETV verification of the bio-
mass co-fired boilers to assist in the permit analysis and
permitting of test burns in Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Ohio at universities, public utilities, and
large industrial operations (Mennell, 2010a). Also, the
Michigan Department of Agriculture  is collaborating
with renewaFUEL, which has resulted in commercial
biomass fuel production facilities in Battle  Creek and at
the Teklite Technology Park near Marquette. In its 2008
annual report, the Michigan Department of Agriculture's
Renewable Fuels Commission describes the collabora-
tion and reports that renewaFUEL's products have been
tested by ETV and demonstrated substantial creditable
emissions reductions compared to coal  (Michigan Re-
newable Fuels Commission, 2009). Municipal utilities,
industries, and other institutions are expected to pur-
chase the renewaFUEL product for  boiler and furnace
applications to generate electricity, heat, or steam (Michi-
gan Renewable Fuels Commission, 2009).
                                    3.3.5 Scientific Advancement Outcomes
                                    ETV verification of waste-to-energy technologies has
                                    resulted in scientific advancement, including improve-
                                    ments in technology performance and standardization of
                                    technology evaluation. According to renewaFUEL, LLC,
                                    ETV verification was helpful in directing the company's
                                    research toward improved fuels and operating practices.
                                    High NOx emissions during the ETV verification test-
                                    ing led to analysis  and development of recommended
                                    operating practices for combustion of renewaFUEL
                                    products and development of patent-pending additives
                                    that result in greater nitrogen capture in ash, which in
                                    turn lowers NOx emissions. The operating practices and
                                    patent-pending technologies have, through subsequent
                                    testing, demonstrated significant decreases in NOx emis-
                                    sions when renewaFUEL is co-fired with coal compared
                                    to a coal-only scenario  (Mennell, 2010a).

                                    One of the testing host sites for ETV verification of bio-
                                    mass co-fired boilers, UI, currently is experimenting with
                                    poplar wood chips for co-firing and most likely will use a
                                    local source of wood chips on a more permanent basis in
                                    the near future. The university also co-fires oat hulls in
                                    its circulating fluidized bed boiler, sustaining an average
                                    of 50% heat input from the oat hulls, which are obtained
                                    from the Quaker Oats production plant in Cedar Rap-
                                    ids, about 20 miles  from the university  (Milster, 2010).
                                    According to the facility, the ETV verification of biomass
                                    co-fired boilers has been useful in helping UI continue to
                                    pursue biomass co-firing (Milster, 2010).

                                    Other benefits of ETV verification include the devel-
                                    opment of a well-accepted protocol that has advanced
                                    efforts to standardize  protocols across programs. The
                                    Generic Verification Protocol for Distributed Generation
                                    and Combined Heat and Power Field Testing originally
                                    was developed by Southern Research Institute for the
                                    Association of State Energy Research and Technology
                                    Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI) and was adopted by
                                    the Greenhouse Gas Technology Center and published
                                    as an ETV protocol (Southern Research Institute, 2005).
                                    The protocol also was adopted by ASERTTI, DOE, and
                                    state energy  offices as  a national standard protocol for
                                    field testing.
                                                                                                         41

-------
3.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
               Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Case Study:
               ASERTTI   Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions
               Btu          British thermal unit
               CH4         methane
               CHP        combined heat and power
               CO          carbon monoxide
               CO2         carbon dioxide
               CO2e        carbon dioxide equivalent
               DoD        U.S. Department of Defense
               DOE        U.S. Department of Energy
               ESTCP      Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
               ESTE       Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
               g/h          grams per hour
               GHG       greenhouse gas
               H2S         hydrogen sulfide
               IPCC       Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
               kW          kilowatt
               kWh        kilowatt-hour
               Ibs          pounds
               Ibs/h        pounds per hour
               Ibs/kWh     pounds per kilowatt-hour
               MACT      maximum achievable control technology
               MGD       millions of gallons per day
               MMBtu/h   British thermal unit per hour
               MW        megawatt
               MWh       megawatt-hour
               N2O         nitrous oxide
               NaOH      sodium hydroxide
               NPDES     National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
               NOx         nitrogen oxides
               NYPA      New York Power Authority
               NYSERDA  New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
               OAQPS     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
               PM          particulate matter
               PON        Program Opportunity Notice
               ppb          parts per billion
               ppm         parts per million
               ppmv        parts per million by volume
               REC        Rapids Energy Center
               SO2         sulfur dioxide
               Tg CO2e     teragrams of carbon dioxide equivalent
               THCs       total hydrocarbons
               UI          University of Iowa
               USDA      U.S. Department of Agriculture
               VOC        volatile organic compound
         42

-------
 ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies:  Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                                                  3.4
 3.4 REFERENCES
 40 CFR Part 133.2007. Code of Federal Regulations Title 40—
 Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Protection
 Agency. Part 133: Secondary Treatment Regulation. 1 July.

 40 CFR Part 503. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations Title
 40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental
 Protection Agency. Part 503:  Standards for the Use or Disposal of
 Sewage Sludge, 1 July.

 42 USC § 13317. United States Code,  Title 42. The Public Health
 and Welfare. Chapter 134:  Energy Policy, Renewable Energy (24
 October 1992).

 549 U.S. 497. 2007. Massachusetts v. EPA. Supreme Court
 ruling.

 68 FR 7175. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
 Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Con-
 centrated Animal feeding Operations (CAFOs); Final Rule. Federal
 Register 68, no. 29 (12 February 2003).

 70 FR 65984. Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle
 National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Proposed Rule. Federal
 Register 70, no. 210 (1 November 2005).

 71 FR 53271. Standards of Performance, Emission Guidelines, and
 Federal Plan for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and National
 Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Municipal Solid
 Waste Landfills; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 71, no. 174 (8
 September 2006).

 73 FR 70417. Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
 System Permit Regulation and Effluent  Limitations Guidelines
for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to the
 Waterkeeper Decision; Final Rule. Federal Register 73, no. 225
 (20 November 2008).

 74 FR 56260. Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final
 Rule. Federal Register 74, no. 209 (30 October 2009).

 74 FR 66496. Endangerment  and Cause or Contribute Findings for
 Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final
 Ruk. Federal Register 74, no. 239 (15 December 2009).

 Alabama Department of Economic and Community  Affairs.
 2010. Biomass Energy Program, http://www.adeca.state.al.us/
 C16/Biomass%20Energy%20Program/default.aspx Last accessed
 ljuly.

 American Society of Healthcare Engineering. 2008. Nothing But
 the Green Truth: EPAs Environmental Technologies Verification
 Program. Inside ASHA 16:(3)31-34. http://www.energystar.gov/
 ia/business/healthcare/ashe_may_june_2008.pdf

 California Integrated Waste  Management Board. 2001. Conver-
 sion Technologies for Municipal Residuals Forum Background
 Paper and Findings on Barriers, 22 May.

 Capstone Turbine Corporation. 2003. Capstone MicroTurbine
 Fleet Amasses S Million Operating Hours. Press Release. 25 No-
 vember, http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=272

 Capstone Turbine Corporation. 2009. Capstone Turbine Names
 Two Distributors in China for Fast-Growing Biogas Market; C6S
 Sold for Landfill Power Generation in Beijing. Press release. 2 De-
 cember, http://www.capstoneturbine.com/news/story.asp?id=538
                                          Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. 2007. Cleveland-Cliffs Acquires 70% of
                                          "Green" Energy Company, Press release. 20 December.

                                          Council of the District of Columbia. 2005. Bill A1S-7SS: Renew-
                                          able Energy Portfolio Standard Act of 2004.19 January.

                                          Eddinger J. 2010. E-mail communication. U.S. EPA Energy
                                          Strategies Group. 11 March.

                                          Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 2010. Combined Heat
                                          and Power Installation Database, http://www.eea-inc.com/chp-
                                          data/index.html. Last accessed 7 July.

                                          ETV. 2009. Waste-to-Energy Fueled  Technologies, TechBrief.
                                          EPA/600/S-09/027. October.

                                          Federal Energy Management Program. 2004. Biomass Cofir-
                                          mg in Coal-Fired Boilers. Federal Technology  Alert. DOE/
                                          EE-0288.June.

                                          Foster J. 2010 E-mail communication. New York State Energy
                                          Research and Development Authority. 23 July.

                                          Gooch C and Ingliss S. 2008. Anaerobic Digestion at Patterson
                                          Farms, Inc.: Case Study. Case Study AD-10. Cornell University.
                                          February.

                                          Hansen T 2009. Joint Demonstration and Verification of the
                                          Performance of Microturbine Power Generation Systems Utilizing
                                          Renewable Fuels with the U.S. EPAs Environmental Technology
                                          Verification Program, DoD  ESTCP Project Number SI200823
                                          Fact Sheet.

                                          Hansen T. 2010a. E-mail communication. Southern Research
                                          Institute. 30 June.

                                          Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.
                                          2010. Biogas and Biomass to Energy Grant Program.  http://www.
                                          commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Energy_Recyclmg/Energy/
                                          Clean+Energy/02-BiogasBioMass.htm Last accessed 1 July.

                                          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007a.
                                          Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution  of Working
                                          Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergov-
                                          ernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.

                                          IPCC. 2007b. Climate Change 2007—The Physical Science Basis:
                                          Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
                                          of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press.

                                          Intermountain CHP Center. 2004. Project Profile: Colorado
                                          Pork 11 S-kW Renewable CHP Application. December, http://
                                          www.chpcentermw.org/rac_profiles/mtermountain/Colorado_
                                          Pork_Project_Profile.pdf

                                          Krich K, Augenstein D, Batmale JP, Benemann J, Rutledge B,
                                          and Salour D. 2005. Biomethane from Dairy Waste:  A Source-
                                          book for the Production  and  Use of Renewable Natural Gas in
                                          California, Western United Dairy men. July.

                                          Mennell J. 2010a. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
                                          26 July.

                                          Mennell, J. 2010b. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
                                          5 August.

                                          Mennell, J. 2010c. E-mail communication. renewaFUEL, LLC.
                                          10 August.
                                                                                                                           43

-------
3.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                   Methane to Markets Partnership. 2010. http://www.methaneto-
                   markets.org. Last accessed 13 January 2010.

                   Milster PR 2010. E-mail communication. University of Iowa.
                   10 March.

                   Michigan Renewable Fuels Commission. 2009. Renewable fuels
                   Commission 2008 Annual Report, February. http://www.michi-
                   gan.gov/documents/mda/RFC2008AR_270824_7.pdf

                   Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1998. Facts About Air
                   Quality Permits for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
                   AQ Document. #5.10. May.

                   Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Clean
                   Air Act of Montana. Title 75: Environmental Protection. Chapter
                   2:  Air Quality.

                   National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2003. Gas-
                   Fired Distributed Energy Resource Technology Characterizations.
                   A joint project of the Gas Research Institute (GRI) and NREL.
                   Prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
                   Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. October.

                   New York Power Authority. 2010. PowerNow! Small, Clean
                   Plants, http://www.nypa.gov/facilities/powernow.htm. Last ac-
                   cessed 22 July.

                   New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
                   (NYSERDA). 2003. Environmental Product &• Process Technol-
                   ogy Program Opportunity Notice 768,

                   Padgett JP Steinemann AC, Clarke JH, and Vandenbergh MR
                   2008. A Comparison of Carbon Calculators. Environmental
                   Impact Assessment Review 28(2-3);106—115.

                   Public Law no. 108-148. 2003. Healthy Forests Restoration Act
                   0/2003.

                   Public Law no. 109-58. 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005.

                   Public Law no. 110-140. 2007. Energy Independence and Security
                   Act of 2007.

                   Public Law no. 110-343. 2008. Energy Improvement and Exten-
                   sion Act of 2008.

                   Public Law no. 111-5. 2009. The American Recovery and Rein-
                   vestment Act of 2009.

                   Southern Research Institute. 1998. Electric Power Generation
                   Using a Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell on a Municipal Solid Waste
                   Landfill Gas Stream. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technol-
                   ogy Center, Southern Research Institute, Under a Cooperative
                   Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-
                   VS-GHG-01. August.

                   Southern Research Institute. 2004a. Environmental Technology
                   Verification Report:  Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat Produc-
                   tion—Capstone 30 kW Microturbine System. Prepared by Green-
                   house Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Under
                   a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
                   Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.

                   Southern Research Institute. 2004b. Environmental Technology
                   Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Generation Using
                   UTC Fuel Cells' PC25C Power Plant and Anaerobic Digester
                   Gas. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, South-
                                                   ern Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the
                                                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-
                                                   VR-26. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2004c. Environmental Technology
                                                   Verification Report: UTC Fuel Cells PC25C Power Plant—Gas
                                                   Processing Unit Performance for Anaerobic Digester Gas. Prepared
                                                   by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research
                                                   Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environ-
                                                   mental Protection Agency and under agreement with the New
                                                   York State Energy Research and Development Authority. SRI/
                                                   USEPA-GHG-VR-26b. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2004d. Environmental Technol-
                                                   ogy Verification Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat
                                                   Production—Martin Machinery Internal Combustion Engine.
                                                   Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern
                                                   Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
                                                   Environmental Protection Agency and under agreement with
                                                   the Colorado Governor's Office of Energy Management and
                                                   Conservation. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2004e. Environmental Technology
                                                   Verification Report: NATCO Group, Inc.—Paaues THIOPAQ
                                                   Gas Purification Technology. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Tech-
                                                   nology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a coopera-
                                                   tive agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                                                   SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-32. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2005. Generic Verification Protocol
                                                   for Distributed Generation and Combined Heat and Power Field
                                                   Testing Protocol, Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Cen-
                                                   ter, Southern Research Institute, under a cooperative agreement
                                                   with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-
                                                   GHG-GVP-34. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2007. Environmental Technology
                                                   Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Production Using
                                                   Renewable Biogas at Patterson Farms. Prepared by Greenhouse
                                                   Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a
                                                   cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
                                                   Agency and under agreement with the New York State Energy
                                                   Research and Development Authority. SRI/USEPA-GHG-
                                                   VR-43. September.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2008a. Environmental and Sustain-
                                                   able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
                                                   Boilers—Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center. Prepared by
                                                   Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Insti-
                                                   tute, under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmen-
                                                   tal Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work
                                                   Assignment No. 2-8-101. April.

                                                   Southern Research Institute. 2008b. Environmental and Sustain-
                                                   able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
                                                   Boilers—University of Iowa. Prepared by Greenhouse Gas
                                                   Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, under a
                                                   cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection
                                                   Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work Assignment
                                                   No. 2-8-10 I.April.

                                                   Staniunas J. 2010a. E-mail communication. UTC Power. 21
                                                   July.

                                                   Staniunas J. 2010b. E-mail communication. UTC Power. 31
                                                   August.
           44

-------
ChapterB
Waste-to-Energy Technologies: Power Generation and Heat Recovery
                                                                                                                                 3.4
State of Maryland. 2007. Senate Bill 595: Renewable Energy
Portfolio Standard, 24 April.

State of Montana. 2005. Senate Bill 415: Montana Renewable Power
Production and Rural Economic Development Act, 28 April.

Tolrud D. 2010. E-mail communication. Minnesota Power. 10
March.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Technical Re-
sources: Animal Feeding Operations and Confined Animal Feeding
Operations, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 6 October.

USDA. 2010a. Energy Self Assessment:  Renewable Tools—Bio-
gas, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.
ruralenergy.wisc.edu/renewable/biogas/default_biogas.aspx,Last
accessed 3 September.

USDA. 2010b.  USDA Rural Development: Business and Coop-
erative Programs, Rural Development, http://www.rurdev.usda.
gov/rbs/busp/bprogs.htm. Last accessed 23 September.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2000. Biomass Coftring: A
Renewable Alternative for Utilities. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. DOE/GO-102000-1055. June.

U.S. DOE. 2004. Federal Technology Alert: Biomass Coftring
in Coal-Fired Boilers, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
DOE/EE-0288.June.

U.S. DOE. 2008. Fuel Cells:  Basics. Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. Last updated 19 December, http://
www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html

U.S. DOE. 2010. Electric Power Monthly. 19 July. http://www.
eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/tableS_3.html

U.S. EPA. 1998. NCh How Nitrogen Oxides Affect the  Way We
Live and Breathe. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North  Carolina. EPA-456/F-98-005.
September.

U.S. EPA. 2000. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide. Office
of Research and Development. EPA 600/P-99/001F.June.

U.S. EPA. 2002. Managing Manure With Biogas Recovery
Systems: Improved Performance  at Competitive Cost. Office of Air
and Radiation. EPA-430-F-02-004. Winter.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet:
Fabric Filter—Pulse-Jet Cleaned  Type. EPA-452/F-03-025.

U.S. EPA. 2004a. Risk Assessment  Evaluation for Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations. EPA/600/R-04/042. May.

U.S. EPA. 2004b. Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Systems, Office of Water. EPA 832-R.-04-001. September.

U.S. EPA. 2004c. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Dataset,
http://www.epa.gov/cwns/cwns2004db.mdb

U.S. EPA. 2006a. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery
Systems: A Guide to Identifying  Candidates for On-Farm and
Centralized Systems. EPA-430-8-06-004. August.

U.S. EPA. 2006b. Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse
Gas Emissions: 1990-2020, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
EPA 430-R-06-003. June.
                                          U.S. EPA. 2007. Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat
                                          and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Office of Air and
                                          Radiation, Combined Heat and Power Partnership. EPA-
                                          430-R.-07-003. April.

                                          U.S. EPA. 2008a. Catalog ofCHP Technologies, December.
                                          http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_full.pdf

                                          U.S. EPA. 2008b. 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Report
                                          to Congress, January, http://www.epa.gov/cwns/2004rtc/cwn-
                                          s2004rtc.pdf

                                          U.S. EPA. 2008c. Frequently Asked Questions About Landfill Gas
                                          and How It Affects Public Health, Safety, and the Environment,
                                          Office of Air and Radiation. June.

                                          U.S. EPA. 2009a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And
                                          Sinks:  1990-2007, EPA 430-R-04-004.15 April.

                                          U.S. EPA. 2009b. Frequently Asked Questions About Global
                                          Warming and Climate Change:  Back to Basics, Office of Air and
                                          Radiation. EPA-430-R08-016. April.

                                          U.S. EPA. 2009c. Health Impacts ofSO2. Last updated 17 No-
                                          vember. http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2009d. Climate Choice. Last updated 12 November.
                                          http://www.epa.gov/cppd/climatechoice

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010a. Methane, Last updated 5 March. http://www.
                                          eva.pov/methane/index.html
                                          L  £>

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010b. The AgSTAR Program: Guide to Anaerobic
                                          Digesters, Last updated 28 January, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/
                                          operational.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010c. Status, Opportunities, and Barriers in the U.S.
                                          Agricultural Digester Market. Presented at the Fifth AgSTAR
                                          National Conference, Green Bay, WI, April 27,2010.

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010d. Combined Heat and Power Partnership Fund-
                                          ing Resources. Last updated 30 June, http://www.epa.gov/chp/
                                         funding/fmancial.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010e. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Last
                                          updated 14 July, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/mdex.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010f. CHP Strategic Markets—Municipal Wastewa-
                                          ter Treatment Facilities. Last updated 3 June, http://www.epa.
                                          gov/CHP/markets/wastewater.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010g. An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality:  Carbon
                                          Monoxide, Last updated 23 April, http://www.epa.gov/iaq/
                                          co.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010h. Anaerobic Digesters, AgSTAR. Last updated
                                          24 September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/anaerobic/index.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010i. Animal Feeding Operations, Last updated 2
                                          June, http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/anafoidx.html

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010J. State Renewable Portfolio Standards. Last
                                          updated 29 June, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/publications-tools/
                                          fundinf-fuide/renewable.html
                                         j     & &

                                          U.S. EPA. 2010k. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the
                                          United States, Landfill Methane Outreach Program. May.
                                                                                                                          45

-------
3.4
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                   U.S. EPA. 20101. Emissions Standards for Boilers and Process
                   Heaters and Commercial/Industrial Solid Waste Incinerators, Last
                   updated 29 June, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/
                   index.html

                   U.S. EPA. 2010m. AgSTAR Projects: Patterson Farms. Last
                   updated 24  September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/projects/
                   profiles/pattersonfarms.html

                   U.S. EPA. 2010n. Winners of the 2009 ENERGY STAR" CHP
                   Award, http://epa.gov/chp/documents/past_award_wmners.pdf,
                   Last Accessed 22 July.

                   U.S. EPA. 2010o. LFG Energy Project Development Handbook.
                   Chapter 3: Project Technology Options, Landfill Methane Out-
                   reach Program. January, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/
                   pdfs/pdh_chapter3.pdf
                                                   U.S. EPA. 2010p. AgSTAR Program Accomplishments: New
                                                   York, Last updated 24 September, http://www.epa.gov/agstar/
                                                   projects/mdex.html#ny

                                                   UTC Power. 2005. PureCell™ 200 Heat &• Power Solution.
                                                   Marketing brochure, http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/content/
                                                   images/articles/PCell_Broch.pdf

                                                   UTC Power. 2007. Creating Clean Power with Free Fuel From
                                                   Anaerobic Digester Gas With the PureCell' Model 200 Fuel Cell
                                                   Powerplant. 24 January.
           46

-------
Appendix A.
Methods for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technologies Outcomes
Appendix  A.  Methods for Decentralized
Wastewater  Treatment Technologies Outcomes
A.I NUMBER OF SYSTEMS
The ETV Program used two approaches to estimate the
potential market for the verified decentralized waste-
water treatment technology described in Chapter 2.
According to estimates provided by Tetra Tech, under
contract to EPA, current (as of 2010) new home con-
struction in the United States averages approximately
500,000 units per year. Approximately 25% of new
development (i.e., about 125,000 homes annually) cur-
rently uses individual and cluster wastewater treatment
systems. Of this number, around 5% are served specifi-
cally by cluster systems. An average of five homes are
served by each cluster (Tonning, 2010a). Using this ap-
proach, ETV calculated that the potential market for
the verified  technology is approximately  1,250 cluster
systems per year. These estimates do not include cluster
system installations that replace existing subdivision sep-
tic systems that are malfunctioning; this number is negli-
gible because cluster systems generally are repaired rather
than replaced if they malfunction (Tonning, 2010a).

In 1999, EPA estimated via modeling that there were
about 353,000 large capacity septic systems (similar to
cluster systems) in the United States, which represented
approximately 0.3% of all U.S. homes at the time (U.S.
EPA, 1999). Currently, there are approximately 128 mil-
lion homes in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau,
2008). Assuming that these systems represent 0.3% of
the 128 million homes, the ETV Program calculated that
there are 384,000 potential/estimated large capacity sep-
tic systems in the United States. Housing stock is replaced
at an annual rate of approximately 0.4% of the total num-
ber of homes each year (Tonning, 2010a). ETV assumed
that these large capacity septic systems are installed at ap-
proximately the same rate as new home construction and
calculated that 1,540 new systems are installed each year.

These two approaches led to respective estimates of
1,250 and 1,540 cluster systems installed annually in the
United States. The ETV Program calculated the approx-
imate average of these two estimates and performed pol-
lutant reduction calculations assuming that 1,400 new
cluster systems are installed in the United States annu-
ally and that each system serves an average of five homes.
The total number of estimated homes ETV used for its
calculations  was 7,000. It should be noted that because
                                 of the current U.S. economy, new home construction has
                                 decreased by 50%; the potential market could be as high
                                 as 2,500 to 3,000 systems annually (12,500 to 15,000
                                 homes) as the economy improves (Tonning, 2010b).


                                 A.2 POLLUTANT REDUCTION
                                 The ETV Program estimated pollutant reductions from
                                 actual application  of the ETV-verified decentralized
                                 wastewater treatment technology at current and pend-
                                 ing installations, as well as from potential application
                                 of the verified technology at 10% and 25% of the total
                                 market. Using assumptions regarding daily water use, ni-
                                 trogen concentration and reduction, biochemical oxygen
                                 demand (BOD) concentration and reduction, and total
                                 suspended solids (TSS) concentration and reduction,
                                 the ETV Program calculated the annual pollutant re-
                                 ductions from potential application of the ETV-verified
                                 technology, when compared to the performance of tra-
                                 ditional septic systems. These estimates assume average
                                 water usage of 179.2 gallons per day, per household,
                                 based on the following data: average flow of 70 gallons
                                 per person per day (U.S. EPA, 2009) and 2.56 people
                                 per household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). They as-
                                 sume minimum wastewater influent concentrations of
                                 38 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for nitrogen, 230 mg/L
                                 for  BOD, and 170 mg/L for TSS (the concentrations
                                 used in ETV verification testing). Based on technology
                                 performance observed during verification, these esti-
                                 mates assume mean total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitro-
                                 gen and nitrite plus nitrate), BOD, and TSS reduction
                                 efficiencies of 88%, 98%, and 96%, respectively, achieved
                                 by the full treatment system. For these calculations,
                                 traditional septic systems are considered to be systems
                                 that discharge their effluent to soil, sand, or other media
                                 absorption fields for further treatment through biologi-
                                 cal processes, adsorption, filtration, and infiltration into
                                 underlying soils (U.S. EPA, 2002). Based on these pa-
                                 rameters, these estimates assume the following treatment
                                 performance for traditional septic systems:  total nitro-
                                 gen removal rate of 80% (U.S. EPA, 2002) and BOD
                                 and TSS removal rates of 58% and 75%, respectively
                                 (Bounds, 1997). Because the calculations use minimum
                                 influent concentrations and are based on a conservative
                                 estimate of the total potential market, the estimates for
                                 pollutant reduction outcomes are conservative.
                                                                                                47

-------
A.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                 It also is important to note that, for four of the five cur-
                 rent and pending installation sites detailed in the case
                 study, pollution reduction estimates as compared to the
                 performance of traditional septic system may be conser-
                 vative. According to the vendor, nitrogen impairment in
                 each of these areas is significant  enough that construc-
                 tion would not have  been approved without the  avail-
                 ability of the ETV-verified decentralized wastewater
                 treatment technology or an alternative treatment tech-
                 nology of equivalent performance (Smith, 2010). The
                 casino site located in Great Falls, Montana, did not have
                 the same nitrogen impairment issues; calculations of pol-
                 lutant reductions at this site as compared to traditional
                 technology are actual.

                 Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program used
                 the following equation to calculate pollutant reductions:

                                  TOTAL ~  TECH    TRAD
                 Where:
                            is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.
                   * RfgcH is the pollution reduction in tons per year
                     achieved by the verified system.

                   * RTRAD is the pollution reduction in tons per year
                     achieved by a traditional system.

                 For the current and pending installation sites outlined
                 in the case study, RTECH and R^^ were each calculated
                 with the following equation:
                                 R = (W x PC x %PR]

                 Where:
                   * R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year for
                     either the verified system or traditional system.

                   * W is the combined (annual or 3-year) amount of water
                     handled by the system converted to liters.

                   * PC is the minimum influent pollutant concentration
                     converted to tons per liter.

                   * %PR is the percent pollution reduction observed in
                     the verified system or traditional system.

                 For the potential market penetration scenarios outlined
                 in the case study, RIECH and R^^ were each calculated
                 with the following equation:
                             R = (W x  PC  x %PR) x %MP

                 Where:

                   * R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year for
                     either the verified system or traditional system.

                   * W is the combined annual amount of water handled
                     by the system converted to liters.
                                                 * PC is the minimum influent pollutant concentration
                                                   converted to tons per liter.

                                                 * %PR is the percent pollution reduction observed in
                                                   the verified system or traditional system.

                                                 * %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
                                                   of systems) for the verified decentralized wastewater
                                                   treatment system.

                                               Average daily reductions were calculated with one of the
                                               following equations:
                                               Where:

                                                 * RAVGDAILY *s ^ daily average reduction in pounds per
                                                   day.

                                                 * R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.

                                                 * 1095 is the number of days the installed sites operated
                                                   for the calculated R.

                                                 * 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.

                                                        RANNUALAVCOA.LV  = (R/365) X 2000
                                               Where:

                                                 * RANNUALAVGDAILY is the dail7 average reduction in
                                                   pounds per day.

                                                 * R is the total pollution reduction in tons per year.

                                                 * 365 is the number of days in a year.

                                                 * 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.


                                               A.3  REFERENCES
                                               Bounds TR. 1997. Design and Performance of Septic Tanks. In:
                                               Bedinger MS, Johnson AI, and  Fleming JS. Site Characterization
                                               and Design ofOnsite Septic Systems. Philadelphia: American Society
                                               for Testing Materials.

                                               Smith C. 2010. E-mail communication. International Wastewater
                                               Systems, Inc. 6 January.

                                               Tonning B. 2010a. E-mail communication. Tetra Tech. 17 March.

                                               Tonning B. 2010b. Personal communication. Tetra Tech. March.

                                               US. Census Bureau. 2008. American Housing Survey for the United
                                               States: 2007. H-150-07. September, http://www.census.gov/hhes/
                                               www/housing/ahs/ahs07/ahs07.html

                                               US. Census Bureau. 2009. Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual
                                               Social and Economic Supplement: Table AVG1. January. http://www.
                                               census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2008/tabAVGl.xls

                                               US. EPA. 1999. The Class V Underground Injection Control Study.
                                               Volume 5: Large-Capacity Septic Systems. Office of Ground Water
                                               and Drinking Water. EPA/816-R-99-014e. September.

                                               US. EPA. 2002. Owsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Of-
                                               fice of Water. EPA/625-R-00-008. February.

                                               US. EPA. 2009. Indoor Water Use in the United States. Last up-
                                               dated 16 January, http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.htm
          48

-------
Appendix B.
Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
Appendix  B.  Methods for Waste-to-Energy
Technologies Outcomes	
As outlined in Chapter 3, ETV has verified the perfor-
mance of two biogas processing systems, four distributed
generation energy systems, and two biomass co-fired boil-
ers. All eight systems were operated onsite using either
landfill gas, anaerobic digester gas generated from animal
waste or municipal wastewater sludge, or solid biomass.
The technologies used to process and generate power
from methane (CH4)  or other gaseous waste streams—
the gas processing and distributed generation energy sys-
tems—are generally applicable to more than one sector.
ETV estimated market scenarios and potential outcomes,
including emission reductions, electrical generation, and
cost benefits, associated with use of ETV-verified tech-
nologies by sector or application (see Chapter 3, Section
3.3). Because technology performance could be affected
by the characteristics of the influent waste stream, ETV
calculated outcomes based on the verified performance of
technologies tested at each application.


B.I DISTRIBUTED  GENERATION
SYSTEMS

B.I.I Animal Feeding Operations
There are several parameters that are necessary for ani-
mal feeding operations to be considered economically
feasible candidates for biogas recovery system installa-
tion. One parameter is size; dairy operations with more
than 500 cows and heifers and swine operations with
more than 2,000 sows are good candidates for anaero-
bic digestion and biogas use. The potential for manure-
produced biogas is highest for manure that is  collected
and stored as a liquid, slurry, or semisolid. Therefore,
viable dairy operations include those that use flushed
or scraped freestall barns and drylots for manure collec-
tion, and viable swine operations include those that use
houses with flush, pit recharge, or pull-plug pit systems.
Given these parameters, EPA AgSTAR estimates that
2,600 dairy operations and  5,600 swine operations in
the United States  are potential candidates for anaero-
bic digestion and manure biogas production, for a total
potential market of 8,200 operations (U.S. EPA, 2006).
The ETV Program used the above total number  of fa-
cilities as the basis for its market penetration scenarios.
                                  To estimate emissions reductions associated with use of
                                  ETV-verified technologies at animal feeding operations,
                                  the ETV Program used a range of verification results for
                                  two technologies tested in this application. The upper
                                  bound estimates refer to those obtained using verifica-
                                  tion results for the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model
                                  379 (200 kilowatt [kW]) engine/generator set with inte-
                                  grated combined heat and power (CHP) system tested at
                                  Patterson Farms (Auburn, New York). The lower bound
                                  estimates refer to those obtained using verification results
                                  for the Martin Machinery Caterpillar Model 3306 ST
                                  (100 kW)  engine, generator, and heat exchanger tested
                                  at Colorado Pork (Lamar, Colorado). For both tech-
                                  nologies, Southern Research Institute estimated annual
                                  emissions offsets for carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen
                                  oxides (NO ) by comparing emissions rates of the onsite
                                  distributed generation/CHP systems observed during an
                                  extended monitoring period of the verification test with
                                  documented emissions from baseline electrical power
                                  generation technology (e.g., from nationwide or state/re-
                                  gional power grids) (Southern Research Institute, 2004b,
                                  2007). The verification results for the Caterpillar Model
                                  379 engine include estimated reductions in  CO2 equiva-
                                  lent emissions associated with the use of waste-generated
                                  CH4 as fuel; the verification results for the Caterpillar
                                  Model 3306 ST engine do not include these additional
                                  reductions. Therefore, the upper bound estimates for an-
                                  nual emissions reductions include reductions  from cap-
                                  ture and use of the biogas; the lower bound estimates do
                                  not. Verification results used to  calculate both upper and
                                  lower bound estimates for ETV's emissions reductions
                                  outcomes do not include additional reductions associated
                                  with the recovery and use of waste heat. Estimating these
                                  additional reductions would have required significant re-
                                  sources to conduct baseline greenhouse gas emissions as-
                                  sessments for standard  waste management practices and
                                  was beyond the scope of the ETV verification. Therefore,
                                  verification results include emissions reductions from
                                  electricity generation only.

                                  Annual emissions reductions estimated for the two inter-
                                  nal combustion engines based on verification testing at
                                  animal feeding operations are presented in Exhibit B.l-1.
                                                                                                   49

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                                           Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       Exhibit B.l-1
       Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at Animal Feeding Operations
               Technology*
Annual Emissions
   in Verified
 Application (Ib/
     kWh)B
                                                      Grid Emissions
                                                        (lb/kWh)c
Estimated Annual
 CO2 Equivalent
   Emissions
 Reductions from
 Capture/Use of
   Biogas (Ibs)
  Estimated Annual
Emissions Reductions
Martin Machinery Caterpillar I
Model 379 Engine/Generator I 0.0213 ! 1.43 j 0.00296 j 1.39 j
with Integrated Heat Recovery j
Martin Machinery Caterpillar i j j j j
Model 3306 ST Engine/Genera- j 0.012 j 1.97 ! 0.00655 j 2.02 j
tor and Heat Exchanger
14,300,000 | -29,300 j 14,300,000
NEE I -740 1 6,000
       A The ETV Program does not compare technologies. Order of appearance of technologies in this table does not necessarily reflect technology per-
        formance results.
       B Based on emissions performance during an extended monitoring period of the verification test.
       c Based on estimated U.S. regional annual emissions for equivalent fossil fuel grid power.
       D Annual emissions reductions are based on electrical generation only and do not include additional benefits that may be realized through recovery
        and use of waste heat.
       E NE = Not estimated; reductions in CO2 equivalent emissions associated with the use of waste-generated CH4 as fuel were not estimated for the
        Caterpillar Model 3306 ST engine.
       The ETV Program also verified the performance of a
       third technology, the Capstone Microturbine Corpora-
       tion, Capstone Model  C30 microturbine system at the
       Colorado Pork facility; however,  because of testing
       delays, extended monitoring did not occur and annual
       emissions offset analyses could not be performed. As
       such, emissions reductions  associated with use of the
       Capstone Model C30 microturbine are not included in
       the below outcomes calculations.

       For the potential emissions  reductions, energy genera-
       tion, and cost benefit outcomes calculations, the ETV
       Program assumed that the verified technologies would
       be operating at full load (i.e., 100% of system capacity
       or maximum power command verified during ETV
       testing) at all facilities. This  assumption is based on the
       understanding that the most optimal economics result
       when a system is serving as base-load supply and oper-
       ating at or near full capacity at all times. Many systems
       are being designed to operate at maximum thermal uti-
       lization (full load); in these cases, maximum system
       efficiency is achieved (Hansen, 2010a). For the Martin
       Machinery Caterpillar Model 379, verification results
       presented in Chapter 3 were achieved at 100% system
       capacity,  or 200 kW. ETV also assumed that the bio-
       gas streams and the CHP  requirements of potential
                       installations would be comparable to the facility used
                       during verification. For the Martin Machinery Cater-
                       pillar Model 3306 ST, verification results presented in
                       Chapter 3 were achieved at 45% system capacity, or 45
                       kW of 100 kW total capacity. At the time of verifica-
                       tion, the configuration of the engine's fuel input jets
                       and the low heating value of the input biogas restricted
                       the  engine's power output to approximately 45 kW;
                       this is lower than the manufacturer's recommended
                       capacity for this system (100 kW).This system was an
                       early attempt at digester gas utilization and was tested
                       based on concurrence from all sponsoring parties that
                       the  equipment was ready for verification. The ETV
                       Greenhouse Gas Technology  Center believes that
                       the verification helped identify issues associated with
                       performance of the system and demonstrated that the
                       system, when operating at such a reduced load, did not
                       exhibit optimal performance (Hansen, 2010b). Emis-
                       sions reductions from application of the Model 3306
                       ST  could be higher at sites with configurations  de-
                       signed to maximize power output.

                       Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program
                       used the following equation to calculate CO2 (or CO2
                       equivalent)  emissions reductions from animal feeding
                       operations:
50

-------
Appendix B.
  Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
             TOTAL =RAF0/2OOOX%MP
Where:
           is the total CO2 reduction in tons per year.
  * RAFO is the annual  CO2 emissions reduction in
    pounds per year for the ETV-verified internal com-
    bustion engine(s) tested at animal feeding operations
    as calculated by Southern Research Institute during
    verification.
  * 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
  * %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
    of facilities) for the ET V-verified internal combustion
    engine(s) based on AgSTAR market estimates.
To calculate the energy generation and cost benefit esti-
mates for animal feeding operations, the ETV Program
used the above assumptions and an average electricity
price of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This average
electricity price is based on the average retail price to ul-
timate consumers in all end-use sectors in the 50 states
and the District of Columbia between January 2008 and
June 2010 (U.S. Department of Energy, 2010). ETV used
the following equation to calculate the  estimated energy
generation cost benefits:
      EGANNUAL=EAFOx 8760 x°/oMPx 0.001
Where:
  * EG,
is the annual  electricity generation in
    megawatts (MW) per year.
  * EAFO is the maximum power output in kW per hour
    for the ETV-verified internal combustion engine(s)
    tested at animal feeding operations as observed dur-
    ing verification.
  * 8760 is the hours per year conversion factor.
  * %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
    of facilities) for the ETV-verified internal combustion
    engine(s) based on AgSTAR market estimates.
  * 0.001 is the kW to MW conversion factor.

The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:

        CBANNUAL = EGANNUALX 10°° X °'10
Where:

  * CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
  * EGANNUALis the annual electricity generation in MW
    per year.
  * 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
  * 0.10 is the average electricity price in dollars per kWh.
B.I.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Analyses conducted by the EPA CHP Partnership in-
dicate that wastewater treatment facilities with influent
flow rates less than 5 million gallons per day (MGD)
typically do not produce enough biogas from anaerobic
digestion to make CHP technically and economically
feasible (U.S. EPA, 2007). The 2004 EPA Clean Wa-
tersheds Needs Survey identified a total of 1,066 waste-
water treatment facilities in the United States with flow
rates greater than 5 MGD, making them potential can-
didates for distributed generation anaerobic digestion
and biogas utilization. According to EPA, 544 of these
wastewater treatment facilities currently produce biogas
using anaerobic digesters.  Of these, only 106 facilities
utilize  the biogas produced by  their anaerobic digest-
ers to generate electricity and/or thermal energy  (U.S.
EPA, 2004, as cited in U.S.  EPA, 2007), for an additional
potential market of 438 facilities that could install dis-
tributed generation waste-to-energy technologies. The
ETV Program used this additional market potential as
the basis for its market penetration scenarios. ETV es-
timates that more of the 1,066 facilities with flow rates
suitable for anaerobic digestion  and CHP could install
ETV-verified technologies; however, treatment process
modifications would most  likely be required. Emissions
reductions outcomes for the ETV-verified technologies
could be even greater if market scenarios are based on
the total number of treatment facilities with flow rates
suitable for performing anaerobic digestion.

To estimate emissions  reductions associated with use
of ETV-verified technologies at wastewater treatment
facilities, the ETV Program used the verification results
for the technology tested in this application—the Pu-
reCell™ Model 200, manufactured by UTC Power and
tested at the Red Hook Water Pollution  Control Plant
(Brooklyn, New York). For this system,  Southern Re-
search  Institute estimated  annual emissions offsets for
CO2 and NOx by comparing emissions rates  observed
during an extended monitoring period of the verification
test with documented emissions from baseline electrical
power  generation for the Red Hook plant without the
fuel cell in place (e.g., from the state power grid). Use of
the PureCell™ Model 200 fuel cell at the Red Hook plant
provided an added environmental benefit by offsetting
emissions from the flare. Southern Research Institute es-
timated the additional reductions in emissions associated
with flare offset (Southern Research Institute, 2004a).
                                                                                                           51

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                                                        Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       Exhibit B.l-2
       Estimated Annual Emissions Reductions for ETV-Verified Technologies at a Wastewater
       Treatment Facility
                      Annual Emissions     Baseline Emissions (Red Hook Plant without PureCell™
                          inVerified     	M9.d.e!.?99.).!.to..".sr.	
         Technology   Application (tons)    Grid Emissions    Flare Emissions     Total Emissions
                                                                          Estimated
                                                                      Annual Emissions
                                                                      Reductions (tons)6
        UTCPureCell™  i
        Model 200
0.088
         1,040
1.63   I  1,050  !  0.282  !  1,390  !   1.91
2,440
                                                                        1.82
1,430
       1 Based on estimated annual emissions for equivalent fossil fuel grid power in the State of New York.
       1 Estimated reductions based on expected PC25C availability of 97% and an average measured power output of 166 kW.
       Annual emissions reductions estimated for the fuel cell
       based on verification testing at a wastewater treatment
       facility are presented in Exhibit B.l-2.

       Again, the ETV Program assumed that the verified
       technology would be operating at full load (i.e., 100% of
       system capacity or maximum power command verified
       during ETV testing) at all facilities (i.e., at 100% system
       capacity, or 200 kW for the PureCell™ Model 200). ETV
       also assumed that the biogas streams and CHP require-
       ments of potential installations would be comparable to
       the facility used during verification.

       Based on the assumptions above, the ETV Program used
       the following equation to calculate CO2 (or CO2 equiva-
       lent) and NOx emissions reductions from wastewater
       treatment facilities:
       Where:
                            = RWWTx%MP
                 is the total CO2 or NOx reduction in tons per
           year.
         * RWW-J. is the annual CO2 or NOx emissions reduction
           in tons per year for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested
           at the wastewater treatment facility as calculated by
           Southern Research Institute during verification.
         * %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
           of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell  based on
           Clean Watersheds Needs Survey market estimates.

       To calculate the energy generation and cost-benefit es-
       timates  for wastewater treatment facilities, the ETV
       Program used the above assumptions and an average
       electricity price of $0.10/kWh:
                                                            8760 x %MP x 0.001
                                             HIMIMUHL    VV VV I
                                    Where:

                                    »  EGANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in MW
                                       per year.
                                    »  EWWTis the maximum power output in kW per hour
                                       for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested at the wastewater
                                       treatment facility as observed during verification.
                                    »  8760 is the hours per year conversation factor.
                                    »  %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., number
                                       of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell based on
                                       Clean Watersheds Needs Survey market estimates.
                                    »  0.001 is the kW to  MW conversion factor.

                                    The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:
                                             CBANNUAL = EGANNUAL X 10°° X °-10
                                    Where:

                                       * CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
                                       * EGANNUALis the annual electricity generation in M W
                                        per year.
                                       * 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
                                       * 0.10 is the average  electricity price in dollars per kWh.

                                    B.1.3 Landfills
                                    The EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program esti-
                                    mates  that there are approximately 518 landfills already
                                    collecting landfill gas  for energy recovery in the United
                                    States (U.S. EPA, 2010a). EPA also estimates that an
                                    additional 520 landfills  are good candidates  for landfill
                                    gas energy projects (U.S. EPA, 2010b); the  ETV Pro-
                                    gram used this additional number of landfills as the basis
52

-------
Appendix B.
                Methods for Waste-to-Energy Technologies Outcomes
for its market penetration scenarios. The ETV Program
verified the performance of the International Fuel Cells
Corporation, PC25 200 kW Fuel Cell (an older ver-
sion of the fuel cell discussed above for application at
a wastewater treatment facility) at landfills in Penrose,
California and Groton, Connecticut. Annual emissions
reductions, however, were not estimated as part of these
verifications. As such, quantitative data are not available
to estimate the potential emissions reductions associated
with the market scenarios for ETV-verified technologies
at landfills. Additionally, according to EPA, processing
of landfill gas for fuel cell usage is not the most cost-
effective option on a kW basis; it is more common to
use landfill gas in internal  combustion engines or boil-
ers (Goldstein, 2010). Internal combustion engines are
the most commonly used  waste-to-energy technology
for landfill gas applications (used in more than 70%
of current landfill gas energy recovery projects  in the
United States) because of their relatively low cost, high
efficiency, and good size match with the gas output of
most landfills. The ETV Program estimated potential
energy generation and cost benefits outcomes from use
of ETV-verified technologies at landfills based on the
range of verification results for the PC25 200 kW Fuel
Cell at the two testing locations. Other ETV-verified
distributed generation technologies described in Chap-
ter 3, however, may be better candidates for landfill gas
recovery. Additional energy generation and cost benefits,
as well as emissions reductions, could be realized.

To calculate the energy generation and cost benefit es-
timates for landfills, the  ETV Program used the above
assumptions and an average electricity price of $0.10/
kWh:
                      8760 x%MPx 0.001
Where:

  * EG
       ANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in M W
    per year.

  * ELFG is the maximum power output in kW per hour
    for the ETV-verified fuel cell tested at landfills as ob-
    served during verification.

  * 8760 is the hours per year conversation factor.

  * %MP is the percent market penetration (i.e., num-
    ber of facilities) for the ETV-verified fuel cell based
    on the Landfill Methane Outreach Program market
    estimates.

  * 0.001 is the kW to MW conversion factor.
The corresponding cost benefit was calculated as follows:
        CBANNUAL = EGANNUAL X 10°° X °-10
Where:

  * CBANNUAL is the annual cost benefit in dollars.
  * EGANNUAL is the annual electricity generation in M W
    per year.
  * 1000 is the MW to kW conversion factor.
  * 0.10 is the average electricity price in dollars per kWh.


B.2 CO-FIRED BOILERS
Data generated during the verification testing of biomass
co-fired boilers allowed calculation of CO2 emission
rates while firing straight coal and blended fuel. Wood-
based fuel and renewaFUEL wood pellets, however, are
comprised of biogenic carbon—meaning that they are
part of the natural carbon balance and will not add to
atmospheric concentrations of CO2. As a result, com-
bustion of these fuels emits no creditable CO2 emissions
under international greenhouse gas accounting methods
developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and adopted  by the International Council of
Forest and Paper Associations. By analyzing the heat
content of coal and wood, total boiler heat input for the
test periods, and boiler efficiency, Southern Research In-
stitute determined that approximately 90% of the heat
generated during co-firing test periods was attributable
to the verified technology. Southern Research Institute
therefore estimated that the CO2 emissions offset during
testing was approximately 90% or 148 pounds per million
British thermal units (MMBtu) at  this co-firing blend
(Southern Research Institute, 2008). The ETV Program
estimated emissions reductions outcomes—annual CO2
emissions  offset—for biomass co-firing at Minnesota
Power's Boiler 5. According to the facility, they have been
co-firing woody biomass since 1980, and continue to do
so (Tolrud, 2010). The ETV Program did not estimate
emissions reductions outcomes for the second verification
testing site at the University of Iowa because this facility
is no longer co-firing with the same fuel (renewaFUEL
pellets) used during the verification test. The facility does
report that they are experimenting with co-firing other
types of biomass  (e.g., poplar wood chips and oat hulls)
(Milster, 2010).

The annual CO2  offset was calculated using the follow-
ing equation:

-------
B.3
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                      Demonstrating Program Outcomes
                                = 0CALCULATEDxGRxAxH/2000
     is t':le annual CO2 offset in tons.
                  Where:

                    * ^
                        CALCULATED           2 emissi°ns offset in MMBtu
                      calculated by the Southern Research Institute for the
                      ETV-verified fuel (Southern Research Institute, 2008).

                    * GR is the average boiler generating rate in MMBtu
                      per hour as reported in the verification report (South-
                      ern Research Institute, 2008).

                    * A is the  assumed availability for the boiler as re-
                      ported in the verification report (Southern Research
                      Institute, 2008).

                    * H is the hours per year the boiler is in  operation as
                      reported in the verification report (Southern Research
                      Institute, 2008).

                    * 2000 is the pounds per ton conversion factor.
                  B.3  REFERENCES
                  Goldstein R. 2010. E-mail communication. U.S. EPA Landfill
                  Methane Outreach Program. June.

                  Hansen T. 2010a. E-mail communication. Southern Research
                  Institute. 10 August.

                  Hansen T. 2010b. E-mail communication. Southern Research
                  Institute. 21 September.

                  Milster, PR 2010. E-mail communication. University of Iowa.
                  10 March.

                  Southern Research Institute. 2004a. Environmental Technology
                  Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Generation Using
                  UTC Fuel Cells' PC25C Power Plant and Anaerobic Digester Gas.
                  Prepared by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern
                  Research Institute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S.
                  Environmental Protection Agency. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-26.
                  September.

                  Southern Research Institute. 2004b. Environmental Technology
                  Verification Report: Swine Waste Electric Power and Heat Produc-
tion—Martin Machinery Internal Combustion Engine. Prepared
by Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research In-
stitute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and Under Agreement With Colorado
Governor's Office of Energy Management and Conservation.
SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-22. September.

Southern Research Institute. 2007. Environmental Technology
Verification Report: Electric Power and Heat Production Using
Renewable Biogas at Patterson Farms. Prepared by Greenhouse
Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Institute, Under a
Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Under Agreement With New York State Energy Re-
search and Development Authority. SRI/USEPA-GHG-VR-43.
September.

Southern Research Institute. 2008. Environmental and Sustain-
able Technology Evaluation—Biomass Co-Firing in Industrial
Boilers—Minnesota Power's Rapids Energy Center. Prepared by
Greenhouse Gas Technology Center, Southern Research Insti-
tute, Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. EP-C-04-056. Work
Assignment No. 2-8-101. April.

Tolrud D. 2010. E-mail communication. Minnesota Power. 10
March.

U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Electric Power Monthly. 19 July.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/ epm/tableS_3.html

U.S. EPA. 2004. Clean Watersheds Needs Survey Dataset. http://
www.epa.fov/cwns/cwns2004db.mdb
     L  £>
U.S. EPA. 2006. Market Opportunities for Biogas Recovery
Systems: A Guide to Identifying Candidates for On-Farm and
Centralized Systems. EPA-430-8-06-004. August.

U.S. EPA. 2007. Opportunities for and Benefits  of Combined Heat
and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Office of Air and
Radiation, Combined Heat and Power Partnership. EPA-
430-R-07-003. April.

U.S. EPA. 2010a. An Overview of Landfill Gas Energy in the
United States. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. May.

U.S. EPA. 2010b. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Last up-
dated 9 September, http://www.epa.gov/lmop/index.htm
          54

-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Makin
Appendix  C.  Recent  Examples of ETV Outcomes
for Environmental Policy, Regulation,
Guidance,  and  Decision-Making	
In addition to the outcomes reported for the technology
areas featured in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, this
appendix provides recent examples of how ETV data,
reports, protocols, and other information have been used
in regulation, permitting, purchasing, and other similar
activities for innovative technologies in other environ-
mental areas.
C.I WATER PROGRAMS
The EPA Office of Water referenced nine ETV verifica-
tion  reports and two verification protocols in the Na-
tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR).
Additionally, EPA defined a set of test conditions that
must be met for an acceptable challenge test to be used
for compliance with the LT2ESWTR. These conditions
provide a framework for the challenge test. States may
develop additional testing requirements (40 CFR Parts
9, 141, and 142). EPAs Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual (April
2010) identifies the ETV Protocol for Equipment Veri-
fication Testing for Physical Removal of Microbiological
and Particulate Contaminants as containing sections that
provide guidance for developing and conducting a bag
and cartridge filter challenge test for LT2ESWTR (U.S.
EPA, 2010a).

U.S.  states use ETV-verified performance information
in drinking  water regulations and guidance. In 2009,
NSF International, in cooperation with the Association
of State Drinking Water Administrators, conducted a
survey of U.S. state drinking water agencies. The survey
showed that 35 states reported that they recognize ETV
reports for drinking water treatment systems, mostly
through policy, and 31 states responded that they can
allow for reduced pilot testing of drinking water treat-
ment systems for those products with acceptable ETV
reports (NSF International, 2010).

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Pro-
tection's (MassDEP) Drinking Water Regulations state
                                that ETV verification reports can be used to qualify new
                                drinking water treatment devices or equipment for ap-
                                proval, potentially with reduced pilot testing (MassDEP,
                                2007,2009).

                                A memorandum (dated May 27, 2008) from J. Wes-
                                ley Kleene, Director of the Office of Drinking Water
                                (ODW), Virginia Department of Health, to all ODW
                                staff addresses design features, process control and com-
                                pliance monitoring, and permitting procedures of arsenic
                                removal treatment systems. The memorandum states that
                                test kits may be used for operational control monitoring
                                and refers staff to the arsenic test kits that have been veri-
                                fied by ETV—a Web link to  the verification reports is
                                included (Kleene, 2008).

                                Utah Administrative Code R309-535-12, Point-of-Use
                                and Point-of'Entry Treatment Devices (effective July
                                1, 2010) states that "...devices used shall only be those
                                proven to be appropriate, safe, and effective as deter-
                                mined through testing and compliance with protocols
                                established by  EPAs Environmental Technology Veri-
                                fication Program (ETV) or the applicable ANSI/NSF
                                Standard(s)." Code R309-535-13 cites the ETV Pro-
                                gram as a source of performance testing and data for new
                                treatment processes and equipment (Utah, 2010). The
                                Utah Department of Environmental Quality Web Site
                                also states:  'A number of treatment processes have un-
                                dergone rigorous testing under the EPAs Environmental
                                Technology Verification Program (ETV). If a particular
                                treatment process is a Verified technology ^ it may be ac-
                                cepted in Utah without further pilot plant testing" (State
                                of Utah, 2010).

                                The Washington State Department of Health's Water
                                Systems Design Manual provides guidelines and criteria
                                for design engineers who prepare plans and specifica-
                                tions for small  public water systems serving fewer than
                                500 residential connections. The design manual states
                                that manufacturers of alternative technologies for sur-
                                face water treatment may develop testing protocols that
                                demonstrate adequate treatment performance by using
                                ETV protocols (State of Washington, 2009).
                                                                                              ss

-------
       Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                   Demonstrating Program Outcomes
The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Revi-
sions to the Total Coliform Rule; Proposed Rule states that
EPA is considering an approach under which vendors
of currently approved methods for compliance monitor-
ing of total coliform in water would have the option of
participating in ETV verification or an alternative evalu-
ation equivalent in scope and rigor to the ETV Program.
Based on the verification results, EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water would judge the appropriate-
ness of each analytical method and determine if these
methods should continue to be  approved for  future
monitoring under this regulation (40 CFR Parts 141
and 142,2010).

As referenced in the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act;
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and Na-
tional Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and
Sampling Procedures; Final Rule, ETV reports and data
were used during EPA's decision to retain Syngenta Meth-
od AG-625 as an approved method for atrazine, subject to
certain conditions (40 CFR Parts 122,136, et al.).

On May 26,2010, Nancy Stoner, Deputy Assistant Ad-
ministrator for the EPA Office of Water, testified before
the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. The topic of discussion was mer-
cury in dental amalgam and specifically, EPA's actions
to reduce releases of dental amalgam and other sources
of mercury. Portions of Ms. Stoner's presentation con-
cerned technologies for separating amalgam from dental
office wastewater, and she cites an ETV verification re-
port, among others, as evidence that separator technol-
ogy is highly effective (Stoner, 2010). ETV's verification
organization for the Water Quality Protection Center,
NSF International, has been asked to participate in a
symposium on dental amalgam separation in October
2010. In September 2010, EPA announced that it will
propose a rule in 2011, and issue a final rule in 2012,
to protect waterways by reducing mercury waste from
dental offices (U.S. EPA, 2010b).

The California State Lands Commission Marine Inva-
sive Species Program's Ballast Water Treatment Technolo-
gy Testing Guidelines are based on the draft ETV Generic
Protocol for the Verification of Ballast Water Treatment
Technologies, which was developed as a joint effort by
the ETV Water Quality Protection Center and the U.S.
Coast Guard (Dobroski, et al., 2008).
The Maryland Department of the Environment has
formed a Best Available Technology (BAT) Review
Team to  determine whether  onsite sewage-disposal
nitrogen-reducing technologies should be considered
BAT and eligible for grants from the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Fund. Technology approval is based on data
obtained from third-party verification of the technology.
The team has adopted an ETV protocol as the baseline
for verifying the performance of nitrogen-reducing onsite
distribution systems. Systems that have been verified by
ETV or another third-party standard at least as strin-
gent as ETV's are considered grant eligible and receive a
conditional BAT approval until they have undergone ad-
ditional field testing by the State of Maryland (Maryland
Department of the Environment, 2010).

ETV verification information, including links to veri-
fication reports, protocol, and ETV's verification orga-
nization's (NSF International)  Web site, were included
among posts on February 3,2009, to a forum dedicated
to RCC Holdings Corporation (RCCH) on Investor-
sHub.com. The information was posted as part of a series
of message board posts discussing stock for RCCH, for-
merly International Wastewater Systems. International
Wastewater Systems Model 600 Sequencing Batch
Reactor System, a decentralized wastewater treatment
system, was verified by ETV in 2006 (see Chapter 2).
InvestorsHub is a forum (message board) for investors to
gather and share market insights in a dynamic environ-
ment using an advanced discussion platform. ETV and
verification are mentioned in multiple posts of the mes-
sage board discussion of RCCH (InvestorsHub, 2010).

A press release issued by  Hydro International on
March 19, 2010, states that  the Public Works  De-
partment in Marietta, Georgia, has approved the use
of the ETV-verified Hydro Up-Flo Filter and Down-
stream Defender  systems for stormwater treatment
projects. According to the press release, Marietta "add-
ed the products to its list of  approved Water Qual-
ity Proprietary Units based on a series of exhaustive
performance tests by the New Jersey Corporation for
Advanced Technology and the U.S. EPA Environmen-
tal Technology Verification programs" (Hydro Inter-
national, 2010).


C.2 AIR AND  ENERGY PROGRAMS
The EPA Office of Inspector General's Evaluation Re-
port, EPA Needs to  Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air

-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
Emissions at U.S. Ports, to the EPA Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR), states the need for independent veri-
fication of engine retrofit devices to promote voluntary
emission reductions and references the ETV Program as
having fulfilled this role. In the response from OAR, they
state, "We agree that the ETV Program was a good com-
pliment to the Office of Transportation and Air Qual-
ity's own verification program and that it enhanced our
program when it was fully funded" (U.S. EPA, 2009a).

A memorandum (dated September 26,2007) from Steve
Page, Director of EPAs Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS), to EPA  Regional Air Divi-
sion Directors states that  OAQPS will consider use of
the ETV baghouse filtration protocol in future regula-
tions, recommends that regions consider opportunities
to employ protocols in state and local  regulatory pro-
grams, and suggests the use of filter  media tested under
the ETV protocol (Page, 2007).

The South  Coast Air Quality Management District's
(AQMD) Rule  1156, Further Reductions of Particulate
Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities (adopted
November 4,2005; amended March 6,2009) states, "In
lieu of annual testing, any operator who elects to use all
(ETV) verified filtration products in its baghouses shall
conduct a compliance test every five years" (State of Cali-
fornia, 2009b). AQMD's Rule 1155, Particulate Matter
Control Devices (adopted December 4,2009) requires the
installation and use of ETV-verified filtration products
by baghouse facility operators to meet particulate mat-
ter emission standards if established emission limits are
exceeded by the facility (State of California, 2009a).

The Ventura County (California) Air  Pollution Con-
trol District's Rule 74.9, Stationary Internal Combustion
Engine Revisions (effective January 1,  2006) requires
that screening analyses "be performed using a portable
analyzer either verified by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (ETV) or approved in writing by the Air
Pollution Control Officer." The rule also includes a link
to a list of ETV-verified analyzers on ETV's Web Site
(Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 2005).

The California Air Resources Board's Report to the Leg-
islature on Gas-Fired Power Plant  NO^ Emission Controls
and Related Environmental Impacts includes information
on the installation status of the Xonon Cool Combus-
tion™ catalytic combustor, manufactured by Catalytica
Energy Systems, and references ETV verification  of
nitrogen oxides (NOJ emissions reductions (State of
California, 2004).
                                    EPA OAQPS and states have used ETV information
                                    in guidance and regulations for outdoor wood-fired hy-
                                    dronic heaters (OWHHs). In 2007, OAQPS launched a
                                    voluntary program to promote the manufacture and sale
                                    of cleaner hydronic heaters (U.S. EPA, 2008). In June
                                    2008, ETV published a protocol for verifying OWHH
                                    performance  (RTI International, 2008). EPA OAQPS
                                    also provided technical and financial support for the de-
                                    velopment of a model rule to aid states and local agen-
                                    cies that choose to regulate emissions  from OWHHs.
                                    The Outdoor Hydronic Heater Model Regulation, which
                                    became available in January 2007, was developed by the
                                    Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management
                                    and required testing by ETV as part of the certification
                                    procedures (Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
                                    Management, 2007).

                                    A number of states also established regulations for
                                    OWHHs. Under the Vermont Agency of Natural Re-
                                    sources Adopted Rule 5-204, Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers
                                    (effective October 1,2009), certification testing require-
                                    ments stated  that manufacturers must demonstrate that
                                    an  outdoor wood-fired boiler complies with applicable
                                    emission limits set forth in the rule and provide writ-
                                    ten test results; before submitting a test report for cer-
                                    tification, it must first be reviewed and approved by the
                                    ETV Program, the EPA Hydronic Heater Program, or
                                    another agent approved by the  state (State of Vermont,
                                    2009). The MassDEP has promulgated regulation 310
                                    CMR 7.26(50-54), Outdoor Hydronic Heaters (wood-
                                    fired boilers)  (effective December 26, 2008), that iden-
                                    tified ETV as a source for emission test data for certi-
                                    fication (MassDEP, 2008). The Maine Department of
                                    Environmental Protection's Final Regulation, Chapter
                                    150: Control of Emissions from Outdoor Wood Boilers (ad-
                                    opted July 4, 2008) also mentioned ETV as a possible
                                    means of testing for outdoor wood boilers to obtain state
                                    certification for meeting applicable particulate emission
                                    standards (Maine Department of Environmental Protec-
                                    tion, 2008).

                                    Under Texas Administrative Code Title  30 Rule 114.315,
                                    Low Emission Diesel, Approved Test Methods (effective
                                    May 17, 2006), diesel fuel additives and formulations
                                    that have been verified by ETV and by the EPA Office of
                                    Transportation and Air Quality's Voluntary Diesel Ret-
                                    rofit Program to reduce NOx emissions  by at least 5.78%
                                    as compared to base diesel fuel with properties as de-
                                    scribed for nationwide average fuel in the ETV's General
                                    Verification Protocol for Determination of Emissions Reduc-
                                    tions Obtained by Use of Alternative or Reformulated Liq-
                                                                                                         57

-------
              Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                    Demonstrating Program Outcomes
       uid Fuels, Fuel Additives, Fuel Emulsions, and Lubricants
      for Highway and Nonroad Use Diesel Engines and Light
       Duty Gasoline Engines and Vehicles (RTI International,
       2003), may be approved by the Texas Commission on
       Environmental Quality as an alternative diesel fuel un-
       der the Texas Low Emission Diesel (commonly known
       as TxLED) Program without need for further testing
       (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2006,
       2010). Additionally, Texas' New Technology Research
       and Development Program provides grants to expedite
       the commercialization of new and innovative emission
       reduction technologies that will help to improve air qual-
       ity in Texas. Grants are awarded and administered by
       the Texas Environmental Research Commission through
       the Houston Advanced Research Center. In 2006, ETV
       was  one  of two verification programs  specified in Texas
       Environmental Research Commission New Technology
       Research and Development solicitations for grant appli-
       cations;  these grants provided funding to help support
       verification (Texas  Environmental Research Commis-
       sion, 2010).

       An  entry in the Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog entitled
       "TCEQ Answers Rep. Lon  Burnam's Questions on
       Investigation of Air Quality" and dated December 18,
       2009, references ETV verification of COMM Engineer-
       ing,  USA's Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit. Specifically,
       the blog entry reports that State  Representative  Lon
       Burnam  questioned the Texas Commission on Environ-
       mental Quality concerning its investigations of emissions
       of methane and volatile organic compounds from oil and
       gas operations in the Barnett Shale area and in Texas in
       general.  The blog reports that Representative Burnam
       asked the commission how long it would take a producer
       to recover the cost of installing a vapor recovery unit for
       a typical  well in Texas. The commission referred Burnam
       to the ETV verification, which demonstrates that the cost
       of a vapor recovery unit could typically be recovered be-
       tween 3 and 19 months, depending on the price of natural
       gas. It states,"The Environmental Technology Verification
       Program at EPA evaluated the Eductor Vapor Recovery
       Unit (EVRU) from COMM Engineering. The $108,000
       EVRU recovered 175 Mscf/day. Assuming a prices value
       of $5.46 per Mscf, the total value of recovered gas was
       estimated at $650,000 per year for an approximate two
       month payback" (Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog, 2009).

       ETV reports and data were used to inform the devel-
       opment  of the Update of Continuous  Instrumental  Test
       Methods; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 60), for measuring air
       pollutant emissions from stationary sources.
In 2007, the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) approved ASTM standard D7270-07, Standard
Guide for Environmental and Performance Verification of
Factory-Applied Liquid Coatings. With the help of one of
its stakeholders, ETV worked with ASTM Committee
D01 on Paint and Related Coatings, Materials, and Ap-
plications and its Subcommittee D01.55 (Factory Applied
Coatings on Preformed Products) to develop this ASTM
standard, which is based on the Environmental Technology
Verification Coatings and Coating Equipment Program, UV-
Curable Coatings—Generic Verification Protocol (Concur-
rent Technologies Corporation, 2003).

The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED®for Schools—
for New Construction and Major Renovations (U.S. Green
Building Council, 2007) includes methods for calculat-
ing indoor air emissions from furniture, one of which
references an ETV protocol. The guidelines state that
classroom furniture and furnishings must meet indoor
air emissions limits, which were determined using a pro-
cedure based on  the Environmental Technology  Verifica-
tion Large Chamber Test Protocol for Measuring Emissions
of Volatile Organic Compounds and Aldehydes (Research
Triangle Institute, 1999).


C.3 LAND AND  Toxics
PROGRAMS
The EPA  Office  Pollution Prevention and Toxics' Lead
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program requires ETV
testing or equivalent approval for lead paint test kits. The
ETV Program is referenced in Lead; Renovation, Repair,
and Painting Program; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 745),
which includes a lead test kit recognition program. The
recognition program references ETV as the testing orga-
nization that will be used to evaluate the test kits. ETV
is in the process of verifying the performance of lead in
paint test kits under an Environmental and Sustainable
Technology Evaluation (ESTE) project. Additionally, in
2009, the  State of Wisconsin requested information on
the test plan for the verification testing under this project
for consideration for inclusion in state regulations regard-
ing lead in paint test kits.

The EPA  Office  of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is using
ETV and its pesticide spray drift research, which is being
conducted under an ESTE project, to develop pesticide
risk assessment and labeling requirements. OPP intends
to use verified drift-reduction technologies  in its pesti-
cide risk assessments and registration decisions (Daily
SB

-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
Environment Report, 2007). The ESTE spray drift proj-  of technology performance. Specifically, the solicitation
ect is discussed in the draft pesticide registration notice
for pesticide spray drift entitled "Pesticide Registration
Notice 2008-X Draft: Pesticide Drift Labeling" (U.S.
EPA, 2009b).

In 2007, the U.S. Virgin  Islands Waste Management
Authority (VIWMA) issued a solicitation for waste-to-
energy solid waste management facilities to process and
dispose of solid waste on the island of St. Croix. VIWMA
was seeking alternative solid waste disposal options that
would provide maximum diversion of waste from landfills
through proven technologies that generate energy, recover
resources, and provide emissions control. The solicitation
required that proposals demonstrate  a successful record
                                   stated that ETV verification could be submitted as an al-
                                   ternative to a 5-year successful technology track record
                                   (ETVoice, 2007).
                                   C.4 OTHER AREAS
                                   The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, on
                                   its Web site, includes information on technology dem-
                                   onstration and verification programs, as well as other
                                   technology inventories  and information resources. The
                                   site includes, among its resources, information on the
                                   ETV Program and links to the ETV Web Site (Virginia
                                   Department of Environmental Quality, 2009).
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Appendix:
AQMD        Air Quality Management District
ASTM        American Society for Testing and Materials
BAT           Best Available Technology
ESTE         Environmental and Sustainable Technology Evaluation
EVRU         Eductor Vapor Recovery Unit
IWS           International Wastewater Systems
LT2ESWTR   Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MassDEP      Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
NO           nitrogen oxides
    x               £>
OAQPS       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OAR          Office of Air and Radiation
ODW         Office of Drinking Water
OPP           Office of Pesticide Programs
OWHH       outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters
RCCH        RCC Holdings Corporation
TxLED        Texas Low Emission Diesel
VIWMA      Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority
                                                                                                       59

-------
                Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Case Studies
                       Demonstrating Program Outcomes
        C.5  REFERENCES
        40 CFR Parts 122, 136, et al. 2007. Code of Federal Regulations
        Title 40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental
        Protection Agency.. Part 122:  Guidelines Establishing Test Proce-
        dures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act; Na-
        tional Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and National Secondary
        Drinking Water Regulations; Analysis and Sampling Procedures;
        Final Rule. 12 March.

        40 CFR Parts 141, 142. 2010. Code of'Federal Regulations Title
        40—Protection of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Pro-
        tection Agency. Parts 141 and 142: National Primary Drinking
        Water Regulations: Revisions to the Total Coliform Rule; Proposed
        Rule. 14 July.

        40 CFR Part 60. 2006. Federal Regulations Title 40—Protection
        of the Environment. Chapter 1: Environmental Protection Agency.
        Part 60:  Update of Continuous Instrumental Test Methods; Final
        Rule. 14 August.

        40 CFR Part 745. 2008. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting
        Program; Lead Hazard Information Pamphlet; Notice of Availability;
        Final Rule. 22 April.

        40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142. 2006. National Primary Drinking
        Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
        ment Rule. 5 January.

        Concurrent Technologies Corporation. 2003. Environmental Tech-
        nology Verification  Coatings and Coating Equipment Program,  UV-
        Curable Coatings—Generic Verification Protocol. Prepared by the
        National Defense Center for Environmental Excellence and Sub-
        mitted by Current Technologies Corporation Under a Cooperative
        Agreement. DAAE30-98-C-1050.26 September.

        Daily Environment Report, 2007. Interview with], Ellenberger, OFF,
        21 May.

        Dobroski N, Scianni C, Gehringer D, and Falkner M. 2008. Bal-
        last Water Treatment Technology Testing Guidelines. Prepared by
        the California State Lands Commission, Marine Invasive Species
        Program. 10 October.

        ETVoice. 2007. Virgin Islands to Consider ETV Verification  in
        Selection Criteria for Solid Waste Management Facility, July, http://
        www.epa.gov/etv/etvoice0707.html

        Hydro International. 2010. Marietta, Georgia Approves Use of Hy-
        dro International's  Stormwater Treatment Products. Press Release.
        17 March.

        InvestorsHub. 2010. RCC  Holdings  Corporation (RCCH)
        Message Board, http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/lioard.
        aspx?board_id=10562. Last accessed 13  August.

        Kleene WJ. 2008. "Memorandum from  J. Wesley Kleene Ph.D.
        (RE. Director) to the Office of Drinking Water Staff Concerning
        Permits &• Project Review—Procedures for Arsenic Removal Treat-
        ment Systems. 28 May.

        Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Control
        of Emissions from  Outdoor Wood Boilers: Final Regulation, No-
        vember.

        Maryland Department of the Environment. 2010. Bay Restoration
        Fund (BRF) Best Available Technology for Removing Nitrogen from
Onsite Systems, http://www.mde.maryland.gov/water/cbwrf/osds/
brf_bat.asp. Last accessed 13 August.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass-
DEP). 2007. BRP WS 27 Permits for New Technology and Third-
Party Approval: Instructions and Supporting Materials, Bureau of
Resources Protection—Water Supply. June.

MassDEP. 2008. 310 CMR 7.26:  Outdoor Hydromc Heaters.
November.

MassDEP. 2009. 310 CMR 22.00:  The Massachusetts Drinking
Water Regulations. Section 4: Construction, Operation, and Main-
tenance of Public  Water Systems. Paragraph 8:  New Product or
Technology. December.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. 2007.
Outdoor Hydronic Heater Model Regulation. 29 January.

NSF International. 2010. Survey ofASDWA Members Use ofNSF
Standards and ETV Reports. March.

Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog. 2009. TCEQ Answers Rep. Lon Bur-
nam's Questions on Investigation of Air Quality,  18 December.
http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2009/12/tceq-answers-rep-
lon-burnams-q.html

Page SD. 2007. "Memorandum from Stephen D. Page (Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards) to Regional Air Division Di-
rectors Concerning Use of New ASTM Performance Verifications for
Baghouse Media" 26 September.

RTI International. 2003. Generic  Verification Protocol for Deter-
mination of Emissions Reductions Obtained by Use of Alternative
or Reformulated Liquid Fuels, Fuel Additives, Fuel Emulsions, and
Lubricants for Highway and Non-Road Use Diesel Engines and Light-
Duty Gasoline Engines and Vehicles, Prepared by RTI International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. CR829434-01-1. September.

RTI International. 2008. Generic  Verification Protocol for Deter-
mination of Emissions from Outdoor Wood-Fired Hydronic Heaters.
Prepared by RTI International Under a Cooperative Agreement
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. CR831911-01-1.
June.

State of California. 2004. Report to the Legislature on Gas-Fired
Power Plant NO  Emission Controls and Related  Environmental
Impacts. Air Resources Board. May.

State of California. 2009a. Rule 1155:   Particulate Matter  Con-
trol Devices. South Coast Air Quality  Management District. 4
December.

State of California. 2009b. Rule 1156: Further Reductions of Par-
ticulate Emissions From Cement Manufacturing Facilities. South
Coast Air Quality Management District. 6 March.

State of Utah. 2010. Construction Approval Process: Project Noti-
fication—Plan Approval—Operating Permit, Department of En-
vironmental Quality, http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov /plan_re-
view_intro.htm. Last accessed 13 July.
60

-------
Appendix C.
Recent Examples of ETV Outcomes for Environmental Policy, Regulation, Guidance, and Decision-Making
State of Vermont. 2009. Final Rule 5-204:  Outdoor Wood-Fired
Boilers. Agency of Natural Resources. October.

State of Washington. 2009. Water System Design Manual, Depart-
ment of Health. December.

Stoner N. 2010. Testimony Before the House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform. May 26.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2006. Texas Ad-
ministrative Code Title 30 Rule 114.315, Low Emission Diesel, Ap-
proved Test Methods. 17 May.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 2010. Regulatory
Guidance RG-000 Draft:  Questions and Answers Regarding the
                    J   ••**->                      O     O
Texas Low Emission Diesel Fuel (TxLED) Regulations. July.

Texas Environmental Research Commission. 2010. Texas En-
vironmental Research Commission New Technology Research and
Development Request for Grant Applications. http://www.tercair-
quality.org/ NewTechnologyResearchDevelopmentNTRD/Fundin-
gOpportunities/RequestsforGrant Applications/tabid/ 781 /Default.
aspx. Last accessed 13 August.

U.S. EPA. 2008. Hydromc Heater Program Phase 2 Partnership
Agreement between the Ojfice of Air Quality Planning and Standards
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Agreement.
October 15.
                                         U.S. EPA. 2009a. EPA Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Reduce Air
                                         Emissions at U.S. Ports; Evaluation Report. Office of Inspector
                                         General. Report No. 09-P-0125. 23 March.

                                         U.S. EPA. 2009b. Draft Pesticide Registration Notice 2009-X:
                                         Additional Information and Questions for Commenters. Office of
                                         Pesticide Programs. October.

                                         U.S. EPA. 2010a. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
                                         Rule Toolbox Guidance Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815-D-09-
                                         00 I.April.

                                         U.S. EPA. 2010b. EPA Will Propose Rule to  Protect Waterways
                                         by Reducing Mercury  From Dental Office /Existing Technology
                                         Is Available to Capture Dental  Mercury, Press Release. 27 Sep-
                                         tember. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/e77fdd4fSafd-
                                         88a38S2S76b300Sa604f/a640db2ebad201cd8S2S77ab0063484
                                         8!OpenDocument

                                         U.S. Green Building Council. 2007. LEED'for Schools—for New
                                         Construction and Major Renovations. November.

                                         Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. 2005. Compliance
                                         Assistance Advisory: Rule 74.9: Stationary Internal Combustion
                                         Engine Revisions, 8 November.

                                         Virginia Department  of Environmental Quality. 2009. Innova-
                                         tive Technology: Technology Verifications and Inventories. Last up-
                                         dated 8 January, http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/
                                         innovtech/dem2.html
                                                                                                                          61

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
PRESORTED STANDARD
 POSTAGES FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460

Official  Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300

-------