EPA SBIR 2018 Phase I Solicitation

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of man-made, globally-distributed chemicals. They include perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFAS have been widely used in consumer products such as non-stick cookware, carpets and carpet treatment products, food packaging, aqueous firefighting foams, and in the aerospace, automotive, construction, and electronics industries.

Once released into the environment, some PFAS are not easily broken down when exposed to air, water, or sunlight. Thus people can be exposed to PFAS that were manufactured months or years in the past. PFAS can travel long distances in the air and water with the result that people may be exposed to PFAS manufactured or emitted from production facilities many miles away from the point of exposure.  Human exposure can also occur through contact with products containing PFAS.

A recent study of the effectiveness of currently-used treatment technologies for removal of PFAS from raw water or potable reuse sources found that granular activated carbon and anion exchange can under certain conditions treat long-chain PFAS and that costly nanofiltration and reverse osmosis could potentially treat most PFAS.

In 2012, EPA included six PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, among the contaminants that were monitored under the third Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Rule list.  Results of this monitoring can be found on the publicly-available National Contaminant Occurrence Database.

In 2016, EPA established a lifetime health advisory (LHA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for individual or combined concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. This amount is equivalent to 0.07 parts per billion (ppb) or 0.07 micrograms/liter.

EPA would like to improve and advance processes, technologies, and treatment systems for the removal of the PFOA and PFOS families of PFAS from drinking water. As a result, EPA is interested in the following topic:

Topic Code 1A: Removal of PFOA/PFOS from Drinking Water. Innovative technologies that can remove PFOA and PFOS families of PFAS from drinking water. The technology should reduce the combined PFOA/PFOS concentration to below 0.07 ppb and be compatible with other water treatment processes, be affordable, and be easily used and maintained.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been detected in the effluent of municipal. industrial, and military wastewater treatment plants.

In addition, a recent study found PFAS in the effluent of on-site septic systems, which serve about 25% of the US population.

The predominant compounds found in wastewater effluent have been perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are degradation products of PFAS. PFOA and PFOS are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.

EPA would like to improve and advance processes, technologies, and treatment systems for the removal of the PFOA and PFOS families of PFAS from wastewater. As a result, EPA is interested in the following topic:

Topic Code 1B: Removal of PFOA/PFOS from Wastewater. Innovative technologies that can remove PFOA and PFOS families of PFAS from PFAS from wastewater treatment plant effluent. The technology should consistently reduce the combined PFOA/PFOS concentration to below 0.07 ppb and be compatible with other water treatment processes, be affordable, and be easily used and maintained.

Since ancient times, people have used pipes to transport water from source to point of use. The pipes have been made of many materials, including stone, concrete, wood, metal (lead, iron, copper) and, most recently, plastic.

Plastic pipes made of rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are now widely used to carry drinking water and waste water in homes and other buildings, and sometimes outside of buildings, because they have many practical advantages. For example, they are derived from abundant petrochemicals and sodium chloride salt; their characteristics can be modified by the addition of various chemicals; they are light weight, non-corroding, chemically-resistant, non-conducting, easy to cut and join, and cost-less to transport and handle than other types of pipes; and they seem to be long-lasting compared with pipes made with other commonly-used materials.

Considering the whole life cycle of PVC plastic pipes, however, there are many disadvantages in using them.  For example, they require large amounts of energy to make; the source materials and intermediate products, including chlorine gas, are toxic; some chemical additives used in the manufacturing process are harmful and have the potential to leach into drinking water; the additives make recycling nearly impossible, with the result that nearly all discarded PVC goes to landfills; incineration creates dioxin; and high temperature and exposure to sunlight can result in degradation.

Recently, various forms of flexible polyethylene (PE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), and cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) pipe have been used to carry water in buildings because they can be used in confined areas and can be curved to change direction rather than cut and joined. It has been found, however, that they cause odor problems and can release regulated and unregulated contaminants into the water.

For these reasons, EPA is seeking innovative materials that can be used to make drinking water and waste water pipes for buildings and perhaps outside that have the advantages of PVC and PE, HDPE, and PEX pipes without their disadvantages across their entire lifecycle.

Topic Code 1C: Replacements for PVC and PE Water Pipes. Innovative pipes for drinking water and waste water in buildings and perhaps outside of buildings that are made from materials that have the advantages and not the disadvantages of currently-used plastic pipes.

There are more than 250 million vehicles in the United States that transport people and goods. Primarily powered by internal combustion engines, they emit 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. A typical passenger vehicle emits 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The many older vehicles still in use are the major emitters, although newer, more fuel efficient vehicles still produce some emissions.

While technologies are being used to reduce emissions of other pollutants from vehicles, this is not the case for carbon dioxide emissions.

The main technological approaches for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are capture and conversion. Capture involves long-term sequestration or use of the captured carbon dioxide in a manner that will not later result in the release of carbon. Conversion can be accomplished using catalysis, non-catalytic synthesis, or other means. Both capture and use and conversion can result in the creation of various compounds and products that have economic value—e.g., urea, salicylic acid, cyclic carbonate, polyols, and ethanol.

Capture and conversion technologies are being used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources.

Because capture and conversion technologies for carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline or diesel-powered motor vehicles are not commercially available, there is potentially a market opportunity both domestically and world-wide for cost-effective retrofit technologies that can capture or convert carbon dioxide emissions from such vehicles.

EPA is interested in innovative technologies that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The vehicle could use either gasoline or diesel fuel. The technologies would likely be drop-in components that are installed on a vehicle after the combustion emissions pass through other on-board catalytic and filter systems. EPA is most interested in the applicability to highway vehicles such as diesel-powered long-haul trucks.

Topic Code 2A: Capturing Carbon Dioxide from Vehicles. Innovative technology that captures or otherwise sequesters carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources that use internal combustion engines. Important parameters include: types of vehicles being addressed the technology’s interactions with other on-board emission treatment devices and exhaust gases, the target percentage of carbon dioxide captured or converted, the substances and products to be produced, the technology’s durability and longevity, operation and maintenance requirements, cost, effect on vehicle mileage and fuel usage, and treatment and disposal of the technology and any wastes produced.

There are more than 250 million vehicles in the United States that transport people and goods. Primarily powered by internal combustion engines, they emit 1.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. A typical passenger vehicle emits 4.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The many older vehicles still in use are the major emitters, although newer, more fuel efficient vehicles still produce some emissions.

While technologies are being used to reduce emissions of other pollutants from vehicles, this is not the case for carbon dioxide emissions.

The main technological approaches for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are capture and conversion. Capture involves long-term sequestration or use of the captured carbon dioxide in a manner that will not later result in the release of carbon. Conversion can be accomplished using catalysis, non-catalytic synthesis, or other means. Both capture and use and conversion can result in the creation of various compounds and products that have economic value—e.g., urea, salicylic acid, cyclic carbonate, polyols, and ethanol.

Capture and conversion technologies are being used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources.

Because capture and conversion technologies for carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline or diesel-powered motor vehicles are not commercially available, there is potentially a market opportunity both domestically and world-wide for cost-effective retrofit technologies that can capture or convert carbon dioxide emissions from such vehicles.

EPA is interested in innovative technologies that can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. The vehicle could use either gasoline or diesel fuel. The technologies would likely be drop-in components that are installed on a vehicle after the combustion emissions pass through other on-board catalytic and filter systems. EPA is most interested in the applicability to highway vehicles such as diesel-powered long-haul trucks.

Topic Code 2B: Converting Carbon Dioxide from Vehicles. Innovative technology that converts carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources that use internal combustion engines into harmless substances and/or materials and products that have economic value. The conversion can be achieved using catalysis, non-catalytic synthesis, or other means. Important parameters include: the types of vehicles being addressed, the technology’s interactions with other on-board emission treatment devices and exhaust gases, the target percentage of carbon dioxide captured or converted, the substances and products to be produced, the technology’s durability and longevity, O&M requirements, cost, effect on vehicle mileage and fuel usage, and treatment and disposal of the technology and any wastes produced.

The oil and natural gas industry includes a wide range of operations and equipment, from wells to natural gas gathering lines and processing facilities, to storage tanks, and transmission and distribution pipelines. During these operations and uses of equipment, the industry loses—through leaks, temporal events, and other means—a significant amount of beneficial product that could otherwise go to market.

Associated with these product losses are releases of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (smog). Exposure to ozone is linked to a wide range of health effects, including aggravated asthma, increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and premature deaths. Other product losses release “air toxics”, such as benzene, ethylbenzene, and n-hexane. Air toxics are chemicals that are known or suspected of causing cancer and other serious health effects.

Topic Code 2C: Product Loss Prevention and/or Mitigation in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector. EPA is seeking innovative technologies that can prevent and/or mitigate the loss of valuable product and the associated releases of VOCs and air toxics. More specifically, EPA is seeking the development and commercialization of prevention and/or mitigation technologies that can be used at well sites, natural gas gathering and processing facilities, storage tanks and sites, or transmission facilities. The prevention and/or mitigation technology implementation should cost less than $2,700 per ton of reduced product loss. The technology may be targeted at but not limited to specific equipment such as natural gas driven equipment; maintenance activities such as the maintenance of compressors; design improvements to storage tank emission points such as thief hatches; and temporal emission events such as liquids unloading, blowdowns, and pigging.

Recently it has been found that metal alloy tubes used in industrial processes that operate at high temperatures can degrade and emit toxic metals.

As a case in point, ethylene (C₂H₄) is widely used in the chemical industry as a feedstock in the production of industrial chemicals and consumer goods—e.g., plastics, antifreeze, solvents, and detergents. Ethylene is produced in furnaces by “cracking”—i.e., breaking apart—simpler hydrocarbons.

The hydrocarbons to be cracked are mixed with steam and quickly run through tubes that are inside the furnace, which operates at about 850 degrees Centigrade. The combination of high temperature and steam “steam cracks” the hydrocarbons inside the tubes. The tubes are made of an alloy consisting of the toxic metals Nickel (Ni) and Chromium (Cr) mixed with Iron (Fe).

Recent stack testing on cracking furnaces has revealed higher than expected emissions of Ni and Cr. This is probably due to the severe conditions in the furnaces degrading the Fe-Ni-Cr alloy tubes used in the furnaces.

The recent stack testing also found high Ni and Cr emissions during de-coking operations. De-coking is necessary because over time coke will build up inside the tubes, causing facilities to operate less and less efficiently until they reach a point of needing to remove the coke (via burning it off through the injection of steam and air into the tubes) before returning to normal cracking operations.

There are 400-500 ethylene cracking furnaces in the US. Due to the availability of cheap feedstocks from fracking and shale gas, the industry is undergoing rapid growth with new facilities being built.

There may be other industrial processes that use metal alloy tubes in a high temperature environment. Those tubes could also be degrading and emitting toxic metals. With this in mind, EPA is interested in supporting the development and commercialization of innovative technologies that address the following topic:

Topic Code 2D: Developing More Stable Metal Alloy Tubes for Use in High Temperature Processes. Innovative degradation-resistant tubes for use in ethylene cracking furnaces and other high temperature processes to replace tubes that are made with toxic metals. The tubes could be made of alternative metals, different percentages of the currently-used metals and/or other compounds, or non-metals. Compared with the currently-used tubes, the new tubes should produce lower or no Ni, Cr, and/or other toxic emissions during operation, last longer before needing to be replaced, reduce the down time necessary for de-coking and other intra-tube treatments, and cost less.

EPA administers Superfund, the federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of man-made chemicals not found naturally in the environment. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both chemicals are very persistent in the environment and in the human body. To provide Americans, including the most sensitive populations, with a margin of protection from a lifetime of exposure to PFOA and PFOS from drinking water, EPA has established the health advisory levels at 0.07ppb.

PFAS have been used to provide water, oil, and stain repellency to textiles, carpets and leather; to create greaseproof and water-proof coatings for paper plates and food packaging; and to aid processing in fluoropolymer manufacturing among many other commercial and consumer applications. They also have been used in chrome plating, firefighting foams, liquid carpet and textile care treatments, and floor waxes and sealants.

The PFAS emitted or disposed into various media from these manufacturing processes resulted in PFAS contamination of soil and sediment.  To date, soil contamination has been removed via excavation.  EPA would like to improve and advance processes, technologies, and treatment systems for the sampling, analysis, and cleanup of PFAS in soil and sediment. As a result, EPA is interested in the following topic:

Topic Code 3A: Remediation of PFAS-Contaminated Soil and Sediment. Innovative technologies that can sample, detect, analyze, remove, or destroy PFAS in and from soil and sediment.  The technologies should be widely applicable—i.e., able to address various combinations of PFAS present; various soil types and other matrices to be remediated; and other types of contaminants present.  The technologies should be effective, easy to use and maintain, and affordable.

Proposed projects can be either ex situ (analyzing or treating excavated or extracted media or waste above ground) or in situ (analyzing or treating in place).  For sampling and analysis, technologies can either detect contamination for the purpose of identifying the presence of and delineating the extent of PFAS, or produce data to support various decisions at sites where PFAS is present. For cleanup, the technologies can address contamination by reducing its toxicity, mobility, or volume by removing, destroying, or immobilizing PFASs and co-occurring contaminants from the target media. Evaluating remediation performance using accepted criteria and procedures is a critical element. The overall life cycle should be addressed—e.g., showing that remediating contaminated soil at one site will not result in transferring the risk to other media or locations.

The emergence of stateside Ebola cases highlighted the need for environmental cleanup methods for Category A pathogens in settings outside of the hospital as well as means to perform on-site waste management activities while minimizing worker exposure risk.

As a result, a National Security Council-led interagency group consisting of the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response drafted in January 2017 an “Interim - Planning Guidance for the Handling of Solid Waste Contaminated with a Category A Infectious Substance”.

The following two topics address these needs.

There are decontamination products for Ebola and other Category A viruses that are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). They can kill viruses and other Category A pathogens including Ebola. They are approved, however, for use on hard, non-porous surfaces, while not approved (with unknown levels of effectiveness) for use on porous surfaces. They are also typically corrosive, which makes them not suitable for use on many likely materials and on sensitive equipment. The destructiveness, and inability to effectively decontaminate porous materials and sensitive equipment results in large volumes of waste being generated, which may be contaminated.

FIFRA: All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States must be registered (licensed) by EPA. Additional information on FIFRA can be found in Section VIII. Scientific and Technical Information Sources.

Topic Code 4A. Decontamination of Category A Viruses on Porous Surfaces and Sensitive Equipment. Develop a virus inactivation product that is capable of a 4-log inactivation of Category A viruses on a range of porous materials (e.g., upholstery, bedding, fabric, carpet, unpainted wood) and is non-corrosive to a range of potentially reusable household materials.

Currently available packaging for non-hospital Ebola and other Category A wastes is impermeable to fumigants, and not amenable to large and bulky items, which limits the ability to use on-site waste treatment. There needs to be a way to package large and small contaminated items in a building (either with bagging or wrapping) and take them to where they can be treated without workers having to re-open the bags.

On-site treatment would dramatically reduce the need for special transportation permits to access off-site treatment facilities. This would reduce the number and size of packing containers; the effort to pack, load, and unload them; the number, size, and fuel usage of transport vehicles; landfill usage; incineration operation; risk associated with transporting the waste; and costs.

There are three components of an on-site treatment system:

1. The first is having a semi-permeable packaging material that will enable the entry and exit of fumigants, be non-bulky, be flexible, be able to withstand the fumigation conditions, and not permit contaminants (viral and/or bacterial) to escape. An analogous material could be the bags used for ethylene oxide sterilization chambers.
2. The second is having effective fumigants that can pass through the packaging material and disinfect the contaminated thing in the package. (Examples of Class A fumigants include: chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, methyl bromide, and formaldehyde.)
3. The third is having a fumigant delivery and removal system that includes both effective fumigants and the equipment and other materials required to deliver, treat, recover, and dispose of used fumigants. The design of the delivery system would depend on the fumigant that is used.

Demonstration of this technology is an important step towards commercialization. Demonstration of the desired performance of the materials, using the criteria described above, using wastes contaminated with Category A infectious agents or appropriate surrogates thereof, appropriate fumigants, and one or more delivery systems. To validate performance, EPA testing procedures can be used.

Demonstrations should use bags made of the developed material that have been filled with contaminated items that are larger (and preferably a lot larger) than a bread box or a doll house.

Topic Code 4B: Packaging for On-Site Fumigation and Transport of Category A Virus Contaminated Materials. Develop non-bulky waste packaging materials for on-site waste treatment that enable penetration of gaseous decontaminants and high temperature steam into the waste packages while preventing escape of the contaminants (viral and/or bacterial) (without requiring workers to open the waste packages).

The membrane/packaging material must not allow minor amounts of liquids or solids to escape. It should be rugged enough for normal handling procedures by workers in personal protective equipment (PPE). It should survive external decontamination with a dilute (10%) bleach solution. It should maintain its integrity after fumigation. It should be cost effective—i.e., marketable. The on-site treatment should dramatically reduce transportation requirements for waste requiring off-site treatment and disposal. It should reduce the size of the waste containers and special permits required for off-site transportation.

Executive Order 13329 directs the EPA to properly and effectively assist the private sector in its manufacturing innovation in order to sustain a strong manufacturing sector in the U.S. economy. These innovations often involve engineering and technical solutions that make the manufacturing operation and/or the manufactured product both more environmentally and economically sound.

The EPA is seeking the development, demonstration, and commercialization of innovative technologies that, when compared with currently available technologies, have dramatically better performance, decreased cost of production, and reduced health and environmental impacts.

“Plastics” is a broad category of polymeric substances that have varied applications and widespread use. Typically derived from petroleum, natural gas, and coal, they generally contain carbon and hydrogen along with added nitrogen, oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur. Plastics can be made to have different characteristics by modifying the structure of the polymer and adding other substances. Examples of plastics include: polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, acrylics, polypropylene, polyethylene, and composites such as fiber-reinforced plastic.

Plastics are used in the building construction, electronics, medical, packaging, consumer, transportation, and aerospace sectors. They constitute one of the largest US industrial sectors, which has been faring well economically in recent years—e.g., shipping more than $500 billion worth of materials per year. Plastic products are so widely used because they have many advantageous properties—they can be durable, long-lasting, lightweight, corrosion resistant, easy to cut and join, easy to install and remove, different colors, and nonconductive.

Plastics can, however, have negative health and environmental effects throughout their life cycle. They are generally made with toxic materials in very energy-intensive processes, toxic fumes are often emitted during their manufacture and use, they can be hazardous when they come in contact with food and potable liquids that people ingest, they can degrade during use, they can trap and be ingested by wildlife on land and in the ocean, they can be difficult to recycle and reuse, they are a significant component of landfilled material, and they do not easily biodegrade.

Because of their economic importance, widespread utility, and possible negative health and environmental impacts, EPA is seeking greener plastics, as follows:

Topic Code 5A: Greener Plastics Manufacturing. For a specific type of plastic develop, demonstrate, and commercialize a greener manufacturing process that (a) eliminates the use of one or more toxic source materials, (b) eliminates toxic chemicals used in the manufacturing process, (c) greatly reduces the amount of energy used to carry out the process, and/or (d) eliminates one or more toxic pollutants that result from the process. Examples include: using non-petrochemical source materials and using biological rather than chemical transformation processes. Comparison with the currently used sources and manufacturing processes and assessing the overall life cycle of the plastic(s) are integral to this topic.

“Plastics” is a broad category of polymeric substances that have varied applications and widespread use. Typically derived from petroleum, natural gas, and coal, they generally contain carbon and hydrogen along with added nitrogen, oxygen, chlorine, and sulfur. Plastics can be made to have different characteristics by modifying the structure of the polymer and adding other substances. Examples of plastics include: polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, acrylics, polypropylene, polyethylene, and composites such as fiber-reinforced plastic.

Plastics are used in the building construction, electronics, medical, packaging, consumer, transportation, and aerospace sectors. They constitute one of the largest US industrial sectors, which has been faring well economically in recent years—e.g., shipping more than $500 billion worth of materials per year. Plastic products are so widely used because they have many advantageous properties—they can be durable, long-lasting, lightweight, corrosion resistant, easy to cut and join, easy to install and remove, different colors, and nonconductive.

Plastics can, however, have negative health and environmental effects throughout their life cycle. They are generally made with toxic materials in very energy-intensive processes, toxic fumes are often emitted during their manufacture and use, they can be hazardous when they come in contact with food and potable liquids that people ingest, they can degrade during use, they can trap and be ingested by wildlife on land and in the ocean, they can be difficult to recycle and reuse, they are a significant component of landfilled material, and they do not easily biodegrade.

Because of their economic importance, widespread utility, and possible negative health and environmental impacts, EPA is seeking greener plastics, as follows:

Topic Code 5B: Greener Plastic Products. For a specific type of product that is made with plastic, develop, demonstrate, and commercialize a greener version of the product that (a) is not made with toxic materials, (b) does not emit toxic fumes, (c) is not toxic if ingested, (d) is easily recycled and reused, and/or (e) rapidly biodegrades in soil and water. Examples include: alternatives to products made with polyvinyl chloride or polystyrene. Comparison with the performance and cost of the currently-used plastic product and assessing its overall life cycle are integral to this topic.

There is a need to use greener materials in constructing the interior floors, walls, and ceilings of buildings. “Greener” considers the whole life cycle of the materials that are used. The following are examples of this need:

• Many indoor construction materials emit toxic gases such as formaldehyde and produce airborne fine particles. It would be more protective of human health if greener materials were used that did not emit toxic fumes or fine particles.
• Flexible and laminate vinyl materials and rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) are made with toxic materials and processes, are difficult to recycle, and do not biodegrade. It would be more protective of the environment if greener materials were used.

With this in mind, EPA is interested in innovative technologies that address the following topic:

Topic Code 6A: Greener Interior Construction Materials: Greener materials for construction of floors, walls, and/or ceilings in buildings. Compared with currently-used materials, these materials should be less toxic, stronger, more durable, longer lasting, lower weigh, lower in volume, easier to re-cycle and re-use, more biodegradable, and more affordable. The use of a life cycle perspective that embodies these and other related aspects is integral to this topic.

Materials used in constructing the exterior of buildings wind up creating a large portion of the waste materials in the United States. These materials include concrete, wood, metal, glass, and plastic. Much of this material goes to landfills because they cannot be easily or cost-effectively re-cycled or reused. For example, nearly all polyvinyl chloride construction materials go to landfills. There is a need for greener materials that can be used in constructing the exterior of buildings. “Greener” considers the whole life cycle of the materials that are used.

With this in mind, EPA is interested in innovative technologies that address the following topic:

Topic Code 6B: Greener Exterior Construction Materials: Greener materials for use in constructing the exteriors of buildings. Compared with currently-used materials, these materials should be less toxic, stronger, more durable, longer lasting, lower weigh, lower in volume, easier to re-cycle and re-use, more biodegradable, and more affordable. The use of a life cycle perspective that embodies these and other related aspects is integral to this topic.