ACTIVATED CARBON ANTI-DUMPING PETITION UPDATE

By Ken Schaeffer

Early in 2006, Calgon Carbon Corp. and Norit Americas, Inc., two of the three major domestic activated carbon manufacturers, filed an anti-dumping petition with the US government against “certain activated carbon products” manufactured in China. The first petition was withdrawn and a few weeks later a second petition was filed with a slightly different definition of the activated carbons of concern. The petition claims that Chinese activated carbon dumping margins are 153 – 645%. The current import duty on activated carbon from China is 4.8%. The import classification code for all activated carbon is 3802.10.

The current petition asks for much higher duties on all activated carbon products from China that are steam activated and made from coal, wood or coconut shell. The only excluded carbons are reactivated carbon, chemically activated carbons and activated carbon cloth.

2005 data lists approximately 85,000,000 pounds of activated carbon that was imported into the U.S. from China (about half of total activated carbon imports). Calgon Carbon was one of the largest importers as they have activated carbon facilities in China. Total US carbon market is approx. 400,000,000-lbs. per year.

The initial hearing with the ITC staff committee in late March 2006 resulted in a 6-0 vote to proceed and go forward with the petition as it was deemed to have merit.

The ITC and DOC are reviewing the case and have gathered information from many activated carbon importers in the U.S. and from Chinese activated carbon manufacturers. Since China is not an open market economy, the production costs of a surrogate country (India) was used in the petition review.

The final verdict and setting of new import duty levels by the US Gov. is scheduled for Oct 2006. There is some confusion if there will be one overall duty fee or if there will be separate duty fees according to the specific Chinese manufacturing facility.

If the US Gov. sets new higher duty level on activated carbon from China – what will happen?

If the duty is set at 20-40% type level, then not too much would change and this level of duty along with current increasing prices from China due to fuel costs, coal shortage, and currency valuation changes would make many Chinese carbons about equal in price to US products.

A high duty level of 50% or more would restrict imports to only the cheapest grades that could add the duty and remain price competitive in the US market – such as low activity PAC and GAC products. Since all coal pellet carbons are now made in China, they would retain some market share at higher prices and lose some market share to lower priced GAC carbons made in US.

A very high duty of 100% or more would effectively stop most imports of activated carbon from China and probably result in renewed interest in by other companies to start manufacturing coal base activated carbon in the US. Also, other countries with coal such as Canada and Mexico would look at making coal base carbon and importing to the US if Chinese carbon was not price competitive in the US. Some coconut shell activated carbon manufacturers would also investigate feasibility of making certain types and grades of coal base carbon.

Activated carbon products as an industry would generally experience a price escalation if Chinese carbons were eliminated from the scene by very high duty level. Domestic manufacturers could raise prices in many markets and there would not be alternative products available.

Calgon and Norit have stated that they could not replace the 85,000,000 pounds of Chinese imports with there own production capabilities so there would be a shortage of activated carbon products in the US. The overall carbon market would shrink and alternative products to activated carbon would gain market share.

There are no longer any large scale bituminous coal base carbon manufacturers in Europe since Calgon closed its Chemviron facilities several years ago in Belgium. In some applications, coconut shell activated carbon can substitute for coal base carbons if the use is for chlorine, chloramine, THM, or other DBP removal, etc and I think coconut shell activated carbon imports would increase albeit at higher prices due to market conditions in the US.

By Robert Potwora

By Kim Walsh

Welcome to our first edition of Carbon Currents. The purpose of this newsletter is to keep our customers informed on various topics of interest related to our company and the activated carbon industry.

It has been quite an exciting year for Carbon Resources. We have won two major contracts in market areas we targeted. The first contract is with our sabre series® “A” product, a unique bituminous, low density, coal product, in which we maintain exclusive rights in the United States. Our customer signed a two year, 2 million pounds per year contract.

The second project came in several phases. The first phase was a consulting contract to provide lab scale analysis, prototype design and preliminary testing on a new consumer odor control product. Once we determined which blend of activated carbon products were the most effective, we then moved to the second phase. This phase consisted of writing a procurement specification and sourcing materials mainly in Asia. In the final phase, Carbon Resource along with it’s associate companies received a contract for several hundred thousand units to be manufactured that will begin the last quarter of 2006.

We also are developing two new products, one for the super capacitor market and another product that has been surface modified to increase adsorption of various compounds. Both of these products have been undergoing preliminary testing and we plan to market them the first quarter of 2007.

In addition, Carbon Resources along with HEE designed and built our first custom 30,000 cfm Guardian adsorber for an MEK vapor phase application in Southern California. This unique design consists of two 9’ diameter by 12’ tall FRP vessels with dampers and several blowers to allow for flow to be variable (7500-30,000 cfm). In addition, since it was for MEK, we used a special washed carbon and installed CO monitors with a sprinkler system as precaution against potential exothermic reactions.

Ken Schaeffer, President was nominated for the Board of Directors for the Pacific Water Quality Association. Their annual meeting will be held October 24-26th on the Queen Mary in Long Beach, CA.

We also welcomed two new members to our staff: Mary Christine who will be handling the accounts payable/accounts receivable side of the business and Frank Frappier is our warehouse/transportation manager.

WIN an IPOD

By Bob Potwora

The ask Bob column will be featured in every newsletter. We are soliciting questions from our readers on activated carbon technology. Please submit your questions to Robert@carbonresources.com. One question will be selected and answered in the next newsletter. If your question is selected and printed in the newsletter, you will win an Apple iPod® Nano. All questions will receive a reply. Questions will be answered by Robert (Bob) Potwora. He is the Technical Director for Carbon Resources LLC.

Question

How does activated carbon remove chlorine from water? I have heard it’s not adsorbed by the activated carbon.

Answer

That is correct. Activated carbon does not actually adsorb chlorine like it does with most organic substances. A chemical reaction occurs between the activated carbon and chlorine. The chlorine is chemically destroyed by the activated carbon. When chlorine is added to water, hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and hypochlorite ion (OCl-) is formed. When contacted with activated carbon, part of the carbon’s surface is consumed and HCl and Cl- is formed. Eventually, over time, enough of the carbon’s surface will be consumed by the chlorine and the activated carbon will need to be replaced. If the activated carbon is left in service too long (over several years at 1 ppm chlorine) eventually the consumed activated carbon will fall apart and discolored water may be noted in the treated water.