April 2000 

Greenhouse Gas Technology 

Verification News NEWSLETTER Issue 4 

Published by the Greenhouse Gas Technology Verification Center 

A third-party verifier of greenhouse gas (GHG) technology applications supported by the 

U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) program. 

Center Begins Life 

Cycle Verification 

of Low GHG MSW 

Processing Facility 

Could Process Replace 

Conventional MSW 

Technologies? 

In 1997, methane emissions 

from municipal solid waste 

(MSW) landfills accounted for 37 

percent of anthropogenic SUBBOR Waste Processing Digester 

methane emissions in the United Under Construction at Guelph, Ontario 

States. In addition to being a significant source of GHG emissions, landfills can cause 

community-level odor and land use concerns, produce 

volatile organic compound and toxic air pollutants, and produce liquid wastes which contaminate ground water supplies. 

In 1999, Super Blue Box Recycling Corp., an affiliate of 

Eastern Power LTD. of Ontario, Canada, contacted the 

Greenhouse Gas Technology Verification Center to 

request independent, third-party performance verification 

of their new MSW processing technology. The technology, referred to as Super Blue Box Recycling or SUBBOR, replaces conventional landfills with a process that 

rapidly degrades MSW in an enclosed multi-stage digester 

system (see photo). SUBBOR accepts and processes 

conventional unsorted MSW as received from trash collection vehicles, and produces a suite of recyclable materials, bio-gas, electricity for sale to the grid, process heat, 

and once processing is complete, an organic peat product 

that can be used as a soil amendment (see process diagram on page 4). Because SUBBOR is an enclosed treatment process, it reduces or eliminates the release of 

methane and other pollutants typically associated with 

(continued on page 4, see SUBBOR) 

1 

Verification 

Activities Increase 

Worldwide 

Widely Different Levels of 

GHG Verification May 

Occur 

The verification of environmental technologies and 

projects appears to be 

increasing, and new technology verification programs are 

emerging around the world. 

Over the past two years requests for collaboration with 

the Center have increased significantly as countries in 

North America, South America, and Asia begin planning verification programs and GHG verification is 

addressed by 3 United Nations Groups (UNCTAD, 

UNEP, UNFCCC), the World Bank, the International 

Standards Organization, multi-national businesses like 

Enron, Dupont and BP/Amoco, and verification organizations including US EPA's ETV Program (12 separate 

organizations), ETV Canada, DNV, Ecosecurities, 

Lloyds Register, SGS, and others. 

“The Center interacts with most of these organizations,” 

says Stephen Piccot, GHG Center Director, “and it's 

apparent that verification has widely different meanings to these different organizations.” Recently, Mr. 

Piccot was invited, along with representatives of other 

verification organizations, to the UNFCCC headquarters in Bonn (see photo on page 3) where verification 

approaches proposed by the various participants were 

described. “Approaches varied widely, from a program 

executed entirely by private sector organizations, to 

one where governments and/or the UN maintain 

(continued on page 3, see Verification) 
Greenhouse Gas Technology Verification News 

Center to Verify New Air to Fuel Ratio Controller for IC Engines 

In February 2000, the MIRATECH Corporation submitted it's GECO 3001 air-to-fuel ratio controller for performance 

verification by the Center. The controller is applicable to lean-burn IC engines, and according to MIRATECH, can 

reduce fuel consumption, production of GHGs and other pollutants, lube oil nitration, and engine maintenance cost. 

MIRATECH claims the GECO 3001 allows for improved management of air to fuel ratio during engine speed and load 

variation, and that its closed-loop exhaust oxygen feedback balances operational concerns of fuel economy, maintenance and emissions. 

The GECO 3001 Controller Applied to a Gas-Fired IC Engine The performance of 

the GECO 3001 controller will be based on 

a comparative analysis between a test 

engine (with the controller installed) and 

an identical control 

engine (without the 

controller installed). 

For both engines, the 

Center will quantify 

fuel savings, criteria 

pollutant emissions, 

GHG emissions and 

emission reductions, and operational performance. The evaluation will characterize, via measurements and other 

means, fuel consumption rates, GHG, NOx, CO, and THC emission rates, lubrication oil analysis, engine efficiency, 

operational availability, and maintenance requirements. The evaluation will be conducted over a 3-month period at a 

natural gas transmission station located in the southern United States, and should be completed before the end of 

2000. 

Interest in Early Action Continues to Build 

According to Inside EPA Weekly Report (Volume 21, No.10), the GHG debate in the 

U.S. appears to be turning away from disagreements over the Kyoto Protocol, and 

toward a discussion of actions that can be taken voluntarily on the domestic front. 

The publication notes that both environmentalists and industry may begin to reach 

more common ground this year on tackling global warming domestically from outside 

the Kyoto Protocol. This would include the use of voluntary actions, government 

assistance that does not involve traditional command and control strategies, and possibly, a domestic GHG trading program. Chairman of the Senate Environment & 

Public Works Committee, Bob Smith (R-NH), may pave the way this year by introducing a new early action crediting bill. This would be in addition to early action bills submitted over the last two years by Democratic and 

Republican Party leaders. 

"This all agrees with the feedback we get from our industry stakeholders," said 

Stephen Piccot, GHG Center Director. "Industry folks seem to be looking for the best 

alternatives for GHG reductions, especially the technologies that reduce GHG emissions at the lowest cost. They are very engaged in the process we use to locate 

these types of technologies for verification testing.” Piccot added that "the same sort 

of consensus seems to be emerging between government, industry, and environmental groups in Canada and Europe." 

2
Greenhouse Gas Technology Verification News 

New Electricity Generation Stakeholder Group Meets 

The first meeting of the Center’s Electricity Generation Stakeholder Group was held on November 9, 1999 in 

Arlington, Virginia (see photo). About 30 individuals in attended including Center staff and Stakeholder members. The primary goals of the meeting were to determine which technologies the Center should verify, and which 

verification strategies and parameters are of most interest. 

A highlight of the meeting was the technology voting exercise. The Center presented a list of technology areas 

and types to the group, and asked all participants to vote on which technologies were most in need of verification. The top rated technologies, most of which are related to distributed electrical generation (DG) are: 

1. Microturbines (gas and diesel) 

2. PEM Fuel Cells (gas and dual fuel) 

3. Energy Efficiency Improvements 

4. Small Industrial Turbines (gas and diesel) 

5. Hybrid DG Systems (fully integrated) 

6. Reciprocating Engines (diesel and gas) 

7. Fuel Reformers 

Stirling engines received a moderate level of interest, while technologies in other areas (SF6, landfill 

gas, manure management) received fewer votes. 

Participants in the group included large and small 

electricity generators, vendors of fuel cells, turbines, 

Diane Wood of Honeywell Power Systems Inc. discusses microturbines, stirling engines, IC engines, MSW 

upcoming microturbine verification test with USEPA staff management, and other technologies, federal and 

David Kirchgessner and William Rhodes at the other government organizations, technology finance 

Electricity Generation Stakeholder Meeting organizations, and others. As a result of the meeting, the Center is assessing several DG technologies and advanced power generation systems for possible verification testing. The goal is to make final selections by late 2000. 

Verification (continued from page 1) 

oversight and publish verification guidelines.” At a recent international GHG verification workshop in Vancouver, Canada, an 

effort to establish an international working group to coordinate 

GHG verification activitries was proposed, and more recently, an 

international committee was formed to address GHGs from an 

ISO 14000 perspective. A reoccurring concern expressed by 

organizations participating in GHG verification, trading, and emission reduction project activities is that without some international 

GHG verification guidelines, technology and project-based verifications could vary considerably, undermining the credibility and 

value of potential future GHG trades, and reducing the credibility 

of emission reduction claims made by technology vendors and 

CDM project participants. 

UNFCCC expects to present monitoring, reporting, and verification guidelines for the Kyoto Protocol at the upcoming 6th 

Conference of The Parties being held in The Hague, Netherlands 

this fall. UNFCCC Headquarters in Bonn, Germany 

3
Greenhouse Gas Technology Verification News 

SUBBOR Process Diagram 

SUBBOR 

(continued from page 1) 

conventional MSW disposal technologies such as landfills or incinerators. It also mitigates odors, 

ground water contamination from 

landfill leachate, and, due to a relatively small footprint, reduces 

land use. Bruce Holbein, 

SUBBOR's Director of 

Technology for a facility under 

construction at Guelph, Ontario 

says, "SUBBOR virtually eliminates waste streams; the relatively low emissions from biogas 

combustion for electricity production is an emission that, if not produced by SUBBOR, would occur 

at electricity generation stations." Holbein added, "MSW accounts for about 5 percent of Canada's total GHG emissions, so the potential to reach a 5 percent reduction commitment under the Kyoto protocol makes the SUBBOR verification highly significant for Canada." 

The GHG Verification Center will conduct a verification of the new Guelph facility to identify and measure emissions 

of CH4 and other GHGs, criteria pollutants including NOx, SO2, and total hydrocarbons, and, if present, dioxin. GHG 

and criteria pollutant emissions from operations associated with the facility will also be determined including garbage 

collection and delivery operations, and processing and finishing of final products from the recycled materials. An independent Stakeholder advisory panel, made up of MSW technical and policy experts, will assist in the planning and 

peer review of the SUBBOR verification. Sushma Masemore, Verification Project Director said, “The panel will help 

ensure we address the issues important to those that have a stake in MSW management technologies, and will help 

ensure a broadly acceptable and transparent verification occurs.” At the recent Globe 2000 meeting in Vancouver, 

Canada, Greg Vogt, President of SUBBOR and developer of the SUBBOR technology said, "We're proud that Eastern 

Power can offer this breakthrough technology to the world, and we have confidence our process will perform well. On 

the other hand, we know that customers need credible independent verification data to support a decision to invest in 

SUBBOR rather than conventional landfills. This is why we sought out the GHG Center and are stepping up to the 

plate to be verified by US EPA's credible and independent ETV program.” 

GHG emissions will be determined by the Center via direct process measurements of all significant release points 

within the SUBBOR facility at Guelph. Emission reductions will be determined by comparing measured emissions with 

estimated emissions for a suite of conventional baseline MSW management options. Emissions from the suite of 

baseline technologies will be determined using an internationally accepted and peer- reviewed waste decomposition 

and life cycle model. Baseline technologies include conventional landfill technologies both with and without gas recovery and use, MSW combustion facilities, and a combination of options involving various conventional recycling alternatives. 

Contact the GHG Technology Verification Center by calling Stephen Piccot at Southern Research Institute 

(919/806-3456), or David Kirchgessner at the USEPA (919/541-4021). View our site at www.sri-rtp.com. 

4