Donaldson, Robert (DEP) 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

From: Nancy Wasserman [nwass@ADELPHIA.NET] 

Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:00 PM 

Donaldson, Robert (DEP) 

Tim Maker; Tom Miles; Fred Heyes 

Comments on Engine Regs 

BERC comments -

Mass. engine r... 

Bob, 

Here are the comments from BERC. Thanks fo r your assistanc e and the opportunit y t o 

send comments! Nancy 

*************** * 

Nancy Wasserman, Consultant 

Biomass Energy Resource Center (BERC) 

PO Box 1611 

Montpelier , VT 05601 

Direc t lin e - 802 229-8096 

Fax - 802 223-7772 

BERC - 802 223-7770 

nwassOadelphia.net 

1 
BIOMAS S 

ENERG Y 

RESOURCE 

CENTE R 

June 30,2004 

SENT via FAX & e-mail 

Mr. Robert T. Donaldson, Associate Director 

Business Compliance Division 

Bureau of Waste Prevention 

Department of Environmental Protection 

One Winter St. 8th floor 

Boston, MA 02108 

RE: Proposed Regulations on Engines and Combustion Turbines 

Dear Bob: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Regulations pertaining to Engines 

and Combustion Turbines. The Biomass Energy Resource Centers comments are attached. 

If you need clarification on any of our comments, we would be happy to assist. 

Sincerely, 

Nancy Wasserman 

Consultant 

Enc. 

P.O. BOX 1611, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05601; phone: 8C2-223-7770, fax: 802-223-7772, wWW.BIOMASSCENTER.ORG 
I 

PUBLIC COMMENTS 

on 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

Proposed Regulations on Engines and Combustion Turbines 

May 2004 

Background 

The Biomass Energy Resource Center (BERC) is a nonprofit organization with a mission of 

developing energy projects that use sustainable biomass resources for environmental benefit and 

local economic development. BERC has championed numerous small-scale wood heating 

installations, the development of methane digesters and is currently working on developing 

wood-heating installations in schools around the country, biomass-fueled district heating systems 

and smaller-scale (50 kWe to 1 MW) biomass combined heat and power projects, primarily in 

New England. We are currently involved with a number of projects designed to demonstrate the 

viability of small-scale wood gasifiers for combined heat and power generation. Initially, the 

biogas produced will be used in a dual-fuel generator set for power production. As the 

technology becomes commercially available, BERC expects biogas to be used in generator sets 

certified for biogas and/or microturbines. 

Balancing Public Benefits and Costs 

BERC is firmly in support of the stated purposes of the RAP Model Rule - specifically to 

regulate the emissions of certain air pollutants from distributed generation facilities and to 

streamline the regulatory and administrative requirements for siting these units. In addition to 

these public health and administrative efficiency benefits, BERC and the biomass energy 

projects it champions support a host of other public policy goals. These benefits include: 

• energy security through the use of locally-produced fuels; 

• increased use of clean, efficient and economical distributed generation systems thereby 

reducing the need for new power plant construction; 

• development of renewable generating and heating capacity; 

• enhanced forest health through the provision of a market for low-grade wood; 

• waste reduction through the use of wood industry byproducts; 

• improved energy efficiency and reduced emissions resulting from use of biomass in 

combined heat and power (CHP) applications; 

• reduced transportation fuel consumption due to lower distances required for transport of 

wood chips; 

• community economic development through the retention of energy dollars, new job 

creation and increased tax revenues; 

BIOMAS S 

ENERG Y 

RESOURCE 

CENTE R 

P.O. BOX 1611, MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05601; phone: 802-223-7770, fax: 802-223-7772, wW3IOMASSCENTER.ORG 
BERC Comments on Proposed Massachusetts Engine Regulations Page 3 of 6 

• reduction of greenhouse gas production due to the use of carbon-neutral fuels 

Applying the strict emissions requirements proposed by the RAP Model Rule and repeated in 

these draft regulations without consideration of any other public benefits, effectively dictates 

policy based on a public health standard. This requirement trumps all other potential public 

benefits and any consideration of the costs, both economic and social, of the proposed solution. 

While we recognize the importance of public health, we question the validity of regulations that 

dictate conditions which supercede all other potential public benefits including goals extolled by 

other public entities. We believe that the balancing of these public benefits and costs need to be 

resolved through Legislative action not through the regulatory process of a single agency. 

Emission Targets 

The emissions targets for CO, NOx and C02 in the draft regulation are based on optimum 

conditions with the cleanest of fossil fuels. The NOx targets are substantially below existing 

emissions factors for uncontrolled diesel industrial engines as published in the AP-42.1 

While we recognize that users of biogas may file a Comprehensive Plan Application, we are 

concerned that the targets will preclude any use of biogas in an engine. Currently, there is little 

existing emissions data on the use of biogas. In Europe, where much of the biogas development 

has taken place, there are no established regulations for the use of biogas in stationary engines. 

Furthermore, there is no body of reference emissions data because of the different kinds and 

sizes of technologies that are being tested. 

Demonstrations in Europe and India have shown us that CO emissions are higher when firing 

producer gas from wood than with other gaseous fuels. This is because engine emissions are 

mostly from inefficiencies in combustion: producer gas has a high proportion of CO, and engines 

designed for diesel or gas have not been optimized for producer gas or dual fuel. The term dual 

fuel for producer gas usually refers to the combined firing of diesel with producer gas. 

Our colleagues working to develop biomass gasification systems have compiled some 

preliminary data on engine emissions. Initial results suggest that the use of biogas in an engine 

compares positively in terms of NOx emissions with the use of natural gas or diesel. 

Nonetheless, the emissions still falls far short of the proposed targets for all types of emissions. 

In fact, conventional technology does not currently exist that can meet the proposed emission 

targets (even using currently available advanced microturbines). 

Impeding the Development of Alternative Fuels 

A variety of comments on the RAP Model Rule, the proposed regulations and similar regulations 

in other states have indicated the difficulty of meeting the emission targets within the proposed 

timeframe. While the Model Rule professes to be fuel neutral, the only way to currently meet 

the proposed emissions standards is by using natural gas in new engines and/or installing after1

 AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Sources p. 3.3-6 available at 

http://www.epa. gov/ttn/chiefyap42/chQ3/final/c03 s03 .pdf. 
BERC Comments on Proposed Massachusetts Engine Regulations Page 4 of 6 

market treatment devices. The emission limitations proposed for 2008 and beyond exceed 

currently demonstrated technology. BERC is particularly concerned about the unintended 

consequences these standards could have on the development and deployment of new fuels and 

cleaner technologies. 

Engine manufacturers are already reluctant to certify performance on any non-standard fuel. 

Most will not include alternative fuels in their recommended operating and maintenance 

procedures. Furthermore, many manufacturer specifically void their warranties if an operator 

uses a non-standard fuel. Operators are therefore reluctant to use alternative fuels in engines still 

covered by warranty. Given the investment associated with these assets, many users of 

alternative fuels start performance and other testing in a used engine. This includes fueling with 

biodiesel, landfill gas, digester gas, wood gas, bio-oil, or any number of conventional/alternative 

blends. Once the operator has confidence in the fuel and its performance, they think about 

upgrading the engine. The most likely innovators willing to test these fuels are industries 

operating engines rated at 50 kW to 300 kW. While the proposed regulations allow users of 

various biofuels to submit a traditional application for review, BERC believes that the added 

administrative burden combined with the requirement for Best Available Control Technology 

and published emission standards will inhibit potential users of alternative fuels. 

BERC encourages the development of a provision that provides for trial periods for the use of 

renewable fuels and a variance process that allows for flexibility. 

Use of Biofuels 

The proposed regulations (310 CMR 7.26(43)(a)2) permit users of units burning landfill, digester 

or other biogas to file a Comprehensive Plan Application (CPA). While acknowledging the 

administrative requirements of this provision, BERC does appreciate the inclusion of this 

alternative process for users of biogas on its own or in combination with fossil fuels. BERC has 

found that commercially acceptable performance in some applications will require biogas to be 

combined with fossil fuels. The CPA process provides a mechanism to insure appropriate 

oversight of these users. We would recommend that this provision be extended to users of any 

type of biofuel. 

Biodiesel and Diesel Blends 

The proposed regulation should not preclude the use of biodiesel, biodiesel blends or other 

biofuels that can be used in diesel engines as long as they meet the EPA sulfur limits. It appears 

that the language of the background document suggests that only ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) 

can satisfy the diesel fuel requirement while the actual language of the proposed regulation 

appears to allow for more flexibility. Any information produced to explain these changes should 

make it clear that biodiesel or other biofuels that meet the EPA standards are acceptable. 

Inhibit Upgrades 

The regulations require conformance "prior to constructing, substantially reconstructing, altering 

or subsequently operating" any emission unit including any internal combustion engine of the 
BERC Comments on Proposed Massachusetts Engine Regulations Page 5 of6 

threshold size. Operators may choose to keep heavily-polluting engines in operation rather than 

trigger an application as suggested by these regulations through an engine overhaul, rebuilding, 

replacement or upgrade. As an incentive to encourage upgrades, BERC recommends adding 

language that 1) clarifies your intent in regards to regular engine overhauls; and 2) reduces or 

alleviates the administrative process for any applicant who can demonstrate that the 

improvement will result in lower emissions at an existing installation. Furthermore, BERC 

recommends the addition of language clarifying your intent in regards to regular engine 

overhauls. 

Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The regulation creates emissions limits for CO2. We assume that this is due to concerns about 

global warming due to increased greenhouse gases, concerns which BERC shares. Wood 

combustion and the use of wood gas in engines results in a higher production of CO2 per unit of 

heat input that fossil fuels. However, biomass is recognized by most climate action 

organizations as CO2 neutral in regards to greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon cycle is a 

naturally occurring system, where carbon is transported, in various forms, throughout the Earth's 

natural systems. Significant quantities of CO2 are absorbed by plants through photosynthesis and 

released through plant respiration and decay.2 The threat of climate change is the major reason 

why the World Wildlife Fund and the European Biomass Industry (AEBIOM) have initiated a 

blueprint for achieving 15% of electricity production from biomass by 2020. As the Blueprint 

states, "Biomass is a carbon-neutral power source in that CO2 absorbed by the raw material 

while growing offsets that generated during combustion."3 

BERC would recommend that any engine operating on at least 20% biogas or other biofuels, as 

measured annually based on output, be exempt from meeting the proposed CO2 emission rates. 

Combined Heat and Power 

Systems that provide both heat and power are significantly more efficient than those that 

generate only electrical power. For the same fuel input and the same emissions, the amount of 

useable energy is increased, thereby lowering the per unit emissions rate and increasing overall 

efficiency. CHP provides one of the most easily achieved methods for increasing energy 

efficiency for all fuels and most technologies. The model rule recognized these environmental 

benefits and provided a well-thought out credit for CHP facilities. Massachusetts should do 

likewise. 

2

 Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research: "The carbon cycle: a simple explanation" http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/carbon_cvcle/intro global.html 

3

 Biopower Switch, A Biomass Blueprint to Meet 15% of OECD Electricity Demand by 2020, published by World 

Wildlife Fund and AEBIOM, p. 6 of 8, available at http://www.panda.org/downloads/europe/biornassleaflet.pdf 

1 
BERC Comments on Proposed Massachusetts Engine Regulations 

Applicability and Economic and Agricultural Impacts 

Page 6 of6 

The regulations reduce the threshold rate for regulation applicability from approximately 300 kW 

to emergency installations of 37 kW and non-emergency generators rated at 50 kW. This 

standard is based on power produced not potential to emit nor hours of operation. 

The Model Rule was designed to apply to generators of electric power. The proposed regulation 

applies to all engines. In addition to peaking power production units, load shaving units, and 

emergency generators, this includes units that produce mechanical power to run pumps or 

operate compressors. While the regulation does allow many of these operators to file a 

Comprehensive Plan Application in lieu of compliance, both compliance and the alternative 

application process will create a significant economic impact on all operators who were 

previously exempt from the regulations. This includes agricultural, forestry and industrial 

concerns operating pumps, compressors or other stationary mechanical engines as well as all 

users of biogas fuels. 

Variances 

The proposed regulations should have a provision that allows for variances, when warranted, due 

to the provision of significant other public benefits. 

Typo 

The proposed amendment to 310 CMR 7.02(5)(a)3 should reference 42 U.S.C. § 7547 not 

§7457.