march 2013 biomass magazine

32
March 2013 www.biomassmagazine.com

Upload: bbi-international

Post on 14-Mar-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

March 2013 Biomass Magazine

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

March 2013

www.biomassmagazine.com

Page 2: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

In Ontario, Canada clean energy powers growth.

Recent investments totalling more than $10 billion

make us a leader in renewable energy development.

Home to the largest wind and solar farms in Canada,

we are serious about building our renewable energy

capacity. Our generous R&D tax credits combined with

our highly skilled workforce is fuelling innovation, and

our central location provides access to a market of more

than 420 million potential customers. As more clean

energy projects come online from wind, solar and

bioenergy – Ontario is on-track to phasing out coal-

fired electricity entirely. A clean future starts here. Make

Ontario your next big idea.

BIG IDEAIS YOUR NEXT

YourNextBigIdea.ca/Renewables

HERE’S WHY ONTARIO, CANADA

45%of Ontario’s current renewable energy generating capacity comes from Hydroelectricity

9%Solar

2%Bioenergy

44%Wind

Paid for by the Government of Ontario.

Page 3: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 3

Q&AMaine's Pellet Phoenix Matt Bell discusses a catastrophic fi re that leveled his Ashland, Maine, pellet mill, and how he used lessons learned to rebuild bigger and better.By Tim Portz

PLANTY SAFETY Bioenergy Plant Precautions Knowing the risks and dangers, and prevention training, save money and assets down the road. By Anna Simet

CONTRIBUTIONREGULATIONBoiler MACT Impacts Biomass Release of fi nal specifi cations clarifi es emissions standards for power producer compliance.By Brandon Bell

INSIDE¦

MARCH 2013 | VOLUME 7 | ISSUE 3

FEATURES DEPARTMENTS04 EDITOR’S NOTE

Safety is a Goal,Not a GuaranteeBy Tim Portz

05 INDUSTRY EVENTS

07 POWER PLATFORMBloomberg Brings Good News for BiomassBy Bob Cleaves

08 THERMAL DYNAMICSFrequent Flier Biomass MilesBy Joseph Seymour

09 ADVANCED ADVOCACYNew Year Brings Positive OutcomesBy Michael McAdams

10 LEGAL PERSPECTIVENew EPA Clean Air Act RegulationsBy Thomas R. Wood and Kevin D. Johnson

12 BUSINESS BRIEFS

14 BIOMASS NEWS

28 MARKETPLACE

18

16

24

ADVERTISER INDEX¦

2013 Algae BIomass Summit 31

2013 Fuel Ethanol Workshop & Expo 32

2013 International Biomass Conference & Expo 30

Amandus Kahl GmbH & Co. KG 14

American International TN LLC 26

BBI Consulting Services 5

Bioimass Industry Directory 29

CPM Roskamp Champion 25

Fagen Inc. 20

Fike Corporation 21

GEA Westfalia Separator 6

Himark bioGas 27

ICM, Inc. 23

Iowa Economic Development Authority 11

KEITH Manufacturing Company 13

Northeast Biomass Heating Expo 12

Ontario Ministry of Economic 2Development and Innovation

Vecoplan LLC 15

West Salem Machinery 22

Biomass Magazine: (USPS No. 5336) March 2013, Vol. 7, Issue 3. Biomass Magazine is published monthly by BBI International. Principal Offi ce: 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. Periodicals Postage Paid at Grand Forks, North Dakota and additional mailing offi ces. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Biomass Magazine/Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203.

16

On the Cover:Pori Prosessivoima's biopower plant in Pori, Finland, utilizes a circulating fl uidized bed boiler and a district heating back-pressure turbine.

Photo: Metso

March 2013

Boiler MACT Facts

Details Biomass Power Producers

Need to KnowPage 24

Plus:Industry Experts Share Bioenergy Plant Safety Insight and Advice Page 18

And:How One Pellet Producer Recovered From a Devastating FirePage 16

www.biomassmagazine.com

Page 4: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

4 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

Safety is a Goal, Not a Guarantee

As the fi nal touches were being put on this issue of Biomass Magazine, I found myself in two conversations about hazardous plant incidents that occurred at fortu-itous times, at least for the workers at those facilities. One of those conversations occurred in person, and the plant manager I was speaking with produced a photograph on his iPhone for me to view. Looking closely, I realized that I was looking at an i-beam elbowed grotesquely, disfi gured by a dryer explosion.

In the other conversation, which was with this month’s Q&A subject, Northeast Pellet’s Matt Bell shared with me the feeling that descended over him when being awakened in the middle of the night to learn that his pellet

plant was on fi re. Both of these incidents resulted in halted production, destroyed equipment, insurance

claims and rebuilding and repair headaches. Neither, however, resulted in an injury or death. This is the only reason these very serious incidents could be described as fortuitously timed, as they occurred near the middle of the night when the facilities were minimally staffed and the personnel on site were out of harm’s way.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The Occupational Safety & Health Admin-istration reports that in 2011, over 4,500 workers lost their lives while on the job; a sobering 13 deaths per day. Even more shocking, the current rate of injuries and deaths have trended down signifi cantly since the formation of OSHA in the early 1970s, when almost 40 work-ers lost their lives each day.

The improvements and bar raises in worker safety can certainly be assigned to OSHA’s efforts, but not exclusively. OSHA employs 2,200 health and safety inspectors to protect over 130 million American workers, or roughly one inspector for every 59,000 workers. It is clear that protecting American workers, and continuing to improve upon worker safety, falls squarely on the shoulders of employers. Anna Simet’s feature “Bioenergy Plant Precau-tions” indicates this industry is well aware of where the inherent risks can be found, as well as the technologies that have emerged to manage them. Of course, this doesn't guarantee safety. All that can be guaranteed is a daily commitment to understand the best available practices and technologies to protect our industry’s workers, and to deploy them as quickly and effi ciently as possible.

TIM PORTZVICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT & EXECUTIVE [email protected]

¦EDITOR’S NOTE

EDITORIAL

PRESIDENT & EDITOR IN CHIEFTom Bryan [email protected]

VICE PRESIDENT OF CONTENT & EXECUTIVE EDITORTim Portz [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR Anna Simet [email protected]

NEWS EDITORErin Voegele [email protected]

COPY EDITOR Jan Tellmann [email protected]

ARTART DIRECTOR

Jaci Satterlund [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNERElizabeth Burslie [email protected]

PUBLISHING & SALESCHAIRMAN

Mike Bryan [email protected]

CEOJoe Bryan [email protected]

VICE PRESIDENT, SALES & MARKETINGMatthew Spoor [email protected]

EXECUTIVE ACCOUNT MANAGERHoward Brockhouse [email protected]

ACCOUNT MANAGERSMarty Steen [email protected] Bob Brown [email protected]

Andrea Anderson [email protected] Brorby kbrorby@bbiinternational

CIRCULATION MANAGER Jessica Beaudry [email protected]

ADVERTISING COORDINATORMarla DeFoe [email protected]

SENIOR MARKETING MANAGERJohn Nelson [email protected]

Subscriptions Biomass Magazine is free of charge to everyone with the exception of a shipping and handling charge of $49.95 for any country outside of the United States, Canada and Mexico. To sub-scribe, visit www.BiomassMagazine.com or you can send your mailing address and payment (checks made out to BBI International) to Biomass Magazine Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. You can also fax a subscription form to 701-746-5367. Back Issues & Reprints Select back issues are available for $3.95 each, plus shipping. Article reprints are also available for a fee. For more information, contact us at 701-746-8385 or [email protected]. Advertising Biomass Magazine provides a specifi c topic delivered to a highly targeted audience. We are committed to editorial excellence and high-quality print production. To fi nd out more about Biomass Magazine advertising opportunities, please contact us at 701-746-8385 or [email protected]. Letters to the Editor We welcome letters to the editor. Send to Biomass Magazine Letters to the Contributions Editor, 308 2nd Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203 or email to [email protected]. Please include your name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity and/or space.

TM

Please recycle this magazine and remove inserts or samples before recycling COPYRIGHT © 2013 by BBI International

Page 5: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 5

INDUSTRY EVENTS¦

www.bbiinterna�onal.com866-746-8385 | service@bbiinterna�onal.com

Consulting Services

BOTTOM-LINE RESULTS

Saving �me and money is key. Because we’ve completed more than 335 bioenergy projects around the world, the team here at BBI Consul�ng Services is able to streamline any bioenergy and engineering project. In return, you’ll save �me and money, elimina�ng underfunded and undermanned projects. We’ll help you keep your project on the best track for success.

Northeast Biomass Heating ExpoApril 3-5, 2013City CenterSaratoga Springs, New YorkThis event unites a diverse audience from the biomass fuel, supply chain, developer, manufacturer, and government sectors to break barriers and ground for biomass ther-mal and combined heat and power (CHP) systems. From the expo fl oor, to panel discussions, to technical workshops for engineers, the refreshed and fast-paced inter-active program will emphasize practical learning and real project case studies. Also, attendees can experience biomass thermal fuels and technologies fi rsthand through the outdoor vendor fair.(978)669-5019 | www.nebiomassheat.com

International Biomass Conference & ExpoApril 8-10, 2013Minneapolis Convention CenterMinneapolis, MinnesotaBuilding on InnovationOrganized by BBI International and coproduced by Biomass Magazine, the Interna-tional Biomass Conference & Expo program will include 30-plus panels and more than 100 speakers, including 90 technical presentations on topics ranging from anaerobic digestion and gasifi cation to pyrolysis and combined heat and power. This dynamic event unites industry professionals from all sectors of the world’s interconnected bio-mass utilization industries—biobased power, thermal energy, fuels and chemicals. (866)746-8385 | www.biomassconference.com

International Fuel Ethanol Workshop & ExpoJune 10-13, 2013America’s CenterSt. Louis, MissouriWhere Producers MeetFrom its inception in 1985, the mission of the event has remained constant: The FEW delivers timely presentations with a strong focus on commercial-scale ethanol produc-tion, from quality control and yield maximization to regulatory compliance and fi scal management. The FEW is also the ethanol industry’s premier forum for unveiling new technologies and research fi ndings. The program extensively covers cellulosic etha-nol while remaining committed to optimizing existing grain ethanol operations.(866)746-8385 | www.fuelethanolworkshop.com

Algae Biomass SummitSeptember 30- October 3, 2013Hilton OrlandoOrlando, FloridaThis dynamic event unites industry professionals from all sectors of the world’s algae utilization industries including, but not limited to, fi nancing, algal ecology, genetic sys-tems, carbon partitioning, engineering and analysis, biofuels, animal feeds, fertilizers, bioplastics, supplements and foods. Organized by the Algae Biomass Organization and coproduced by BBI International, this event brings current and future producers of biobased products and energy together with algae crop growers, municipal leaders, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, project developers, investors and policy makers. This event is the world’s premier educational and networking junction for all algae industry sectors.(866)746-8385 | www.algaebiomasssummit.org

Page 6: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

% D

ry S

olid

s

2468

0

31.534

Spiral plate Disc stack

11.5% Difference

10

32343638

30

40

With six service offi ces

throughout North America

and professionals that are

experts in algae separation,

GEA Westfalia Separator

off ers the centrifugal

separation equipment that

can cost-eff ectively meet

your needs. We welcome

the comparison between the

two separation technologies.

To learn more and fi nd out

about testing one of our

machines, contact Keith

Funsch at 201-784-4322 or

[email protected].

When diff erent technology enters

a market, there is always some

question about how it compares to

what’s been available. That’s the case

with spiral plate versus disc stack

separating equipment. Disc stack

separation has a proven 50-year record

in algae dewatering and concentration.

With over 300 installations worldwide,

the process has been perfected and a

signifi cant amount of data collected.

Design elements in disc stack machines

allow production of a superior product

at a lower cost. Here are the facts:

1. Continuous machine operation

allows for maximum up-time during

processing. Solids are ejected at

regular intervals with absolutely no

interruption. There is no need to slow

down the equipment and then bring

it up to operating speed with a disc

stack separator.

2. Automatic cleaning-in-place (CIP)

is programmed in the machine, saving

time and labor costs.

3. G-forces over 10,000 allow for

production of pastes that are

11.5% drier.

4. Processing parameters such as

speed and ejection time are adjustable

on disc stack equipment. This allows

production of solids with varying

dry matter levels for diff erent

customer requirements.

5. Thirty (30) models are available

with capacities ranging from less than

1 m3/hr to over 150 m3/hr. We work

with you to fi nd the machine that

maximizes production for your current

operation. Most machines can be scaled

up as needs change.

6. Energy consumption, given the

complete range of disc stack machines

we off er, is equal to or less than what

spiral plate technology off ers. Disc stack

machines use up to 20% less power.

Setting the Record Straight on Algae Separation

engineering for a better world

GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc.

GEA Westfalia SeparatorDivision100 Fairway CourtNorthvale, NJ 07647Phone: 201-767-3900Fax: 201-767-3901Toll-Free: 800-722-662224-Hour Technical Help: 800-509-9299www.wsus.com

Page 7: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 7

Last month, Bloomberg and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy released their Sustainable Energy in America 2013 Fact Book, a comprehensive overview of the state of sustainable energy in the U.S. This joint project is an annual evaluation of the entire sustainable energy industry and its many sub-industries, including biomass, which delves into changes over the past year and projects what’s ahead.

I wanted to share with you some of the highlights contained in this year’s report. Overall, biomass fares pretty well, especially when compared to the other re-newables. The news is not all good, but the trends show a resilient biomass industry that, despite some challenges, fi ghts and achieves growth.

The best news from the report is that it seems that the federal and state support the industry has fought for and earned is paying off. This support, mostly in the form of federal tax credits and state renewable portfolio standard programs (RPS), has translated into signifi cant investment in the biomass sector. Though signifi cantly lower than solar and wind due to high capital costs and the need for long-term power purchase agreements (PPA), annual investment in the biomass sector averaged just over $900 million between 2008 and 2012.

The report notes the importance of the federal Pro-duction Tax Credit and the Investment Tax Credit, both of which are available to biomass, observing that “These tax credits are truly the lifeblood of the renewables in-dustry as they allow renewable energy technologies to be more cost competitive with other sources of generation. Thus any potential expiration of these credits inevitably unsettles the industry.” Fortunately, these credits were recently enhanced as part of the fi scal deal package, al-lowing new facilities to qualify if construction is begun by the end of 2013, rather than completed by the end of this year. The Biomass Power Association is working toward an extension of the PTC deadline this year as part of our government relations efforts.

Equally important was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which, through the 1603 grant pro-gram administered by the Department of the Treasury, provided a much-needed strategy for developers to fund the ITC in an effi cient manner.

While not every state policy has been supportive

of biomass in recent years, the fact book indicates that many states are truly looking to biomass as a realistic and reliable alternative to fossil fuels, and their policies are contributing to overall growth. The report correctly notes that while “support for renewables at the federal level has had its dramatic ups and downs over the past fi ve years,” state-level support has been more reliable and uniform, with 29 states enacting an RPS. Importantly, each of the 29 states’ RPS programs embrace biomass energy. The re-port also notes, “Since 2008, interest in dedicated biomass combustion has started to pick up, driven by attractive state subsidies or feedstock availability.”

The report made some interesting observations relat-ing to biomass and utilities. First, utility-scale projects are responsible for the largest percentage of new renewable generating capacity in recent years. The reasons cited for this include declining capital costs coupled with the avail-ability of federal and state incentives. While growth across the renewable sector varies widely by technology, the growth of utility-scale biomass continues, albeit haltingly.

On the other hand, biomass growth appears rela-tively small when compared to other renewables. Accord-ing to the fact book, annual asset fi nance for biomass generation was substantially lower than the funding received by the wind and solar sectors, due to the smaller number of bankable projects. Capital tends to be available for biomass projects that have in place a PPA, and also an experienced engineering, procurement and construc-tion contractor and some protection against feedstock availability and price risk. None of these factors are deal breakers on their own, but fi nding the right combination of funding and expertise can be a challenge, as so many biomass entrepreneurs are aware.

For biomass, the biggest takeaway in the fact book is this: while it’s great news to see that the federal funding we’ve been working so hard for has indeed contributed to industry growth, it’s all the more crucial for us to keep advocating for biomass on the federal and state levels. I encourage everyone reading this to continue sharing your biomass stories with your elected offi cials.

Author: Bob CleavesPresident and CEO, Biomass Power Association

www.biomasspowerassociation.com [email protected]

Bloomberg Brings Good News for Biomass

POWER PLATFORM¦

BY BOB CLEAVES

Page 8: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

8 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

This spring, the business of biomass is spelled A-P-R-I-L. From April 3 through April 26, no fewer than three biomass thermal conferences and expositions will engage new buyers, educate policy makers, and connect the biomass supply chain. Hopefully, you’ve heard their names by now: Northeast Biomass Heating Expo, Inter-national Biomass Conference & Expo, and Heating the Midwest with Renewable Biomass. These conferences’ missions are to unite 2,300-plus domestic and interna-tional attendees, display hundreds of exhibitors, hold more than 30 panels, and guide a half-dozen tours. But with limited marketing resources, why attend one, let alone all three? Allow me to help answer that question.

The Northeast Biomass Heating Expo begins the spring sprint April 3 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Since this event was founded in 2009, it has connected more than 1,450 attendees and 300 different businesses, agen-cies and organizations on how biomass works in the New England region. This year’s conference has made a conscious effort to move away from policy and toward practical learning for developers, installers and vendors of biomass heating equipment. On the fi rst day of the conference, two sessions will describe advanced hydronic heating systems, thermal controls, and how to maximize energy savings. Other sessions will address how industry players are improving bulk pellet fuel storage safety and reducing combustions emissions. Getting to Saratoga Springs early? Attend the preconference activities like the Agricultural Biomass Seminar, industry tour, and ASTM Heat Metering stakeholder session. Finally, workshops comparing the feasibility of chip and pellet systems and a “lightening round” of regional case studies will provide attendees both a practical and hopeful outlook for ex-panding their business in the Northeast.

Thankfully, only one time zone separates the North-east Biomass Heating Expo from the next stop on the biomass circuit, the International Biomass Expo in Min-neapolis. Beginning April 8 with industry tours and con-cluding April 10, this 5th annual conference boasts the largest attendance of the three and serves as the nexus of biomass fuels, technologies and applications. I can imagine few venues where I can discuss thermal renew-able portfolio standard developments with biomass heat,

dairy digester, landfi ll gas, and biofuels project develop-ers and operators en masse. Each successive conference has refi ned its activities to suit the year’s biomass zeitgeist; 2012’s keynote speaker addressed the U.S. Department of Defense’s energy demands with a biomass slant, and this year’s features experts who will describe our indus-try’s strategies to build and fi nance enough biopower to meet the nation’s ambitious energy goals.

Finally, the Heating the Midwest with Renewable Biomass Conference brings the month’s energy dialogue full circle. Carlton, Minn., hosts the event’s second oc-currence, April 24-26. Organizers have described it as the offi cial rollout of the region’s energy vision, and it’s designed like the Bold Vision for 2025, which debuted at the Northeast Biomass Heating Expo in 2010. An au-thor of both the Northeast and the new Midwest vision, William Strauss, biomass economist and president of Fu-tureMetrics, will deliver the opening keynote and set the tone for the ensuing two days. Each major work session will incorporate the Midwest vision’s fi ndings and recom-mendations on feedstocks, demographics and demand, and thermal technologies. If your company is consider-ing selling or installing biomass fuels and equipment in the Midwestern market, attending this conference is a wise investment.

I’m often asked for recommendations of associa-tions to support and events to attend, to which I always respond, “Support them all, if you have the resources.” I’m often reminded that biomass is a business fi rst. So, how will you decide which conference to attend? Will it be based on the quality of exhibitors, networking envi-ronment, or educational resources and professional de-velopment? In full disclosure, I’m participating in all three events, and that’s by design; BTEC’s mission supports increasing recognition of thermal regionally and nation-ally. If you would like to sit down and talk biomass in Saratoga Springs, Minneapolis, or Carlton, send me an email beforehand. I hope to see you at least once this next month.

Author: Joseph SeymourExecutive Director, Biomass Thermal Energy Council

202-596-3974 ext. [email protected]

Frequent Flier Biomass MilesBY JOSEPH SEYMOUR

¦THERMAL DYNAMICS

Page 9: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 9

In my last Biomass Magazine column, I wrote of the upcoming election and the number of things that could potentially be affected, depend-ing on certain outcomes. For the most part, the election brought a number of favorable outcomes for the advanced biofuels sector.

After a long and contentious battle, the Ad-vanced Biofuels Association and a large coalition prevailed in earning support of the administra-tion’s proposal to utilize the Defense Production Act to expedite the development of drop-in ad-vanced biofuels for military use. I am delighted to inform readers of those who became the heroes of this battle, which ensued on the Senate fl oor right after the elections, before the big man slid down the chimney.

Sen. Mark Udall, D-CO, with the support of Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., led the fi ght against the amendment by Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla., which would have restricted the U.S. Navy’s purchas-ing power to only buy advanced biofuels at the same basic price of incumbent refi nery-produced products. Given the 100-year head start, this was hardly a fair provision, and was so constricted in the manner in which it was written it that it would have made it very diffi cult for the military to carry out certain missions that require specially made fuels. In the end, the Senate defeated Inhofe’s provision by a bipartisan vote of 62 to 37.

The Senate then began debate on a second amendment by Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., to delete a prohibition on the use of Defense Department funds to build plants under the proposed DPA program, proposed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. Given McCain’s status as the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, this was

a particularly diffi cult amendment to defeat. With Hagan’s superb effort and the support of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, however, the coalition was able once again to post a bipartisan win and pass of Hagan’s amendment by a vote of 54-41. The effort put the Senate in an excellent position to negotiate with the House in the upcoming confer-ence.

At the conference, negotiators with the strong support of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and De-fense Secretary Leon Panetta were able to negoti-ate a narrow compromise, also eliminating similar limiting amendments that passed the House Armed Services Committee by a narrow vote of 32-29. This allows the DPA program to move forward, and we expect the fi rst phase of funding to be announced as soon as the end of March.

In addition to the victories on the Defense Authorization Act, Congress was able to pass a number of biofuels tax credits along with the fi s-cal cliff legislation just after the fi rst of the year. The provisions extended the biodiesel, renewable diesel and cellulosic tax credits, and also added algae as a qualifi ed feedstock in the newly written advanced biofuels tax credit. All these provisions were extended retroactively to apply in 2012 and will lapse at the end of 2013.

This coming year will see a signifi cant chal-lenge to the renewable fuel standard 2, but I’ll save that subject for my next column. The year will be challenging, and your engagement and continued efforts are a must. Thanks for all you do.

Author: Michael McAdamsPresident, Advanced Biofuels Association

[email protected]

New Year Brings Positive Outcomes

ADVANCED ADVOCACY¦

BY MICHAEL MCADAMS

Page 10: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

10 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

The U.S. EPA adopted new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5, fi ne particulates with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, on Dec. 14. PM2.5 has both an annual and a 24-hour standard. The annual standard was lowered from 15 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) to 12 ug/m3, which is the lower end of the range that had been proposed by EPA in June. EPA is not proposing to change the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which is set at 35 ug/m3.

States must now determine whether any areas with-in their jurisdiction are out of attainment with the new PM2.5 annual standard. The state’s determination must be submitted to EPA by December, and the EPA will have one year to issue its fi nal determinations as to what portions of any states are not meeting the standards.

There are a couple of unique features about this new rule. First, EPA is grandfathering Prevention of Signifi cant Deterioration permit applications that were deemed complete by Dec. 14. This new approach pro-tects sources that have already entered the PSD permit-ting process from having to revise their application now that the standards have been issued.

Additionally, EPA chose not to adopt a new PM2.5 secondary standard that was intended to specifi cally ad-dress visibility impacts. The June proposal would have adopted a 24-hour visibility standard of between 28 and 30 deciviews to address PM-related visibility impair-ment.

Secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare, including ecological impacts and visibility, while primary standards are intended to protect public health. This was the fi rst time that EPA proposed to adopt a distinct visibility standard, and it was controversial. Ul-timately, however, the agency concluded not to adopt a visibility standard, but instead to retain the current sec-ondary PM standards with the notion that the concen-tration-based standards would be an adequate surrogate for visibility protection.

Boiler MACT and CISWIOn Dec. 20, the EPA signed amendments to the

Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology stan-dards, originally issued in March 2011. In order to deter-mine how these rules might affect a biomass boiler, it is necessary to determine whether the boiler is located at an area or a major source of Hazardous Air Pollutants.

A major source is a facility that has the potential to emit 10 or more tons per year of any individual HAP, or 25 or more tons per year of aggregate HAP. Under both the 2011 rules and the new rules, existing biomass boilers at area sources are not subject to emission standards, but are subject to work practices. New biomass boilers at area sources are subject to both emission standards and work practices, but the 2012 rule amendments loosen the work practices and revise the emission standards for biomass boilers.

The most dramatic rule changes came in relation to biomass boilers at major HAP sources. Both existing and new biomass boilers at major HAP sources are sub-ject to emission and work practice standards, and many of the emission standards got more stringent as a result of the December revisions. However, boilers at major sources now have an additional three years to come into compliance, by Jan. 31, 2016.

In a separate but related action, EPA revised the nonhazardous secondary materials rule (NHSM). This rule defi nes which materials are “solid waste” when burned in combustion units. Boilers that burn solid waste are considered commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators, and are required to meet extremely stringent standards. If possible, sources want to avoid becoming regulated as CISWIs.

The December revisions to the NHSM Rule were good for the biomass industry. Further clarifi cation was given as to those fuels considered “clean cellulosic bio-mass,” and so presumptively not solid waste. In addition, the rule clarifi ed the nonwaste status of resinated wood, landfi ll gas, and pulp and paper sludge. Hope was raised that relief for construction and demolition wood, as well as paper recycling residuals, was not far behind. EPA suggested that it might even clear the way for railroad ties to be considered fuel, however, regulatory relief for these three fuels requires further rulemaking.

Authors: Thomas WoodAttorney, Stoel Rives

[email protected]

Kevin D. JohnsonAttorney, Stoel Rives

[email protected]

New EPA Clean Air Act RegulationsBY THOMAS WOOD AND KEVIN JOHNSON

¦LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

Page 11: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

ininnonovavatitionon, ththatat i iss. W We’e veve g gotot n notot o onene b butut t twowo t topop r reseseeiin tstitit tutiions, IIowa S Sttatte U U iniversitity andd UUniiver isitty off IIowa. NNott araree ththeyey p proroduducicingng b brereakakththrorougughshs i inn plplanantt, a aninimamall anandd huhuman biosciences. Each is transferring patented discoveries to Iowa’s bioscience companies. Which attracts a cluster of the most innovative bioscience leaders in the world. Which attracts more R&D investment. Which produces more patents. Which attracts a skilled talent pool. We call this Iowa’s “agronomic ecosystem.” It’s why Iowa has produced growth rates and profits that far outpaced the nation. And caused Battelle Technology to write, “No other location in the country has such a complete suite of capabilities for bioscience development.”

Find your opportunity at IowaEconomicDevelopment.com. iowaeconomicdevelopment businessiowa

eencncee eaearcrchh

onlly uumamann

Page 12: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

PEOPLE, PRODUCTS & PARTNERSHIPSBusiness BriefsArborGen names chief financial officer

Richard Eisenstadt has joined ArborGen Inc. as chief fi nancial offi cer. As the new CFO, he will be responsible for the company’s fi nance, treasury and investor relations functions and will serve as an executive business partner to Andrew Baum, president and CEO of ArborGen. Eisenstadt has extensive fi nancial and business experience, as well as a broad understanding of funding growth companies. He has more than 30 years of experience in the healthcare, life sciences and emerging technologies industries. For the past nine years he served as CFO of Tranzyme Pharma, where he raised more than $150 million in equity and debt, including the completion of the company’s initial public offering.

Agrivida appoints new vice president

Agrivida Inc. has added Barbara Wells as vice president of global strategy. As a member of the company’s senior management team, Wells will be responsible for planning and implementing Agrivida’s global commercial development and

scientifi c collaboration activities, with an initial focus on Latin America. Wells previously served as president and CEO of ArborGen Inc. She currently serves as a director of Metabolix Inc. and as director and chair of the food and agriculture board of the Biotechnology Industry Organization. In her prior positions, Wells developed and implemented strategic plans for biotechnology portfolios in the global forestry and agricultural sectors totaling more than $600 million. She has also led successful acquisitions and joint ventures in the U.S. and abroad.

Proterro adds chief business development officer

David Austgen has joined Proterro Inc. as its fi rst chief business development offi cer. Austgen has experience in opportunity assessment, commercial planning, joint ventures, contact negotiations and relationship management. Prior to joining Proterro, he

served as chief development offi cer of Luca Technologies, where he headed up development of global partnerships as well as acquisitions and divestitures within the U.S. Austgen also spent two decades within the Shell family of companies, including the position of senior business and joint venture manager of alternative energy, biofuels at Shell Downstream Inc., where he led biofuel development in Brazil during 2008.

BTEC elects 2013 executive officersThe Biomass Thermal Energy

Council has announced newly elected executive offi cers for the 2013 board of directors. Dan Wilson, vice president of Wilson Engineering Services, will serve as chairman. Dan Arnett, biomass coordinator for Ernst Conservation Seeds, will serve as vice chair. The position of treasurer will be fi lled by Robert Davis, founder and CEO of Forest Energy Corp., while John Ackerly, president of the Alliance for Green Heat, will serve as secretary. The election marks the departure of Charlie Niebling, New England Wood Pellet’s general manager, as BTEC chairman.

3

Meet new customers at the region’s premier biomass heating conference and expo.

Expand Your Northeastern Biomass Thermal Network

April 3-5, 2013 City Center - Saratoga Springs, NY

Expand Your Northeastern Biomass Thermal Network

Space is Limited: Register Today

With engineer- and installer-tailored sessions, and an expanded expo hall, this year’s conference brings biomass heating closer to the consumer than ever before.

2012 Event Stats

provinces represented

equipment vendors

district heating, gaining community support

contractors

www.nebiomassheat.com

David Austgen has more than 25 years of experience working in the chemicals and energy sectors.

Page 13: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 13

Novozymes appoints new president and CEO

Peder Holk Nielsen has been selected to serve as Novozymes new president and CEO, effective April 1. Nielson will replace current president and CEO Steen Riisgaard, who is stepping down after 12 years at the company’s top post, and 33 years with Novozymes and Novo Industri/Novo Nordisk. Nielsen has served as executive vice president and head of the company’s enzyme business since 2007. He has held other positions at Novozymes and Novo Industri/Novo Nordisk, including those in business development, research and development, quality management, sales and marketing.

American Biogas Council, US Composing Council join forces

The American Biogas Council and the U.S. Composting Council have signed a memorandum of understanding to help accelerate growth of the organics recycling industry. Together, the two groups represent 900 organizations. Composting and biogas systems both use natural processes to yield saleable products, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recover soil nutrients, and reduce the need for additional landfi ll or incineration

capacity. The groups will work to educate leaders and citizens of the benefi ts of organics recycling, level the playing fi eld with smart policies, and remove unnecessary barriers to project development.

Biomass Heating Group launches in UK

The Energy and Utilities Alliance has launched the Biomass Heating Group in response to the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change’s request for a single trade association with which to negotiate and act as a collective voice for companies involved in the biomass heating industry. The group will be led by the Heating and Hotwater Industry Council and the Industrial and Commercial Energy Association.

Solegear Bioplastics attracts new investor

Solegear Bioplastics Inc. has received a strategic investment from Best Buy Co. Inc. The investment further strengthens Solegear’s initiative to become a global leader in the bioplastics industry. In addition to recent Series A fi nancing, led by Yaletown Venture Partners, the

commitment from Best Buy Capital has accelerated development of two additional bioplastic formulations under the Polysole brand name. Both will be introduced into the wider market this year.

BNDES awards loan for Solazyme-Bunge venture

Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils, a joint venture of Solazyme Inc. and wholly owned Bunge Ltd., subsidiary Bunge Global Innovation LLC, has received approval for a R$245.699 million ($120 million) loan from the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES). The eight-year loan will have an average interest rate of approximately 4 percent annually. The funding will support the joint venture’s fi rst commercial-scale renewable oil production facility in Brazil, which is being constructed adjacent to Bunge’s Moema sugarcane mill in the state of São Paulo. The facility broke ground in mid-2012, and is expected to be operational by the fourth quarter of 2013.

BUSINESS BRIEFS¦

SHARE YOUR INDUSTRY NEWS: To be included in the Busi-ness Briefs, send information (including photos and logos, if available) to Business Briefs, Biomass Magazine, 308 Sec-ond Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. You may also email information to [email protected]. Please include your name and telephone number in all cor-respondence.

Page 14: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

BiomassNewsApplied Research Associ-

ates Inc. and Blue Sun Energy Inc. are partnering to develop a demonstration-scale facility to scale up the Biofuels Isocon-version Process system using technology developed by ARA and Chevron Lummus Global. The process converts renew-able oils into drop-in renewable jet, diesel and gasoline.

The companies plan to break ground on the St. Joseph, Mo., facility during the fi rst quarter of 2013, with operations beginning in the third quarter. Once operational, the facility will have a production capacity of 100 barrels per day. As a demonstration facility, however, it will be operated in one- or two-month increments, producing approximately 4,000 gallons of fuel per day.

ARA’s technology has been used to produce biobased jet fuel from carinata oil

supplied by Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. Ear-lier this year the National Research Council of Canada released results from a 2012 test fl ight using the 100 percent biobased fuel. The data showed that the biobased jet was cleaner and just as effi cient as conventional aviation fuel.

Researchers at the University of California have engineered blue-green algae, or cyanobac-teria, to grow chemical precursors for fuels and plastics. According to the university, the chemists identifi ed enzymes from online databases that carried out the reactions they were looking for, and then introduced the DNA for these enzymes into the cells.

The team built a three-step pathway that allowed for the production of 2,3 butanediol, which is used in the manufacture of paint, solvents, plastics and fuels. After three weeks of growth, the research team reported that the engineered cyanobacteria yielded 2.4 grams of the chemical per liter of growth medium. Shota Atsumi, assistant professor of chemistry at UC Davis and lead author of the study, said that level of productivity shows potential for commercial deployment.

According to the university, Atsumi hopes to further increase productivity and experiment with other products.

ARA partners for biojet demonstration Blue-green algae grow chemical precursors

AMANDUS KAHL USA Corporation · 380 Winkler Drive, Suite 400, Alpharetta · GA 30004-0736Phone: 770-521-1021 · Fax: 770-521-1022 · [email protected] KAHL GmbH & Co. KG · SARJ Equipment Corp., Mr. Rick B. MacArthur · 29 Golfview Blvd., Bradford, Ontario L3Z 2A6 Phone: 001-905-778-0073 · Fax: 001-905-778-9613 · [email protected] · www.akahl.us

KAHL Wood Pelleting PlantsKAHL Wood Pelleting Plants

Quality worldwide.Quality worldwide.

SOURCE: NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL CANADA

Page 15: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 15

The Federal Energy Regula-tory Commission’s Offi ce of Energy Projects has reported that 100 biomass power projects, representing 543 MW of generation capacity, came online in 2012. In 2011, 131 projects, representing 446 MW of power were brought online.

At the close of 2012, the U.S. was home to about 15 gigawatts of biomass-fueled power capacity, which accounts for roughly 1.3 percent of the nation’s total power generation capacity.

In December 2012 alone, fi ve new biomass-fueled power projects began operation. Together, those plants brought 91 MW of installed capacity online. The January edition of the commission’s Energy Infrastructure Update highlights two specifi c projects, Rollcast Energy’s 60.5 MW Piedmont Green Power project in Barnesville, Ga., and Verso Paper’s 25 MW biomass-fueled Bucksport Mill expansion. Both projects are now online.

BIOMASSNEWS¦

A 22.5 MW hybrid biomass-thermosolar power plant has begun operations in Les Borges Blanques, Spain. The facility, developed by Abantia and Comsa Emte, combines solar power generation with biomass-fi red power generation in a system that allows for continuous electrical production, even when the sun isn’t shining.

The biomass portion of the facility takes in forestry waste as its primary feedstock. It can, however, also be fueled in part by energy crops and agricultural residues.

When the solar portion of the plant is opera-tional, solar thermal collectors heat a thermal fuel to 400 degrees Celsius. The fl uid is then routed to the power plant block. When there is no sunlight, the biomass portion of the facility produces steam.

MAN Diesel & Turbo supplied the MARC-R high-pressure steam turbine that generates power at the facility. According to Simon Radermacher, a sales engineer with the company, this type of hybrid arrangement could theoretically be installed at any thermosolar power plant to ensure a reliable supply of electricity.

Report: 100 biomass power projects in 2012 A biomass-solar hybrid plant begins operations

Biomass power capacity

Number of units Installed capacity (MW)

Dec. 2012 5 91

Jan.-Dec. 2012 100 543

Jan.-Dec. 2011 131 446

Installed capacity (GW) % of total capacity

Total generating

capacity

15 1.3

Page 16: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

16 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

Any small business person fears the type of phone call that Matt Bell, president and CEO of Northeast Pellets, received in late March 2009—a pellet mill he designed for a college independent study was engulfed in fl ames. After confi rming that everyone had made it out of the facility unharmed, Matt began the tremendous task of bringing his operation back online. The new Northeast Pellets emerged from the ashes larger, more effi cient and far less prone to destructive fi res. Similarly, Bell emerged from the experience more convinced than ever about the importance of his pellet mill to the local economy. His peers in the region have taken note of his passion, and he was recently elected to serve as the vice president of the Maine Pellet Fuels Association.

You wrote your business plan for your pellet mill operation while still in college. Where did the idea come from initially?

I was taking classes at Northern Maine Community College and Husson College, working simultaneously toward my associate and bachelor’s degrees in business management. One of my fi nal classes was small business management, and I opted to take it as an independent study, where we were tasked with writing a business plan. I chose to do mine on a wood pellets facility, as my parents had recently installed a pellet stove and I was intrigued by the newness of the industry. I had always been a hands-on kind of guy, working

in all forms of construction, equipment operation and mechanics, as my father did. At this point, there was only one pellet mill in the Northeast, and a couple in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I originally thought I’d build a hobby-scale mill, but quickly realized there were economies of scale to be had. I couldn’t build the facility too big, however, given our fi ber basket, market range and the infancy of the industry. I spent hundreds of hours researching, drawing, designing and creating pro-

formas. Before I knew it, I had a viable plan, and the next thing I knew, my father and I were at the bank pitching the idea. After talking to a couple of banks and looking at several potential sites, we secured a

couple of Small Business Association guaranteed loans. We intended to build from a greenfi eld site, my father and

I being partners on the operation and equipment, while a friend

and I were partners on buildings and real estate. The folks at the SBA said my plan was one of the most thorough and well put-together plans they had seen, and

needless to say, I got an A in the class.

You designed and served as the general contractor for the original mill and the one you built after your fi re in 2009. Was your pellet mill the fi rst industrial facility that you’ve designed?

Yes, this was my fi rst industrial design. Up to

this point I had only visited a few industrial facilities. I had been involved with the building of residential and

Q&AMaine’s Pellet Phoenix Northeast Pellets' Matt Bell on designing Maine's fi rst pellet mill, losing it to a fi re, and rebuilding with safety and fi re abatement priorities.

Page 17: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 17

Q&A ¦

commercial lots and roads, and had also done some building design, layout and construction, but certainly nothing of this magnitude. My father, primarily a millwright by trade, helped with the design, along with a good friend who owns a local equipment manufacturing facility, which is where we built much of the conveying and storage equipment. We still work with them regularly to this day.

You lost your facility in 2009 to a catastrophic fi re. Can you talk a little bit about what went through your mind when the phone rang that March night?

The phone rang at 12:05 a.m., March 30, 2009. I had just gone to bed after my nightly check-in with the shift supervisor, and he was calling to tell me the mill was completely engulfed in fl ames. He continued to say they had tried to put it out, but were unsuccessful, and the fi re department was on its way. My fi rst question was “is everyone out and safe?” At this point, we were operating 24 hours per day, fi ve days per week with a skeleton crew of three people at night.

Once the fi re was extinguished, I was anxious to hit the ground running, perform site clean-up and prepare to rebuild. Unfortunately, the insurance company and some more recent investors had other plans. Things got delayed drastically, and valuable time within our short building season was lost. I have since separated from my partnership—prior to rebuilding—and the insurance claim has yet to be fully settled.

When you rebuilt, your design changed from the original. How did safety and fi re abatement contribute to your design ideas for the new facility?

Safety and fi re abatement were of the utmost concern. Our original design was

made with accessibility for me and others in mind, with everything housed beneath one roof, on one level. Now, although the buildings are still accessible, but all seven of them, plus multiple external storage areas, are spaced out. We separated raw material storage, ground material storage, major process equipment, the control room, prebagged bulk pellet storage, the bagging facility, the maintenance shop, the break room and offi ce. Every segment of the operation has been broken up, and many of the buildings are sprinklered and all are heavily equipped with fi re extinguishers.

What was the most diffi cult part of your fi re experience?

All of it. It was like a member of my family had died—the mill had been my baby, my life and my passion for nearly four years. I often joke that I am not married because I am married to the mill. Because our facility was a total loss, we not only had to reconstruct all of the buildings and equipment, we also had to rebuild all of our documents. Without proper documents, dealing with the insurance company was a nightmare. Through this, my partners and I decided to go our separate ways, and I immediately began rebuilding on the same site with my father, friends, family and employees by my side. This time, it was going to be bigger and better than before. All of those ‘Next time, I’d do it this way or that way’ thoughts from our fi rst mill were integrated into our new design. As you might imagine, we have our share of some of those same thoughts after our build. Trust me, though, there will not be another ‘next time.’

Northeast Pellets makes a practice of experimenting with different feedstocks, including eucalyptus and Red Cedar. Why is feedstock testing a part of your operational plan?

We have experimented with several crops indigenous to our region in an effort to produce the best pellet possible, while supporting local farmers and reducing cost to the consumer. We have yet to fi nd a wholly produced or blended pellet that can increase quality while maintaining or reducing costs.

The pellet export market seems to be exploding, with a 70 percent increase in 2012. Are you looking to tap into this market opportunity?

That is something that all of us here in Maine have been keeping a close eye on. I don’t foresee Northeast Pellets being able to capitalize on the export market from northern Maine, for a whole host of reasons. It is a great distance to our nearest port, and our fi ber market is very costly compared to southern regions where eucalyptus and other fast-growing trees are available. The American Southeast is where I see the major players coming from, in regard to the export market. Although they have power reliability issues, fi ber and labor are readily available on the cheap. Additionally, Northeast Pellets electrical rates are nearly three times the rate of our competition outside of the local utility grid. These major factors are why we plan to keep our focus on producing the best pellet possible—a super premium pellet with an ash content of half a percent or less, and a Btu value greater than 8,600 per pound. With that in mind, we plan on keeping our business right here in the Northeast, to help homeowners, businesses and institutional facilities cut their heating bills in half, while lessening their dependence on foreign oil.

Matt BellINTERVIEWED BY TIM PORTZ

Page 18: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

18 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

¦PLANT SAFETY

Proper employee training, robust safety procedures and accident prevention techniques will result in a safer work place and dollars saved. BY ANNA SIMET

Bioenergy Plant Precautions

Page 19: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 19

PLANT SAFETY¦

Page 20: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

No matter the depth of familiarity an employee may have with pow-er, pellet or biogas plants, safety should remain a major priority. Steam, pressure, heat, dust, electricity and lots of moving parts

can equal the perfect recipe for disaster under certain conditions. While on the exterior some accidents seem impossible to foresee, almost all are preventable.

That’s the perspective of Beth Hurley, vice president of health and safety at Covanta Energy. Hurley, who describes her career path as “growing up with Covanta,” has been in her position since 1990. In her years there, she has seen signifi cant changes in not only health and safety regulations, but also innovation in employee safety gear, hazard combat equipment and the adaption of rigorous required and voluntary safety programs and policies, which combined allow the company to boast an accident rate much lower than average in its National Bureau of Labor Statistics category.

Covanta Energy owns and operates both biomass power and ener-gy-from-waste (EfW) plants and, while both possess many of the same hazards, and Hurley says EfW are somewhat unique due to the nature of their fuel. “Municipal solid waste (MSW) is delivered to us from a variety of haulers all over the U.S., and occasionally a load that we dub as a ‘hot load’ will come in, which means there is some thermal activity going on.”

If employees aren’t careful and the hot load is disposed of into the EfW facility fuel pit, a fi re could result. “That’s a big area we’re focused on—safe delivery of MSW,” Hurley says. Sometimes the vehicle opera-tors will know about a hot load, but not always, so there are procedures to address such instances. One includes tipping fuel loads onto the fl oor

and having the load operator cut the waste by spreading it into a thinner bed for closer inspection. Most times hot loads will be detected in that fashion, according to Hurley, but other times it may end up in the pit and result in a visual indicator—smoke.

Though a rare occurrence, pit fi res can be extinguished by fi re can-nons, stationary but rotatable devices that project high-pressure water into the desired area.

While pit fi res caused by hot loads are one of the hazards best pre-vented before the fuel enters the plant, normal operating conditions in-side a plant pose their own set of risks each day.

Potential Hazard PreparationHurley notes that plant evacuation plans are essential to ensure

employees are able to exit in a safe and effi cient manner if needed. An evacuation could be prompted by a variety of forces, including the plant being knocked offl ine, which can happen if it is struck by lightning. “We do have fi re rods that protect us from lightning strikes, but occasionally lightening might get through and we have an event called a black plant,” Hurley says. “A fi re and evacuation route would be used in an event like that.”

Catwalks, especially if elevated, access routes and moving equipment are potentially hazardous when employees are working on or near them. “Employees are trained to always be sure they’re on a suitable walking/working surface, which means it has the proper set of handrails,” Hurley says. “If in the event work takes them to an area which isn’t suited for that type of design, they may need to wear a harness and fall protection.”

¦PLANT SAFETY

Page 21: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 21

Occasional cleaning activities are another potential hazard that could result in the release of particulate. “In that case, we’re always measuring and monitoring with various industrial hygiene methods to determine whether the particulate is a concern, and if it is, it’s usually known well in advance and they’re prepared by using a respirator,” Hurley explains. “They are trained for this situation, and have medical clearances to being able to protect themselves from inhalation hazards as needed.”

Gear such as respirators and protective wear are an essential com-ponent of safety, including hardhats, ear protection from noise, side-shielded safety glasses designed to resist impact breakage, long-sleeved shirts and pants for protection against heat and steam, composite-toe or steel-toed boots for protection against potential falling objects, and refl ective vests for wear in dark areas. Additional gear may be required for different job functions, Hurley adds. For example, electricians who get involved in work with energized medium- and high-voltage electrical equipment wear some additional gear for protection against the release of electrical energy that could burn through garments. “This kind of new safety gear has been on the market since about 1999, and it falls in compliance with NFPA 70E Standard for Electrical Safety in the Work-place that requires identifi cation of electrical hazards and equipping em-ployees in a safe manner,” Hurley says. “Years ago electricians didn’t have that gear when doing a job, so they had greater hazard exposure. Today the garments we provide are much better.”

New employees at Covanta Energy are required to go through safety training, some of which is minimum regulatory training, but also beyond that; topic-specifi c training that is done upon employment, as

well as on a monthly basis. “We also have turnover meetings, a continued communication of the conditions of the facility,” Hurley says. “It pre-pares employees going off work to convey status and transfer knowledge to the oncoming work team.”

So who’s responsible for overseeing normal/safety operations at a single plant day to day? “On the most basic level, the answer to that is everyone,” Hurley says. “Every employee has a critical responsibility to foresee and identify hazards, so we have a program that allows us to trickle up recognition of conditions and document them. If it’s not mea-sured, it’s not well-known. We look for trends, ways to convey improve-ments that can be made, and hopefully, reduce occurrences of concerns. All of this plays into everyone’s participation.”

A lot of people think safety is common sense, but it’s really not, Hurley adds. “You’ll hear people say ‘be safe,’ but you can’t train them by just saying that.”

At pellet plants, safety protocol should be of the same caliber as at biomass power or EfW plants, but the majority of hazards stem from potential sources of ignition and fi res. It’s important to understand what they are and how to prevent them, according to Nicole Forsberg of Fire-fl y AB, a Swedish spark detection and fi re and dust explosion protection system supplier.

Pellet Plant Safety The most common ignition source generators at pellet plants are

places where friction generates overheated material, Forsberg points out. Those places are numerous, and include dryers, dryer cyclones, interme-

PLANT SAFETY¦

1-866-758-6004 WWW.FIKE.COM

Think an explosion will never happen

in your facility?

Dust and gas explosions are deadly and commercially devastating.

Many facilities are at risk, but just don’t know it. Fike is a global

leader in the development and manufacture of reliable explosion

protection solutions. And we offer a wide range of explosibility

tests designed to assist you in identifying costly explosion hazards.

Rely on Fike’s Explosion Protection ExpertiseWith over 40 years experience in developing innovative explosion protection technologies, Fike has the expertise to help you improve the safety of your facility and comply with changing regulations… all without spending a fortune.

Visit us at the International Biomass Conference & Expo

Page 22: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

22 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

¦PLANT SAFETY

diate storage, mills, presses, coolers, screens, pellet silos, fi lters, unloading areas and burners. “Glow-ing embers, sparks, overheated bearings and other hot particles within the manufacturing process can be dangerous and cause fi res and/or dust ex-plosions,” Forsberg says.

It’s also common for fi res to occur as pro-duction stops and starts. “Think of the famous fi re triangle—for a fi re to take place, three ele-ments are needed: oxygen, heat and fuel,” she ex-plains. “In pellet production we have wood as the fuel and heat within most of the process, but less oxygen. When large amounts of material cover the process fl ows, only small amounts of oxygen are present. At process stop, all of a sudden there is more room for oxygen, and if the stop is at a hot stage of the process, the risk of a fi re is sig-nifi cantly higher.”

Typical stages of the manufacturing process where a fi re or explosion can take place within a process stop are in the dryer and in or around the hammer milling function.

Regarding some important steps and pre-cautions to take in preventing fi re hazards at a pel-let plant, Forsberg says good housekeeping is very important, in order to keep any accumulated dust in or around machinery out of the way. “A solid maintenance schedule is good for many reasons, such as keeping any surfaces clean to prevent haz-ardous secondary dust explosions, as well as en-suring the machinery is in good shape,” she says. Having a proper dust extraction system is impor-tant for avoiding unsafe accumulation of dust.”

On-farm Biogas Plant Hazards

Major hazards that can exist with an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility include:

AsphyxiationAsphyxiants are often active at very low concentrations and are present wherever there

is storage of organic material. Within confi ned spaces and other covered areas, the potential exists for atmospheric concentrations to develop that become immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH). An IDLH condition can be defi ned as an atmospheric concentration of any toxic, corrosive, or asphyxiant substance (simple or chemical) that poses an immediate threat to life, would cause irreversible or delayed adverse health effects, or would interfere with an individual’s ability to escape from a dangerous atmosphere.

Signs should be used to alert employees and visitors of the potential for IDLH conditions. Areas prone to these conditions include structures housing the gen set or boiler, below-grade pump chambers, and biogas storage devices.

A simple and convenient way to ensure the safety of an area’s atmosphere is to install a wall-mounted sensor that can detect hazardous gases. In the event that a hazardous gas sensor is triggered, an emergency action plan should be implemented.

Explosion potentialMethane, the main component of biogas, is fl ammable when it mixes with air. Upper and

lower explosive limits (LEL) are established to provide an identifi able range of concentrations that will produce a fl ash fi re when an ignition source is presented. The LEL is often referred to as fl ammable limit. For methane, the lower and upper explosive limit is 5 percent and 15 percent by volume of air, respectively.

Electrical hazardsThe generation of large quantities of electricity at an AD facility creates electrical hazards,

most of which can be found near the gen set, transformer and electrical panels. Licensed electricians are the only personnel with the authority to service and repair electrical systems. In addition, the facility should post signs identifying general electrical hazards near the electrical generation system.

SOURCE: U.S. EPA AGSTAR

Page 23: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 23

PLANT SAFETY¦

turing, Processing and Handling of Combus-tible Particulate Solids.”

Insurance companies may also have re-quirements for housekeeping, design or rou-tines regarding safety and combustible dust, and some might offer free dust-testing. “To be on the safe side and ensure compliance and safe practices, I’d recommend anyone to contact the local OSHA offi ce,” Forsberg says.

Overall, spending some time and money on safety and prevention up front can save a pellet manufacturer hundreds of thousands

of dollars down the road. “Worst case is that you know how to act if an accident should oc-cur, and the best case is you have prevented it from happening,” Forsberg adds. “You must be aware of the risks and dangers you’re exposed to in order to prevent them from being a dan-ger.”

Author: Anna SimetManaging Editor, Biomass Magazine

[email protected]

Conducting a risk analysis is key, as a plant developer should know where ignition sources are in order to design as safe a process as pos-sible. “If you‘re designing a pellet plant, many risks can be designed out of the process,” Fors-berg says. “When conducting a risk analysis, important parameters such as the quantity of material being conveyed, particle size, moisture in various sections of the process, tempera-tures, conveyor diameters, and the capacity of the fans are important to consider.”

Once a risk analysis is done, risk zones within the manufacturing process can be lo-cated and addressed with proper preventive equipment such spark detection. It’s important to design the extinguishing system in such a way that the process is stopped only in extreme emergencies, Forsberg notes, thus avoiding false positives. “Daylight-sensitive detectors can alarm if a ray of sunlight enters the pro-cess, which can cause unnecessary production stops and be costly down the road,” she says. “False positives from sparks that are not dan-gerous can lead personnel to being indifferent to dangerous detections versus serious detec-tions, so this is another reason it is so impor-tant to have a system that only detects the true dangerous particulates.”

In terms of meeting hazard regulations, Forsberg says that due diligence is the best path forward. “They should review and understand Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion requirements and know the National Fire Protection Association guidelines, however, some of the information is over 5 years old, so researching and understanding common and recent industry standards could be the most important factor in determining the level of fi re prevention needed or desired.”

Forsberg recommends every facility be aware of and follow the authority having ju-risdiction (AHJ) and what standards/require-ments are relevant for each case. The AHJ can be anything from a fi re marshal to a building in-spector from the local OSHA offi ce. “OSHA has several guidelines for factories that one should be aware of, and the NFPA standards as well,” Forsberg says. “For the biomass industry, be aware of the NFPA 664: Standard for the Prevention of Fires and Explosions in Wood Processing and Wood Working Facilities, or the NFPA 654: Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufac-

Page 24: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

24 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

CONTRIBUTION

¦POWER

Boiler MACT Impacts Biomass Power With the recent promulgation of the Boiler MACT regulations, biomass power generators will be obliged to meet additional emission limitations.BY BRANDON BELL

The claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily refl ect the views of Biomass Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

The U.S. EPA’s National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pol-lutants for Major and Minor Sourc-es: Industrial, Commercial, and In-

stitutional Boilers and Process Heaters, or Boiler MACT has been a hotly contested regulation that imposes emission limits on new and existing combustion units with a heat input greater than 10 million Btu per hour. Since mid-May 2012, when the fi nal rule was sent to the White House Offi ce of Management and Budget, the industry has been patiently waiting for the formal release of the rule. On Dec. 20, EPA Administra-

tor Lisa Jackson signed the promulgated rule, which is currently awaiting formal publication in the Federal Register.

Major vs. Area SourcesThe amount of pollution generated by

a biomass combustion unit will determine the type of pollutants that are regulated along with the level of reduction required. A fi rm understanding of the classifi cation methods imposed by EPA is needed to de-termine which limitations will be imposed. Each facility will need to determine if it is, or will be designed to be, at pollutions lim-

its that designate it as a major source or an area source, which is sometimes referred to as a minor source. As defi ned by 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a), there are three major cri-teria that are used to evaluate whether a fa-cility is a major or area source. These are:

• Any individual criteria pollutant that exceeds 250 tons per year.

• Any individual hazardous air pollut-ant (HAP) that exceeds 10 tons per year.

• Combined HAP emissions that ex-ceed 25 tons per year.

Criteria pollutants are contaminants that, when present in signifi cant quanti-ties, cause smog, acid rain, and other health hazards. These pollutants consist of oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds,

Page 25: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 25

POWER¦

sulfur dioxide, fi ne particulate, and carbon monoxide. The Greenhouse Gas Tailor-ing Rule specifi es a further six greenhouse gases that are also considered criteria pol-lutants. These six pollutants—carbon di-oxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofl uo-rocarbons, perfl uorocarbons, and sulfur hexafl uoride are combined into a single regulated category called greenhouse gases. Currently, biomass facilities have a three-year exemption from this rule and do not have to calculate these emissions.

Hazardous Air Pollutants have been defi ned by Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and consist of 187 chemicals harmful to human health. If a facility exceeds any of the three thresholds outlined in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(i)(a), then they are classifi ed as a major source by the EPA. For scale, an approximate breaking point between major and area source regulations for a facility us-ing clean virgin wood chips is approximate-ly 25 MW gross. It should be noted that all emission sources from a facility are re-quired to be included in these calculations. As an example, back-up diesel generators or diesel-fi re water pumps are required to be operated for short periods of time for maintenance purposes. Emissions from these activities are to be included in the fa-cility’s emission inventory.

Area Source LimitsAn area source designation has sig-

nifi cant benefi ts. For all new biomass area sources, the only regulated pollutant is fi lterable particulate matter (PM). Bio-mass boilers with a heat input between 10 MMBtu/hr and 30 MMBtu/hr are required to keep fi lterable particulate emissions be-low 0.07 lb/MMBtu, while boilers rated 30 MMBtu/hr and greater are limited to 0.03 lb/MMBtu. In addition to restrictions on particulate emissions, new biomass boilers will be required to conduct a biennial tune-up of the boiler.

Existing biomass facilities that have been classifi ed as area sources have more relaxed restrictions than new units. Exist-ing area source biomass units, regardless of heat input, do not have new limitations on fi lterable PM. These units will be subject to an initial tune-up, however, and will be required to conduct biennial tune-ups.

Major Source LimitsIf a facility is classifi ed as a major

source under the EPA defi nitions, the Boil-er MACT regulations impose further limits. The limitations outlined by Boiler MACT are divided into new and existing units, and then further detailed by the combustion technology utilized. The regulation also of-fers some fl exibility when selecting which

PH

OTO

: KB

R P

OW

ER

& IN

DU

STR

IAL

JUMP START: Biomass power operators should begin developing and implementing an action compliance plan.

Page 26: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

26 BIOMASS MAGAZINE | MARCH 2013

limitations will be imposed. Major source fa-cilities must choose between a limit imposed on fi lterable particulate matter or on total selected metals. For the total selected metals category, the limitation is comprised of the summation of eight metals classifi ed as haz-ardous air pollutants. These metals consist of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.

Unlike area source regulations, biomass facilities classifi ed as major sources also have new limitations placed on carbon monoxide emissions. Some fl exibility is also granted for these emissions. Compliance may be demonstrated through a three-run average or a 10-day rolling average monitored by a Continuous Emission Monitoring System.

¦POWER

P.O. Box 39 Springville, TN 38256Ph: 731-593-3426 | Cell: 731-697-2423 | Fax: 731-593-0513

- Environmentally friendly

Hydrogen Chloride, Mercury Back InThe proposed changes to the Boiler

MACT regulation in December 2011 ex-empted biomass units, both new and ex-isting, from limitations on mercury and hydrogen chloride (HCl) emissions. Unfor-tunately, the promulgated rule removed this exemption and now requires the control of HCl and mercury. The control of mercury is especially challenging for biomass units.

After the biomass combustion pro-cess, mercury present in the fuel will take one of three forms in the fl ue gas. These are elemental mercury (Hg0), divalent mer-cury (Hg++), or as a particulate. Mercury in a particulate form will be captured by particulate control devices, but mercury in an elemental or divalent state will pass through all emission control systems. Acti-vated carbon will adsorb mercury and can be injected into the exit fl ues of a boiler at a particular temperature regime, but this pro-cess requires the mercury to be in a divalent state. To promote the capture of elemental mercury, it must fi rst be forcibly ionized, typically through halogenation. With the mercury adsorbed onto the activated car-bon particles, it can then be removed in a particulate control device.

Hydrogen chloride emissions can be controlled by either calcium or sodium-based sorbents. With this approach, calci-um sorbents such as limestone or hydrated lime are injected directly into the upper fur-nace or other high-temperature region, and reduce the hydrogen chloride to calcium chloride. Sodium sorbents, such as trona or

Figure 1: New Source Biomass Limits - Boiler MACTSubcategory Filterable PM (or total

selected metals)(lb/MMBtu heat input)

HCI(lb/MMBtu heat input)

Mercury(lb/MMBtu heat input)

CO(ppm @ 3% O2)

Alternate CO CEMS Limit (ppm @ 3% O2)

Wet Stoker/Sloped Grate/Other

0.030 (2.6 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 620 390

Kiln - Dried Stoker/Sloped Grate/other

0.030 (4.0 E-03) 0.022 8.0 E-07 460 ND

Fluidized Bed 0.00098 (8.3 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 230 310Suspension Burner 0.030 (6.5 E-03) 0.022 8.0 E-07 2,400 2,000Dutch Ovens/Pile Burners 0.0032 (3.9 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 330 520Fuel Cells 0.020 (2.9 E-05) 0.022 8.0 E-07 910 NDHybrid Syspension Grate 0.026 (4.4 E-04) 0.022 8.0 E-07 1,100 900

Page 27: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 27

POWER¦

sodium bicarbonate, require an intermedi-ate step prior to control of HCl emissions. Both trona and sodium bicarbonate require the process of calcination to form sodium carbonate. The sodium carbonate then re-acts with hydrogen chloride in a suitable temperature regime to form sodium chlo-ride.

Lasting EffectIt is estimated that, for all fuels, Boiler

MACT will affect 14,136 boilers and pro-cess heaters classifi ed as major sources and 180,000 boilers currently classifi ed as area sources. Over the next three years, it is an-ticipated that 1,844 new major source boil-ers and 6,800 new area source boilers will be affected by this regulation. Deadlines to meet emission limitations are tight and must be addressed immediately, or facilities face noncompliance with the regulation. New area sources—those with a startup date after May 20, 2011—must meet emis-sion regulations immediately, while existing area sources will have until March 21, 2014 to comply. New major sources—those which began operation on or after June 4, 2010—and existing sources will have three years from the publication date of Boiler MACT to meet the outlined limitations.

Capital expenditures for pollution mit-igation equipment can be signifi cant. Costs for sorbent injection systems and activated carbon systems can range from $21 to $65/kW depending on the size of the facility. Maintenance and operating costs will also increase substantially as activated carbon

for the removal of mercury can cost up-wards of $1,500 to $2,000 per ton and will add to fl y ash quantities and disposal costs. All in all, operators should immediately start developing and implementing an action plan to meet compliance dates. Legal challenges to this regulation can be expected, but at best can only be expected to briefl y delay implementation. They will not relieve indus-

trial users of the obligation of meeting the current rule.

Author: Brandon Bell, P.E.Principal Mechanical Engineer, KBR Power & Industrial

[email protected]

Figure 2: Existing Source Biomas Limits - Boiler MACTSubcategory Filterable PM (or total

selected metals)(lb/MMBtu heat input)

HCI(lb/MMBtu heat input)

Mercury(lb/MMBtu heat input)

CO(ppm @ 3% O2)

Alternate CO CEMS Limit (ppm @ 3% O2)

Wet Stoker/Sloped Grate/Other

0.037 (2.4 E-04) 0.022 5.7 E-06 1,500 720

Kiln - Dried Stoker/Sloped Grate/Other

0.32 (4.0 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 460 ND

Fluidized Bed 0.11 (1.2 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 470 310Suspension Burner 0.051 (6.5 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 2,400 2,000Dutch Ovens/Pile Burners 0.28 (2.0 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 770 520Fuel Cells 0.020 (5.8 E-03) 0.022 5.7 E-06 1,100 NDHybrid Syspension Grate 0.44 (4.5 E-04) 0.022 5.7 E-06 2,800 900

Page 28: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

MARCH 2013 | BIOMASS MAGAZINE 28

x 2

x

2

www.tri-mer.comSince 1960

©2012 Tri-Mer Corp.

UltraCat Catalyst FilterEffective NOx control starting at 350°FParticulate to less than 0.01 lbs/MMBtu

Factory Headquarters: Owosso, Michigan

Call or emailPh: 801.294.5422

[email protected]

Biomass Pollution Control

DIRTY AIR AIRFLOW

NOx and Ammonia react with catalyst to destroy NOx

PM does not penetrate walls of the filter

CLEANAIRParticulate captured

on the filter surface

Nano-Catalyst embedded in the walls of the filter

NOx + Process PM + SO2Sorbent PM + Ammonia

Meets Boiler & CISWI MACT Regulations

1641 SIGMAN ROAD CONYERS GA 30012 2218-461-2579

ISO 17025 Accredited for

ASTM and CEN/EN Standards

TIMBER PRODUCTS INSPECTION

Accredited by the American Lumber Standard Commi ee as a Tes ng Laboratory and an Audi ng Agency for the Pellet Fuels

Ins tute’s Densified Biomass Fuel Standards Program.

BIOMASSENERGYLAB.COM

www.bbiinterna onal.com866-746-8385 | service@bbiinterna onal.com

DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

Projects don’t have room for error.

Follow Us on

Reach Your Target AudienceAdvertise in Biomass Magazine

[email protected]

24 / 7

¦MARKETPLACE

Biomass Magazine Marketplace

Hot Springs, AR & Car y, NC

501-321-2276

www.mseco.com

Consult ing, Planning, Engineering& Construction Management

• Biomass, Alternative & Renewable Energy

• Raw Material Resourcing Studies

• New Mill Design & Engineering

• Improve Existing Mills

• Feasibility Studies

Over 40 yrs experience

Page 29: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

directory.biomassmagazine.com

BROWSE CATEGORIES BROWSE COMPANIES

cleaning| FIND

find it online at

Page 30: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

Reserve YourExhibit Space Today!

June 10-13, 2013America’s Center | St. Louis, MOwww.fuelethanolworkshop.com

Producers representing 87% of all U.S. installed capacity attended last year.

“IT’S A GREAT PLACE TO NETWORK WITH VENDORS AND FELLOW PLANTS.”

- BILL PAIGE, BADGER STATE ETHANOL

866-746-8385 | [email protected]

Save $200on Registrationwith Early Bird Rates

Page 31: March 2013 Biomass Magazine
Page 32: March 2013 Biomass Magazine

1. AGENDA2. PANEL SESSIONS

Track 1: Pellets & Densified Biomass Track 2: Biomass Power & Thermal Track 3: Biogas & Landfill Gas Track 4: Advanced Biofuels & Biobased Chemicals

3. POSTER PRESENTERS4. TOURS

ProducersTechnology/Services/EquipmentGovernmentConsultantAcademiaForestryPower IndustryWaste AggregatorAgriculture/FarmingFinance/LendingWaste GeneratorLegalInvestorMedia UtilityPetroleum Industry

NETWORK & LEARNREGISTER TODAY

VIEW ONLINE at www.biomassconference.com

at International Biomass Conference & Expo

Promote Your Company and Start Doing More BusinessBecome a Sponsor or Exhibitor

Contact us [email protected]

866-746-8385 | [email protected] | #IBCE13 Follow Us: twitter.com/biomassmagazine

APRIL 8-10, 2013Minneapolis, MN

www.biomassconference.com

"The quality of business relationships built here are second to none."

- Stephen S. Reidell, Eagle Innovations

"Global biomass and waste power generation could grow from 62 to 270 gigawatts through the year 2030, with investments totaling between $21 billion to $35 billion." - International Renewable Energy Agency

www.biomassconference.com