Fwd from the Biofuel list: > >>I have a few questions that need answers. I am hoping someone out >>there can save me a little time. 1. I am looking for industrial >>large volume filters for our new growing Co-op here in bend. a. >>Are there any filters efficient for cleaning a couple hundred >>gallons of WVO in a reasonable amount of time prior to processing? >>b. Are there any filters efficient for cleaning the biodiesel after >>the bubble washing down to 5 microns of the same volume to get >>super clean fuel.c. Does anyone know of a filter we can encourage >>the restaurants to use so we get clean WVO to start with? 2. I have >>seen some reactors that do two phases of gettting the glycerol out. >>The 1st phase gets 99% of the glycerol then the 2nd phase gets 99% >>of the 1% that was left over. If this is done,a. is it worth the >>effort?b. do you still need to bubble wash it after that? 3. We are >>drawing up plans to make a 300 gallon processor and we want it to >>be totally leagal. Has anyone had success with this size processor >>dealing with your local fire department?4. Does anyone know another >>way to get the health effects tests certification other than >>joining with the NBB?5. We are considering joining the NBB to get >>certified if we have to. Would anyone like to combine efforts and >>get a certification together as a larger co-op to decrease the >>heafty price? Thanks for any help you can offer us.Bend Biofuels >>CooperativeKyle BolgerVice [EMAIL PROTECTED] 322 >>0801 > > >Hello Kyle > >Re your question #4, though I think it still needs a test case, this >issue has been resolved following a lot of work at our Biofuels-biz >group and at a small closed group I formed with some of the >interested parties to investigate it. The following is a summing up >that I posted to the Biofuels-biz group in answer to an inquiry >similar to yours. > >Best > >Keith > > > >There's been a lot of discussion here and elsewhere about >small-producer certification, and a lot of confusion too, it seems. >On the one hand there's been quite a lot of talk of conspiracies to >exclude the small guys, which I don't think is warranted, and on the >other the EPA has said different things at different times. > >The EPA requires registration of all fuel producers for non-standard >fuels used on-road, which includes biodiesel, and the fuels must be >tested. The NBB put a sample of soy biodiesel through the required >Clean Air Act Tier I and Tier II Health Effects tests, and it passed >(the only alternative fuel so far to do so). The tests also covered >biodiesel made from other feedstocks, such as corn oil, lard, >tallow, WVO, etc., as the differences between them are not >significant. The Tier II tests were federally funded and are thus in >the public domain, anyone can use them. The Tier I tests were funded >by the Soybean Councils and largely paid for with soy check-off >dollars. The non-profit NBB was created by the Soybean Councils, >which are still the major force within the NBB. The check-off money >used for the biodiesel Tier I tests could have been used elsewhere, >and the NBB/Soybean Councils want it back. > >To gain access to the data you'd either have to join the NBB and pay >a $5,000 per annum membership fee plus a production tax - or - pay >a $100,000 bond to the NBB for non-member access to the Health >Effects Data (to be returned at face value, without interest, in >2015, if the NBB has recovered the costs of the tests by then) - or >- pay more than $1 million for your own Tier I health effects tests, >which will take a few years - or - be prepared to face EPA fines of >$25,000 per day, which could be retroactive. > >The issue is whether small producers are or are not exempt from >paying for access to the health effects data. There are supposed to >be exemptions for small producers, but it's been said they didn't >apply, and one small producer - Tom Leue's Yellow Biodiesel - was >apparently closed down on this account, or at least stopped from >selling his fuel for on-road use. > >The "small business exemptions" depend on which family/category the >fuel/additive falls into. If the "product" is considered baseline or >non-baseline, then manufacturers with total annual sales of less >than $50 million are not required to meet Tier I or Tier II. If the >product is considered "atypical", then manufacturers with total >annual sales of less than $10 mil are not required to meet Tier II >(Tier I still applies). There are three diesel categories in the >Diesel Family: Baseline Diesel, Non-Baseline Diesel, and Atypical >[diesel]. > >Baseline Diesel is comprised of diesel fuels and associated >additives which satisfy ALL of the following criteria: shall contain >no elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen (<1%), nitrogen and >sulfur (no more than the legal limit for highway diesel). Baseline >Diesel must possess the characteristics of ASTM D 975-93. Baseline >Diesel must be derived from conventional petroleum sources only. >(40CFR79.56(e)3(ii)A) > >Non-baseline Diesel must meet all the criteria of baseline diesel >except: oxygen can be 1% or higher (no specified limit) and it can >include diesel fuel and additives which may be derived from >synthetic crudes, such as those prepared from coal, shale, tar >sands, heavy oil deposits, and other non-conventional petroleum >sources. > >Atypical Diesel comprises diesel and additives which contain one or >more elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and >sulfur. (40CFR79.56(e)3(ii)C) No mention of source. > >According to this, biodiesel (either as a fuel or an additive) >doesn't meet Baseline or Non-Baseline because its made from >non-petroleum sources. > >Joe Sopata of the EPA has stated that any blend of 6% biodiesel or >less was considered a non-baseline fuel, and anything over 6% was >considered atypical, and therefore not subject to the Tier 1 >exemption. But we could not find these definitions in any EPA >documents. > >What we dcid find in an EPA document is this: "An exception is >biodiesel, which is one group, even though it consists of mixed >alkyl esters of plant and/or animal origin." >http://www.epa.gov/icr/icrs/icrpages/1696ss03.htm > >This makes biodiesel a non-baseline diesel group, and thus exempt >from Tier I and Tier II testing for producers with total annual >sales of less than $50 million. > >For more on this, see Thor Skov's post below. > >Joe Sopata has since said, in answer to enquiries, that producers >who sell less than $10,000,000 annually are exempt from Tier I and >Tier II as long as their fuel meets the ASTM standard (ASTM D-6751). > >This is what I was told: > >"Joe Sopata again stated that fuels meeting all ASTM standards for >biodiesel are eligible for the exemptions. > >"Jim Caldwell at EPA stated the same. Also that the test for being a >non-baseline fuel is meeting the standards. Not meeting the >standards puts fuel in the atypical category and comes with >requirements for Tier I. Further, he stated that the problems >associated with yellow grease biodiesel were meeting the standard >for viscosity." > >Caldwell earlier told other people that they would be eligible for >the Tier I payments. He did say, in February of this year, >concerning the EPA's action to stop Yellow Biodiesel selling fuel, >that "our main concern is that he's [Leue] producing a fuel that >doesn't meet federal standards." At the time, however, there were no >federal standards - there was a provisional quality specification >that had expired eight months earlier. The new ASTM standard >(D-6751) has since come into effect, but only very recently. Also, >Caldwell's statement (to the press) is ambiguous - did it not meet >standards (?) or was he merely concerned it might not? Tom Leue had >not had his fuel tested. The NBB (and hence the EPA I guess) holds >to the view that small-scale homebrewers can't produce standard-spec >fuel (wrong), so Caldwell's view might simply have been a >presumption. > >Anyway, Caldwell and Sopata both now say that small producers will >be exempt if their fuel meets the ASTM standard. Note what they mean >by small producers - earning less than either $50 million or $10 >million a year. They don't know what "small" means, and they're >inclined to be contemptuous of homebrewers and probably dismiss them >- I think the whole issue has simply been below their radar screen. >Maybe now it isn't. World Energy's announcement might also be an >indication of that. > >Obviously it needs testing, but would-be small producers are >negotiating with them and report that they've been helpful and >cooperative so far. It will however mean that the fuel must be >tested and must meet ASTM specs. I don't know why they're stating >that yellow grease biodiesel won't meet viscosity standards, it's >quite widely used as a feedstock in Europe, there are a number of >research papers on it (I think available from the NBB's online >database). > >As a small producer - our definition of small, not theirs - you can >produce standard-spec biodiesel, people using the techniques >available to homebrewers have had their fuel tested and have proved >it. > >Beyond that, you'll still have to pay federal and state road taxes. >That's something that needs some pressure perhaps - should there be >any taxes on biodiesel? > >Regards > >Keith > > > >>To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com >>From: Thor Skov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:41:23 -0700 (PDT) >>Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Legal Obstacles for Biodiesel >> >>Keith, Tom, et. al., >> >>The following Federal Register notice has some >>relevant information. Keith, this may be the notice >>you were referring to. I gleaned the following >>points: >> >>1. Biodiesel (neat and blends) is considered a >>non-baseline diesel fuel. >>2. There is no language that bars small-business >>biodiesel producers from the Tier 1 and Tier 2 testing >>exemptions. >>3. All categories of biodiesel are considered similar >>for testing purposes (at this time). >> >>Now, this afternoon I got a message from Joe Sopata at >>EPA (lots of phone tag) in which he stated that any >>blend <= 6% biodiesel was considered a nonbaseline >>fuel, and anything over 6% was considered atypical, >>and therefore not subject to the Tier 1 exemption. >>The thing is, I can't find that definition in any EPA >>documents. What I find is what I have quoted below. >>EPA tests biodiesel at 100% as the representative >>group, and assumes that most applications will be a >>20/80 blend. I don't know where this <6% rule comes >>from, but it may be a purely discretionary >>interpretation, and not a written rule issued as a >>regulation. >> >>So, Tom, I don't know how EPA could be threatening to >>shut you down on this basis. >> >>I'll keep checking. >> >>Thor >> >>The reference: >>[Federal Register: March 17, 1997 (Volume 62, Number >>51)] >>[Rules and Regulations] >>[Page 12564-12572] >>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access >>[wais.access.gpo.gov] >>[DOCID:fr17mr97-18] >> >>[selected snips] >> >>"Biodiesel fuels and most blends of bio-and >>conventional diesel fuel contain more than 1.0 weight >>percent oxygen and thus, according to Sec. >>79.56(e)(3)(ii)(B), fall into the non-baseline diesel >>category. >>Under Sec. 79.56(e)(4)(ii)(B)(2), as adopted in May >>1994, biodiesel fuels derived from vegetable oil >>(``mixed alkyl esters of plant origin'') are grouped >>separately from biodiesel fuels derived from animal >>fat (``mixed alkyl esters of animal origin'')." >> >>"In regard to selecting the biodiesel group >>representative, EPA has decided that 100 percent >>biofuel is most appropriate for the screening purposes >>of Tiers 1 and 2. EPA has received industry >>assurances, both in written comments (docket item >>VII-D-19) and in follow-up communications,\5\ that the >>use of 100 percent biofuel does not require >>significant engine modifications. Furthermore, while >>20 percent biodiesel formulations are expected to >>predominate in the commercial marketplace during the >>short term, both lower and higher percent blends may >>see greater market penetration in the future." >> >>"While the available data are not comprehensive, EPA >>agrees with industry commenters that plant- and >>animal-derived biodiesel fuels appear to have >>generally similar chemical composition. [Accordingly] >>the Agency is today revising the grouping rule for >>biodiesel F/FAs to permit plant and animal biodiesel >>F/FAs to group together and be represented by one >>group representative for compliance with Tier 1 and >>Tier 2 testing requirements." >> >>"EPA has carefully considered the commenters' >>arguments in relation to other provisions of the F/FA >>registration and testing program. The program is >>structured around the concept that business entities >>which profit from the sale of a F/FA product should >>generally share responsibility for its potential >>effects on the public health and welfare. Such >>businesses have thus been required to share in the >>burdens associated with determining these potential >>effects. However, this general principle is tempered >>by various provisions which recognize that other >>factors, such as characteristics of the F/FA >>marketplace and distribution system, must also be >>taken into account when assigning the regulatory >>burdens." >> >>"The special provisions for small businesses >>(Sec. 79.58(d)) also grant exemptions based upon >>financial and marketplace factors. Moreover, >>provisions finalized in today's action permit this >>exemption to ``pass through'' to customers of small >>businesses, regardless of the size of the customers, >>to prevent disruption of marketplace relationships >>(see section IV.B, below)." >> > > > > > >>--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > Here is a communication from World Energy about >> > government actions against >> > one of the few biodiesel producers in the Northeast. >> > Be forwarned. >> > >> > Snip> >> > We run into a lot of small producers who are trying >> > to do the right thing, >> > but I would be remiss if I did not warn about the >> > severity of cutting corners >> > from an IRS or EPA standpoint. >> > >> > >> > Any biodiesel producer or seller needs to understand >> > that any biodiesel used >> > (not sold)as fuel in an on-road vehicle is subject >> > to on-road tax. We have a >> > number of producers around the country who do not >> > want to deal with the tax, >> > and sell it tax exempt. This fuel does often end up >> > in peoples vehicles. Just >> > as you and I pay tax at the pump, it is the user who >> > is ultimately >> > responsible for road tax. >> > >> > >> > We just had a small producer in another state in a >> > similar situation. They >> > own a number of diesel vehicles and have been using >> > it for about a year. They >> > were just hit with bill for $0.31/gallon State >> > excise tax plus penalties and >> > interest for every gallon they have produced. In >> > addition, since the fuel was >> > used in on-road vehicles, the Federal Government can >> > (and most likely will) >> > fine up to $10.00/gallon for every gallon used. The >> > organization in Maine is >> > a non-profit agency and is therefore tax exempt. >> > They also do not sell any >> > fuel to te outside world. >> > >> > >> > Many of these small producers are yet to realize how >> > sad the ending may be. I >> > don't mean to sound rude or abrupt, but the tax >> > consequences can be quite >> > severe. I have already seen it happen once. I think >> > we will see it happen >> > again. >> > >> >
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Rent DVDs from home. Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping & No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE! http://us.click.yahoo.com/BVVfoB/hP.FAA/uetFAA/9bTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
