case study - nsr 2010
TRANSCRIPT
Case Study - NSR 2010
NCASI 2010 Southern Regional Meeting
Charleston, SC
June 29, 2010
Colin McCallAll4 Inc.
2
Agenda Overview of Project PSD Applicability Approach Review Process and U.S. EPA
Involvement Mill Response and Project Impact Conclusions
3
The Project
Modify recovery furnace:• DCE to NDCE
Modify combination fuel boiler:• Upgrades for additional
biomass/alternative fuels• Overfire air improvements• Steamside efficiency increases
Install new steam turbine generator set and new cooling tower
4
Positive Environmental Aspects
Recovery furnace modifications:• Low odor conversion• Eliminates BLOX• Predicted reductions in SO2, VOC, CO,
PM, PM10, PM2.5, and TRS Combination fuel boiler
modifications:• Projected decrease in fossil fuel• Improved combustion efficiency• Predicted reductions in NOX, CO
5
PSD Applicability Actual-to-projected actual applicability
analysis• Projected actual emissions (PAE) for modified
recovery furnace for all but NOX and PM, potential to emit (PTE) for NOX and PM
• PAE developed for combination fuel boiler based on Mill business projections
• PAE for combination fuel boiler excluded emissions that it could have accommodated during baseline
• PTE for new cooling tower
6
PSD Applicability PSD Assessment:
• Step 1 – Are project emissions increases greater than significance levels?
• Step 2 – Are net emissions increases greater than significance levels?
7
PSD Applicability Step 1 results:
• Project increases alone were significant for NOX, PM, TRS
Step 2 results:• Net decreases from project eliminated
TRS• Project was a PSD major modification
for NOX, PM
8
PSD Application Key PSD application components:
• BACT for NOX on recovery furnace• BACT for PM on recovery furnace,
combination fuel boiler, cooling tower• Air quality modeling demonstration for
NOX resulted in predicted annual impacts below significant impact level (SIL)
9
Application Review Application submitted late 2009 State agency reviewed and forwarded
to U.S. EPA Permit was anticipated by early May
2010 U.S. EPA commented in early April
10
Application Review U.S. EPA comments:
• If permit not issued by 4/12/10 application had to address new 1-hr NO2 standard
• Concern w/excluded emissions that boiler could have accommodated
11
Mill Issues/Approach Project timing critical date - June 2010 Develop immediate response to U.S.
EPA concerns to expedite permit:• Determine implications of short-term NOX
impacts• Revisit use of excludable emissions that
the combination boiler could have accommodated
12
Mill Issues/Approach
Short term 1-hour NO2 analysis;• No SIL, no U.S. EPA guidance• Short-term project NOX emissions
increases modeled• Results <10% but >5% of new NAAQS• Time for full NAAQS study not acceptable
13
Mill Issues/Approach Additional NOX reductions evaluated
to:• Determine impact on short-term model
results• Reduce project NOX increases to below
PSD significance level (<40 TPY) Resulted in management commitment
of significant $$$ to reduce NOX from combination fuel boiler
14
Mill Issues/Approach Eliminate use of excludable
emissions for combination fuel boiler analysis:• Down-sized new turbine generator set• Incorporated new test data for PM10,
PM2.5 and condensables from ICR testing
• Incorporate NOX reduction technology
15
Project Status
Revised approach presented to state agency and support obtained at all levels
Formal update to application submitted and awaiting U.S. EPA review
16
Project Conclusions No grandfathering – be prepared for
new NAAQS and other requirements (SO2, GHG)
Lack of guidance and tools for new standards will slow process
Concern for ability to demonstrate compliance with new NAAQS will force additional reductions
PSD process under NSR Reform continues to evolve…
17
Questions?
All4 Inc.2393 Kimberton Road
P.O. Box 299Kimberton, PA 19442
610.933.5246 x20
www.all4inc.com