Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing, and Compliance

  • 337 views
Uploaded on

Glenn Rives of International Paper and John Egan of All4 Inc. present the Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing, and Compliance at the NCASI Southern Regional Meeting on June 10, …

Glenn Rives of International Paper and John Egan of All4 Inc. present the Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing, and Compliance at the NCASI Southern Regional Meeting on June 10, 2014. In this presentation, they discuss PSD applicability, permitting strategy, compliance testing results, and planning around permitting, testing, and compliance.

More in: Environment
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
337
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing and Compliance NCASI Southern Regional Meeting June 10, 2014 Glenn Rives, International Paper John Egan, All4 Inc.
  • 2. Agenda • Project overview • PSD applicability assessment • Permitting strategy • PM2.5 and CPM baseline data • Compliance testing results • Critical review and planning • Outcome and learnings
  • 3. Project Overview • Bleached and unbleached Kraft Mill • Modifications to pulp lines • Production increase • Debottlenecked recovery operations
  • 4. PSD Applicability • Actual-to-projected actual assessment • No contemporaneous projects • Decreases in some pollutants due to project • No project netting
  • 5. Project Emissions Baseline Data • Baseline data from reported emissions • Missing data for PM2.5 and CPM • Test data and NCASI factors • Projected actuals conservatively estimated
  • 6. Project Emissions Increases • PSD applicability Step 1 – project increases • Project increases alone PSD significant for: • VOC, NOX, PM, PM10, PM2.5 • Biogenic deferral for CO2e VOC NOX PM PM10 PM2.5 Step 1 Total Project-Related Emissions Increases 48 193 93 82 65 PSD Significance Levels 40 40 25 15 10 Step 1 - Project Increases Exceed PSD Significance Levels? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
  • 7. Permitting Strategy and Boiler MACT • Coal boiler conversion to natural gas option • Emission reductions available for netting • Other project reductions made federally enforceable • Net decreases less than PSD significant • Construction permit issued with testing requirements including PM2.5
  • 8. Summary of Project Emissions VOC NOX PM PM10 PM2.5 Step 1 Total Project-Related Emissions Increases 48 193 93 82 65 PSD Significance Levels 40 40 25 15 10 Step 1 - Project Increases Exceed PSD Significance Levels? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Step 2 Emission Increases During the Contemporaneous Period 7 - - - - Emission Decreases During the Contemporaneous Period 17 183 81 71 56 Total Net Emissions Increase 38 10 12 11 9 PSD Significance Levels 40 40 25 15 10 Step 2 - Net Increases Exceed PSD Significance Levels? No No No No No
  • 9. Criticality of PM10/PM2.5 Emission Data • Recovery area sources largest contributors to increases • Concern with lack of data therefore pre-project testing • Results compared with other IP and NCASI data • Projected actual emissions set conservatively with margins added
  • 10. CPM Emission Factor Evaluation (Pre-project) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Avg 4 tests (2 per RB) NCASI 5 RBs (Avg)* Other IP Sites 7 RBs (Avg)* Permit Basis CPMlb/TBLS(virgin) * Emissions Adjusted to virgin TBLS based on 1.2 TBLS as fired/(TBLS virgin) Selected factor with safety margin to assure confident Non-PSD permit decision
  • 11. CPM Stack Test Demonstration (Post-project) 1.15 lb CPM/TBLS-virgin 4 times higher than expected Mostly organic > 80 wt% ~ 195 ppmdv as carbon or ~ 53 ppmdv as propane 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Permit Basis Post-project test CPMlb/TBLS(virgin) ?
  • 12. Critical Assessment Systematic Review - Possible Explanations • Changes in Operating Conditions? • Physical or Chemical Changes? • Sample Collection/Analysis? • True Emissions Variability?
  • 13. Assessment Findings • Process Review • Similar process & operating conditions all test programs • No physical/operational changes • Previous Stack Test Programs • CPM coupled with M201A trains • Test plans/equipment selected to satisfy M201A cyclone cut point constraints • Insufficient sample volumes/collected mass for CPM • No Train/Field Reagent Blanks
  • 14. Re-test Planning-1 • Use CEMs to confirm exhaust gas levels of CO and total hydrocarbons are within expected ranges • Extend CEMs monitoring over several days to characterize typical values and ranges • Collect and analyze Liquor and Smelt Chemical Composition, HHV
  • 15. Re-test Planning-2 • Reduce sampling equipment/reagent residues • Confirm Field/Lab Glassware & Reagent purity in advance • 4 Sampling Train Recovery Blanks • Increase measurement certainty by: • Increasing sample volumes (> 75 cubic ft/run) • Targeting > 50 mg CPM • Tightening constant weight criteria to +/- 0.2 mg • Using only glass or Teflon® weighing containers
  • 16. Re-test Results Two 3-run series each RB Average CPM = 0.05 lb/TBLS virgin In Expected Range Predominately inorganic CPM 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Avg 4 tests (2 per RB) NCASI 5 RBs (Avg)* Other IP Sites 7 RBs (Avg)* Permit Basis Re-Test Avg 12 runs (6 per RB) CPMlb/TBLS(virgin) Re-test CPM Results
  • 17. Conclusions and Takeaways • CPM and lower PM2.5 permitting thresholds bring scrutiny to very small “projects” • Don’t wait till you have a “project” to test CPM • Develop a site-specific CPM and PM2.5 emission “history” • Don’t over complicate the test constraints – decouple M201 and M202 • Rely on literature emission factors to put you in the ballpark – don’t count on for “compliance” • Design and execute test programs to answer critical questions at appropriate certainty level • Don’t set yourself up for surprises