NADB RGVSG Project Review
description
Transcript of NADB RGVSG Project Review
NADB RGVSG Project ReviewNADB RGVSG Project Review
Summary Presentation
San Antonio, Texas
January 27, 2003
Introducing Pollutech’s TeamIntroducing Pollutech’s Team
Richard Laughton– Project Director– NADB Compliance– BECC Step II– Compliance Issues– Risk Assessment– Reporting
Greg Brown– Project Manager– Technical Analysis– Financial Review– Regulatory Permits– Project Feasibility– Reporting
Project Project DescriptionDescription
The project is a clean energy and air quality improvement project as defined under the BECC/NADB mandate expansion.
The project sponsor is the sugar cooperative identified as the “Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc.” (RGVSG).
FOR MORE INFO...
http://www.pollutechinternational.com/jobs/nadb/
RGVSG FacilityRGVSG Facility
The project is located 2½ miles west of Santa Rosa, Texas (Hidalgo County) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on Highway 107.
Project GoalsProject Goals
Review proposed system improvements in terms of capacity and operative compatibility with existing facility and expected performance, primarily focussing on equipment related to the co-generation from bagasse, air quality improvements, water and energy savings, and potential waste reduction.
Review and validate proposed technical, financial, operational, and environmental claims, costs associated with system improvements, and electricity sales.
Technical ViabilityTechnical Viability
basic systems processes and technologies; O&M experience and requirements; technical specifications and design; energy production and sales estimates; proposed environmental efficiencies; cost savings, emissions credits, and environmental improvement-related credits
Project Project TechnologyTechnology
Upgrades to bagasse handling system;
New higher efficiency boiler; andNew (rebuilt) turbine generator.
Project Project ResourcesResources
NADB Project ManagerRGVSG Management TeamTCEQ Industry and Approvals StaffSchaffer & Associates, LLPTurner Collie & Braden Inc.Pollutech International Limited
Review Review ProceduresProcedures
Background document review;Site inspection and interviews;Consultants reports and inquires;Regulatory analysis; andTechnical and financial analysis.
FOR MORE INFO...
1) Pollutech Technical Review Report
2) Executive Summary Report
Project TimelineProject Timeline
Pollutech completed January 23, 2003TCB BECC Step II February 3, 2003BECC Approval March 20, 2003NADB Approval June 2003Bagasse upgrades September 2004Boiler and GenSet upgrades April 2005
Key ConcernsKey Concerns
Reduction in air emissionsChange to net power exporterCompliance with BECC Step IITechnically viable and sustainableFits in with RGVSG long term plans
Key FactorsKey Factors
Sugar Policy (WTO and Farm Bill)Weather ConditionsSupply of Irrigation WaterEnvironmental Limits (air permits)Grower co-operation and educationPlant Production Capabilities
Comment Slide to be RemovedComment Slide to be Removed
Greg takes us through the process and what is proposed.
Process FlowsheetProcess Flowsheet
Proposed Plant UpgradesProposed Plant Upgrades
Schaffer Stage 1– Production plant upgrades– Plant increase to 20,000 tcd
Schaffer Stage 2– Bagasse handling upgrades– Power plant upgrade (boiler & turbine)
Proposed OperationProposed Operation
Plant Operation Old Boilers
(% capacity)
New Boilers
(% capacity)
10,000 tcd 29 100
13,500 tcd 57 100
15,000 tcd 69 100
Proposed Power CapacitiesProposed Power Capacities
Power Analysis
MW Produced
MW Purchased
MW
Sold
MW
Used
Current 4.3 1.7 0.0 6.0
10,000 tcd 9.6 0.0 5.0 4.6
13,500 tcd 11.8 0.0 4.2 7.6
15,000 tcd 14.0 0.0 9.0 5.0
Air EmissionsAir Emissions
Projected Air EmissionsProjected Air Emissions
Emission Analysis
CO tons/day
NOx tons/day
PMT tons/day
VOC tons/day
Current 16.4 3.2 2.5 1
10,000 tcd 7.9 2.9 1.2 0.5
13,000 tcd ? ? ? ?
15,000 tcd 16.2 4.5 2.5 1
Allowable v. Actual EmissionsAllowable v. Actual Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Allowable Emissions Actual 2001 - 2002Emissions
Air
Em
issi
on
s (T
on
s p
er
Ye
ar)
CO
SO2
TSP
NOx
VOC
Projected Air EmissionsProjected Air Emissions
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Actual 2001 -2002 Emissions
ProjectedEmissions at
10,000 tcd
ProjectedEmissions at
15,000 tcd
Air
Em
iss
ion
s (
To
ns
pe
r Y
ea
r)
CO
SO2
TSP
NOx
VOC
Financial AnalysisFinancial Analysis
Greg Inserts all his slides!Greg Inserts all his slides!
Comment Slide to be RemovedComment Slide to be Removed
Richard takes us through the NADB and BECC Issues.
Plant Environmental ProgramsPlant Environmental Programs
TCEQ Site Assistance Visit (P2SAV)Emerald Consultants Compliance AuditEPA Pilot EMS ProgramRoutine Regulatory Compliance
Air Quality ImprovementsAir Quality Improvements
Water Quality IssuesWater Quality Issues
100% RecycleStormwater PlanOn-Site WWTP
Other Environmental IssuesOther Environmental Issues
Solid WasteChemical WasteTRIEMS
Emission Reduction CreditsEmission Reduction Credits
ERCs– describe
DERCs– Describe
PPA Options– describe
General Project ValidationGeneral Project Validation
Is the plant proposing to use production and power generation technology that would be used by a prudent owner of a similar facility?
Is the pollution abatement equipment that is proposed BACT-EA?
Will the upgraded facility be able to produce more power?
General Project ValidationGeneral Project Validation
Will the total air emissions from the upgraded facility be significantly less than the existing?
Will the project result in a reduction in the environmental impacts related to water supply and discharge?
Has it been demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts on the neighbouring community?
Air Emission SummaryAir Emission Summary
Immediate and significant (46%) decrease in component and total air emissions at 10,000 tcd.
Marginal increase (4%)in air emissions at planned capacity of 15,000 tcd.
Reduced air emissions from outside power producers.
Power Production SummaryPower Production Summary
Compliance with BECC Step IICompliance with BECC Step II
general;human health and environment;technical feasibility;financial feasibility and project
management;community participation; andsustainable development.
BECC Guiding PrinciplesBECC Guiding Principles
• Principle 1. The project is centered on energy conservation and the economic needs of the region.
• Principle 2. The rights of the cooperative members and surrounding communities to adequately raise their standard of living and develop their properties are recognized and underlie the reasons for undertaking the project.
BECC Guiding PrinciplesBECC Guiding Principles
• Principle 3. Environmental protection is integral to the project with the promotion of renewable energy sources and the significant reduction in air pollutant loadings during operation.
• Principle 4. Stakeholders have been involved and have had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. This not only includes the cooperative members and surrounding residents, but also local, regional, state and federal agencies with statutory interest and standing in the issues at hand.
BECC II – Community ImpactBECC II – Community Impact
Air emissions from the RGVSG will be reduced while allowing the mill to continue to compete in an aggressive international market, while at the same time allowing for increased energy production (electricity) from the waste biomass (bagasse).
BECC II – Project AlternativesBECC II – Project Alternatives
The “do nothing” alternative means no improvement in air quality and a less competitive industrial operation. More advanced alternatives can provide additional environmental improvement (i.e. better emissions control technology, more efficient energy production methods) but are deemed not to be economically viable at this time.
BECC II – Financial FeasibilityBECC II – Financial Feasibility
The annual cost savings associated with reduced operating costs, reduced natural gas costs, and excess power sales are calculated to be approximately $2,100,000 per year. These cost savings account for 8.8% of the total project costs.
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
Can this project achieve what is projected in terms of current and future plant operation, or are there some undermining limitations that may increase the risk?
If the plant can go ahead with the upgrade to the operation with a manageable level of risk in operations, are we sure that the project they are proposing is technically sound?
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
can we confirm that all the local, state and federal environmental regulations will be met? What are the risks and impacts of occasional infractions?
Does the plant have the capability to operate and maintain the upgraded facility, so as to minimize or eliminate any risk of plant upsets that could affect either plant profitability or environmental emissions?
Risk AnalysisRisk Analysis
Does the project result in long term sustainability for the local area, giving due consideration to all of the issues required in the BECC Step II evaluation?
RISK = [Likelihood x Impact]
Cane ProductionCane Production
Sugar PoliciesSugar Policies
Production ExpansionProduction Expansion
Plant ProfitabilityPlant Profitability
Technology EvaluationTechnology Evaluation
Regulatory IssuesRegulatory Issues
Operation & MaintenanceOperation & Maintenance
Environmental SustainabilityEnvironmental Sustainability
Summary Analysis (fix)Summary Analysis (fix)
Component Stage 1: 10,000 tcd Stage 2: 15,000 tcd Requirements
Water Balance No loss of water fromthe plant and noadditional water needs.
Irrigation water needswill increase due toplant expansion.
Monitor water balanceduring upgrades anddetermine impacts.
Solid Waste No concerns identifiedand all bagasse isconverted to power. Other waste streamsidentified and properlymanaged.
Additional bagasse willallow plant to becomea net exporter ofpower. No anticipatedimpact from other solidwastes.
Ensure that all otherpermits (air) allow forthe use of all bagasseas fuel. Continue withEMS to manage allother solid wastes.
Plant Air Emissions Beneficial reduction inboth individual andtotal air emissions adirect benefit to area.No changes to permitsrequired.
Marginal increases intotal air emissions andsignificant increases inNOx emissions. Airpermit may beamended to suit.
Monitor new processand determine if NOxemissions can behandled by offset or ifadditional abatement isrequired.
Field Air Emissions No immediate plans tolimit burning of caneand/or trash, howevertesting to continue onboth aspects.
Future plans to limitburning of cane and/ortrash to be developedand annual reports tobe submitted to TCEQ.
Determine suitability ofgreen harvesting andimpact on regional airquality. Adjust openburning policies to suit.
Total Impact Marked improvementin environmentalimpact from plantupgrades. Reliance onexternal powersignificantly reduced.
Marginal increases inimpact may be offsetby reduced externalpower, increasedproductivity or changesto air permits.
Continue to monitor the“balance” to determinethe sustainability of theproject over the longerterm. Report tocommunity and TCEQ.
Summary Analysis (alternate)Summary Analysis (alternate)
Component Stage 1: 10,000 tcd Stage 2: 15,000 tcd Requirements
Water Balance
Solid Waste
Plant Air Emissions
Field Air Emissions
Total Impact Marked improvement in environmental impact from plant upgrades. Reliance on external power significantly reduced.
Marginal increases in impact may be offset by reduced external power, increased productivity or
changes to air permits.
Continue to monitor the “balance” to determine the sustainability of the project over the longer term. Report to community and TCEQ.