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

20 %
80 %
Information about Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing, and Compliance
Environment

Published on July 21, 2014

Author: all4inc

Source: slideshare.net

Description

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.

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.

Agenda • Project overview • PSD applicability assessment • Permitting strategy • PM2.5 and CPM baseline data • Compliance testing results • Critical review and planning • Outcome and learnings

Project Overview • Bleached and unbleached Kraft Mill • Modifications to pulp lines • Production increase • Debottlenecked recovery operations

PSD Applicability • Actual-to-projected actual assessment • No contemporaneous projects • Decreases in some pollutants due to project • No project netting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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) ?

Critical Assessment Systematic Review - Possible Explanations • Changes in Operating Conditions? • Physical or Chemical Changes? • Sample Collection/Analysis? • True Emissions Variability?

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

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

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

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

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

Add a comment

Related presentations

L'Arbre à Vent, système éolien innovant en forme d'Arbre dont les feuilles agissen...

2 Kåre Fostervold

2 Kåre Fostervold

November 10, 2014

Perspectives on German-Norwegian Energy Cooperation Kåre Fostervold, State Secre...

3 Tor Eigil Hodne

3 Tor Eigil Hodne

November 10, 2014

Interconnecting Germany and Norway: Nordlink in the Context of Energy Security, ...

4 Øyvind Stakkeland

4 Øyvind Stakkeland

November 10, 2014

Value Creation by Interconnecting Norwegian Hydro and European Markets in Transiti...

5 Stefan Göbel

5 Stefan Göbel

November 10, 2014

Putting a Price on Security of Supply – Capacity Mechanisms Stefan Göbel, Head o...

6 Olav Johan Botnen

6 Olav Johan Botnen

November 10, 2014

Long Term Analysis for the German Power Market Olav Johan Botnen, Senior Analyst...

Related pages

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

Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing and Compliance NCASI Southern Regional Meeting June 10, 2014 Glenn Rives, International Paper
Read more

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

Potential PM2.5 and CPM Pitfalls in Permitting, Testing, and Compliance June 10, 2014 | Guest Author John E. View Presentation. Glenn Rives of ...
Read more

Testing And Compliance | LinkedIn

View 9872 Testing And Compliance posts, presentations, experts, ... Head of Bank Group Testing Legal and Compliance Division at Morgan Stanley, ...
Read more

Emission Testing and Monitoring - EUEC2017 - 20th Annual ...

... Update on PM2.5 and Condensable Particulate Matter ... 5 and CPM for permitting actions and compliance ... and highlight potential issues ...
Read more

Ctrade – Biogas to Energy – Emission Testing and ...

... EMISSION TESTING ... PM2.5 and CPM for permitting actions and compliance ... and how permits will have to address PM2.5 and CPM ...
Read more

IMPLEMENTING PM-2.5 NSR IN AIR PERMITS - The Official Web ...

• Continue using our Interim Permitting and ... PM2.5 Stack Testing Methods ... assuming the total catch is all PM2.5 or PM10, in conjunction with CPM
Read more

Testing Compliance | LinkedIn

Current Senior QA Specialist Testing/Compliance at WuXi AppTec, Inc. Past QA Associate Testing/Compliance at WuXi AppTec, Inc., Quality Assurance ...
Read more

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) - Southern Section Air ...

issued during the transition period as not requiring quantification of condensable PM2.5 for compliance ... PM2.5 NAAQS – Permitting ... PM25 _Permit ...
Read more