Download
1 / 52
520 likes | 613 Vues
NADB RGVSG Project Review. Summary Presentation San Antonio , Texas January 27, 2003. Richard Laughton Project Director NADB Compliance BECC Step II Compliance Issues Risk Assessment Reporting. Greg Brown Project Manager Technical Analysis Financial Review Regulatory Permits
E N D
NADB RGVSG Project Review Summary Presentation San Antonio, Texas January 27, 2003
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 Introducing Pollutech’s Team
Project Description • 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 Facility The project is located 2½ miles west of Santa Rosa, Texas (Hidalgo County) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on Highway 107.
Project 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 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 Technology • Upgrades to bagasse handling system; • New higher efficiency boiler; and • New (rebuilt) turbine generator.
Project Resources • NADB Project Manager • RGVSG Management Team • TCEQ Industry and Approvals Staff • Schaffer & Associates, LLP • Turner Collie & Braden Inc. • Pollutech International Limited
Review Procedures • Background document review; • Site inspection and interviews; • Consultants reports and inquires; • Regulatory analysis; and • Technical and financial analysis. FOR MORE INFO... 1) Pollutech Technical Review Report 2) Executive Summary Report
Project Timeline • Pollutech completed January 23, 2003 • TCB BECC Step II February 3, 2003 • BECC Approval March 20, 2003 • NADB Approval June 2003 • Bagasse upgrades September 2004 • Boiler and GenSet upgrades April 2005
Key Concerns • Reduction in air emissions • Change to net power exporter • Compliance with BECC Step II • Technically viable and sustainable • Fits in with RGVSG long term plans
Key Factors • Sugar Policy (WTO and Farm Bill) • Weather Conditions • Supply of Irrigation Water • Environmental Limits (air permits) • Grower co-operation and education • Plant Production Capabilities
Comment Slide to be Removed Greg takes us through the process and what is proposed.
Proposed 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)
Comment Slide to be Removed Richard takes us through the NADB and BECC Issues.
Plant Environmental Programs • TCEQ Site Assistance Visit (P2SAV) • Emerald Consultants Compliance Audit • EPA Pilot EMS Program • Routine Regulatory Compliance
Water Quality Issues • 100% Recycle • Stormwater Plan • On-Site WWTP
Other Environmental Issues • Solid Waste • Chemical Waste • TRI • EMS
Emission Reduction Credits • ERCs • describe • DERCs • Describe • PPA Options • describe
General 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 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 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.
Compliance with BECC Step II • general; • human health and environment; • technical feasibility; • financial feasibility and project management; • community participation; and • sustainable development.
BECC 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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]
