1 / 55

NADB RGVSG Project Review

NADB RGVSG Project Review. Summary Presentation San Antonio, Texas January 27, 2003. Richard Laughton Project Director NADB Compliance BECC Step 2 Compliance Issues Risk Assessment Reporting. Greg Brown Project Manager Technical Analysis Financial Review Regulatory Permits

fifi
Télécharger la présentation

NADB RGVSG Project Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NADB RGVSG Project Review Summary Presentation San Antonio, Texas January 27, 2003

  2. Richard Laughton Project Director NADB Compliance BECC Step 2 Compliance Issues Risk Assessment Reporting Greg Brown Project Manager Technical Analysis Financial Review Regulatory Permits Project Feasibility Reporting Introducing Pollutech’s Team

  3. 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/

  4. RGVSG Facility The project is located 2½ miles west of Santa Rosa, Texas (Hidalgo County) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley on Highway 107.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. Project Technology • Upgrades to bagasse handling system; • New higher efficiency boiler; and • New (rebuilt) turbine generator.

  8. Project Resources • NADB Project Manager • RGVSG Management Team • TCEQ Industry and Approvals Staff • Schaffer & Associates, LLP • Turner Collie & Braden Inc. • Pollutech International Limited

  9. 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

  10. Project Timeline • Pollutech Report January 23, 2003 • TCB BECC Step 2 February 3, 2003 • BECC Approval March 20, 2003 • NADB Approval June 2003 • Bagasse upgrade September 2004 • Boiler and GenSet April 2005

  11. 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

  12. The Detailed Analysis • Review Existing Process • Analyze Proposed Upgrade • Projected Power Capacities • Project Air Emissions • The Financial Analysis

  13. 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

  14. Process Flowsheet

  15. 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)

  16. Proposed Plant Upgrades • As a result of other restrictions on the plant capacity increase (i.e. production quotas, growers capabilities, financing capabilities) there is no immediate plan to increase the production capabilities through the Phase 1 expansion. • However, the positive economic and environmental benefits of the proposed Phase 2 expansion do warrant those tasks being undertaken at this time.

  17. Proposed Stage 2 Plant Upgrades • Bagasse Handling Upgrades • conversion of all bagasse conveyors to fully automated (PLC controlled) belt conveyors (for an increased capacity to handle 20,000 tcd) • expansion and upgrade of the bagasse storage building • conversion of the boiler building (height and length) to handle the modified bagasse conveyor system and to allow for the new boiler #5

  18. Proposed Stage 2 Plant Upgrades • Power Plant Upgrade (Boiler & Turbine) • installation of a new high efficiency boiler (#5) with corresponding reduction in the use of the existing boilers (#’s 1,2,3,4) • new condensate storage tank; • rebuilt 6,000 KW turbine generator to replace one of existing 2,500 KW turbine generators

  19. Power Production

  20. Proposed Operation

  21. Proposed Power Capacities

  22. Air Emissions

  23. Projected Air Emissions

  24. Allowable v. Actual Emissions

  25. Projected Air Emissions

  26. Financial Analysis - Project Costs

  27. Financial Analysis - Cost Savings

  28. Financial Analysis - Payback Period

  29. Plant Environmental Programs • TCEQ Site Assistance Visit (P2SAV) • Emerald Consultants Compliance Audit • EPA Pilot EMS Program • Routine Regulatory Compliance

  30. Air Quality Improvements • - 42% at 10,000 tcd • - 0.6% at 13,500 tcd • + 9.0% at 15,000 tcd

  31. Water Quality Issues • 100% Recycle • High Evaporation • Stormwater Plan • On-Site WWTP

  32. Other Environmental Issues • Solid Waste • Chemical Waste • TRI (no reports) • EMS (in process)

  33. Emission Reduction Credits • ERC • DERCs • PPA Options

  34. 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?

  35. General Project Validation • Will the upgraded facility be able to produce more power? • Will the total air emissions from the upgraded facility be significantly less than the existing?

  36. General Project Validation • 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?

  37. Air Emission Summary • Immediate and significant 42% decrease in component and total air emissions at 10,000 tcd. • Reduced air emissions from outside power producers.

  38. Power Production Summary • Currently a net importer of power at approximately 1.7 MW • Will become a net exporter of power at 5 MW (plus 1.7 MW benefit)

  39. Compliance with BECC Step 2 • general; • human health and environment; • technical feasibility; • financial feasibility; • project management; • community participation; and • sustainable development.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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).

  43. BECC II – Project Alternatives • The “do nothing” alternative means no improvement in air quality and a less competitive industrial operation. • More advanced alternativesmight 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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?

  46. 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?

  47. 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] Likelihood = could it happen? Impact = what if it happens?

  48. Cane Production • 43,000 acres in production • Yields of 45 tons cane per acre • Peak generation of 2,000,000 tons cane per year • Weather and irrigation are critical MODERATE RISK

  49. Sugar Policies • Current quota of 144,000 tons sugar • Storage of shortfalls • Current pricing in the $0.21 range • Farm Bill expires in 2007-2008 • Mexican and Canadian Issues MODERATE RISK

  50. Production Expansion • Satisfactory for the next 5 years • Anticipate 10,000 tcd over 150 days • Immediate cost savings in operation • Future growth in Stage 2 upgrades LOW RISK

More Related