PFPI-BiomassIsTheNewCoal-April-2-2014

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Connecticut, the permit only requires stack testing for HCl and ammonia. 92 In contrast, the permitfor the 37.5 MW (net) Plainfield Renewable Energy plant in Plainfield, Connecticut,which will burn “sorted” construction and demolition wood, states “The Permittee shall demonstratecompliance for each and every hazardous air pollutant emitted from this unit” that is listed in three tables ofthe RCSA document, and that emission rates will be calculated using continuous emissionsmonitoring for certain pollutants and “initial and annual stack testing (or fuel testing) for all otherpollutants.” 93 However, that permit also states that the only stack tests for HAPs that are reallyrequired are tests for a small handful of HAPs that are listed directly in the permit. 94 In this case,although the permit does at least require testing, its provisions still appear to be contradictory andunenforceable.Neither of the Title V permits for two biomass energy plants in New York, the 19 MW (net)ReEnergy Lyonsdale Biomass plant in Lyonsdale, and the 50 MW(net) ReEnergy BlackRiver plant at Fort Drum, include firm testing and compliance requirements for HAPs. Bothsimply state, “For the purpose of ascertaining compliance or non-compliance with any air pollution controlcode, rule or regulation, the commissioner may require the person who owns such air contamination source tosubmit an acceptable report of measured emissions within a stated time.” 95 Yet both facilities claim syntheticminor status for HAPs.Representative of the woefully inadequate state of air permitting for bioenergy is the permit forthe 58 MW (gross) ecoPower plant proposed in Hazard, Kentucky. An early summary ofthe permit 96 declared that the facility would emit 35 tons of HAPs, putting it over the 25-tonannual threshold and thus making it a major source subject to the major source MACT standard.Evidently, the company objected, because the summary of the final permit 97 states that the totalemissions of all HAPs from this large 745 MMBtu/hr boiler will now be less than ten tons annually.Further, even the minimal requirement for one-time stack testing for emissions of the main HAPsemitted by biomass burning, including benzene and formaldehyde, 98 was stripped from the finalpermit. This company cherrypicked their own emissions factors to estimate total HAPs emissions,92Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Bureau of Air Management. New Source Review Permitfor Montville Power, LLC. Modification issue date May 20, 2013; Prior issue date <strong>April</strong> 6, 2010.93Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Bureau of Air Management. New Source Review Permitfor Plainfield Renewable Energy LLC. Permit modification date December 8, 2011.94 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Hazardous Air Pollutants, RCSA §22a-174-29. Available athttp://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2684&Q=322184&deepNav_GID=161995New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Air Title V Facility Permit for Lyonsdale Biomass, Permit ID 6-2338-00012/00004. Effective date 08/16/2011; and, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Air Title VFacility permit for ReEnergy Black River, LLC. Permit ID: 6-2240-00009/00007. Effective date 5/20/2013.96Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Air Quality Permit Application Summary Form, for ecoPower Generation, LLC.Version marked “Application received 1/7/2010”.97Commonwealth of Kentucky Division of Air Quality Permit Application Summary Form, for ecoPower Generation, LLC.Version marked “Application received December 21, 2012”.98This provision, found in the draft of the permit dated 6/26/09, stated “During the initial stack testing, the permittee shalldetermine emission factors for hydrogen chloride, benzene, chlorine, and formaldehyde. The emission factors from stack testingshall be used to demonstrate that emissions of any single HAP do not exceed 9 tons per 12 consecutive months, and that totalpotential emissions of HAPs do not exceed 22.5 tons per 12 consecutive months. These emission factors shall be valid for the lifeof the permit unless directed otherwise by the Division [401 KAR 52:020, Section 26].”52
not using the NCASI factors, but inventing their own. Nonetheless, typically for bioenergycompany rhetoric, the company’s website states, “ecoPower is creating a new, clean and renewablesource of electricity known as ‘bioenergy.’ 99It is likely that if the requirements imposed by the EPA decision on the Hu Honua facility wereapplied to other plants – i.e., that once operating, facilities should use actual emissions of HAPs,including during startup and shutdown, to determine whether they are complying with therequirement to stay below the 10/25 ton threshold – almost none of the biomass power plants nowclaiming “synthetic minor” status for HAPs would be able to comply. What saves these facilitiesfrom having to comply with air quality laws, however, is that EPA is ignoring the majority of statelevelbioenergy permits currently being issued.Fuel contaminant testing requirements are even more rareTesting fuels before they are burned to determine whether their combustion will emit toxic airpollution is one way to increase compliance with permitted emissions limits. However, in ourreview of tens of permits, we rarely found requirements that fuel be tested, and when there was arequirement, it was so lax as to be almost meaningless. For instance, the permit for the proposed60 MW (gross) Loblolly Green Power plant in Newberry, South Carolina states that theplant will burn “clean, untreated wood waste,” and that “an initial fuel analysis or stack testing will beconducted. No additional analysis will be required, unless the clean, untreated wood becomes inconsistent incomposition or is received from another source.” 100 However, the document does not explain how adetermination that fuel has become “inconsistent in composition” is to be made if testing is notrequired.Fuel testing requirements at the 50 MW(net) ReEnergy Black River plant at Fort Drum,NY, highlight the difficulty of characterizing fuel contamination in a statistically meaningful way.The facility’s permit states that it can burn “clean wood, unadulterated wood from C+D debris, glued woodcreosote treated wood (sic), tire derived fuel and nonrecyclablefibrous material (waste paper).” Todetermine the amount of contaminated woodburned, the permit states, “ReEnergy shall employ the"grid test" which consists of a 10 by 10 grid placed overthe wood stream and checked to determine the percentageAlthough many biomass facilities arepermitted to burn waste-derived fuels,few actually test to determinecontamination levelsof glued wood, treated/painted wood, and non-wood materials. If it is determined that the percentage of gluedwood is between 0 and 1.0% by volume, then the percentage of glued wood for that load is 1%. If it isdetermined that the percentage of glued wood is between 1% and 20% by volume, the percentage of glued woodfor that load is 20%. If it is determined that the percentage of glued wood is greater than 20% by volume,99 http://www.ecopg.com/100Loblolly Green Power Statement of Basis, Permit number 1780-0051CA. South Carolina Department of Health andEnvironmental Control, September 3, 2009.53
Page 1 and 2: Trees, Trash, and Toxics:How Biomas
Page 8 and 9: The fix: EPA should regulate bioene
Page 10 and 11: To test whether the industry emissi
Page 12 and 13: Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEBurge
Page 14 and 15: cycle technologies is $59 - $86, de
Page 16 and 17: The physical reasons why bioenergy
Page 18 and 19: All three facilities went through a
Page 20 and 21: supposed to use the technology that
Page 22 and 23: Bioenergy emissions of criteria pol
Page 24 and 25: CO 2 and conventional air pollutant
Page 26 and 27: are federally and practically enfor
Page 28 and 29: Table 4: Biomass power plants with
Page 30 and 31: shutdown, when emissions can increa
Page 32 and 33: Table 5: Biomass power plants with
Page 34 and 35: Nitrogen oxides (tons per year)Figu
Page 36 and 37: PM 2.5 , including condensable PM,
Page 38 and 39: Synthetic minor facilities tend to
Page 40 and 41: material classified as a commercial
Page 42 and 43: is regulated under the boiler rule,
Page 44 and 45: As an incinerator, the facility wou
Page 46 and 47: Table 8: Industry data helps biomas
Page 48 and 49: permitting authorities, especially
Page 50 and 51: La Pine, Oregon, used the NCASI fac
Page 54 and 55: then the load is considered to 100%
Page 56 and 57: elatively high filterable PM standa
Page 58 and 59: EPA rules compare contaminant conce
Page 60 and 61: commodity” - therefore, the facil
Page 62 and 63: emove obviously contaminated materi
Page 64 and 65: developmental and reproductive effe
Page 66 and 67: The Evergreen plant is located in t
Page 68 and 69: Loophole 4: Most biomass plants hav
Page 70 and 71: Summary case studies: the emerging
Page 72 and 73: emission limits for HAPs, but does
Page 74 and 75: company was permitted to use non-EP
Page 76 and 77: Verso Bucksport, Bucksport, MEWhat:
Page 78 and 79: Biogreen Sustainable Energy, La Pin
Page 80 and 81: iomass from land clearing operation

PFPI-BiomassIsTheNewCoal-April-2-2014

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?