company was permitted to use non-EPA emissions factors for HAPs, which dramaticallyunderestimate emissions compared to the EPA-sanctioned emissions factors.North Star Jefferson, Wadley, GAWhat: 312 MMBtu/hr fluidized bed boiler; 25 MW (gross).Estimated CO 2 emissions (tons per year): 275,000Permitted emissions (tons per year): NOx: 249 CO: 249 PM 10 fil : 21 SO 2 : 249Status for NOx, PM, and CO: Synthetic minor source (avoided PSD)Status for HAPs: Synthetic minor sourceFuel: wood, shredded tiresConstruction and demolition wood or other waste allowed as fuel? Initially yes; as permitted, no.Use of NCASI or other non-EPA factors to estimate HAPs? YesNotes: The facility is located in an area with large existing pollution sources, including woodburners.No pre-construction air quality modeling has been conducted. It is beingdeveloped by a pro-forestry non-profit organization, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry andCommunities, but the developer has stated that burning tires is important to the success ofthe facility. As for other biomass facilities permitted in Georgia, this facility used non-EPAsanctioned emissions factors to come to the conclusion that it is a minor source for HAPs.Initial stack tests are required to establish emissions rates for certain HAPs.Piedmont Green Power, Barnesville, GAWhat: 657 MMBtu/hr stoker boiler; 54.5 MW (net).Estimated CO 2 emissions (tons per year): 564,192Permitted emissions (tons per year): NOx: 228 CO: 227 PM 10 fil : 86 SO 2 : not specStatus for NOx, PM, and CO: Synthetic minor source (avoided PSD)Status for HAPs: Synthetic minor sourceFuel: “Biomass shall consist of wood wastes in chip or in shredded form from timber harvesting,pre-commercial thinning of forest plantation stands, harvesting non-commercial, dead ordeformed species for fuel purposes and land clearing activities (limbs, tops, stumps andnon-commercial trees), and may also include peanut hulls, pecan shells, cotton stalks,lumber and pallet wood wastes (unpainted/untreated only) and similar woody biomass.”Construction and demolition wood or other waste allowed as fuel? YesUse of NCASI or other non-EPA factors to estimate HAPs? YesNotes: While this facility claims to be a synthetic minor source for HAPs, and the permit states thatpotential emissions of HAPs are greater than 25 tons, the permit contains no testingrequirements other than a one-time test for HCl. The permit would thus likely be deemedunenforceable under Clean Air Act requirements, although the omission might be rectifiedwhen the Title V operating permit is issued. This facility was awarded $49.5 million in“clean” energy funding from the federal government, as a 1603b award that converts thefederal renewable energy incentive tax credit to a cash grant.74
Hu Honua, Pepe’ekeo, HIWhat: Refire of old coal plant. 407 MMBtu/hr stoker boiler; 23.8 MW gross, 21.5 MW netEstimated CO 2 emissions (tons per year): 349,507Permitted emissions (tons per year): NOx: 210 CO: 246 PM 10 fil : 21.4 SO 2 : 39.2Status for NOx, PM, and CO: Synthetic minor source (avoided PSD)Status for HAPs: Synthetic minor sourceFuel: wood, biodieselConstruction and demolition wood or other waste allowed as fuel? NoUse of NCASI or other non-EPA factors to estimate HAPs? YesNotes: This facility took synthetic minor status for criteria pollutants and HAPs. EPA commentedon this permit, observing that it was unlikely that a facility this size could stay below its COcap, and observing that the use of non-EPA sanctioned emission factors for calculatingHAPs emissions needed to be justified. As allowed by the Clean Air Act, a citizen grouppetitioned the EPA to formally object to the permit, and EPA has responded, agreeing thatas written, the pollution limits are not enforceable. This decision is significant because EPAhas made it clear that actual emissions testing for both criteria air pollutants and HAPs mustbe conducted under a variety of operating conditions for a facility to be able to claim andmaintain synthetic minor source status. Many permits for bioenergy facilities being issuedaround the country do not contain these requirements, particularly for HAPs, and aretherefore likely unenforceable under the terms of the Clean Air Act.ecoPower, Hazard, KYWhat: 745 MMBtu/hr fluidized bed boiler; 58 MWEstimated CO 2 emissions (tons per year): 577,073Permitted emissions (tons per year): NOx: 240 CO: 240 PM 10 fil : 240 SO 2 : 240Status for NOx, PM, and CO: Synthetic minor source (avoided PSD)Status for HAPs: Synthetic minor sourceFuel: Hardwood tree stems removed during pre-commercial thinning operations. Storm and firedamaged hardwood trees and tree parts. Low quality hardwood logs and hardwood blocksthat are trimmed in the production of sawlogs. Hardwood wood industry byproducts suchas shavings, saw dust, bark, and similar materials that do not contain preservatives, resins,or other additives. Low quality hardwood logs and hardwood wood chips produced duringright-of-way operations and urban forestry operations. Unrecyclable untreated hardwoodpallets, untreated lumber, and dunnage.Construction and demolition wood or other waste allowed as fuel? YesUse of NCASI or other non-EPA factors to estimate HAPs? YesNotes: An early draft of the air permit classified the facility as a major source for HAPs that wouldemit over 35 tons per year. The final version of the permit reduced the amount of HAPs to7.71 tons. The applicant achieved the reduction in estimated HAPs by making up their ownHAPs emissions factors, and only counting certain HAPs toward total emissions. Provisionsrequiring stack testing were removed in the final version of the permit, so the HAPs limitsare unenforceable at this point.75
- 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 52 and 53: Connecticut, the permit only requir
- 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 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