1 / 52

NADB RGVSG Project Review

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

etta
Download Presentation

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 II 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 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

  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. 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

  13. Comment Slide to be Removed Greg takes us through the process and what is proposed.

  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 Operation

  17. Proposed Power Capacities

  18. Air Emissions

  19. Projected Air Emissions

  20. Allowable v. Actual Emissions

  21. Projected Air Emissions

  22. Financial Analysis

  23. Greg Inserts all his slides!

  24. Comment Slide to be Removed Richard takes us through the NADB and BECC Issues.

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

  26. Air Quality Improvements

  27. Water Quality Issues • 100% Recycle • Stormwater Plan • On-Site WWTP

  28. Other Environmental Issues • Solid Waste • Chemical Waste • TRI • EMS

  29. Emission Reduction Credits • ERCs • describe • DERCs • Describe • PPA Options • describe

  30. 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?

  31. 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?

  32. 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.

  33. Power Production Summary

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

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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).

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. 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?

  42. 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]

  43. Cane Production

  44. Sugar Policies

  45. Production Expansion

  46. Plant Profitability

  47. Technology Evaluation

  48. Regulatory Issues

  49. Operation & Maintenance

  50. Environmental Sustainability

More Related