Amendment to the Ambient Air Quality Impact Report

(NSR 4-4-4, SAC 84-02)

I. Applicant

Collins Pine Company

13 Collins Drive

P.O. Box 796

Chester, CA 96020

II. Project Location

The Collins Pine Company lumber production facility is located at 13 Collins Drive in Chester, 

California. Chester is located in Plumas County, within the Mountain counties Air Basin, which is 

under the jurisdiction of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

The nearest federal Class I area is the Lassen Volcanic National Park/Caribou Wilderness Area. 

The facility is located 13.7 kilometers south of the southeastern corner of the park. The only 

other Class I area located within 100 kilometers of the facility is the Thousand Lakes Wilderness 

Area, which is approximately 47 kilometers north of the facility.

III. Project Description

The existing steam and power production plant at Collins Pine consists of the No. 4 boiler, a 

woodwaste-fired water tube steam boiler that is rated for 140,000 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) of 

high pressure steam, and a turbine generator set capable of generating 12 MW of electricity. 

Boiler exhaust gases are ducted in series through a rotary fuel dryer, a cyclone collection 

system, and a wet ESP. Continuous emission monitoring (CEM) systems for monitoring CO and 

NOx were installed in 1991.

Under this amendment, the Applicant requests authorization to replace its existing wet ESP with 

a dry ESP. No change to allowable emission levels or rates is requested. The new dry ESP will 

continue to meet all emission limits applicable to the existing wet ESP. The proposed 

amendment will not increase the maximum daily or annual rate of steam production or fuel 

consumption, or increase any regulated compound’s emission rates above its significance 

threshold, as defined in the PSD regulations and the facility’s PSD permit. Further, these changes 

will not affect the air quality demonstration made in support of the original PSD permit.

This amendment is needed in order to eliminate the wastewater stream currently generated by 

operating a wet ESP. Applicant has committed to eliminating this wastewater stream as part of a 

settlement agreement with local community groups over alleged effluent discharge permit 

violations.
The original 1984 PSD permit concluded that installation of an ESP constituted BACT. No other 

changes are requested to the permit.

The proposed dry ESP and stack is to replace the existing wet ESP and stack. The ESP follows an 

existing air preheater, multiple cyclone particulate collector and induced draft fan. Fuel will 

continue to be hogged wood and bark with an average moisture content of 30-40% by weight.

Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel will also be used during startup events.

IV. Project Emissions

Applicant proposes to retain all of the emission limits in the existing PSD permit. Those limits are 

summarized below. Because the combustion process is not being altered, no change to 

combustion emissions is expected, and no change to combustion limits is requested. Because 

the dry ESP is expected to perform as effectively as the wet ESP, minimal change to particulate 

emissions is expected. No change to particulate limits is requested.

V. Emission Limits

Operation of Boiler No. 4 is limited to 8,592 hours per year. Operation in transient mode 

(startup, shutdown, and malfunctions) is limited to 500 hours per year.

Except where noted below, emission limits are 3-hour averages.

On and after the effective date of this permit, Collins Pine shall not discharge, or cause the

discharge into the atmosphere from boiler #4 pollutants in excess of the more stringent of the 

following specified limits:

Pollutant Mode Emission Limits

NOX Normal 55 lb/hr or 145 ppm @ 12 % C02 (3-hr avg)

Transient 85 lb/hr or 165 ppm@ 12% C02 (3-hr avg)

Pollutant Mode Emission Limits

CO Normal 220 lb/hr (3-hr avg)

Transient 950 lb/hr (3-hr avg)

Transient 575 lb/hr (8-hr avg)

Pollutant Maximum Emission Limit

PM10 13 lb/hr or 0.0265 gr/dscf@ 12 % C02 (3-hr avg)

Opacity is limited to 20% (3-min interval/hr)

VI. Estimated Emissions of Condensable PM fraction

The following estimate for particulate matter was provided by the Collins Pine Company/Sierra 

Research. The primary reason for including the estimated particulate matter emissions by Sierra 

Research is to demonstrate that replacing the wet ESP control device by a dry ESP control device 

will not result in significant PM emissions. Also as an added measure, EPA is requiring that 
Collins Pine include PM2.5 testing, inorganic and organic condensible particulate matter, in their 

annual performance test requirement. 

Quantification of PM, back half from facility source tests:

Based upon source tests conducted at Chester, the condensable PM loading at the inlet of the ESP is 

0.004 gr/dscf, or 1.6% of the total PM.1

Estimated hourly and annual emissions for particulate fractions and types are shown in Table 1. Worst 

case emissions of total condensable PM2.5 at the stack with the wet ESP is about 2.2 lb/hr, or 9.49 TPY. 

Because the project will not result in a change in filterable PM emissions,

2

this represents the upper limit 

on the increase in total condensable PM2.5 emissions (i.e., it assumes 100% control by the wet ESP and 

no control by the dry ESP). A less conservative estimate would be that the increase would be 5.28 TPY 

of PM2.5, based on the measured control efficiency of the wet ESP, but still assuming zero control by the 

dry ESP. Both assumptions grossly overstate the expected change in PM2.5 emissions, and both 

assumptions indicate that the increase will be below 10 TPY.

Table 1. Quantification of Back Half Emissions from Source Test Data

Pollutant Measured 

Emission 

Factor at ESP 

Inletc

Emissions at 

ESP Inlet

Measured 

Emission 

Factor at 

ESP Outletd

Emissions at 

ESP Outlet

Lb/MMBtu Lb/hra TPYb Lb/MMBtu Lb/hra TPYb

Condensable PM2.5

(Inorganic) 0.0047 1.13 4.87 0.0017 0.40 1.72

Condensable PM2.5

(organic) 0.0021 0.51 2.21 0.0013 0.32 1.37

Condensable PM2.5

(Impinger Rinse) 0.0023 0.56 2.41 0.0011 0.26 1.12

Total Condensable 

PM2.5

0.0091 2.21 9.49 0.0040 0.98 4.21

NOTES

a Based on 242.3 MMBtu/hr.

b Based on 242.3 MMBtu/hr and 8592 hours per year.

c

See Table 2 for calculations

d

See Table 3 for calculations

 

1 Back half (inorganic + organic + impinger rinse) emission rate = (0.0020 + 0.0009 + 0.001) gr/dscf = 0.004 gr/dscf 

(See Table 2). Total PM emission rate = 0.2545 gr/dscf (2010 source test report p. 6). 

2 We [Applicant] believe there will be no increase in condensable PM as well; however, this analysis reflects a 

worst-case assumption.
Table 2. Bypass Stack Source Test Data—Back Half

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Average

Source of 

information

Back Half, 

Inorganic

Total residue less 

blank, mg 3.6 2.2 4.0 3.3 p.21

Total residue less 

blank, gr 0.056 0.034 0.062 0.050

Sample volume, 

dscf 34.729 31.176 32.977 32.961 p.16

gr/dscf 0.0016 0.0011 0.0019 0.0015

CO2 content 8.5 9.1 9.2 8.9 p.16

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0023 0.0014 0.0024 0.0020

Emission Factor, 

lb/MMBtua 0.0052 0.0033 0.0056 0.0047

Back Half, 

Organic

Total residue less 

blank, mg 1.8 1.7 0.9 1.5 p.21

Total residue less 

blank, gr 0.028 0.026 0.014 0.023

Sample volume, 

dscf 34.729 31.176 32.977 32.961 p.16

gr/dscf 0.0008 0.0008 0.0004 0.0007

CO2 content 8.5 9.1 9.2 8.9 p.16

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0011 0.0011 0.0005 0.0009

Emission Factor, 

lb/MMBtua 0.0026 0.0025 0.0013 0.0021

Back Half, 

Impinger 

Rinse

Total residue less 

blank, mg

1.8 1.9 1.1 1.6

p.21

Total residue less 

blank, gr 0.028 0.029 0.017 0.025

Sample volume, 

dscf 34.729 31.176 32.977 32.961 p.16

gr/dscf 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005 0.0008

CO2 content 8.5 9.1 9.2 8.9 p.16

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0011 0.0012 0.0007 0.0010

Emission Factor, 

lb/MMBtua 0.0026 0.0028 0.0015 0.0023

NOTE a Emission factor, lb/MMBtu = E= Cw*Fc*100/%CO2 

 = (Emission rate, gr/dscf) / (7000 gr/lb) * (1920 dscf/MMBtu)*8100/12
Table 3. Wet ESP Outlet Test Data—Back Half

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3 Run # 4 Average

Source of 

information

Back Half, 

Inorganic Total residue, g 112.1738 107.3388 99.6090 110.3617 107.3708 pp. 62-65

Blank, g 112.1723 107.3364 99.6042 110.3602 107.3683 pp. 62-65

Total residue less blank, mg 1.4 2.4 4.8 1.4 2.5

Total residue less blank, gr 0.022 0.037 0.074 0.022 0.039

Sample volume, dscf 51.375 52.310 53.300 51.555 52.135 p.54

gr/dscf 0.0004 0.0007 0.0014 0.0004 0.0007

CO2 content 11.9 12.1 12.6 12.3 12.2 p.54

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0004 0.0007 0.0013 0.0004 0.0007

Emission Factor, lb/MMBtua 0.0010 0.0016 0.0030 0.0010 0.0017

Back Half, 

Organic Total residue, g 97.8782 107.3201 70.8723 110.6555 96.6815 pp. 62-65

Blank, g 97.8764 107.3182 70.8702 110.6532 96.6795 pp. 62-65

Total residue less blank, mg 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.0

Total residue less blank, gr 0.027 0.029 0.032 0.035 0.031

Sample volume, dscf 51.375 52.310 53.300 51.555 52.135 p.54

gr/dscf 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006

CO2 content 11.9 12.1 12.6 12.3 12.2 p.54

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006

Emission Factor, lb/MMBtua 0.0012 0.0012 0.0013 0.0015 0.0013

Back Half, 

Impinger 

Rinse

Total residue, g 108.6405 109.1888 78.1648 112.8594 102.2134 pp. 62-65

Blank, g 108.6394 109.1869 78.1626 112.8580 102.2117 pp. 62-65

Total residue less blank, mg 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.4 1.6

Total residue less blank, gr 0.017 0.029 0.033 0.022 0.025

Sample volume, dscf 51.375 52.310 53.300 51.555 52.135 p.54

gr/dscf 0.0003 0.0005 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005

CO2 content 11.9 12.1 12.6 12.3 12.2 p.54

gr/dscf at 12% CO2 0.0003 0.0005 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005

Emission Factor, lb/MMBtua 0.0008 0.0012 0.0014 0.0009 0.0011

NOTE a Emission factor, lb/MMBtu = E= Cw*Fc*100/%CO2 

 = (Emission rate, gr/dscf) / (7000 gr/lb) * (1920 dscf/MMBtu)*8100/12