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

u nder the jurisdiction of the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District.

The nearest federal Class I area is the Lassen Volcanic N ational 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) system s 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 m eet 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

thresh old, as def in ed 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 pe rm it.

This amendment is needed in order to eliminate the wastewater stream cur rently 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 . N o change to particulate limits is requested.

V. Emission Limits

Operation of Boiler No. 4 is limited to 8,592 hours per year. Ope ration 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

NO X Normal 55 lb/hr or 145 ppm @ 12 % C0 2 (3

- hr avg)

Transient 85 lb/hr or 165 ppm@ 12% C0 2 (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

PM 10 13 lb/hr or 0.0265 gr/dscf@ 12 % C0 2 (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 de monstrate 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 thatCollins 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

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

case emissions of total condensable PM 2.5 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 fil terable PM emissions

, 2 this represents the upper limit

on the increase in total condensable PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 , 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 PM 2.5 emissions, and both

assumptions indicate that the increase will be b elow 10 TPY.

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

Pollutant Measured

Emission

Factor at ESP

Inlet c Emissions at

ESP Inlet Measured

Emission

Factor at

ESP Outlet d Emissions at

ESP Outlet

Lb/MMBtu Lb/hr a TPY b Lb/MMBtu Lb/ hr a TPY b

Condensable PM 2.5 (Inorganic) 0.0047 1.13 4.87 0.0017 0.40 1.72

Condensable PM 2.5 (organic) 0.0021 0.51 2.21 0.0013 0.32 1.37

Condensable PM 2.5 (Impinger Rinse) 0.0023 0.56 2.41 0.0011 0.26 1.12

Total Condensable

PM 2.5 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/MMBtu a 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/MMBtu a 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/MMBtu a 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)*8100/12Table 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/MMBtu a 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/MMBtu a 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/MMBtu a 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