Hensel, Corrigan, Helmers & Hoefs - Emissions Reductions in Southeastern MN: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Panel

RPU AIR QUALITY EFFORTS

Rochester Non-‐A.ainment History •  Rochester area determined to be non-‐a.ainment for SO2 (1978) and PM10 (1991). •  Extensive modeling performed during the 1980s and 1990s to idenKfy sources, extent of problem and culpability. •  RPU Silver Lake Plant found to be a primary culpable source for both SO2 and PM10. •  ImplementaKon of compliance plans resulted in signiﬁcant emission reducKons. •  Rochester area SO2 and PM10 a.ainment achieved and SIPs approved by EPA for PM10 (1995) and SO2 (2001). •  Area now subject to maintenance SIPs for PM10 and SO2.

RPU Air Compliance Strategy •  Fuel switching to low-‐sulfur fuels •  Changes in O&M pracKces to control fugiKve emissions •  Major air emissions control project investment SLP Unit 4 cost -‐-‐ $39 million •  SubstanKal reducKons in SO2, NOx and PM resulted.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DRIVERS •  NAAQS for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (final) •  NESHAPS Industrial Boiler MACT rule (final; under reconsideraKon) •  NESHAPS Electric GeneraKng Unit MACT rule (final) •  Cross-‐state Air PolluKon rule (final; stayed pending judicial review) •  CAA New Source Review (on-‐going) •  CWA 316(b) Power Plant Cooling Water Systems rule (proposed) •  Coal combusKon residuals rule (proposed)

Environmental Regulatory Timeline for RPU Units Final Cross State SO2/NO2 Final IB Air Pollution Rule EGU MACT NAAQS MACT (CSAPR) Compliance Compliance Rule SLP4 SLP/CCCT (Hg, PM, HCl) New SLP New CCCT Permit PermitQ3 Q4 11 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 12 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 13 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 14 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 15 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 16 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 17 Q1 Q2 Today 316(b) final 316(b) Rule rule expected proposed IB MACT EGU MACT Compliance Date final rule SLP 1-3 (PM, HCL, Hg) Final Rules in black Proposed Rules in blue 1/12/12

NESHAPS Industrial Boiler MACT rule (ﬁnal; stayed) SL Units 1, 2 and 3 emissions exceed MACT standards for parKculate ma.er and HCl. Compliance opKons include permanently switch to natural gas, install control equipment or reKre units. Compliance demonstraKon possibly by 2nd half 2015. NESHAPS Electric GeneraKng Unit MACT (ﬁnal) SL Unit 4 has the potenKal to meet EGU MACT proposed standards for HAPS by opKmizing performance of exisKng APC equipment. Compliance must be demonstrated by April 16, 2015.

Cross-state Air Pollution rule (final)CSAPR is an emissions cap & trade program intended to reduce the interstate transport of air pollutants that contribute to down-‐wind ﬁne parKculate and ozone nona.ainment. SL Unit 4 is RPU’s only coal-‐ﬁred unit subject to CSAPR. The allocaKon of SO2 and NOX allowance for SL Unit 4 (215 tons and 145 tons respecKvely) are adequate for normal operaKons under current, and anKcipated near-‐term market condiKons (25 to 35 percent capacity factor).

RPU’s future power supply •  Less reliance on coal-‐ﬁred capacity and energy •  Investment in natural gas generaKng units •  West-‐side locaKon is likely to be the plant site of the future

RPU Core Value – Environmental Stewardship “Protect our environment through the wise use of resources.” •  Renewable energy •  ConservaKon improvement program (electric and water) •  Environment stewardship budget (other than RE, CIP and Cascade Meadows partnership) averages $100k per year

Rochester Area CollaboraKon Major sources in Rochester have agreed to work cooperaKvely to meet future energy needs and a.ain/maintain a.ainment with exisKng and future AAQS. Areas of collaboraKon: •  Dispersion modeling •  Resource and infrastructure planning Energy conservaKon eﬀorts • 

Questions?

Emissions Reductions in Southeastern Minnesota:Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesMayo Clinic Karl Corrigan, Environmental Compliance Coordinator UP IN THE AIR: What Changes in Federal Air Quality Standards Could Mean for Minnesota May 9, 2012 ©2012 MFMER | slide-12

Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesMobile Sources•  Mayo has 11,140 parking spaces in Rochester and 36,000 employees most of which work in a downtown urban setting•  Commuting •  Contracts a commuter bus services to 41 towns in 12 counties in SE Minnesota •  Contracts 592 Park and Ride parking spaces in 5 locations •  Contracts city bus service for 4354 employees•  Annual cost of over $4,000,000 to Mayo ©2012 MFMER | slide-13

Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesStationary Sources•  Installation of cleaner burning technology •  Emergency Generators •  Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers •  Medical Waste Incinerator ©2012 MFMER | slide-14

Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesStationary Sources•  Speed and volume of rule promulgation •  40 CFR Part 63 WWWWW HOSPITAL STERILIZERS USING ETHYLENE OXIDE •  40 CFR Part 60 IIII Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition ICE •  40 CFR Part 63 ZZZZ National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary RICE •  40 CFR Part 63 JJJJJJ Area Sources, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers •  40 CFR Part 62 HHH Requirements for Hospital/Medical/ Infectious Waste Incinerators Constructed On or Before December 1, 2008 •  NAAQS (PM2.5, Pb, NO2, SO2, Ozone, CO) ©2012 MFMER | slide-15

Emissions Reductions in Southeastern Minnesota: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities of the Environmental Resources Department By John I. Helmers, P.E. Director Environmental Resources Department Olmsted County, Minnesota Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Integrated Solid Waste Management System Recycling Waste Reduction and Yard Waste Composting Education Landfilling Hazardous Waste Management Waste-to-Energy Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility (OWEF)‫‏‬ n  Began operations in 1987 (25 years ago) n  Operates as a power plant 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, n  90% available n  Employs 43 people full time n  Serves 37 buildings with steam, chilled water and electric power n  Additional electricity to SMMPA via RPU n  Processes 400 tons per day Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)‫‏‬ n  Over 1.3 million tons of waste processed n  Saved over 2 million cubic yards of landfill space (33 football fields 100 ftserving the citizens and business of deep with garbage)‫‏‬ n  Energy produced from waste is equivalent to that from over 590,000 tons of coal Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Buildings served with energy from wastes Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

OWEF Emission Test Results Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water • 21

Unit 3 Alternative Study n  No-Build Assessment Potential Mercury Emissions n  waste-to-energy stack emissions n  Landfill vs WTE n  collection and transportation of solid Expansion waste n  Environment and Energy n  landfill working face releases n  Baseline was OWEF n  emissions from closed areas of a landfill emissions at permit levels n  landfilling would increase mercury releases by 1.04 to 1.72 pounds per yearTransportation impacts Climate Change Impactsn  No-build alternative resulted in n  Results showed landfilling vs. WTE n  extra 4.2 million miles of truck has significant increases in: travel burning 707,000 gallons n  an equivalent automobile traffic of diesel fuel n  an equivalent energy use n  PM and PM10 emissions would n  more greenhouse gases emitted be 10x expanded OWEF permit levels Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfor Solid Waste Management Systems Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Landfill Recycling Operationsn  Metal reclamation n  Ferrous Metals removed from ash n  Cleaned and sold to metals recyclern  MSW recovery from bypass celln  Bulky items processing Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Negative Waste (Less than Zero Waste) MSW Air Space (Available and Used) 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 Cubic Yards Used - Current 1,200,000 Capacity - Current 1,100,000 Used - Proposed Capacity - Proposed 1,000,000 900,000 n  This investment results in n  More air space available in 2030 than 2010 n  Next cell construction projected for 2046 n  Cell 7 could last until 2136 Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

Challenges that degrade air qualityn  Illegal burning of solid wastes n  Backyard (barrels, fire pits, piles, etc.) n  Home/business (fireplaces, wood stoves, boilers, etc.)n  Has been against the law in Minnesota for over 25 yearsn  Enforcement is difficult, expensive, politically sensitiven  Pollution is extensive Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water • 27

References & Contact Information•  Estimated Mercury Emissions in Minnesota for 2005 to 2018 , April 22, 2008, Report wq-iw1-21, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency•  New Source Performance standards (NSPS) Subpart AAAA: Draft Siting Analysis, Olmsted Waste-to Energy Facility: Unit 3 Project, June 2006, Wenck Associates, Inc., Maple Plain, MN•  The Impact of Municipal Solid Waste Management on Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the John I. Helmers, P.E. United States, Susan A. Thorneloe, et al, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Director, Olmsted County Department of Environmental Resources September 2002•  Application of the U.S. Decision Support Tool for 2122 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 200 Materials and Waste Management, Susan A. Rochester, MN 55904 Thorneloe, et al, U.S. EPA/Office of Research and Phone: 507-328-7070 Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory , Air Pollution Prevention helmers.john@co.olmsted.mn.us and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC www.co.olmsted.mn.us/environmentalresources/ Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

UP IN THE AIR:What Changes in Federal Air QualityStandards Could Mean for MinnesotaPanel DiscussionEmissions Reductions in Southeastern MN:Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesEd Hoefs, Principal

Growth vs. EmissionsSource: Air Quality in Minnesota: 2011 Report to theLegislature, MPCA, January 2011, Page 5http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/legislative-resources/legislative-reports/air-quality-in-minnesota-2011-report-to-the-legislature.html

Where will further MN stationary sourceemission reductions come from?•  Many large Minnesota emission sources have already implemented emission reduction projects •  Energy facilities: Emission retrofits, repowering projects, fuel switching, supplemental firing with biomass •  Manufacturing facilities: Product formulation changes, emission control equipment (e.g., thermal oxidizers)•  Further reductions in stationary source emissions will involve smaller facilities •  Some are driven by sustainability initiatives •  All are driven by cost considerations, with competitiveness, employment and environmental stewardship in the balance•  NAAQS Attainment: Voluntary projects•  NAAQS Non-Attainment: RACT

Emission Reduction Project:Printing Facility•  Coating/Printing of packaging materials•  Primary emissions: VOC, HAP•  Originally regulated under a Part 70 permit•  VOC Potential-to-Emit exceeded 100 tons/yr; average actual emissions approximately 60 tons/yr in 2000-2001•  Implemented VOC/HAP reduction project •  Changed coating materials •  Changed fountain solutions•  Now regulated under Option D Registration Permit•  VOC actual emissions are approximately 20-35 tons/yr depending on production

Emission Reduction Project:Manufacturing Facility•  Manufacturing of Industrial Equipment•  Primary emissions: VOC, HAP, Particulates•  Originally regulated under a Part 70 permit•  Implemented new painting technology •  Powder coating•  Re-permitted under an Individual State permit•  Now regulated under Option D Registration Permit•  VOC actual emissions reduced from approximately 25-30 tons/yr to 500-600 lbs/yr•  PM-10 actual emissions reduced from approximately 2-3 tons/yr to 100-200 lbs/yr

Questions?Ed Hoefs, P.E.Wenck Associates, Inc.1802 Wooddale Drive, Suite 100Woodbury, MN 55125(651) 294-4586ehoefs@wenck.com

Hensel, Corrigan, Helmers & Hoefs - Emissions Reductions in Southeastern MN: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Panel

by Environmental Initiative on May 10, 2012

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Hensel, Corrigan, Helmers & Hoefs - Emissions Reductions in Southeastern MN: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Panel Presentation Transcript