RPU AIR QUALITY EFFORTS
Rochester	  Non-­‐A.ainment	  History	  	  	  	   •  Rochester	  area	  determined	  to	  be	  non-­‐a.ainment	  for	  SO2...
RPU	  Air	  Compliance	  Strategy	  	  	  	         •      Fuel	  switching	  to	  low-­‐sulfur	  fuels	         •      Ch...
ENVIRONMENTAL	  REGULATORY	  DRIVERS	  •  NAAQS	  for	  sulfur	  dioxide	  and	  nitrogen	  dioxide	  (final)	  •  NESHAPS	...
Environmental Regulatory Timeline for RPU Units                        Final Cross State                                  ...
NESHAPS	  Industrial	  Boiler	  MACT	  rule	  (final;	  stayed)	      	  	  SL	  Units	  1,	  2	  and	  3	  emissions	  exc...
Cross-state Air Pollution rule (final)CSAPR	  is	  an	  emissions	  cap	  &	  trade	  program	  intended	  to	  reduce	  t...
RPU’s	  future	  power	  supply	  	  	  	         •  Less	  reliance	  on	  coal-­‐fired	  capacity	  and	  energy	        ...
RPU	  Core	  Value	  –	  Environmental	  Stewardship	  	  	  	  	         “Protect	  our	  environment	  through	  the	  w...
Rochester	  Area	  CollaboraKon	  	  	  	         Major	  sources	  in	  Rochester	  have	  agreed	  to	  work	  cooperaKv...
 	  	                Questions?       	  
Emissions Reductions in Southeastern Minnesota:Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesMayo Clinic  Karl Corrigan, Environment...
Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesMobile Sources•  Mayo has 11,140 parking spaces in Rochester   and 36,000 employees mo...
Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesStationary Sources•  Installation of cleaner burning technology     •  Emergency Gener...
Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesStationary Sources•  Speed and volume of rule promulgation  •  40 CFR Part 63 WWWWW HO...
Questions & Discussion                         ©2012 MFMER | slide-16
Emissions Reductions in Southeastern Minnesota:      Progress, Challenges & Opportunities                     of the      ...
Integrated Solid Waste Management System                                                Recycling Waste Reduction and     ...
Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility (OWEF)‫‏‬                                                     n    Began operations in 1...
Buildings served with energy from wastes         Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soi...
OWEF Emission Test Results         Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean wate...
Unit 3 Alternative Study                 n    No-Build Assessment                          Potential Mercury Emissions   ...
Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfor Solid Waste Management Systems          Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean...
Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •
Landfill Recycling Operationsn    Metal reclamation      n    Ferrous Metals removed            from ash      n    Clea...
Negative Waste (Less than Zero Waste)                                       MSW Air Space (Available and Used)            ...
Challenges that degrade air qualityn    Illegal burning of solid wastes      n    Backyard (barrels, fire pits, piles, e...
References & Contact Information•    Estimated Mercury Emissions in Minnesota for     2005 to 2018 , April 22, 2008, Repor...
UP IN THE AIR:What Changes in Federal Air QualityStandards Could Mean for MinnesotaPanel DiscussionEmissions Reductions in...
Growth vs. EmissionsSource: Air Quality in Minnesota: 2011 Report to theLegislature, MPCA, January 2011, Page 5http://www....
Where will further MN stationary sourceemission reductions come from?•  Many large Minnesota emission sources have already...
Emission Reduction Project:Printing Facility•  Coating/Printing of packaging materials•  Primary emissions: VOC, HAP•  Ori...
Emission Reduction Project:Manufacturing Facility•  Manufacturing of Industrial Equipment•  Primary emissions: VOC, HAP, P...
Questions?Ed Hoefs, P.E.Wenck Associates, Inc.1802 Wooddale Drive, Suite 100Woodbury, MN 55125(651) 294-4586ehoefs@wenck.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

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

338

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
338
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. RPU AIR QUALITY EFFORTS
  2. 2. 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.    
  3. 3. 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.      
  4. 4. 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)  
  5. 5. 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  
  6. 6. 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.  
  7. 7. 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).  
  8. 8. 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      
  9. 9. 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      
  10. 10. 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   •   
  11. 11.       Questions?  
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesStationary Sources•  Installation of cleaner burning technology •  Emergency Generators •  Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers •  Medical Waste Incinerator ©2012 MFMER | slide-14
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. Questions & Discussion ©2012 MFMER | slide-16
  17. 17. 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 •
  18. 18. 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 •
  19. 19. 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 •
  20. 20. Buildings served with energy from wastes Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •
  21. 21. OWEF Emission Test Results Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water • 21  
  22. 22. 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 •
  23. 23. Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfor Solid Waste Management Systems Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •
  24. 24. Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •
  25. 25. 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 •
  26. 26. 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 •
  27. 27. 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  
  28. 28. 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 •
  29. 29. UP IN THE AIR:What Changes in Federal Air QualityStandards Could Mean for MinnesotaPanel DiscussionEmissions Reductions in Southeastern MN:Progress, Challenges & OpportunitiesEd Hoefs, Principal
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. Questions?Ed Hoefs, P.E.Wenck Associates, Inc.1802 Wooddale Drive, Suite 100Woodbury, MN 55125(651) 294-4586ehoefs@wenck.com
  1. Gostou de algum slide específico?

    Recortar slides é uma maneira fácil de colecionar informações para acessar mais tarde.

×