hensel, corrigan, helmers & hoefs - emissions reductions in southeastern mn: progress,...

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)

316(b) Rule proposed

New SLP Permit

Final Cross State Air Pollution Rule

(CSAPR)

New CCCT Permit

Final IB MACT Rule

SO2/NO2 NAAQS

Compliance SLP/CCCT

'15 '13 '14 '12 '11 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 '16 '17 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

Today

EGU MACT final rule

316(b) final rule expected

IB MACT Compliance Date

SLP 1-3 (PM, HCL, Hg)

EGU MACT Compliance

SLP4 (Hg, PM, HCl)

1/12/12

Final Rules in black Proposed Rules in blue

Environmental Regulatory Timeline for RPU Units

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.

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 Industrial Boiler MACT rule (final; stayed)

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?

©2012 MFMER | slide-12

Emissions Reductions in Southeastern Minnesota: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Mayo Clinic

Karl Corrigan, Environmental Compliance Coordinator UP IN THE AIR: What Changes in Federal Air Quality Standards Could Mean for Minnesota May 9, 2012


Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Mobile 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


Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Stationary Sources

•  Installation of cleaner burning technology • Emergency Generators • Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers • Medical Waste Incinerator


Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Stationary 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)


Questions & Discussion

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

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


Integrated Solid Waste Management System

Waste Reduction and Education

Hazardous Waste Management

Waste-to-Energy

Landfilling

Yard Waste Composting

Recycling


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 ft deep with garbage)‏

n  Energy produced from waste is equivalent to that from over 590,000 tons of coal

serving the citizens and business of


Buildings served with energy from wastes


OWEF Emission Test Results

21


n  No-Build Assessment

n  Landfill vs WTE Expansion

n  Environment and Energy

n  Baseline was OWEF emissions at permit levels

Unit 3 Alternative Study

Transportation impacts

n  No-build alternative resulted in

n  extra 4.2 million miles of truck travel burning 707,000 gallons of diesel fuel

n  PM and PM10 emissions would be 10x expanded OWEF permit levels

Climate Change Impacts

n  Results showed landfilling vs. WTE has significant increases in:

n  an equivalent automobile traffic

n  an equivalent energy use

n  more greenhouse gases emitted

Potential Mercury Emissions n  waste-to-energy stack emissions n  collection and transportation of solid

waste n  landfill working face releases n  emissions from closed areas of a

landfill n  landfilling would increase mercury

releases by 1.04 to 1.72 pounds per year


Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Solid Waste Management Systems


Landfill Recycling Operations

n  Metal reclamation n  Ferrous Metals removed

from ash

n  Cleaned and sold to metals recycler

n  MSW recovery from bypass cell

n  Bulky items processing


Negative Waste (Less than Zero Waste)

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

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

Cu

bic

Yar

ds

MSW Air Space (Available and Used)

Used - Current

Capacity - Current

Used - Proposed

Capacity - Proposed


Challenges that degrade air quality

n  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 years

n  Enforcement is difficult, expensive, politically sensitive

n  Pollution is extensive

27


References & Contact Information

John I. Helmers, P.E. Director, Olmsted County Department

of Environmental Resources 2122 Campus Drive S.E., Suite 200 Rochester, MN 55904

Phone: 507-328-7070 [email protected] www.co.olmsted.mn.us/environmentalresources/

•  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 United States, Susan A. Thorneloe, et al, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, September 2002

•  Application of the U.S. Decision Support Tool for Materials and Waste Management, Susan A. Thorneloe, et al, U.S. EPA/Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory , Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, Research Triangle Park, NC

UP IN THE AIR: What Changes in Federal Air Quality Standards Could Mean for Minnesota Panel Discussion Emissions Reductions in Southeastern MN: Progress, Challenges & Opportunities Ed Hoefs, Principal

Growth vs. Emissions

Source: Air Quality in Minnesota: 2011 Report to the Legislature, MPCA, January 2011, Page 5 http://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 source emission 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 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 (651) 294-4586 [email protected]

hensel, corrigan, helmers & hoefs - emissions reductions in southeastern mn: progress,...

Technology

b rule rule

rochester area so2

mact standards

q1 q2 q3 q4

volume of rule promulgation

compliance opkons

compliance demonstrakon

allocakon of so2