1. RPU AIR QUALITY EFFORTS

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. 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. 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. 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 Permit
Q3 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Questions?

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
©2012 MFMER | slide-12

13. 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
©2012 MFMER | slide-13

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

15. 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)
©2012 MFMER | slide-15

16. Questions & Discussion
©2012 MFMER | slide-16

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

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

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
year
Transportation impacts Climate Change Impacts
n 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. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for Solid Waste Management Systems
Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

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

25. 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
Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water •

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. 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
Environmental Resources Department • clean air • clean energy • clean soil • clean water • 27

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. 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

30. 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

31. 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

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