Palos Verdes Landfill Proposed to-energy Facility Replacement

Transcription

1 Palos Verdes Landfill Proposed Gas-to to-energy Facility Replacement This presentation discusses the proposed project that replaces the existing Gas-to- Energy Facility at the closed Palos Verdes Landfill with new, clean technology that will effectively manage all landfill gas and produce approximately two megawatts (MW) of renewable energy. This presentation will describe the existing facility, the proposed facility, and review the environmental analysis of the proposed project. The environmental analysis for the project is currently out for public and regulatory review. The analysis can be found on the Sanitation Districts website at by clicking on Information Center and then Documents for Public Review. Comments are due by October 1. 1

2 Palos Verdes Landfill Palos Verdes Drive Crenshaw Blvd Hawthorne Blvd Closed Palos Verdes Landfill Existing Gas-to-Energy Facility This is an aerial view of the main landfill site bordered by Crenshaw and Hawthorne Blvds. The existing Gas-to-Energy Facility is located adjacent to Hawthorne Blvd in the lower right hand corner of the picture. 2

3 Existing PV Gas-to to-energy Facility Hawthorne Blvd Boiler Buildings Cooling Towers Existing Flare Station This is a close-up view of the existing Gas-to-Energy Facility. The landfill gas generated on-site is collected and conveyed to the Facility. The landfill gas is either burned in a boiler to generate steam and produce power from a steam turbine/generator or burned in the flare station when the boiler is off-line. The plant originally produced roughly 10 MW when it commenced operation in Due to naturally declining gas production of a closed landfill, the plant currently produces roughly 3 MW. It has effectively reached the end of its useful life. 3

4 2000 Palos Verdes Landfill Gas Monthly Trends (Flow & Energy Content) 300 CH4 Flow, scfm CH4 Flow Heat Content Since the closure of the landfill in 1980, the landfill gas production has been slowly declining. The above chart shows the decline in gas quantity (pink line) and gas quality (white line) since the start of the existing Gas-to-Energy facility in This decline is a natural process as the organic material in the refuse is stabilizing. The current landfill gas contains roughly 14% methane (CH 4 ) which is the fuel used to generate power. This methane, or energy content, is quite low in comparison to other gas used for power generation. Natural gas contains roughly 95% methane. The decline in gas quality and quantity is beneficial in terms of having less landfill gas to manage. However, it makes it very difficult to produce power Heat Content, BTU/dscf Bru/dscf 4

5 Potential Technologies USEPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program * Internal Combustion Engines * Turbines: Gas, Steam, and Combined Cycle * Microturbines * Fuel Cells There are different technologies available to produce power from landfill gas. During a community meeting, a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, which promotes gas-to-energy projects, talked about the technologies listed above. Microturbines and fuel cells have the ability to operate with very low emissions. Microturbines are smaller versions of gas turbines. Fuel cells are similar to batteries and produce power through a chemical reaction. However, none of these technologies can operate on the combined landfill gas at the Palos Verdes Landfill because it does not have enough methane (i.e. energy). Microturbines require 30-35% methane and fuels cells require 45-50% methane. 5

6 Landfill Gas Collection System Core Gas 1,700 CFM 35% CH 4 Perimeter Gas 3,700 CFM 2% CH 4 Botanical Gardens Side Slope Gas 2,700 CFM 18% CH 4 Even though the combined landfill gas has a methane concentration of only 14%, there are areas on the landfill that have landfill gas with higher methane concentrations that can be used to produce power. The core gas area has a methane concentration of roughly 35% and a few of the wells produce gas with methane concentrations of roughly 50%. This area has relatively deeper refuse and produces better landfill gas. The side slope gas area contains gas with 18% methane and the perimeter gas area contains gas with only 2% methane. The gas collection system as a whole, and particularly the perimeter system, is operated very conservatively to ensure that all the landfill gas generated is collected. Segregating the gas system could allow the higher quality gas to be collected separately and used for power generation and the lower quality gas would then be flared. 6

7 Energy Recovery Core Gas 1,700 CFM 35% CH 4 Side Slope Gas 2,700 CFM 18% CH 4 Perimeter Gas 3,700 CFM 2% CH 4 Microturbines 1,640 CFM 35% CH 4 Fuel Cell 60 CFM 50% CH 4 Ultra Low Emission Flare 6,400 CFM 9% CH 4 Note: More than half of the landfill gas methane will be used for energy recovery. The segregated gas flows and the proposed uses are shown above. The concept is to use the highest quality gas in clean, energy producing equipment (microturbines and fuel cell) and low quality gas that cannot be used for power generation would be sent to a new ultra low emission flare. The power generated by the microturbines (roughly 1.6 MW) would be sold to Southern California Edison. The power is considered renewable energy and will assist the state in meeting its mandate of having 20% of the state s energy produced from renewable resources. The fuel cell power (roughly 300 kw) would be used to power the on-site gas collection equipment. The State of California encourages the use of fuel cells and will provide partial funding for projects that self-generate power. All of the proposed technologies (fuel cell, microturbines, and ultra low emission flare) are considered Best Available Control Technology by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 7

8 Fuel Cell Actual 250 kw Fuel Cell in Palmdale Considered Best Available Control Technology By SCAQMD Proposed for PVLF = 300 kw This is a picture of a fuel cell operating at the Districts Palmdale Water Reclamation Plant. The unit has been operating for roughly three years. Fuel cells are considered Best Available Control Technology by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 8

9 Microturbines Actual 250 kw Microturbine in Lancaster Considered Best Available Control Technology By SCAQMD Eight 250 kw Microturbines proposed for PVLF This is a picture of a microturbine operating at the Districts Lancaster Water Reclamation Plant. The unit has been operating for roughly three years. The Districts also operate microturbines at the Calabasas Landfill. Microturbines are also considered Best Available Control Technology by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 9

10 Ultra Low Emissions Flare Ultra Low Emissions Enclosed Flare in El Sobrante Landfill, Riverside County Considered Best Available Control Technology By SCAQMD This is a picture of a ultra low emission flare operating at the El Sobrante Landfill in Riverside County. This flare operates continually. Concerns have been raised about the emissions from flaring (combusting) landfill gas at the Palos Verdes Landfill. The existing Gas-to-Energy Facility utilizes flares whenever the boiler is down for maintenance. Due to declining gas quality, the new ultra low emission flare would operate continuously to manage the low quality gas from the side slopes and perimeter areas of the landfill. The new ultra low emission flare is considered best available control technology by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Actual emission tests from flare installations across the country have shown very low emissions, lower than the existing boiler and flares. Test results for the above flare at the El Sobrante Landfill have been recently received. The oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter emissions are all extremely low. For example the existing boiler exhaust contains roughly 18 parts per million (ppm) of NOx at 3% oxygen whereas the ultra low emission flare exhaust has 4.2 ppm NOx at 3% oxygen. Based on this data the proposed flare would emit 75% less NOx than the existing Gas-to-Energy Facilty. The carbon monoxide from the proposed flare was 0.02 ppm at 3% oxygen which is well below the permitted limit. The flare also provides effective volatile organic compound (VOC) control by having a VOC destruction efficiency of over 99%. The flare was also tested for trace organic compounds. Some of these compounds, such as benzene and vinyl chloride are also present at the Palos Verdes Landfill in roughly the same concentrations. The ultra low emission flare was effective in destroying over 99.5% of the trace organic pollutants. 10

11 Best Available Control Technology SCAQMD considers BACT to be the most stringent control technology or emission limit achieved in practice. All of the proposed energy recovery and flare equipment are considered best available control technology by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. This means that the equipment achieves the lowest emissions in practice today. As new technologies or emission limits are developed the SCAQMD adopts them as new BACT standards. As a result, emission limits continually get lower and controls continually improve. 11

12 Impact Areas Evaluated Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance The Districts performed an environmental analysis of the proposed project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with, at the request of the community, an expanded air quality analysis. The areas listed on the slide were analyzed to determine if there were any significant impacts from the proposed project. This was done by comparing the proposed project to the existing baseline condition which is the operation of the existing Gas-to-Energy Facility. Based on the analysis which is described in the Negative Declaration for the project, none of the areas had a significant impact. The Districts have received some questions regarding why an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not performed for the project. An EIR is required for a project when it has potential significant environmental impacts. This proposed project will meet all applicable air quality standards, use best available control technologies, and has lower emissions than the existing facility. The CEQA initial study and the expanded air quality analysis determined that the project does not have potential significant impacts. As a result, an EIR is not appropriate. Furthermore, the expanded air quality analysis that was performed is similar to what an EIR would contain. The expanded air quality analysis contains emission comparisons between the existing and proposed facilities, alternative technology analysis, and health risk assessments. 12

13 Expanded Air Quality Impacts Study Compared ground level concentrations to State Ambient Air Standards Health Risk Assessment to determine impacts to residential, commercial, and sensitive receptors Evaluated emissions from 4 operating scenarios: 1. Proposed equipment 2. All landfill gas directed to new low emissions flare 3. All landfill gas directed to existing flare station 4. Continue operating existing equipment Evaluated alternative technologies for the new Gas-to-Energy Facility In response to community requests, an expanded air quality review was performed for the project. Criteria pollutant ground level concentrations were compared to state ambient standards and were found to be below the standards. A health risk assessment for the proposed project was performed using SCAQMD procedures. The results are presented in a later slide. Emissions from the existing facility are compared to the proposed project and that data is discussed on the next slide. The analysis in the Negative Declaration also includes a discussion of alternative technologies that utilize landfill gas: internal combustion engines, combustion turbines, steam boilers, and separation processes that produce vehicle or natural gas equivalent fuel. In all cases these technologies require higher methane (energy) content than what is available at the Palos Verdes Landfill and/or result in higher emissions. 13

14 Findings Permitted Air Emissions Comparison (lbs/day) EXISTING EQUIPMENT FLARE ENERGY RECOVERY PROPOSED FACILITY FLARE ENERGY RECOVERY NOx ROG PM 10 * SOx CO * (51) (57) 1 This table shows a comparison of permitted emissions between the existing equipment and proposed equipment in pounds per day. These are not actual emissions but permitted limits in our existing permits or, for the proposed equipment, in air quality permits for other agencies that are utilizing the proposed equipment. The NOx and particulate matter emissions are both significantly less from the proposed project than the existing project. The carbon monoxide (CO) permitted levels show an increase. However, the existing facility permit limit is based on actual test data. Actual upper level CO emissions for the proposed project, as indicated in parenthesis, are expected to be comparable to the existing equipment. Furthermore based on the actual source test data for the proposed ultra low emission flare the CO emissions were negligible. ROG (reactive organic gases) and SOx emission permit limits would remain the same. 14

15 Findings Health Risk Assessment RECEPTOR SCAQMD LIMIT Proposed Energy Recovery Proposed Flare Maximum Offsite Residential Receptor 10 per million 2.4 per million 1.8 per million Maximum Offsite Commercial Receptor 10 per million 0.9 per million 0.6 per million Sensitive Receptor (i.e., School) 1 per million 0.2 per million 0.5 per million Health risk assessments (HRA) were performed for the proposed project. An HRA is a quantitative evaluation of the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to pollutants. One HRA scenario evaluated the microturbines, fuel cell, and ultra low emission flare online (Proposed Energy Recovery) and the other scenario evaluated the condition of all landfill gas directed to the new ultra low emission flare (Proposed Flare). The HRA analysis followed the SCAQMD methodology and determines the maximum risk to residential, commercial, and sensitive (school) receptors. In all cases the proposed project was below the SCAQMD limits for health risk. 15