Wingra Engineering, S.C. 1
Evaluating Local Impacts of a Utility SCR Retrofit Project
Steven Klafka, PE, DEEWingra Engineering, S.C.A&WMA Conference 2002
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 2
Introduction
Wisconsin adopted SIP for new 1-hour ozone air quality standard
Required NOx reductions at utilities in southeastern Wisconsin
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 3
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant
WEPCo operates the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant in southeastern Wisconsin.
Two 600 megawatt coal-fired boilers. To comply with new NOx limitations, WEPCo
proposed SCR retrofit of one boiler. SCR system would use anhydrous ammonia
as the reagent. Proposal included ammonia storage tanks,
and equipment for rail and truck deliveries.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 4
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 5
Review by State Agencies
Public Service Commission Department of Natural
Resources Department of Commerce Village of Pleasant Prairie
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 6
Village Permit Application
Application for conditional use permit.
Description of SCR system. Three 30,000 gallon storage tanks. Rail and truck delivery. Risk Management Plan (RMP). Off-site consequence analysis.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 7
Worst-case Release Scenario
Based on USEPA RMP Comp Model USEPA Assumptions
Rail tank car contents lossed in 10 minutes
Toxic endpoint is distance to 200 ppm Model Results
Toxic endpoint predicted to be 6.9 miles Affected population of 124,568 people
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 8
Area of Worst-Case Scenario
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 9
Alternative Release Scenario
More realistic accident scenario. Assumed fracture in loading line from rail car. Based on USEPA RMP Comp Model. Toxic endpoint predicted to be 0.3 miles. Affected population
13 residences 100 WEPCo employees 200 employees at nearby businesses Public Safety Dispatch Center and Police
Department
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 10
Area of Alternate Scenario
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 11
Issues Considered by Village
More realistic evaluation of risk. Comparison with existing storage sites. Identification of potential accidents. Anhydrous ammonia accident history. Availability of alternative reagents.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 12
More Realistic Evaluation of Risk
ALOHA model Tool of local emergency planning
coordinators. Allows changes in release rate,
meteorology, and toxic endpoint.
Worst-case and alternative SCR release scenarios repeated using ALOHA model.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 13
RMP Comp and ALOHA Models
ReleaseScenario
RMP CompResults
ALOHAResults
Worst-Case 6.9 miles 3.4 miles
Alternate 0.3 miles 0.1 miles
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 14
Comparison with Existing Sites 11 existing anhydrous ammonia
storage sites in Kenosha County. Proposed SCR storage is twice
current largest site. Proposed SCR storage and two
existing sites potentially affect > 100,000 people based on worst-case release.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 15
Evaluation of Potential Accidents
RMP includes Process Hazard Analysis
Identifies potential accidents, releases, frequency, and mitigation methods.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 16
PHA Results Accidents Likely to Once per Year
e.g. improper closure of after unloading railcar Maximum release 10 lbs
Accidents Likely to Occur Once Every 1-4 Years e.g. truck valves are opened too quickly
Maximum release 10 lbs Accidents Likely to Occur Once Every 20-75
years e.g. railcar derails Maximum release 148,500 lbs
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 17
NRC Ammonia Accidents Releases > 100 pounds reported to
National Response Center (NRC) Since 1992, five anhydrous NH4
spills. Since 1993, nine aqueous NH4 spills. Since 1990, 118 unspecified NH4
spills.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 18
RMP Ammonia Accidents
15,436 RMP filed with USEPA 7,540 anhydrous storage sites 656 reported anhydrous NH4 releases No industry breakdown for NH4
releases Of 1,911 releases, 6 attributed to
fossil fuel generation facilities.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 19
Alternative SCR Reagents
Aqueous Ammonia and Urea EPRI reports157 SCR installations in
US Of the 79 site reporting the
reagent: Anhydrous Ammonia -- 63% Urea -- 25% Aqueous Ammonia -- 11%
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 20
Anhydrous vs Aqueous Ammonia
Anhydrous Ammonia Stored as compressed liquid Immediately evaporates during release Proposed due to widespread use and low cost
Aqueous Ammonia Stored as liquid Atmospheric temperature and pressure Upon release, forms liquid pool then
evaporates Eliminated by WEPCo due to higher costs
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 21
Increase Cost of Aqueous Ammonia
Aqueous has higher reagent costs, requires a larger tank farm, more frequent deliveries.
Estimated cost increase for aqueous ammonia is $740,000 per year.
Cost increase to WEPCo customers is $ 0.00007 per kw-hr or 0.1% (Unit
2).
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 22
Anhydrous vs Aqueous Release
Scenario Anhydrous Aqueous
Worst-Case 3.4 miles 0.06 miles
Alternate 0.07 miles 0.06 miles
ALOHA use to estimate distance to end point.
USEPA Evaporation Calculator for aqueous.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 23
Village Response to SCR Project
Anhydrous ammonia reagent posed a significant risk to local population.
Compromised emergency response capability due to proximity of Public Safety Dispatch Center and Police Department.
Informed WEPCo that Conditional Use Permit would not be issued to the SCR project unless a less hazardous reagent than anhydrous ammonia were used.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 24
Influence of September 11th
September 11th terrorist attacks occurred during review of SCR project.
Increased awareness of vulnerability due to hazardous materials storage.
Provided additional incentive to identify a less hazardous reagent.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 25
WEPCo Response to Village
Prior to the public hearing on Condition Use Permit, WEPCo informed the Village it would agree to use an alternative to anhydrous ammonia such as aqueous ammonia.
Wingra Engineering, S.C. 26
Conclusions
Use of anhydrous ammonia as an SCR reagent poses risk to a local population due accidental releases.
After September 11th, there is greater awareness of public vulnerability due to the storage of hazardous materials.
Alternative reagents such as aqueous ammonia are more expensive but result in lower potential risk.