owbs in minnesota

Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyMarch 2, 2011

John Seltz

• Background

• Periodic wood use survey

• Initiation of effort to “Improve air quality”

• A few other things

BackgroundBackground• Minnesota has trees in the NE 2/3 of the state

• Minnesota is cold in winter

• Minnesota is home to several OWB manufacturers

• The state (and locals) has been concerned with overall wood smoke levels - but at a low level since wood use appeared to be decreasing

• The advent of OWBs 10 years ago changed things

• Over 50% of wood complaints are about OWBs which constitute a much smaller fraction of wood burning appliances

• An OWB may emit more PM2.5 than many of the permitted sources in the state.

• We have the same problems as other cold wooded midwestern states

• We haven’t developed a good response yet

RESIDENTIAL FUELWOOD ASSESSMENT

STATE OF MINNESOTA

2007 – 2008 Heating Season

Sponsors:

Northern Research Station Division of Forestry

Forest Inventory and Analysis

Assessment of Residential Fuelwood CombustionAssessment of Residential Fuelwood Combustion5 Survey Regions – 1500 households5 Survey Regions – 1500 households

Wood Use vs. Energy CostsWood Use vs. Energy Costs

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000T

on

s o

f B

iom

as

s

Ind

oo

r b

oile

r/fu

rna

ce

Ou

tdo

or

bo

iler

Co

rn/n

on

-wo

od

pe

llet

sto

ve

Fir

e p

it/rin

g /

chim

en

ea

Ce

rtifi

ed

ca

t. F

ire

pla

ce in

sert

Ce

rtifi

ed

, n

on

-ca

t. F

ire

pla

cein

sert

Un

cert

ifie

d F

ire

pla

ce in

sert

Re

gu

lar

Fire

pla

ce

Wo

od

pe

llet

sto

ve

Ce

rtifi

ed

ca

t. W

oo

d s

tove

Ce

rtifi

ed

No

n-c

at

Wo

od

sto

ve

Co

nve

ntio

na

l Wo

od

sto

ve

Residential Biomass Fuel Burned During 2007-2008 Heating Season

Metro

Greater MN

0.00E+00

5.00E-08

1.00E-07

1.50E-07

2.00E-07

2.50E-07

3.00E-07

3.50E-07

4.00E-07

4.50E-07

Metro Aspen-Birch CentralHardwoods

Northern Pine Prairie

PM2.

5 Em

issi

ons P

er A

rea

(Ton

s/m

2)PM2.5 Emissions from Residential Wood Combustion Appliances by

Region of the State in Tons/meter squared (2008 Emission Inventory; 2007-2008 Survey Data)

OutdoorWoodBurnDevice

OutdoorHydronicHeater

IndoorFurnace:NonCert

Woodstove:Pellet

Woodstove:Cat

Woodstove:NonCat

Woodstove:NonCert

FireplaceInserts:Cat

FireplaceInsert:NonCat

FireplaceInserts:NotCert

Fireplace

Backyard recreational fires

EPA certified wood stoves (catalyzed)

Fireplaces

““Improve Air Quality” Strategic ObjectiveImprove Air Quality” Strategic Objective

• High level agency strategy started 2 years ago and now a focus of agency efforts

• Target reductions in statewide risk from air toxics by developing strategies to reduce emissions and concentrations of identified risk drivers by end of 2010

• Reduce man-made (combustion) emissions of PM2.5 and precursors (NOx and SO2) to PM2.5

• Not directly tied to AQ standard violations

11

Modeled inhalation cancer risk

• all pollutants

• all sources:pointarea mobile

• Process:

• Identify pollutants

• Identify sources of these pollutants

• Internal team prioritize sources according to chosen criteria (emissions, risk, feasibility of control, etc.)

Pollutants affecting many people – likely the most Pollutants affecting many people – likely the most important air pollutants affecting human healthimportant air pollutants affecting human health

• Acrolein• Diesel PM • Dioxins/Furans• Formaldehyde• PAHs• PM2.5

14

15

Charbroil-CommercialCook

3% PrescribedBurn4%

Other Area6%

OpenBurn-ClearBrushLeaf

5%

BurnBarrels8%

Residential Wood

Combustion28%

Other Primarily Nonroad Mobile

Exhaust5%

Locomotive2%

Const&Mining-distillate

3%

Recreational Eqpt/Boats

4%

AgTractors7%

Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (most 8a&8b)

4%

Industrial Coal2%

ElectricCoal4%

KraftPulpRecovery Furnace

4%Other Point Src

11%

MN Statewide 2005 Direct PM2.5 Emissions (Excluding Most Non-Combustion Sources)

Total = 41,600 tons

Area

Point

Nonroad Mobile

Onroad Mobile

Receptor Modeling Source ApportionmentReceptor Modeling Source Apportionment

Revised 10/2010 16

Source Selection ProcessSource Selection ProcessUsed group ranking process considering

• Health impacts

• Cobenefits

• Ease of implementation

• Actions (regulatory or otherwise) that will likely impact pollutant levels

17

19

Residential Wood Combustion

PM2.5Dioxins/Furans (TEF)

PAHs (BaP) Acrolein VOCs

28 4 54 12 11

% of total statewide emissions from this source

20

Sources with potentially high health impacts that emit several Sources with potentially high health impacts that emit several pollutants of concern pollutants of concern

Diesel (mobile) •Semi-trailers, delivery trucks, buses, etc •Construction & mining equipment

Gasoline light duty vehicles & trucks

Residential Wood Combustion

Residential garbage & land clearing debris

Stationary Source Fuel Combustion (distillate oil / IC engines)

•Commercial/Institutional•Industrial

21

Next StepsNext Steps

• Develop additional technical details

• Investigate partnerships

• Adjust advisory structure

• Develop and implement reduction strategies

22

Other MPCA ActionsOther MPCA Actions• Website

• Advice to locals – many cities have adopted OWB and backyard fire restrictions

• Very limited enforcement from MPCA

• Hopeful that EPA will adopt regs to close the barn door on dirty OWBs – if not we may act

• Working with LADCO to better assess OWB impacts and develop tools to help us and locals address existing problems

ENDEND

Health impacts• Source affects a large number of people• Effects could be severe • Source could disproportionately impact more

vulnerable populations• Could result in very high exposure concentrations at

some receptors

Ranking CriteriaRanking Criteria

25

Ranking CriteriaRanking Criteria

Cobenefits

• Addressing this source for the priority pollutants (6 kaizen pollutants, precursors & ozone) could benefit climate change or reduce energy use

• Source emits significant amounts of multiple priority pollutants (6 Kaizen pollutants, precursors & ozone)

26

Ranking CriteriaRanking Criteria

Implementation • Controls and/or mitigations are available & feasible • MPCA has primary authority/responsibility• Programs / staff already in place• Willing partners may exist

27

Ranking CriteriaRanking CriteriaLikelihood of future reductions

• Sources are not likely to be addressed through future regulation or existing or future programs

—existing sources

—new sources

Residential garbage burning (& land clearing debris)

PM2.5 Dioxins/Furans (TEF) PAHs (BaP) Formaldehyde

13 67 22 5

% of total statewide emissions from this source

29

Link to RWC Fuel use SurveyLink to RWC Fuel use Survey• http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/um/residentialfu

elwoodassessment07_08.pdf