De-mystifying GHG Monitoring and

Standards

Certification

Education & Training

Publishing

Conferences & Exhibits

De-mystifying GHG Monitoring and Reporting - Achieve Benefits from Compliance

Patrick Truesdale

Senior Consultant

Emerson Process Management

Presenter

• Patrick Truesdale is a Senior Consultant with Emerson Process Management's Industry Solutions Group. Has 40 years of experience in applying Information, Automation, and Control Technologies across different industry segments.

• Patrick holds a BS EE from North Carolina State

2

• Patrick holds a BS EE from North Carolina State University at Raleigh. He is a Registered Professional Engineer; a Senior Member of ISA.

Presentation Objectives

• Background and challenges

• Highlights of Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (GHG MRR)– Overview of Subpart A: General Provisions

– Overview of Subpart C: Stationary Combustion Units

– Several Industry specific requirements– Several Industry specific requirements

• Green facilities of the future?– Automation impact

– Energy and carbon management impact

• Wrap-up

Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

1. Greenhouse gas/effect dates to Fourier (1824)2. CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; halting all

combustion will not measurably affect atmospheric CO21

3. “Are cows the cause of warming?” Methane/yr for each cow is equivalent to ca. 2,300 kg CO2/yr … agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases worldwide..2)

4. A $1 gasoline price increase would reduce obesity and

Interesting debate points BUT reality is:Energy efficiency projects are TRIPLE WINNERS!!!1. Reduce Costs, 2. Improve Safety, and 3. Aid Regulatory Compliance – reduce emissions

1. Pierre R . Latour PhD. PE 3rd Industry Forum, Hydrocarbon Processing, Houston, Dec. 3, 20092. Published on Time for change (http:///timeforchange,org) 3. Charles Courtemanche, Washington University, St. Louis, Sept. 10, 2007

4. A $1 gasoline price increase would reduce obesity and save 16,000 lives and $17 billion/year3

Emissions DefinedWhat’s Important?

Process

Combustion

Fugitive

GHG Regulatory ActivityPast, Present, and Future

GHG Inventory 1 Proposed

4/2009

GHG Inventory 1 Final

10/2009

GHG Inventory 1 Effective

1/2010

GHG NSR Permit Proposal

10/2009

Endangerment Finding Proposal

4/2009

GHG Inventory 2 Proposed

3/2010

GHG Inventory 2 Final

2Q/2009

GHG Inventory 2 Effective

1/2011

RFS-2 Proposed

5/2009

2012201120102009

RFS-2 Final

4Q/2009

RFS-2 Effective

1/2010Endangerment Finding Final

12/2009

CAFÉ/Tailpipe Rule Proposed

9/2009

CAFÉ/Tailpipe Rule Final

2Q/2009

CAFÉ/Tailpipe Rule Effective

2012

?????

“Cap and Trade”

Other

GHG Permitting

(PSD and NSPS)

1/2/2011

What are GHG’s?How quantified?

� Reporting only – mandatory:– Kyoto six: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs,SF6,,

– Other fluorinated gases: NF3, HFEs

� Convert to CO2e using ∑GHGi x GWPii=1,n

– GWP=Global Warming Potentials– GWP=Global Warming Potentials

• CO2 = 1

• CH4 = 21

• N2O = 310

• HFC23 = 11,700

• PFC14 = 6,500

• SF6 = 23,900

� No Limit Controls (Yet)

Is your facility on the list?…exceeds the 25,000 mt/yr threshold?

425

1108

1502

2551

3000

3037

Pulp and Paper

Electricity Generation

NG and NGL Suppliers

Landfills

Stationary Combustion

Oil and Gas

8980

487

107

121

150

167

315

425

Others

Cement Production

Iron and Steel

Petroleum Refineries

Industrial GHG Suppliers

Petroleum Product Suppliers

Pulp and Paper

1 3 4 5 5 8 913 13 14 14

23

4145

55

65

Silico

n C

arbid

e

HC

FC–2

2/H

FC 2

3

Adipi

c Aci

dSod

a AshZin

c

Titaniu

m D

ioxi

de

Ferro

alloy

Lead

CO

2 Sup

plie

rsAlu

min

um

Phosp

horic

Aci

dAm

mon

iaH

ydro

genN

itric

Aci

dG

lass

Inje

ctio

n an

d G

S of C

O2

Petro

chem

ical

Lim

e

How are facilities affected?

All-in Source Categories Limited Applicability Source Categories

Supplier Source Categories

No CO2eThreshold CO2eThreshold = 25,000 mT CO2eThreshold = 25,000 mT

(D) Electricity Generation (1,108)

(E) Adipic Acid Production

(F) Aluminum Production

(G) Ammonia Manufacturing (23)

(H) Cement Production (107)

(O) HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

(S) Lime Manufacturing (89)

(K) Ferroalloy Production

(N) Glass Production (55)

(P) Hydrogen Production (41)

(Q) Iron and Steel Production (121)

(R) Lead Production

(U) Use of Carbonates

(LL) Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

(MM) Suppliers of Petroleum Products (315)

(NN) Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids (1,502)

(OO) Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases (167)

(PP) Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (S) Lime Manufacturing (89)

(V) Nitric Acid Production (45)

(HH) MSW Landfills (2,551)

(X) Petrochemical Production (80)

(Y) Petroleum Refineries (150)

(Z) Phosphoric Acid Production

(BB) Silicon Carbide Production

(CC) Soda Ash Production

( EE) Titanium Dioxide Production

(W) Oil and Gas Facilities (3,087)

(AA) P&P Manufacturing (425)

Misc1

(GG) Zinc Production

(PP) Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (13)

(RR) CO2 Injection and Geologic Sequestration (80)

Stationary Combustion Source Categories

CO2eThreshold = 25,000 mT

(C) Stationary Fuel Combustion (3,000)

In effect 1 January 2011

1. Food, ethanol production, manure manufacturing

What about SubPart JJ:Manure Management?

NOTE: EPA will not be implementing subpart JJ of Part 98 using funds provided in its FY2010

appropriations or Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242), due to a

Congressional restriction prohibiting the expenditure of funds for this purpose.

Who must report?

Report GHGs from all source categories covered by rule.

Facility has category in Table1 1?

CO2e from Table1 2 sources, stationary combustion, carbonate use ≥ 25,000 mt?

Report GHGs from all source categories covered by rule.

Facility has category in Table1 2?

no

yes

yesyes

START

No reporting needed

Is stationary combustionCO2e ≥ 25,000 mt?

No reporting needed

Report GHGs per instructions for stationary source combustion

Notes:

1. Reference EPA document No.430-F-09-006Rreference 40 CFR 98, subpart A 1 September 2009

2. CO2 emissions from combustion of biogenic

fuels is not counted towards the CO2e

threshold.

Is facility-wide max. rated heat input for stationary combustion < 30 mmBtu/hr?

no

no

no

yes

yes

no

How much is 25,000 CO2e mt/yr?

(Annual Equivalents)

� 459,000 mscf Nat Gas1 combusted

� 61,500 mscf vented (methane2 value) = $245,0003

� Natural Gas Boiler, furnace or heater (NG): ≥30MM Btu/hr

� 2,500,000 gal road diesel combusted

� 2,850,000 gal motor gasoline combusted2,850,000 gal motor gasoline combusted

� 10,680 mT industrial grade coal combusted

� 85,580,000 kWh standard grid electricity

� 74,750,000 regular automobile miles

� 111,150,000 motorcycle miles (>500cc gasoline)

� 8,930,000 hamburgers (single patty + bun)4 Waste gas

Note: 1. Pipeline grade gas, 99% combusted

2. Global warming of methane = 21

3. Methane valued at $4 per mcf

4. Excludes all transport plus other manufacturing of condiments, paper, etc.

Subpart A: General Provisions

1. Monitoring Plan Requirements

2. Meter Calibrations

3. Recordkeeping Requirements

4. Certification Requirements4. Certification Requirements

Subpart A: Meter CalibrationsWhat is required….

• Calibration procedures:– Approved test method given in rule, or– Manufacturer’s recommended procedure, or– Industry standards specified in rule

• Calibration Frequency:– Initial calibration @ Start (unless shutdown is required or within

acceptable frequency since last calibration)– Subsequent calibrations:– Subsequent calibrations:

– Annually, – Manufacturer’s recommended practice, or – Industry standard

• Accuracy within 5%• “Billing meters” exempted from QA requirements

Subpart A: Recordkeeping What is required….

1. List of all units/operations for which GHG emissions are calculated

2. Data used for calculations by fuel or material type– Facility operating or process data used

– Actual GHG emissions calculations and methods

– Analytical results for HHV, CC, fuel or feedstock parameters– Analytical results for HHV, CC, fuel or feedstock parameters

3. Annual GHG report

4. Missing data computations

5. Written GHG Monitoring Plan

Retain for 3 yearsRetain for 3 years

Subpart C: Stationary Fuel Combustion

• Broad definition: devices that combust solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel to either:

– Produce electricity, steam, heat, or other useful energy

– Reduce the volume of combustible matterNote 1: does not include portable equipment, emergency equipment, flares (unless covered in

other subparts), and hazardous waste combustion (unless co-fire listed fuel)

Note 2: if unit <250MMBtu/hr, only have to report if fuel is listed in Table C-1Note 2: if unit <250MMBtu/hr, only have to report if fuel is listed in Table C-1

• What is covered:– CO2, CH4, N2O from each fuel combustion unit

– Report separately for each fuel

– Aggregation of combustion sources using common fuel is allowed, but units over 250 MMBtu/hr must be broken out separately

Subpart C: Stationary Fuel Combustion Calculation Methods

Device Type For Fuel TypesMeasure

ParametersUse Default

Factors

Tier 1� ≤250mmBTU/hr

� Biogenic fuels

All in Table C-1 except MSW

generate steamAnnual Fuel Use

Default EF

Default HHV

Tier 2� ≥250mmBTU/hr

� NG/Distillate Oil

AllAnnual Fuel Use

HHVDefault EF

MSW Steam Generation� bio/fossil fuels MSW Steam Generation

Tier 3� ≥250mmBTU/hr

� No NG/Distillate Oil

� Any fuels ≥ 10%

� Refinery fuel gas1

Solid/liquidAnnual Fuel Use

Carbon Content

--

Gas

Annual Fuel Use

Carbon Content

Molecular Weight

Tier 4� CEMS

� Other conditions

All CO2 --

Note: 1. Conflict between Preamble, Subpart C, and Subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries); Tier 1 & 2

not allowed for Refineries.

Subpart Y: Petroleum RefineryEmission Sources

Refinery Sources CO2 CH4 N2OStationary combustion C C C

Flares Y Y Y

Catalytic cracking Y Y Y

Traditional fluid coking Y Y Y

Fluid coking with flexicoking design C/Y C/Y C/Y

Delayed coking — Y —

Catalytic reforming Y Y Y

Onsite and offsite sulfur recover y Y —Onsite and offsite sulfur recover y Y —

Coke calcining Y Y Y

Asphalt blowing Y Y —

Equipment leaks — Y —

Storage tanks — Y —

Other process vents Y Y Y

Uncontrolled blowdown systems — Y —

Loading operations — Y —

Hydrogen plants (nonmerchant) P P —

C = 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Combustion Sources).

P = 40 CFR part 98, subpart P (Hydrogen Production).

Y = 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries).

— = Reporting from this process is not required.

Subpart W: Oil and Gas FacilitiesStarted 1 January 2011

� Broad definition – 8 segments:1. Onshore petroleum and natural gas production

2. Offshore petroleum and natural gas production

3. Onshore natural gas processing plants

4. Onshore natural gas transmission compression

5. Underground natural gas storage

6. Liquefied natural gas storage

7. Liquefied natural gas import and export equipment

8. Natural gas distribution8. Natural gas distribution

� What is covered:

– CO2, CH4, N2O

– Direct and Upstream Emissions

• Process

• Combustion

• Fugitive

Subpart W: Oil and Gas FacilitiesSources for all Segments

Natural gas pneumatic high bleed device venting

Natural gas pneumatic low bleed device venting

Natural gas driven pneumatic pump venting

Well venting for liquids unloading

Gas well venting during conventional well completions

Gas well venting during unconventional well completions

Gas well venting during conventional well workovers

Gas well venting during unconventional well workovers

Coal bed methane produced water emissions

Enhanced Oil Recovery injection pump blowdown

Produced water dissolved CO2 Acid

Hydrocarbon liquids dissolved CO2

Centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing venting

Gas removal vent stack

Dehydrator vent stacks

Other fugitive emissionsGas well venting during unconventional well workovers

Gathering pipeline fugitives

Onshore production and processing storage tanks

Transmission storage tanks

Reciprocating compressor rod packing venting

Well testing venting and flaring

Associated gas venting and flaring

Other fugitive emissions

Blowdown vent stacks – shutdown & start-up bypass

Flare stacks

Above ground meter regulators and gate station fugitives

Below ground meter regulators and vault fugitives

Pipeline main fugitives

Service line fugitives

Benefits from GHG Compliance

1. Enhance loss control (business process and procedures)

– Follow well-established measurement standards and fiscal controls

• Custody, Sarbanes Oxley, (Weight & Measure), etc

• Customs and Excise (Foreign Trade Zone), Alcohol Tax (ethanol), etc

– Mass and energy balances

– Establish and monitoring KPI’s

2. Enhance key equipment performance

– Control loops

– Measurement systems

– Identify and repair leaks

3. Improve energy efficiency/emission recovery

– Furnaces/Heaters

– Distillation Columns

– Vapor Recovery/Waste Treatment

Creating Value while reducing GHG Emissions – Mass Balance Accuracy

Loss Category Measured %1 Reality %

1. Custody transfer (receipt, shipments)0.5 to 0.6 0.4

2. Flare, evaporation, spills/leaks, FCC coke make calculation, carbon dioxide, other 0.4 to 0.5 0.3

3. Fuel/H2 internal production and consumption (understated or overstated) –not real oil loss but affects overall balances!

1.1 to 1.5 0.7

Total 2.0 to 2.6 1.4

Note:

1. Mass Basis converted from volume data.

2. 100,000 BPD; 5.8MM BTU/Bbl; $7 MMBTU; Tier 1 Calc; No CO2 trading credits

FIC101 H306

FIC102

TI069

TI071

CO Analyzer

HIC353D

PIC359D

AIC354D

O2 Analyzer

FIC103

TI069

FIC104

TI070TI

PIC357D

AIC356D

TIC362D

TI073

TI072

TI043

TIC361

TI067

FeedProduct

PI365

Damper Actuator

Draft PressureTI066

TubeTemperature

� Key Operating Objectives◦ Constant outlet temp◦ Min excess air◦ Maintain within constraints

Creating Value while reducing GHG Emissions – Combustion (Process Heater)

FIC361

104 070TI075

Fuel

PIC360A

PIC360B

BTUAI360

Item

CO2e

(MT/yr)

Natural Gas

Flow (scf/hr)

Natural Gas

Flow (Mscf/yr)

Before Energy Savings 44,630.9 97,276 817,121

After Energy Savings 44,184.6 96,304 808,949

Delta 446.3 973 8,171

Savings 893$ 6,809$ 57,198$

Figure 4 Desired O 2 Setpoint vs. Steam Load, f 3 (x), for

Boiler 3 Burning Gas

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

% E

xces

s O

2

Original Setpoint

New Setpoint

Actual Data

Creating Value while reducing GHG Emissions – Combustion (Boiler)

f3(x) for Boiler 3 for Gas

Full Scale Desired O2 Setpoint

250 X Old Y New Y

Steam Steam Original New

KPPH % Steam Setpoint Setpoint

20.00 8 14.5 10.00

40.00 16 8.6 6.00

67.50 27 4.75 4.00

135.00 54 4 2.00

200.00 80 4 2.00

250.00 100 4.00 2.00

125,000 lb/ hr 400 psig steam;1% Fuel Savings;

$140,000 per year($7/ MMBTU)

0

2

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

% Steam Flow

Creating Value while reducing GHG Emissions – Process Energy Consumers

� Over 40,000 distillation/fractionation

columns in the US alone

� Consume 40% - 60% of the total energy

used in refining and chemical industry

� Consume 19% of the total energy used in

manufacturing industry in the USmanufacturing industry in the US

� Consume 6% of total US energy usage

� Note: In addition to energy benefits

secondary benefits are achievable from

better control of qualities.

Reference: “Distillation Column Modeling Tools”

Office of Industrial Technology:

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy;

US Department of Energy

Washington, DC

Case StudyGulf Coast Chemical Plant

TIInternal

Reflux

Lt Ends

Complicated

OH condenser

system

� Ultra-high purity product specifications requires tight quality controls

� Over 40,000 distillation and fractionation columns in the US alone

� Multiple large, 200+ tray columns with extremely long time constants

� Large energy consumer

� Different feedstock suppliers with different qualities unloaded from

Bottoms to D103/104

From F605 TCFrom F690

At constant OH rate,

this temp sets the

energy balance (R/F).

Lt Ends

This flow sets the

material balance (D/F)

different qualities unloaded from railcars

Case StudyDistillation Column Example

Results

• Reduced average isoprene loss by 22%

• Reduced steam usage 7%

• Improved capability to handle disturbances:

– feed quality, and

Isoprene loss in Overhead

– feed quality, and

– meet tight specifications

• Total benefit: > $700K/yearController ONController ON Overhead Rate

Oil and Gas Systems

Separator Skid Cryogenic

Compressor SkidDehydrators

CH4 Emissions by Sector in Oil & Gas Industry

CY2003 (Bcf)

148

36

101

68

Production Sector

Processing Sector

Transmission Sector

Distribution Sector

Assume CH4 = $6/mmbtu

10% recovered in Production Sector

Benefit = $91,000,000

Creating Value while reducing GHGEmissions – Industry Opportunity

Refrigeration Compressor

CH4 Emissions by Category in Production Sector

CY2003 (Bcf)

61

2118

17

12

10 9 Pneumatic Devices

Other Sources

Well Venting & Flaring

Dehydrators & Pumps

Gas Engine Exhaust

Meters & Pipeline Leaks

Storage Tank Venting

1. http://www.methanetomarkets.org/documents/oilgas_cap_us.pdf

Vapor Recovery

Creating Value while reducing GHGEmissions – Recovering CH4

Action Avg. CH4 Savings/device1

MSCF/yr $/yr

1. Replace high-bleed devices2

� Controllers (liquid and pressure) 315 2,200

� Positioners and transducers 90 610

2. Retrofit bleed reduction kits 315 2,2002. Retrofit bleed reduction kits

� Most high-bleed controllers

315 2,200

3. Maintenance to reduce losses

� Repair/retune

� Reduce supply pressures

140 980

Note:

1. 40 CFR 98 Subpart W (Oil and Gas Systems) implementation deferred until final review/comments.

2. John Mangan, “Process Control goes Green”, Valve Magazine, Winter 2008

3. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program

The FutureWhy is accuracy important?

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100Source: EPA preliminary analysis of Waxman-Markey

• Small Facility (25,000 tpy) $1,250,000 Value at Risk

• Large Facility (1,000,000 tpy) $50,000,000 Value at Risk

Projected cost of carbon allowances (in 2005 constant dollars)Projected cost of carbon allowances (in 2005 constant dollars)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

2015 2020 2030 2040 2050

Facilities of the future?

• Facilities need equipment and service solutions now:

– “not to just comply” BUT

– “to achieve benefits while complying”

• Energy efficiency will justify projects that will lead to compliance

• Best Available Control Technology (BACT) emerging

– Measurements, energy efficiency, low bleed instruments, instrument air, – Measurements, energy efficiency, low bleed instruments, instrument air, vapor recovery units, low bleed compressor packing, etc.

• Operating, maintenance, and fiscal control practices and procedures evolving:

– Gas capture - blow-downs/start-up events, vent capture, etc.

– More attention to uptime and reliability

– Meter verification and calibration

– Verifiable and auditable trading values?

Closing Thoughts And Prediction…Does History Repeat Itself?

In 1970, the EPA and Clean Air Act started the Train.

The Train refueled in 1990.

In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol joined this Train.

In 2010, the USA started boarding with GHG MRR.

Will it be with planning and economics in mind?

i.e. “The Pacesetter”

Or, will it be with uncertainty, inaction, and wait-and-see?

i.e. “The Laggard or Lead-Follower”

Thank You

• Questions?

www.EmersonProcess.Com/GHG