1 / 42

Mercury Monitoring

Mercury Monitoring. Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center. Basis for Mercury Monitoring. Utility air toxics report to Congress EPA made determination for MACT rule Proposed rule 1/30 (69 FR 4652) New PS included Comment period closed 3/30. Electric Utility MACT.

prescott-houston
Download Presentation

Mercury Monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mercury Monitoring Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center

  2. Basis for Mercury Monitoring • Utility air toxics report to Congress • EPA made determination for MACT rule • Proposed rule 1/30 (69 FR 4652) • New PS included • Comment period closed 3/30

  3. Electric Utility MACT • 12 month rolling average mercury emission limit • Cap and trade system is an alternative

  4. EMC Involvement • Collected data on mercury monitors • Made recommendations for proposal • Partnered with CAMD, ORD, NIST, EPRI

  5. Test Objectives • Determined • Ability for reliable data over time • Durability, availability, maintenance requirements • Suitability of draft PS-12 for CEMS • Investigated all types of mercury monitors • Sought options for flexibility and accountability

  6. Monitoring Types • Periodic Testing (ASTM D 6784-02, M29) • Reference method • Continuous collection, delayed analysis (sorbent tube) • Continuous collection and analysis (CEMS) • Wet conversion, dry conversion, other

  7. Monitoring Types (continued) • CEMS and sorbent tube selected • Requested comments on monitoring for sources emitting less than 25 pounds of mercury per year

  8. German Experience • Mercury CEMS on Incinerators • No requirements for coal-fired power plants • Visited six incinerators • One co-fired lignite to produce electricity • Sources are well controlled • ESPs, scrubbers, carbon adsorption, and SCR • 3rd party instrument certification

  9. Test Phase Description • Phase I (summer 01) • 140 MW firing bituminous coal with cold side ESP • Use 2 German-certified CEMS • Phase II (fall 02) • Same site • Use 6 CEMS and EPRI monitor

  10. Test Facility During Phase II • Instruments (left to right) • Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis, Durag, PS Analytical

  11. EPRI’s Carbon Tube Sampler

  12. Test Phase Description (continued) • Phase III Pilot (spring 03) • Low level detection and interference checks • Pilot scale facility firing natural gas and lignite, bituminous, and subbituminous coals • Use 3 CEMS and EPRI monitor

  13. Test Phase Description (continued) • Phase III (summer 03) • 550 MW firing subbituminous coal with dry FGD, SCR, and baghouse • 5 CEMS and EPRI monitor

  14. Test Phase Description (continued) • Phase IV (fall 03) • 440 MW firing bituminous coal with wet FGD and reverse-air baghouse • 2 CEMS and EPRI monitor • 3 three-hour test periods

  15. Phase I - Initial

  16. Phase I - Initial

  17. Phase I – Final

  18. Phase I - Final

  19. Phase II - Initial

  20. Phase II - Initial

  21. Phase II - Final

  22. Phase II - Final

  23. Phase III - Pilot Scale

  24. Phase III - Pilot Scale

  25. Phase III - Initial

  26. Phase III - Initial

  27. Selected Phase III – Initial Runs

  28. Phase III - Final

  29. Phase III - Final

  30. DRAFT Phase IV - Initial

  31. DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit

  32. DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)

  33. DRAFT Phase IV - Final

  34. DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit

  35. DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)

  36. Findings • No sample loss in 200 feet of line • Monitors improving between Phases • Monitors can meet RA requirements of draft PS-12, but low-level correction needed

  37. Findings (continued) • Dual train reference method testing is important • Monitors can operate for up to 3 months with routine maintenance

  38. Products • Monitoring operational characteristics and costs • Data for GPRA report on Mercury CEMS and coal combustion • Proposed PS 12A • Covers only vapor phase (no particulates) • Designed for fossil fuel fired boiler exhaust • Allows use of existing equipment

  39. Products (continued) • Proposed PS 12A (continued) • Requires at least 9 paired sets of 2 hour (minimum) runs • Allows up to 3 sets to be rejected • Specifies results to be within 20% of reference method or 10% of MACT limit • Identifies outliers as • RSD > 10% if mercury > 1 μg / m3 or • RSD > 20% if mercury  1 μg / m3

  40. Products (continued) • Proposed PS 12A (continued) • Requires measurement error test using NIST traceable Hg0 and HgCl2 at zero, mid, and high levels • Calibration standards from NIST • Certified elemental mercury in cylinders • 2, 5, and 20 micrograms per cubic meter • Ionic mercury to follow (1/06)

  41. Concurrent Activities • Assist R2 and NJ with PSEG’s NSR settlement • Monitor and assist State rulemakings • Coordinate with ETV mercury CEMS Phase III

  42. Next Steps • Respond to proposal comments • Potential additional testing • Longer term subbituminous and bituminous coals with cold side ESP

More Related