1 / 22

Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group

Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group. Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03. Overview. Purpose Background Phase I Phase II Planned Phase III. Purpose. Explain Where we are How we got here Where we intend to go EPA’s goal Options for continuous mercury monitoring

benjy
Télécharger la présentation

Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group

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 Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03

  2. Overview • Purpose • Background • Phase I • Phase II • Planned Phase III

  3. Purpose • Explain • Where we are • How we got here • Where we intend to go • EPA’s goal • Options for continuous mercury monitoring • Maximum flexibility • Minimum cost

  4. Background Partners • External • NIST • DOE • ETV • EPRI

  5. BackgroundMonitor Types • One time • Manual reference test method (wet) • Ontario Hydro is ASTM approved • Real time • Wet CEMS • Automated version of reference method • Dry CEMS • Proprietary catalysts and CVAAS or AFS • Other CEMS • Carbon impregnated paper tape x ray fluorescence • Time delayed • Carbon tube (EPRI)

  6. BackgroundGerman Experience • Mercury CEMS on Incinerators • No requirement 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

  7. BackgroundTechnical Concerns • Stability, reliability, and availability of calibration standards • Loss of sample in handling system • Species conversion

  8. Background Concerns • CEMS costs, complexity, performance • CEMS application on US sources • Fuel, equipment, control uniqueness • Availability

  9. Background Work plan • Phase I - summer 01 • Test 2 German certified CEMS at minimally controlled coal-fired power plant • Phase II - fall 02 • Test 7 CEMS and EPRI’s carbon tube at minimally controlled coal-fired power plant • Phase III - spring 03 to spring 04 • Test most promising CEMS and EPRI’s carbon tube at well controlled coal-fired power plant(s)

  10. Phase I Description • Installed 2 German certified dry CEMS at a full scale, representative power plant • 140 MW PC with cold-side ESP firing bituminous • Plant type provides most challenge to CEMS • Collected data over 5 months with 2 Relative Accuracy Test Audits (RATAs) • Total mercury using Ontario Hydro • Included ORD’s wet CEMS

  11. Phase IInitial RATA

  12. Phase IFinal RATA

  13. Phase IResults • Collected evidence of stable, reliable calibration standards • Elemental and ionic • Demonstrated no mercury loss in sample handling system • Showed wet CEMS met draft RATA criteria

  14. Phase IIDescription • Continued with 2 Phase I CEMS • Modified dry CEMS converter • Relocated wet CEMS to trailer • Tested 4 new CEMS • 3 with differing dry conversion systems • 1 with plasma emission spectroscopy • Included EPRI’s carbon tube sampler • Gathered reliability and operational data

  15. Phase IIMonitor Trailer • Instruments (left to right) • Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis, Durag, PS Analytical

  16. Phase IIEPRI’s Carbon Tube Sampler

  17. Phase II Results (ready spring 03) • Reliability, cost, and operational dataover 3 months • Analysis of • Differing approaches • Plasma emission spectroscopy and X ray fluorescence • Differing interference minimization • Larger volume systems and manual response correction

  18. Phase IIInitial RATA (preliminary)

  19. Phase IIFinal RATA (preliminary)

  20. Planned Phase III • Determine low level, co-pollutant impacts (by Jun 03) • Manage NIST standards development (by Jan 06)

  21. Planned Phase III • Evaluate CEMS at better controlled full scale power plant (by Aug 03) • Dry FGD with SCR and baghouse firing subbituminous coal • Evaluate carbon tube sampler with EPRI

  22. Planned Phase III • Evaluate CEMS at full scale power plants (by Jan 04) • Wet scrubber firing bituminous coal or • Uncontrolled unit firing subbituminous coal

More Related