Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group

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
• EPAs 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 EPRIs carbon tube at minimally
  controlled coal-fired power plant
• Phase III - spring 03 to spring 04
• Test most promising CEMS and EPRIs 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 ORDs 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 EPRIs 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 IIEPRIs 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