mercury monitoring
Post on 31-Dec-2015
28 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
• 12 month rolling average mercury emission limit
• Cap and trade system is an alternative
EMC Involvement
• Collected data on mercury monitors
• Made recommendations for proposal
• Partnered with CAMD, ORD, NIST, EPRI
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
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
Monitoring Types (continued)
• CEMS and sorbent tube selected– Requested comments on monitoring for
sources emitting less than 25 pounds of mercury per year
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
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
Test Facility During Phase II
• Instruments (left to right)– Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis,
Durag, PS Analytical
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
Test Phase Description (continued)
• Phase III (summer 03)– 550 MW firing subbituminous coal with dry
FGD, SCR, and baghouse– 5 CEMS and EPRI monitor
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
Phase II - Final
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ug
/ m
3
RM Wet CEMS CEMS #2
CEMS #3 CEMS #4 CEMS #5
Xray CEMS
Phase III - Initial
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ug
/ m
3
RM CEMS #2 CEMS #4
CEMS #5 CEMS #6 Xray MS
Selected Phase III – Initial Runs
Run
RM
RM dup
CEMS #6
CEMS #2
CEMS #4
CEMS #5
Xray MS
1 1.36 1.26 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.08
2 5.34 3.05 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.75
4 1.50 1.50 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.38
6 6.91 4.22 4.4 4.7 3.8 4.39
8 14.27 10.1 13.4 11.8 3.4 19.00
11 3.33 3.36 3.2 3.2 3.1 1.1 3.37
Phase III - Final
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
ug
/m
3
RM CEMS #2 CEMS #4
CEMS #5 CEMS #6 Xray MS
DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3
ug
/ m
3
RM 1 avg RM 2 avg CEMS #4 avg
CEMS #6 avg 10% Limit
DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1 2 3
ug
/ m
3
RM 1 avg RM 2 avg CEMS #4 avg
CEMS #6 avg 10% Limit
DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit
-1
4
9
14
19
1 2 3
ug
/ m
3
RM 1 avg RM 2 avg CEMS #4 avg
CEMS #6 avg 10% Limit
DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1 2 3
ug
/ m
3
RM 1 avg RM 2 avg CEMS #4 avg
CEMS #6 avg 10% Limit
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
Findings (continued)
• Dual train reference method testing is important
• Monitors can operate for up to 3 months with routine maintenance
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
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
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)
Concurrent Activities
• Assist R2 and NJ with PSEG’s NSR settlement
• Monitor and assist State rulemakings
• Coordinate with ETV mercury CEMS Phase III
top related