Non-mercury HAP March 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Bill Maxwell US EPA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Estimated Mercury Emission Reductions in NC from Co- control as a Result of CSA 2004 NC DENR/DAQ Hg & CO2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 20, 2004 Steve Schliesser.
Advertisements

A Software Tool for Estimating Mercury Emissions and Reductions from Coal-Fired Electric Utilities (EU) Presented at the NC Clean Smokestacks Act Sections.
Mercury Issues for Coal-Fired Power Plants: Emissions, Fate and Health Effects, Controls George Offen Technical Executive Emissions/Combustion Product.
Techniques to reduce sulphur oxide emissions
UPCOMING COMBUSTION MACT STANDARDS – Boilers, Engines and Turbines Technical Meeting and Annual Business Luncheon Indiana Chapter of the A&WMA April 16,
U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics & Analysis 2014 Electricity Forms Re-clearance Vlad Dorjets, Form EIA-860 Project.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality - Mercury Regulations, Emissions, and Deposition Modeling in North Carolina Presented for 6th Annual Unifour Air.
Industrial environmental issues Flue gas purification processes
A laboratory study of Hg oxidation catalyzed by SCR catalysts Karin Madsen on at CHEC Annual Day Anker Degn Jensen Joakim Reimer Thøgersen Flemming.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
Pollution Controls and Available Monitoring Techniques A quick summary of various control measures and important monitoring characteristics Peter Westlin,
Control Device Technology A quick summary of various control measures and important monitoring characteristics Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS.
MATS 2015: Are Your Units Ready? Outage Management for Power Plants July 15, 2014 Stephanie Sebor.
Update on Full-Scale Activated Carbon Injection for Control of Mercury Emissions Michael D. Durham, Ph.D., MBA ADA Environmental Solutions 8100 SouthPark.
Previous MACT Sub Categories EPA has recognized differences in other industry rules by using sub-categorization: – Differences in processes – Differences.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
Wes Thornhill, Chief Industrial Chemicals Section Air Division
1 EGTEI – 22 November 2011 Nadine ALLEMAND – EGTEI secretariat Pilot Study on Cost Analysis applied to the Apatity Power station Preliminary results Cooperation.
Use of FGD Byproducts in Agriculture: DOE Perspective Workshop on Research and Demonstration of Agricultural Uses of Gypsum and Other FGD Materials St.
Municipal Solid Waste Incineration
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Alvaro Linero, P.E. Administrator, Special Projects Bureau of Air Regulation Mercury Puzzle Hg(0), Hg(II),
EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants March 16, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC
HAPs To Be Regulated: Mercury Only Electric utility steam generating units are uniquely regulated by Congress under 112(n)(1)(A) EPA was required to study.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel.
Co-precipitated manganese oxides- based sorbents for mercury and arsenic capture. Malgorzata Wiatros-Motyka EPSRC PhD project student Grant: EPSRC China.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards March 22, 2011.
Particulate Matter Monitoring Required by the Utility MATS Eric Swisher| | ext. 17 August 22, 2012 Presented to ARIPPA.
North Carolina Division of Air Quality Report on Control of Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating Units In response to 15 NCAC 02D.2509(b)
Presented By: Suruchi Verma, University of New Orleans Bhaskar Kura, University of New Orleans.
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
Evaluation of Thermal Processes for CCA Wood Disposal in Existing Facilities Florida Center for Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Anadi Misra 1, Chang-Yu.
Lecture Objectives: Continue with power generation Learn basics about boilers and furnaces.
Mercury in the West* Land and Water Fund of the Rockies and Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense January 2003 *The information in this presentation.
 Products of incineration  sifting  fine material include ash, metal fragments, glass, unburnt organic substances etc..  residue  all solid material.
TMTS 1 Compliance Air Pollution Control for Industrial Applications A&WMA 2015 Southern Section Conference Callaway Gardens August 19, 2015 Thomas F. McGowan,
Oil-fired Units Bill Maxwell EPA/ESD/CG March 5, 2002 Washington, D.C.
UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.
Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03.
Mercury Control Technologies Utility MACT Working Group May 30, 2002.
NTEC -- April 24, Utility Air Toxics Regulatory Finding National Tribal Environmental Council April 24, 2001 William H. Maxwell U.S. EPA OAQPS/ESD/CG.
Stationary Source Controls & Source Sampling Marti Blad, PhD, PE.
1 The Clean Air Rules of 2005 Bill Wehrum U.S. EPA, Office of Air & Radiation.
1 Recommendations of the Clean Energy Group on Utility MACT Issues Utility MACT FACA Meeting September 9, 2002 Robert LaCount The Clean Energy Group The.
Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT.
Copyright © 2006 Babcock Power Inc.All rights reserved Turbosorp ® Circulating Fluidized Bed Scrubber Technology Rich Abrams Director.
Scrubbing Technology N. Maximova, Puu Wet scrubbers remove particles by capturing them in liquid droplets. Wet scrubbers remove pollutant gases.
2.14.  In 1970 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established  Required to set and enforce air quality standards  Air quality standard –
Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Senior Research Consultant Southern Company Birmingham, Alabama October 22, 2010 Coal-Fired Power Plants Environmental Control Technology.
Oxy Coal Combustion at the US EPA Myrrha Andersen, Bill Roberts, MAE NCSU Bill Linak, C.W. Lee, NRMRL US EPA Chris Winterowd, Daniel Janek, ARCADIS Jost.
APPA Conference Call on EGU MACT Rule January 20, 2011.
Sorbent Polymer Composite Mercury and SO2 Control Installation and Full Scale Performance Update John Knotts - W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
1 Clean Air Act Regulation, Technologies, and Costs NARUC/BPC/NESCAUM Power Sector Environmental Regulations Workshop David C. Foerter Executive Director.
Information systems in waste management OFFICIAL INFORMATION X TRUE INFORMATION.
CFBC BOILER UPDATE Coal Based Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion (CFBC) Boiler Technology By :Asad Mehmood.
For questions: Surviving the Power Sector Environmental Regulations with apologies to Bear Grylls and Discovery Channel James.
Tampa Electric Company’s Emission Reduction Program
Pollution Controls and Available Monitoring Techniques
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Pollution control methods of thermal power plants
Control of Sulfur Oxides Dr. Wesam Al Madhoun
Objectives Discuss HW5 – Plumbing Finalize valve design
Department of Environmental Quality
CE 326 Principles of Environmental Engineering
Chapter 12. Air Pollution Control
Flue Gas Treatment using Industrial EB Accelerators - Status and Challenges Andrzej G. Chmielewski Institute of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology, Warsaw,
Air Pollution Control: Stationary source
Air pollution control engineering
Presentation transcript:

Non-mercury HAP March 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Bill Maxwell US EPA

Outline zStatus of non-mercury HAP data zWhat it tells us zWhere we may go from here

Estimated Nationwide Emissions Compound zArsenic zCadmium zChromium zLead zManganese zHydrogen chloride zHydrogen fluoride zDioxin * Estimated annual emissions in 1994, 1996 Tons/year* ,000 23, % of National*

Non-ICR HAP Data zNon-ICR HAP data gathered from yEPRI PISCES data base yDOE test program yIndustry tests zData generally pre-1994 but not always zData include mercury but not speciated zData posted on utility MACT website yIncludes coal, oil, and natural gas data for all data other than that from the ICR

What Do the Data Show - Metals? zMetals (As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn) from coal yEffectively removed by ESP’s: >92% median removal by control device yEffectively removed by FF’s: >95% median removal by control device yModerately removed by wet FGD’s: ~25-87% median removal by control device yEffectively removed by SDA/FF’s: >90% median removal by control device

What Do the Data Show - Acid Gases? zAcid gases (HCl, HF) from coal yPoor control by ESP’s: <6% removal for HCl and HF yModerate control by FF’s: ~44% removal for HCl and 0% removal for HF yModerate control by wet FGD’s: ~80% removal for HCl and ~29% removal for HF yGood control by SDA/FF’s: ~82% removal for HCl and HF

What Do the Data Say - Organics? zOrganics (including dioxin) from coal yLittle controlled data available yWhat exists indicates 7-38% dioxin congener removal from ESP yEstimated emissions, even uncontrolled, are very low from coal-fired units

What Does This Say to EPA About Coal Non-mercury HAP? zMetals from coal effectively removed by existing PM controls zAcid gases from coal effectively removed by existing scrubber controls zOrganics, including dioxin, from coal are not removed by existing controls…but there does not appear to be a significant problem

Mercury Control Retrofit Options ESP Control options** Sorbent Injection (SI) Add CFBA + SI Add FF + SI SDA ESP (or FF) APCD Configuration* No. of Units SI or oxidization + SI Wet FGD Scrubber SI ESP (or FF) Boilers (1,140) PC fired Cyclone Fluid Bed Stoker FF SI 800; 70% 64; 5.6% “Other” units *** 157; 14% 27; 2.4% Coals and Fuels Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Mixtures Boilers and Fuels 92; 8.1% Scrubber chemistry mods Add SCR + chemistry mods Add reagents, catalysts, or sorbent bed * ESP = electrostatic precipitator; FF = fabric filter; CFBA = circulating fluidized bed absorber; SCR = selective catalytic reduction; SDA = spray dryer adsorber (includes DSI [duct sorbent injection]) ** Selected control options -- other options possible. Flue gas cooling and additional ducting may be used with SI. *** Includes venturi scrubbers, multiclones