APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center
Advertisements

Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
ECMPS Reporting Requirements under the MATS Rule
Common Monitoring and Reporting Errors Louis Nichols Clean Air Markets US EPA March 2007.
Mercury Monitoring and Reporting Requirements under the MATS Rule
General Monitoring Requirements and Options
Harmonization of Parts 60 and 75
Mercury Monitoring by States Robert Vollaro U.S. EPA Clean Air Markets Division (May 2009)
Simplifying Hg Ohio Lumex 915 J Mercury Process Monitor.
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
MEETING YOUR MERCURY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 2007 ARIPPA Conference Presented By: AVOGADRO Environmental Corporation.
RECLAIM Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting (MRR)
1 Proposed Rule: Amendments to the Protocol Gas Verification Program and Minimum Competency Requirements for Air Emission Testing Presented at May 12,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
MATS 2015: Are Your Units Ready? Outage Management for Power Plants July 15, 2014 Stephanie Sebor.
State of New Jersey v. EPA A Case Study in Politics v. Statutory Language Mary Ellen Hogan Holme Roberts & Owen LLP Los Angeles, California.
Update on Mercury Calibration Gas Standards and Traceability Scott Hedges US EPA, Clean Air Markets Division 2009 EPRI CEM User Group Conference St. Louis,
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.
MCIC Workshop 2012 Complying with NC Air Quality Regulations Boiler MACT/GACT and 112j Steve Schliesser Division of Air Quality Environmental Engineer.
Boiler MACT and Other Air Developments 2011 Southern Section AWMA Conference Callaway Gardens, GA Boiler MACT and Other Air Developments 2011 Southern.
Division of Air Quality Update on EPA Boiler MACT Rules Steve Schliesser Environmental Engineer March 2012.
1 Year in Review: Clean Air Act Presented by: Tom Wood Stoel Rives LLP October 8, 2010 Things Are Getting Really Complicated.
The ProRak™ Advantage An introduction to Hg Process Monitoring and Feedback Control.
MERCURY: Air Emissions and Proposed Utility Rules Indiana Department of Environmental Management September 2004.
Air Protection Branch 1. 2 Air Quality Activities Support the Mission of the Air Protection Branch Monitor and Report Air Quality Data Analysis and Planning.
EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)
Status of Alternative Reference Methods for Mercury Emission Measurements – Part 1 Scott Hedges, USEPA, CAMD EPRI CEM Users Group Meeting Phoenix, AZ May.
A History and Status of CEMS Applications in USEPA Regulations Dale Evarts US EPA December 16, 2002 Better Air Quality in Asian Cities 2002
Background OAQPS is developing a new Performance Specification (PS-18) for HCl CEMS to support emissions monitoring in the Portland Cement MACT and Electric.
Sorbent Trap Sampling - Overview
Texas Lignite Industry. Texas Lignite  Because >95% of lignite mining operations in Texas are in support of electric generation…..whatever impacts the.
Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC
© 2009 Cemtek Environmental, Inc. New Product and Technology Overview CEMTEK Environmental Inc S. Orange Ave. Santa Ana, CA
Air Emission Control Technology UWM Air Pollution Meteorology Class November 20, 2007 Frances A. Hardrick We Energies.
December 4, Utility MACT Air & Waste Management Association/EPA Information Exchange December 4, 2002 William H. Maxwell Combustion Group/ESD.
Robert L. Burns, Jr., Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC August 1, 2013 Impact of Environmental Regulation on Coal Combustion for Electrical.
Clean Air Markets Program Data
Air Pollution Control Board October 1, 2008 Thomas W. Easterly, P.E., DEE, QEP Commissioner, Indiana Department of Environmental Management We Protect.
Pennsylvania Draft Regulations for the Control of Mercury From Coal-fired Electric Generating Units Allegheny Section- AWMA Air Quality Issues Workshop.
“Advanced sorbent solutions for the environment.” © 2003, all rights reserved Demonstration of Amended Silicates™ for Mercury Control at Miami Fort Unit.
.1 Approach to Utility MATS August 22, 2012 ARIPPA Annual Tech Convention Harrisburg, PA Joel Millard Environmental Regulatory Specialist KVB-Enertec Products.
Particulate Matter Monitoring Required by the Utility MATS Eric Swisher| | ext. 17 August 22, 2012 Presented to ARIPPA.
Implementation of US Cap and Trade Programs
Hg CEMs: A Researcher’s Perspective Jeff Ryan Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention.
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
2007 Measurement Technology Workshop September 11, 2007 EPA Update on the Development of Alternative Reference Methods for Mercury and Testing Equipment.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC SO 2 Data Requirements Rule – A Proactive Compliance Approach Mark Wenclawiak, CCM |
Ozone and Nitrogen Concerns in NM WRAP Ozone and NOx in the West November 11, 2009.
| Philadelphia | Atlanta | Houston | Washington DC Boiler MACT Compliance Plans: Failure to Develop Plans Is Planning to Fail Susie Bowden|
1 Saxony-Anhalt EU Twinning RO 04/IB/EN/09 State Environmental Protection Agency Wolfgang GarcheWorkshop European Standards Requirements of.
UTILITY MACT WORKING GROUP STATE AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER RECOMMENDATIONS.
Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03.
Update on Hg CEMS They’re here to stay … Jeffrey V. Ryan
Assessment of Mercury Rules for Electric Generators in North Carolina September 9, 2015 Presented to the Environmental Management Commission – Air Quality.
NTEC -- April 24, Utility Air Toxics Regulatory Finding National Tribal Environmental Council April 24, 2001 William H. Maxwell U.S. EPA OAQPS/ESD/CG.
Georgia’s 112(g) Experiences Eric Cornwell Acting Manager Permitting Program.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
Hardware Analyser vs Software Analyser
APPA Engineering & Operations Technical Conference Presented by: Dale Evely – Southern Company Generation April 17, 2007 Preparing for Mercury Monitoring.
ICI Boilers EPA Meeting November 21, Why control ICI boilers? Important source of SO 2 and NO x emissions Cost-effective emission reductions achievable.
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.
Virtual Analyser What is it Have you ever faced an analyser failure that requires a plant shut down to repair & wished that there.
Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) – Hg Monitoring and Test Methods 2007 Measurement Technology Workshop Robin Segall and Bill Grimley U.S. Environmental Protection.
Larry S. Monroe, Ph.D. Senior Research Consultant Southern Company Birmingham, Alabama October 22, 2010 Coal-Fired Power Plants Environmental Control Technology.
1 Clean Air Act Regulation, Technologies, and Costs NARUC/BPC/NESCAUM Power Sector Environmental Regulations Workshop David C. Foerter Executive Director.
For questions: Surviving the Power Sector Environmental Regulations with apologies to Bear Grylls and Discovery Channel James.
Department of Environmental Quality
NACAA Response to EGU MACT Vacatur
EPA/OAQPS Pollutant Emissions Measurement Update 2019
Presentation transcript:

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel

Regulatory Overview – Timeline 2000 – Clinton EPA will regulate mercury from coal-fired utility boilers under Section 112 of the CAA (Clean Air Act) 2004 – Bush EPA decides that listing coal-fired utility boilers under Section 112 of the CAA was ‘in error’ 2005 – Bush EPA issues CAMR (Clean Air Mercury Rule) delisting EGUs from Section 112 of the CAA and establishing a mercury trading program 2008 – DC Court of Appeals vacates CAMR 2009 – Obama EPA will develop emission standards for HAPs (Hazardous Air Pollutants) under Section 112 of the CAA and announces an ICR (Info Collection Request) to collect HAP data from utility boilers 2011 – Per a consent decree, a draft of the HAPs Utility MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) is due in March which will set final emission limits by November 2014 – All affected utilities must be in compliance with the HAPs Utility MACT by November (3 years post-submittal of the final rule)

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Overview –15 TMFS (Thermo Mercury Freedom Systems) Hg CEMS were implemented at 6 coal-fired steam plants as part of the vacated CAMR. –7 Hg CEMS were relocated to wet stacks with the addition of FGDs. –Each Hg CEMS was certified per the vacated CAMR which included a cycle (response) time test, a 3 pt linearity, a 3 pt system integrity check, a calibration error test (7 day drift) and a RATA. –Daily, weekly, quarterly and annual QA/QC (including 30B RATAs for annual recertification) is being performed. –Efforts similar to the APC Strategy for Hg CEMS are necessary to advance source monitoring technology and to set realistic maintenance and budgeting expectations ahead of implementing new Utility MACTs and other monitoring requirements. There will be lessons learned from Hg CEMS that will apply to other HAPs monitoring.

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – TMFS

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – RATAs – Method 30B –A known volume of flue gas is extracted from a stack/duct through paired, sorbent media traps at a pre-determined flow rate; the traps are recovered from the sampling system and analyzed by any suitable determinative technique that can measure total vapor phase mercury and meet performance criteria – Sampling –APC field services performs the sampling portion of the RATA using 2-bed, iodated, activated carbon traps from Ohio Lumex –Sorbent trap sampling system is an Apex XC-6000EPC –Method 4 moisture determination using an Apex XC-40 console – Analysis –APC field services using an Ohio Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman Mercury Spectrometer with RP-M324 attachment –APC environmental test lab using a Leco AMA254 Mercury Analyzer

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Sampling Flue gas Quartz cotton 1 Quartz cotton 2 Sorbent bed 1 Sorbent bed 2

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Sampling

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Analysis Method 30B Data Input

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Analysis

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.1 Ex.1 is an 800MW unit that burns mainly Columbian coal and is equipped with an SCR and FGD Initially, the Hg CEMS was located on an exterior duct leading to a single lined, dry stack downstream of an SCR The dry duct hourly Hg concentrations varied in the 2 – 8ug/scm range during the certified period (Jun 09’ – Sep 09’) and depended primarily upon operating variables (load, fan/flow, coal variations, PCD operation, etc.) There was 99+% data availability* during the certified period on the dry duct The Hg CEMS is currently located in the annulus space of a single-lined wet stack downstream of all PCDs (SCR and FGD) at an elevation of ~500’ft The wet stack hourly Hg concentrations have varied in the 0.1 – 4ug/scm range since certification in Jun 10’ Currently maintaining 99+% data availability* on the wet stack * availability is based on hourly averages; an available hour is one in which a previous 24hr (daily calibration) was successful and there are at least 2 minutes of valid data in each of the 4 hourly quadrants

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.1 RATA results - DRY performed on 6/17/09; FGD performed on 6/29/10

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.2 Ex.2 is a 750MW unit that burns mainly Western PRB coal and is equipped with an SCR and FGD Initially, the Hg CEMS was located in the annulus space of a dual-lined dry stack downstream of an SCR The dry stack hourly Hg concentrations varied in the 2 – 12ug/scm range during the certified period (Aug 08’ – May 10’) and depended primarily upon operating variables (load, fan/flow, coal variations, PCD operation, etc.) There was 87+% data availability* during the certified period on the dry stack The Hg CEMS is currently located in the annulus space of a dual-lined wet stack downstream of all PCDs (SCR and FGD) at an elevation of ~500’ft The wet stack hourly Hg concentrations have varied in the 2 – 6ug/scm range since certification in May 10’ Currently maintaining 98+% data availability* on the wet stack * availability is based on hourly averages; an available hour is one where a previous 24hr (daily calibration) was successful and there are at least 2 minutes of valid data in each of the 4 hourly quadrants

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.2 RATA Results – DRY performed on 7/28/09; FGD performed on 5/12/10

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.3 Ex.3 is a 900MW unit that burns mainly Alabama coal and is equipped with an SCR and FGD Initially, the Hg CEMS was located on an exterior duct leading to a single lined, dry stack downstream of an SCR The dry duct hourly Hg concentrations varied in the 2 – 10ug/scm range during the certified period (June 08’ – Aug 09’) and depended primarily upon operating variables (load, fan/flow, coal variations, PCD operation, etc.) There was 85+% data availability* during the certified period on the dry duct The Hg CEMS is currently located in the annulus space of a single-lined wet stack downstream of all PCDs (SCR and FGD) at an elevation of ~500’ft The wet stack hourly Hg concentrations have varied in the 0.1 – 5ug/scm range since certification in Apr 10’ Currently maintaining 93+% data availability* on the wet stack * availability is based on hourly averages; an available hour is one in which a previous 24hr (daily calibration) was successful and there are at least 2 minutes of valid data in each of the 4 hourly quadrants

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.3 RATA Results – DRY performed on 8/4/09; FGD performed on 3/31/10

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.4 Ex.4 is comprised of (2) 300MW units that burn mainly Alabama coal and is equipped with an ESP (only) The Hg CEMS is located in the annulus space of a single-lined dry stack downstream of the ESP at an elevation of ~300’ft The dry stack hourly Hg concentrations have varied in the 10 – 30ug/scm range since certification in Jan 09’ and depend primarily upon load and coal variations Currently maintaining 90+% data availability* on the dry stack * availability is based on hourly averages; an available hour is one in which a previous 24hr (daily calibration) was successful and there are at least 2 minutes of valid data in each of the 4 hourly quadrants

APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS – Ex.4

Lessons Learned, Challenges and Next Steps Mercury removal (generally) occurs in the FGD (absorber solution) when gaseous phase Hg 0 is oxidized to Hg 2+ by halogens present in/injected on the coal, by an SCR catalyst or through an air pre-heater ahead of the FGD Additionally, ACI (activated carbon injection), e.g. directly into an ESP, removes Hg from the flue via the same chemi-adsorption principles that bind Hg to the activated carbon in sorbent traps High SO 2 and PM generally equates to more maintenance/issues for Hg CEMS; systems with PCDs (especially FGDs) generally require less maintenance Hg CEMS use N 2 as a diluent requiring (>100psi) for N 2 generation further necessitating either air compressors (and additional maintenance) or a greater burden on plant air Probes require high heat for Hg 2+ conversion and to ensure that Hg will not bind to components making probes difficult/tedious/expensive to maintain Analyzers require high intensity UV lamps that continue to experience issues and present challenges Probe controller components are very susceptible to lightning and power surges Hg CEMS may experience considerable downtime and non-availability after maintenance/troubleshooting while the system ‘settles out’ Calibrator traceability protocols were created to ensure accurate, NIST traceable, field reference calibrators Currently, TMFS calibrators can achieve (down to) 2.5ug/scm limiting system ranges to 0-10ug/scm in order to accommodate regulatory QA/QC Vendors such as Ohio Lumex offer upgrades that will significantly lower MDLs for carbon trap analysis Work continues on the development of a portable Hg CEMS and instrumental reference method (30A) that will allow for real-time and direct comparison of Hg CEMS