# Presentation: 451789

## 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
- Maximum flexibility
- Minimum cost

## Background Partners

- External
- NIST
- DOE
- ETV
- EPRI

## BackgroundMonitor 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)

## BackgroundGerman 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

## BackgroundTechnical Concerns

- Stability, reliability, and availability of calibration standards
- Loss of sample in handling system
- Species conversion

## Background Concerns

- CEMS costs, complexity, performance
- CEMS application on US sources
- Fuel, equipment, control uniqueness
- Availability

## 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)

## 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

## Phase IInitial RATA

## Phase IFinal RATA

## Phase IResults

- 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

## Phase IIDescription

- 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

## Phase IIMonitor Trailer

- Instruments (left to right)
- Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis, Durag, PS Analytical

## Phase IIEPRI’s Carbon Tube Sampler

## 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

## Phase IIInitial RATA (preliminary)

## Phase IIFinal RATA (preliminary)

## Planned Phase III

- Determine low level, co-pollutant impacts  (by Jun 03)
- Manage NIST standards development (by Jan 06)

## 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

## Planned Phase III

- Evaluate CEMS at full scale power plants   (by Jan 04)
- Wet scrubber firing bituminous coal or
- Uncontrolled unit firing subbituminous coal