# Presentation: 268678

## Non-mercury HAP

- March 4, 2002
- Washington, D.C.

- Bill Maxwell
- US EPA

## Outline

- Status of non-mercury HAP data
- What it tells us
- Where we may go from here

## Estimated Nationwide Emissions

- Compound
- Arsenic
- Cadmium
- Chromium
- Lead
- Manganese
- Hydrogen chloride
- Hydrogen fluoride
- Dioxin
- *  Estimated annual emissions in 1994, 1996

- Tons/year*
- 56
- 3
- 62
- 62
- 168
- 134,000
- 23,100
- 0.000121

- % of National*
- 16
- 2
- 6
- 2
- 7
- 28
- 42
- 2

## Non-ICR HAP Data

- Non-ICR HAP data gathered from
- EPRI PISCES data base
- DOE test program
- Industry tests
- Data generally pre-1994 but not always
- Data include mercury but not speciated
- Data posted on utility MACT website
- Includes coal, oil, and natural gas data for all data other than that from the ICR

## What Do the Data Show - Metals?

- Metals (As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, Mn) from coal
- Effectively removed by ESP’s: >92% median removal by control device
- Effectively removed by FF’s: >95% median removal by control device
- Moderately removed by wet FGD’s: ~25-87% median removal by control device
- Effectively removed by SDA/FF’s: >90% median removal by control device

## What Do the Data Show - Acid Gases?

- Acid gases (HCl, HF) from coal
- Poor control by ESP’s: <6% removal for HCl and HF
- Moderate control by FF’s: ~44% removal for HCl and 0% removal for HF
- Moderate control by wet FGD’s: ~80% removal for HCl and ~29% removal for HF
- Good control by SDA/FF’s: ~82% removal for HCl and HF

## What Do the Data Say - Organics?

- Organics (including dioxin) from coal
- Little controlled data available
- What exists indicates 7-38% dioxin congener removal from ESP
- Estimated emissions, even uncontrolled, are very low from coal-fired units

## What Does This Say to EPA About Coal Non-mercury HAP?

- Metals from coal effectively removed by existing PM controls
- Acid gases from coal effectively removed by existing scrubber controls
- Organics, 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