View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
BackgroundMonitor 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)
BackgroundGerman 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
BackgroundTechnical 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 IFinal RATA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Run Number
0
5
10
15
20
Ontario Hydro Wet CEMS Dry CEMS #2
Phase IResults
• 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 IIDescription
• 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 IIMonitor Trailer
• Instruments (left to right)– Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis,
Durag, PS Analytical
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 IIInitial RATA (preliminary)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Run Number
0
5
10
15
20
Ontario HydroWet CEMS
Dry CEMS #2Dry CEMS #3
EPRI
Phase IIFinal RATA (preliminary)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Run Number
0
5
10
15
20
Ontario HydroWet CEMSDry CEMS #2
Dry CEMS #3Dry CEMS #4Dry CEMS #5
X ray CEMSEPRI
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
Recommended