1 / 30

Utility MACT Working Group

Utility MACT Working Group. Negative Removals -- A Review Bill Maxwell, OAQPS/ESD. Purpose. To present a review of test reports from units showing negative mercury removals during ICR speciated mercury emissions tests Not to definitively answer all questions. Background - All tests.

Download Presentation

Utility MACT Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Utility MACT Working Group Negative Removals -- A Review Bill Maxwell, OAQPS/ESD

  2. Purpose • To present a review of test reports from units showing negative mercury removals during ICR speciated mercury emissions tests • Not to definitively answer all questions

  3. Background - All tests • Negative mercury removals were indicated at 31 test sites when calculated either from coal-to-stack or across the tested control device • 12 sites showed negative removals only when calculated from coal-to-stack • Because of differences in test methodologies, for this analysis, this is not a calculation that we feel should be used

  4. General theories -- coal to stack • Representativeness of sample • For some sites, coal analyses during testing did not match similar ICR analyses for surrounding period • Method and location of sample acquisition different than that for ICR samples • Timing of coal sampling vs. when that flue gas gets to stack sample train • Does not negate usefulness of coal-to-stack analyses overall

  5. Background -- Control device only • 19 remaining test sites indicated negative removals across the tested control device • Reviewed each test report in greater detail • Cannot definitively say “here is the reason” for any site • Have plausible theories for most sites that are felt to reasonably account for, or at least contribute strongly to, the negative removals • Some sites fall under more than one theory

  6. General theories - control device • Coal type • Low level of mercury present • Normal sampling distribution around “0” • Use of hot-side ESP • Sampling locations • Test/analytical method problems

  7. Coal type • 15 of the 19 sites burned subbituminous or lignite coals • Generally have higher proportion of elemental mercury in flue gas • Not expected to be removed • Subject to loss during sample handling • Ontario-Hydro method has been modified to add stabilizer to permanganate solution that inhibits loss of elemental mercury

  8. Low level of mercury present • Ontario-Hydro method validated at 2 ug/m3 • For units having emissions near this level (may vary somewhat between labs), small variations in numerical measurements lead to large variations in percentages • Indicates care must be taken in use of significant figures and in precision of any standard • Also creates problems with non-detect values

  9. Normal sampling distribution around “0” • Normal variability in sampling would lead one to expect a distribution of results around any value • When that value is “0” -- normal distribution may indicate negative removals • Normal sampling/analytical variability in each sample exacerbates problem more at low removal levels than at higher removal levels • Would apply to coal-to-stack values also

  10. Example for tests with +/- 30% error: Poor mercury control

  11. Example for tests with +/- 30% error: Good mercury control

  12. Use of hot-side ESP • 5 of 19 units utilized hot-side ESP controls • Not expected to exhibit effective mercury removal due to relatively high temperatures • Adds to problem of normal distribution of data around “0” removal

  13. Sampling location • Several sites had multiple inlet and/or scrubber by-pass configurations • Multiple modules for control devices complicate inlet duct configurations and sampling locations • Inlet sites in general were less adequate than outlets • Scrubber by-pass to meet SO2 requirements • May be biasing the inlet data +/- • Indicates that “percent removal” format may not be appropriate if taken across control

  14. Test/analytical method problems • Ontario-Hydro, at the time of testing, was a new test method with few testing or analytical firms familiar with its use • Is not an “easy” method and requires strict adherence to procedures, QA/QC, etc. • Some test contractors indicated problems with blank levels, lost samples (dropped impingers, etc.), etc. • Sample hold times sometimes exceeded

  15. How the theories fit the units • Following slides fit tested sites to the theories noted earlier • Some sites fit more than one theory • Generally cannot say “Eureka”

  16. Cliffside Unit 1 Clifty Creek Unit 6 Columbia Unit 1 Gibson Unit 3 (both sets of tests) Leland Olds Unit 2 Limestone Unit LIM1 Navajo Unit 3 Newton Unit 2 Rawhide Unit 101 Sherburne County Unit 3 Stanton Station Unit 10 Wyodak Unit BW91 Negative removal coal to stack only

  17. Big Brown Unit 1 Cholla Unit 2 Cholla Unit 3 Clay Boswell Unit 4 Colstrip Unit 3 Coronado Unit U1B George Neal South Unit 4 GRDA Unit 2 Laramie River Unit 3 Lawrence Unit 4 Monticello Unit 1 Nelson Dewey Unit 1 Platte Unit 1 Sam Seymour Unit 3 Stanton Station Unit 1 Coal type

  18. Bay Front Unit 5 . . . . . Cholla Unit 3. . . . . . . . Clay Boswell Unit 4 . . . Coronado Unit U1B . . . Laramie River Unit 3 . . Lawrence Unit 4 . . . . . Nelson Dewey Unit 1 . Presque Isle Unit 9 . . . Valley Unit 2. . . . . . . . 2.5 - 4 ug/m3 1 - 2 ug/m3 5 - 6 ug/m3 2.5 - 3 ug/m3 2.5 - 3.5 ug/m3 ~5 ug/m3 (+ non detects) 2 - 3 ug/m3 1 - 2 ug/m3 1 - 2 ug/m3 Low level of mercury present

  19. GRDA Unit 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lawrence Unit 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Platte Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Big Brown Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cholla Unit 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coronado Unit U1B. . . . . . . . . . . . . Nelson Dewey Unit 1. . . . . . . . . . . . Presque Isle Unit 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stanton Station Unit 1. . . . . . . . . . . Valley Unit 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +18 to - 24% - 2 to - 34% +27 to - 33% + 1 to - 13% +23 to - 33% - 11 to - 21% + 2 to - 23% + 0 to - 6% + 2 to - 9% + 6 to - 25% Normal sampling distribution around “0”

  20. Use of hot-side ESP • Cholla Unit 3 • Gaston Unit 1 • Nelson Dewey Unit 1 • Platte Unit 2 • Presque Isle Unit 9

  21. Big Brown Unit 1 Clay Boswell Unit 4 Colstrip Unit 3 Coronado Unit U1B (scrubber by-pass) George Neal South Unit 4 Laramie River Unit 3 Lawrence Unit 4 Sam Seymour Unit 3 (also scrubber by-pass) Sampling locations

  22. Bay Front Unit 5 . . . . . . . . Cholla Unit 2. . . . . . . . . . . Cholla Unit 3. . . . . . . . . . . Gaston Unit 1 . . . . . . . . . . George Neal South Unit 4. . Laramie River Unit 3 . . . . . Reported “suspect” elemental data for 2 of 3 of outlet runs Numerous problems Numerous problems Possible sample hold problem Possible bad test run Possible sample hold problem Probable bad test run Contractor/method problems

  23. Conclusions • Negative removals are expected for some tests on units with poor mercury removal • Negative removals are primarily a combined function of • Actual low removal efficiencies • Inherent variability in test and analytical procedures • Other factors may also be involved but believed to be of lessor importance

  24. Conclusions - More • Negative removals are not expected for tests on units with good mercury removal • Test data with good mercury removal used for setting emission standards • Additional testing would not impact final MACT levels

  25. So where does this leave us... • Ontario-Hydro method is not inherently flawed • Nothing in the data to so indicate • Modifications have been made to stabilize elemental mercury in permanganate solution • Data do indicate caution in setting level of standard • Truly positive removal numbers are valid • Mercury is not being generated

  26. Examples • Laramie River Unit 3 • Coronado Unit U1B

  27. Laramie River Unit 3 • Uses subbituminous coal • Sample storage conditions (~20 °C) and holding times (> 45 days) may have been violated prior to analysis • Low mercury value • Multiple inlet ducts • One inlet run considerably different from 5 other runs at same or similar site

  28. Laramie River Unit 3 -- cont. Laramie Units 1 and 3 are same type of boiler, burn the same coal, and in similar quantities

  29. Coronado Unit U1B • Uses subbituminous coal • Low mercury value • Uses scrubber by-pass as part of SO2 control • Sampled inlet upstream of by-pass duct • Sampled outlet upstream of by-pass duct • Actual impact on percent removal calculations is unknown

  30. List of Units Exhibiting Negative Removals Across Control or Coal-to-Stack

More Related