Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group

1. Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03

2. Overview • Purpose • Background • Phase I • Phase II • Planned Phase III

3. 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

4. Background Partners • External • NIST • DOE • ETV • EPRI

5. 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)

6. 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

7. BackgroundTechnical Concerns • Stability, reliability, and availability of calibration standards • Loss of sample in handling system • Species conversion

8. Background Concerns • CEMS costs, complexity, performance • CEMS application on US sources • Fuel, equipment, control uniqueness • Availability

9. 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)

10. 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

11. Phase IInitial RATA

12. Phase IFinal RATA

13. 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

14. 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

15. Phase IIMonitor Trailer • Instruments (left to right) • Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis, Durag, PS Analytical

16. Phase IIEPRI’s Carbon Tube Sampler

17. 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

18. Phase IIInitial RATA (preliminary)

19. Phase IIFinal RATA (preliminary)

20. Planned Phase III • Determine low level, co-pollutant impacts (by Jun 03) • Manage NIST standards development (by Jan 06)

21. 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

22. Planned Phase III • Evaluate CEMS at full scale power plants (by Jan 04) • Wet scrubber firing bituminous coal or • Uncontrolled unit firing subbituminous coal