1 / 9

Non-mercury HAP

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. Compound Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Lead Manganese Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluoride Dioxin

xuan
Download Presentation

Non-mercury HAP

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. Non-mercury HAP March 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Bill Maxwell US EPA

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

  3. 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 Estimated Nationwide Emissions % of National* 16 2 6 2 7 28 42 2

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Mercury Control Retrofit Options Boilers and Fuels No. of Units APCD Configuration* Control options** • Sorbent Injection (SI) 800; 70% ESP Boilers (1,140) • Add CFBA + SI • PC fired • Add FF + SI • Cyclone 92; 8.1% FF • SI • Fluid Bed • Stoker 64; 5.6% ESP SDA • SI or oxidization + SI (or FF) Coals and Fuels • Bituminous • SI • Subbituminous 157; 14% • Scrubber chemistry mods Wet FGD ESP • Lignite Scrubber (or FF) • Add SCR + chemistry mods • Mixtures • Add reagents, catalysts, or sorbent bed “Other” units*** 27; 2.4% * 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

More Related