1. Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center
Mercury Monitoring
Barrett Parker, EPA Emissions Measurement Center

2. Basis for Mercury Monitoring
Utility air toxics report to Congress
EPA made determination for MACT rule
Proposed rule 1/30 (69 FR 4652)
New PS included
Comment period closed 3/30

3. Electric Utility MACT 12 month rolling average mercury emission limit
Cap and trade system is an alternative

4. EMC Involvement Collected data on mercury monitors
Made recommendations for proposal
Partnered with CAMD, ORD, NIST, EPRI

5. Test Objectives Determined Investigated all types of mercury monitors
Ability for reliable data over time
Durability, availability, maintenance requirements
Suitability of draft PS-12 for CEMS
Investigated all types of mercury monitors
Sought options for flexibility and accountability

6. Monitoring Types Periodic Testing (ASTM D 6784-02, M29)
Reference method
Continuous collection, delayed analysis (sorbent tube)
Continuous collection and analysis (CEMS)
Wet conversion, dry conversion, other

7. Monitoring Types (continued)
CEMS and sorbent tube selected
Requested comments on monitoring for sources emitting less than 25 pounds of mercury per year

8. German Experience Mercury CEMS on Incinerators
No requirements 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

9. Test Phase Description
Phase I (summer 01)
140 MW firing bituminous coal with cold side ESP
Use 2 German-certified CEMS
Phase II (fall 02)
Same site
Use 6 CEMS and EPRI monitor

10. Test Facility During Phase II
Instruments (left to right)
Envimetrics, Mercury Instruments, Genesis, Opsis, Durag, PS Analytical

11. EPRI’s Carbon Tube Sampler

12. Test Phase Description (continued)
Phase III Pilot (spring 03)
Low level detection and interference checks
Pilot scale facility firing natural gas and lignite, bituminous, and subbituminous coals
Use 3 CEMS and EPRI monitor

13. Test Phase Description (continued)
Phase III (summer 03)
550 MW firing subbituminous coal with dry FGD, SCR, and baghouse
5 CEMS and EPRI monitor

14. Test Phase Description (continued)
Phase IV (fall 03)
440 MW firing bituminous coal with wet FGD and reverse-air baghouse
2 CEMS and EPRI monitor
3 three-hour test periods

15. Phase I - Initial

16. Phase I - Initial

17. Phase I – Final

18. Phase I - Final

19. Phase II - Initial

20. Phase II - Initial

21. Phase II - Final

22. Phase II - Final

23. Phase III - Pilot Scale

24. Phase III - Pilot Scale

25. Phase III - Initial

26. Phase III - Initial

27. Selected Phase III – Initial RunsRM
RM dup
CEMS #6
CEMS #2
CEMS #4
CEMS #5
Xray MS 1
1.36
1.26
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.08 2
5.34
3.05
2.9
2.3
2.4
2.75 4
1.50
1.5
1.4
1.38 6
6.91
4.22
4.4
4.7
3.8
4.39 8
14.27
10.1
13.4
11.8
3.4
19.00 11
3.33
3.36
3.2
3.1
1.1
3.37

28. Phase III - Final

29. Phase III - Final

30. DRAFT Phase IV - Initial

31. DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit

32. DRAFT Phase IV – Initial and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)

33. DRAFT Phase IV - Final

34. DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit

35. DRAFT Phase IV – Final and Proposed MACT Limit (Rescaled)

36. Findings No sample loss in 200 feet of line
Monitors improving between Phases
Monitors can meet RA requirements of draft PS-12, but low-level correction needed

37. Findings (continued) Dual train reference method testing is important
Monitors can operate for up to 3 months with routine maintenance

38. Products Monitoring operational characteristics and costs
Data for GPRA report on Mercury CEMS and coal combustion
Proposed PS 12A
Covers only vapor phase (no particulates)
Designed for fossil fuel fired boiler exhaust
Allows use of existing equipment

39. Products (continued) Proposed PS 12A (continued)
Requires at least 9 paired sets of 2 hour (minimum) runs
Allows up to 3 sets to be rejected
Specifies results to be within 20% of reference method or 10% of MACT limit
Identifies outliers as
RSD > 10% if mercury > 1 μg / m3 or
RSD > 20% if mercury  1 μg / m3

40. Products (continued) Proposed PS 12A (continued)
Requires measurement error test using NIST traceable Hg0 and HgCl2 at zero, mid, and high levels
Calibration standards from NIST
Certified elemental mercury in cylinders
2, 5, and 20 micrograms per cubic meter
Ionic mercury to follow (1/06)

41. Concurrent Activities
Assist R2 and NJ with PSEG’s NSR settlement
Monitor and assist State rulemakings
Coordinate with ETV mercury CEMS Phase III

42. Next Steps Respond to proposal comments Potential additional testing
Longer term subbituminous and bituminous coals with cold side ESP