Mercury Control Technologies Utility MACT Working Group May 30, 2002.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 EPA Final CSAPR and MATS Regulations Update Eugene M. Trisko General Counsel Unions for Jobs & the Environment, Inc. UJAE BOD Meeting January 24, 2012.
Advertisements

Estimated Mercury Emission Reductions in NC from Co- control as a Result of CSA 2004 NC DENR/DAQ Hg & CO2 Workshop Raleigh, NC April 20, 2004 Steve Schliesser.
Duke Power Clean Smokestacks & Mercury Efforts April, 2004.
A Software Tool for Estimating Mercury Emissions and Reductions from Coal-Fired Electric Utilities (EU) Presented at the NC Clean Smokestacks Act Sections.
Insights on Economic Impacts of Utility Mercury and CO 2 Controls Anne Smith Charles River Associates North Carolina DENR/DAQ Workshop on Mercury and CO.
Mercury Issues for Coal-Fired Power Plants: Emissions, Fate and Health Effects, Controls George Offen Technical Executive Emissions/Combustion Product.
U.S. Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics & Analysis 2014 Electricity Forms Re-clearance Vlad Dorjets, Form EIA-860 Project.
Methods to Reduce Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From Coal-Fueled Utilities
Reshaping Power Generation New EPA Rules and NAAQS CPES Energy & Environmental Conference March 14, 2012, Cromwell Ct Robert V Bibbo, Normandeau Associates.
Steve Moorman Mgr Business Development, Advanced Technologies Babcock & Wilcox CO2 Emission Reduction from Coal Fired Plants FutureGen 2.0 CO2 Capture.
CAIR & MATS 2012 Southern Sectional AWMA Annual Meeting & Technical Conference September 12, 2012 Chris Goodman, P.E. Environmental Strategy.
Particulate Matter Seminar John Kush Texas Genco Rice University Shell Center for Sustainability November 9, 2004.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mercury from Electric Utilities: Monitoring and Emission Reductions Greg DeAngelo & Tiffany Miesel Florida.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON MISSOURI ELECTRIC UTILITIES LEWIS MILLS MISSOURI PUBLIC COUNSEL November 11, 2012.
NOx Sources and Control Methods CE/AE 524B Air Pollution J. (Hans) van Leeuwen.
TMTS NOx CONTROL for STATIONARY SOURCES Copyright TMTS Associates, Inc. and J.J. Santoleri, 2001, all rights reserved.
Update on Full-Scale Activated Carbon Injection for Control of Mercury Emissions Michael D. Durham, Ph.D., MBA ADA Environmental Solutions 8100 SouthPark.
Previous MACT Sub Categories EPA has recognized differences in other industry rules by using sub-categorization: – Differences in processes – Differences.
Informational Meeting Status of Glades Power Park Air Construction Permit Application April 24, 2007 Moore Haven, Florida State of Florida Department of.
FGD, SCR, & Other Retrofit NOx Controls FGD, SCR, & Other Retrofit NOx Controls Presented by: Joe Ennis, Director Project Engineering APP Site Visit October.
E&CS Overview & Major Construction Update Eddie Clayton.
Recent EPA Regulation Development Presented by Bill Luthans to the 56 th Meeting of the Joint Advisory Committee Meeting for the Improvement of Air Quality.
1 EGTEI – 22 November 2011 Nadine ALLEMAND – EGTEI secretariat Pilot Study on Cost Analysis applied to the Apatity Power station Preliminary results Cooperation.
The ProRak™ Advantage An introduction to Hg Process Monitoring and Feedback Control.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Alvaro Linero, P.E. Administrator, Special Projects Bureau of Air Regulation Mercury Puzzle Hg(0), Hg(II),
EPA Regulations On Electric Utility Generating Units (EGU)
Janusz Cofala The RAINS model: Modelling of emission controls and costs.
Presentation to Utility MACT Working Group May 13, 2002 EPA, RTP, NC
HAPs To Be Regulated: Mercury Only Electric utility steam generating units are uniquely regulated by Congress under 112(n)(1)(A) EPA was required to study.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants April 13, 2011 EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
APC Strategy for Mercury CEMS by Trey Lightsey 2010 Annual Meeting & Technical Conference A&WMA – Southern Section Renaissance Riverview Plaza Hotel.
Why do we burn coal to generate electricity? Because you can’t plug your iPod into a chunk of coal!
AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy AEP’s Emission Reduction Strategy Presented by: John McManus, Vice President Environmental Services APP Site Visit October.
Overview of Environmental Regulations and Drought Impacts in the ERCOT Region Dana Lazarus Planning Analyst, ERCOT July 13, 2015.
Reducing Toxic Pollution from Power Plants EPA’s Proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards March 22, 2011.
CARB Off-Road Mobile Source Technology Workshop February 2-3, 2000 El Monte, California Emissions Technologies for Off-Highway Compression Ignition Engines.
IPM Overview Elliot Lieberman U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C
Analysis of Existing and Potential Regulatory Requirements and Emission Control Options for the Silver Lake Power Plant APPA Engineering & Operations Technical.
Evaluation of Thermal Processes for CCA Wood Disposal in Existing Facilities Florida Center for Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Anadi Misra 1, Chang-Yu.
Consequences for Eskom of the Listed Activities under Section 21 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 Submission to the Portfolio.
Energy Analysis Department Coal-Wind Hybrid: Assumptions & Findings Coal-Wind Hybrid: Assumptions & Findings Amol Phadke, Ph.D. Lawrence Berkeley National.
Mercury in the West* Land and Water Fund of the Rockies and Rocky Mountain Office of Environmental Defense January 2003 *The information in this presentation.
WEST Associates’ Assessment of Hg MACT Floor Variability CAAAC Mercury MACT Working Group Washington, DC March 4, 2003.
BART Control Analysis WESTAR August 31, 2005 EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Todd Hawes
SO 2 Emission Factors Kristin Burford 23/April/01 ME 449A: Sustainable Air Quality Source: Environmental News ServiceEnvironmental News Service.
Notes on IPM Modeling Workshop (held 5/30/02) Larry Monroe, Ph.D. Southern Company MACT Working Group Meeting June 3, 2002.
Mercury Monitoring Update for the Utility MACT Working Group Barrett Parker OAQPS 03/04/03.
CFD Modeling for Design of NOx Reduction in Utility Boilers Seventeenth Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT February 20-21, 2003 S. Vierstra J.J.
Massachusetts Multi-pollutant Power Plant Regulations Sharon Weber Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection EPA Utility MACT Working Group.
ICI Boilers EPA Meeting November 21, Why control ICI boilers? Important source of SO 2 and NO x emissions Cost-effective emission reductions achievable.
Sox Emission Factors Kristin Burford 09/April/2001 ME449: Sustainable Air Quality.
Mercury Control for Power Plants Arun Mehta, George Offen, Ramsay Chang, Richard Rhudy Presented to the 2003 Annual ACERC Conference Salt Lake City, UT.
Highly Confidential / Proprietary MARC 2010 CONFERENCE Know When to Hold Em and Know When to Fold Em Session By Scott Heidtbrink Senior VP - Supply June.
Can Coal be used for Power Generation by an Environmentally Responsible Society? An Overview of “Clean Coal” Technologies Ben Bayer November 20, 2006 ChE.
Presented by: Eastern Research Group, Inc. May 10, 2005 Status Report to the Stationary Sources Joint Forum: Task 2: Control Technology Analysis.
SO 2 Emissions Kristin Burford 23/April/01 ME 449A: Sustainable Air Quality.
Sorbent Polymer Composite Mercury and SO2 Control Installation and Full Scale Performance Update John Knotts - W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Non-mercury HAP March 4, 2002 Washington, D.C. Bill Maxwell US EPA.
1 Clean Air Act Regulation, Technologies, and Costs NARUC/BPC/NESCAUM Power Sector Environmental Regulations Workshop David C. Foerter Executive Director.
CFBC BOILER UPDATE Coal Based Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion (CFBC) Boiler Technology By :Asad Mehmood.
For questions: Surviving the Power Sector Environmental Regulations with apologies to Bear Grylls and Discovery Channel James.
First in Service First in Value
Tampa Electric Company’s Emission Reduction Program
UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
Pollution control methods of thermal power plants
Department of Environmental Quality
تکنولوژيهای کاهش انتشار آلاينده های هوا
General comments (1) Price level needs to be specified (recommended: € 2000). Operation and maintenance costs (O+M) should be splitted into fixed (depending.
EPA Technical Analysis of NOx Combustion Controls in the West
Joint Venture between IEC and Dor Chemicals
Presentation transcript:

Mercury Control Technologies Utility MACT Working Group May 30, 2002

Mercury Control Overview Mercury emissions dependent on: –mercury content of coal –combustion and physical characteristics of unit – emission control technologies employed

Mercury Content of Coal Assumptions on the mercury content of coal are derived from EPA’s ICR data –over 40,000 data points indicating coal type, sulfur content, and mercury content ICR data points grouped by IPM coal types and IPM coal supply regions –clustering analysis was used to map the weighted average mercury content for a specific coal type-supply region

Mercury Content of Coal

Mercury Emission Modification Factors ICR data was used to derive EMFs EMF dependent on unit’s burner type, particulate control, and NOx and SO 2 control Mercury reduction achieved is 1-EMF EMF varies by the type of coal –subbituminous and lignite coal assumed to have same EMFs

Mercury Emission Modification Factors

Mercury Control Capabilities Two retrofit options in IPM for mercury control: –Activated carbon injection (ACI) –SO 2 /NOx retrofits Wet FGD + SCR Wet FGD + SNCR Mercury removal for SO 2 /NOx retrofits based on EMF assumptions Mercury removal for ACI currently at 80%

ACI Costs ACI cost and performance were obtained from study by DOE NETL and EPA ORD NETL-ORD study developed capital, FOM, and VOM costs of different components of ACI retrofit –Spray cooling –Sorbent injection –Sorbent disposal –Pulse-jet fabric filter Separate cost functions for 26 control configurations and coal types were developed for a range of mercury removal rates Equations found in Appendix 5.3

ACI Costs

Several steps were taken to adapt these equations for use in IPM: –NETL/ORD equations reduce to function of unit capacity and heat rate –Used average heating values of coal to convert sulfur by weight into lbs of sulfur per mmBtu –Polynomial fits used to incorporate equations into IPM –Assumption of 80% removal used to develop polynomial fits Table 5.8 provides example costs for 500 MW unit with heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh

ACI Costs