Untitled 1

“Mercury CEMS Options” - Hot Topic Hour, May 8, 2014 indicated differences between Sorbent Traps and Mercury CEMS

The Hot Topic Hour yesterday included an extensive and friendly debate over the results of sorbent traps and mercury CEMS. The differences of opinion were about gaseous mercury measurement. One side argues the sorbent traps indicate higher gaseous mercury emissions than actually are being emitted. The sorbent trap people say the filters in the CEMS systems are equivalent. They indicated filters are used in most mercury CEMS systems now whereas inertial separators used to be standard. Thermo says most of the older units still use inertial separators. So differences of opinion remain.

There was little dispute over whether the sorbent trap measures particulate mercury while the CEM does not. Both sides agreed that this is true. The question is whether the particulate mercury amount is significant. There was some difference of opinion on this as well. But since activated carbon creates particulate mercury an inefficient precipitator could let some of it pass through.

The question was posed as to whether any of the agencies would consider the particulate mercury emissions as a violation. Mike Martin of TRC pointed out that Massachusetts requires periodic particulate mercury monitoring and reporting.

A number of the utilities participated in the session. At the start they were advised that there are a number of dedicated websites which are available free of charge to operators around the world. Utilities can also have free access to the webinars on the power plant air quality subjects. All they have to do is email us with the specific recording request and we will provide it to them.

May 1, 2014	Hot Gas Filtration at 850^oF Will Change APC 103 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
April 17, 2014	Measurement of Gas Turbine Emissions Including NH3 95 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
April 10, 2014	Mercury Treatment Chemicals in Fuel, Flue Gas and Scrubbing Liquor 86 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
April 8, 2014	Tank Material Selection 68 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording.
March 27, 2014	Analysis of Dry Scrubber Options 73 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
March 20, 2014	China Air Pollution Control 52 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
February 27, 2014	NOx Catalyst Performance on Mercury and SO3 86 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE
February 13, 2014	Impact of Ambient Air Quality Rules on Fossil-Fueled Boilers and Gas Turbines 100 minutes You will need to enter your name and email address after clicking link to view recording. MORE

The following panelists all made contributions and some also made presentations:

Daniel Chang, P.E., AQC Business Development, B&V Energy, Black & Veatch Corporation

Jeremy Whorton, P.E., CEMS Product Manager-Americas, Air Quality Instruments, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Michael (Mike) P. Martin, Senior Project Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation

The primary purpose of this interest group is to share experiences in all aspects of mercury measurement with sorbent traps, both routine compliance measurements as well as RATA testing applications. This enables sorbent trap users to find solutions for their problems without "reinventing the wheel." The interest group also will provide participants with a forum for quickly identifying common problems and developing solutions.

The discussions in this interest group will identify technical issues causing loss of compliance data and excessive maintenance requirements. Common solutions will be shared improving compliance and minimizing operation and compliance costs. Shared solutions will be documented in reports produced under the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Program (P77). If no solutions are known, the issue(s) will be considered for funding by the program or a supplemental project.

9:30 a.m. Plasmonic Mercury Detection for CEM Systems - J. James, J. Crosby, D. Lucas,
C. Koshland

10:30 a.m. Innovations in Mercury and HCl Measurements - J. Siperstein, J. Cross,
A. Schneider, A. Mertz

Heather Bryne of Carbonxt explained the complexities in controlling the amount of sorbent needed at any point in time. Fuel and process variations make it highly desirable to continuously measure mercury rather than rely on the delayed information obtained with sorbent traps.

Rich Hovan, Durag, cited the benefits of their extractive system using dual beam photometer and said they are the first to use certified bottled Hg calibration gas bottles.

Sorbent Traps to provide Accurate Measurement of Mercury by Andrew Mertz, Ohio Lumex - Hot Topic Hour May 8, 2014

Andrew Mertz, Ohio Lumex, provided data to show that high bromine levels do not interfere with the sorbent trap's ability to measure mercury accurately.

Tags: 221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Ohio Lumex, Sorbent Trap, Mercury

Krag Petterson, Cooper Environmental showed data demonstrating that the multi-metals analyzer does provide accurate mercury measurements. But it also can measure the other toxic metals. So it is an alternative to the low PM2.5 surrogate option. For a utility with a precipitator which can meet the requirements otherwise this is an attractive option.

Tags: 221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Cooper Environmental, Multi-metal, Mercury

Jim provided the following comparison between CEMS and Sorbent Traps -§ Method 30B includes HgP, which results in overestimation of gaseous Hg that may be significant at MATS Hg levels but not enough to impact RATA pass or fail § Differences in HgT up to about 0.50µg/Nm3 (typically less, but sometimes more) may be explained by HgP when controlling Hg with ACI and/or Br. Will vary somewhat by coal Hg levels, PM emissions, ACI injection, etc. § Bromine “interference” should not be a concern except possibly under extremely high furnace Br injection rates and is not a concern for brominated activated carbon.

Tags: 221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Andover Technology Partners, Mercury CEMS, Sorbent Trap

The Hot Topic Hour yesterday included an extensive and friendly debate over the results of sorbent traps and mercury CEMS. The differences of opinion were about gaseous mercury measurement.

Tags: 221112 - Fossil Fuel 化石燃料, Andover Technology Partners, Cooper Environmental, Ohio Lumex, Durag, Cafrbonxt, Sorbent Trap, Mercury, CEMS