Emission Testing and Monitoring

0

Presented in Track B4: EMISSION TESTING & MONITORING
at EUEC 2011, January 31 Phoenix, Arizona

B4.1  | Update on PM2.5 and Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions Measurement Methods

Larry Hottenstein |  Partner, Environmental Resources Management

Following the promulgation of the PM2.5 implementation rule, U.S. EPA proposed test methods for the measurement of stack emissions of Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micron (PM2.5) and Condensable Particulate Matter (CPM). It was anticipated that these test methods would be promulgated in the Federal Register by the end of June 2010. However, the proposed methods prompted extensive comments from various stakeholders on the initial Proposed Rule issued March 25, 2009, and the final test methods hopefully will be issued before the end of 2010. The methods will define PM2.5 and CPM for permitting actions and compliance demonstrations, so it is important to understand the basis of the final test methods. Additionally, with the proposed methods there was a request for comment on the transition time for NSR applicability determinations and how permits will have to address PM2.5 and CPM emissions. This is expected to be addressed as well in the promulgation of these methods. According to the initially proposed transition period, CPM must be included in NSR applicability determinations and permits after July 1, 2011. The deadline for including condensable emissions is rapidly approaching, and PM2.5, including condensable particulate matter, will play a major role in future permitting efforts. This presentation will examine the changes to the proposed methods and highlight potential issues with the promulgated methods.

B4.2  | Real Time SO-3 Monitoring, Short History, New Developments and Applications

Mark Pastore |  Vice President, Clean Coal Solutions, Environmental Energy Services, Inc.

This paper will take a brief look back at the history of SO3/H2SO4 concerns, from the “pseudo” particulate issues of the 1970s, current mitigation techniques, a review and comparison of extractive SO3 test methodology and the current need for real-time SO3 monitoring. The benefits of a real-time SO3 analyzer (vs the CCM approach) will also be discussed as they pertain to ease of set-up and operation, results by method, cost, and the ability of each method to provide information in a timely manner. Wet chemistry test methods do not provide real-time data often needed to minimize additive fuel rates used to control SO3 emissions. To both lower opacity levels while maintaining ESP fly ash conditioning, a facility will undertake a series of process control modifications; additive feed rates, and even comparison of different additives. These operations are time consuming and costly. The use of a real-time SO3 monitor allows sources to make these changes and receive feedback in a timely and cost effective manner. A comparison of the Controlled Condensate wet method and real time monitor test results will also be provided.

B4.3  | Demonstrating Compliance with Single-Digit VOC Limits

Mannie Carpenter |  Senior Engineer, JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc.

This case study demonstrates some of the difficulties associated with demonstrating compliance with very low volatile organic compound (VOC) air quality permit limits. Current equipment and test methods for stack testing create extreme challenges for utilities that have to demonstrate compliance with air quality permits containing limits as low as 1.0 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as methane. These low limits have lead some to apply ambient air test methods coupled with typical stack testing equipment, which produces unexpected results. This presentation describes one such attempt and the lessons learned in the process. The test methods employed included EPA Methods 25A, 25C, 18, TO-3, and TO-12.

B4.4  | Emissions Monitoring of THC, VOC, HCl, and other HAPS by FTIR

Sylvie Bosch-Charpenay |  Senior Applications Scientist, MKS Instruments

Most of the regulated air pollutants such as formaldehyde, THCs, HCl, HF, VOCs, NOx and SO2 can be detected using a single FTIR analyzer without the need to remove moisture from the sample. Additional Green House Gas components such as N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 can easily be added without any changes to the existing hardware making FTIR the most versatile emissions monitoring system.

B4.5  | Measuring Mercury Speciation In Combusion Fluegas Using Modified US EPA 30B

Robert Brunette |  Senior Manager, Scientist, Frontier Geosciences Inc.

EPA Method 30B (EPA mercury emissions reference method – sorbent trap mercury method) was used successfully to support mercury emissions measurements for the 2010 EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) on coal and oil fired utilities as well as a series of additional ICR source types (cement, steel etc). The use of the solid sorbent mercury speciation method (Modified US EPA 30B) or the Fluegas Adsorbent Mercury Speciation (FAMS) method has also been used widely for Hg source evaluations. Presented here are multiple applications of modified US EPA 30B Hg speciation method including the use as a Relative Accuracy Test Audit method for Hg speciation continuous Hg monitors and measuring Hg speciation control efficiencies across Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) systems. Also shown are over ten years of validation and intercomparision history of this method against the gold standard sOntario Hydro method. Measuring mercury (Hg) speciation in combustion flue gas is important to: 1) aid in the evaluation and selection of appropriate Hg emission control equipment 2) measure Hg removal efficiencies of control systems 3) confirm Hg removal guarantees from control equipment manufactures 4) verify the accuracy of Hg speciation emission values being used in fate and effects models and (5) measure the accuracy of hundreds continuous mercury monitor (CMM) systems that are generating continuous Hg speciation emissions data. Currently, the only regulatory accepted test method for measuring Hg speciation is ASTM D6784-02 (the Ontario Hydro Method). It is understood by the industry end user today that that this method is difficult, expensive, has and in most cases takes a long time to generate the data. All of these factors limit the end user and their ability obtain accurate Hg speciation data. The modified US EPA Method 30B Hg Speciation method has many advantages over the ASTM Ontario Hydro method due to its’ simplicity, precision, sensitivity, accuracy, and economics. Key additional advantages include the same advantages posed by EPA 30B which include routine field duplicates (field precision measurements) and NIST traceable field spikes (routine field accuracy measurements).

B4.6  | AMESA M – Sorbent Trap Monitoring System

Rich Brown |  Product Manager, Altech Environment U.S.A.

Altech Environment U.S.A. is pleased to introduce the mercury trap version of our AMESA system. Already MCERTS and TUV approved for continuous dioxin and furan monitoring, the AMESA-M has been adapted for mercury monitoring.

Customer comments

No comments were found for Emission Testing and Monitoring. Be the first to comment!