(Presented in Session B1 & B2 at EUEC 2015: Feb 16, San Diego, CA.
B1.1 Performance Update & Review of Coatings used to Improve Reliability & Accuracy of
Mercury & Sulfur Sampling Systems
Gary Barone, Business Manager, SilcoTek Corporation; Marty Higgins
The last 15 years have shown an increasing need for coatings to improve analytical results obtained
in systems used for mercury & sulfur sampling. Regulations for mercury emissions from coal fired boilers
are now enacted while flare gas regulations for the refining industry will come on-line in 2014. With the
increased regulation, sampling system performance must be stable even in corrosive environments
while also reliable for regular calibration checks. Both methods recommend the use of coatings to
achieve reporting requirements. This presentation will address & summarize reports to date on how
coatings have been used to effectively improve the accuracy & reliability of sampling systems across
many applications & industries. Industries & application data presented will range from stack gas
sampling & refining to gas & oil exploration. All of these industries have unique challenges which must
be addressed & solved by high durability, inert coatings that are designed for chemical compatibility.
B1.2 Measuring HCl emissions using hot/wet extractive FTIR CEMS
Jim Cornish, Technical Sales & Support Manager, Gasmet Technologies inc
Coal-fired power plants in the U.S. are currently reviewing their options to measure HCl as part of the
new US EPA MACT rules. Measurement techniques that use hot/wet extractive gas analysis such as
the Gasmet FTIR gas analyzers provide an accurate & cost-effective solution to assist power plants
measure HCl in accordance with the new regulations. This presentation reviews the considerations
associated with the installation, operation & maintenance of an extractive FTIR CEMS system tuned for
the measurement of HCl along review of data validation & several installations.
B1.3 The ALL BLUE Mercury Messenger, an Improved Mercury Sorbent Trap Analyzer
Philip Dufresne, President, ALL BLUE
Sorbent traps have become the standard for measuring mercury in emission sources. With the goal
of analyzing these traps more efficiently & with greater precision & accuracy, this analyzer was
designed. Several innovative design features improve flow & measurement precision. Other design
elements allow the most difficult samples to be analyzed in less than half the time & all samples to be
analyzed with less tedious sample prep. High-level samples can be analyzed quicker & easier & lowlevel
samples that are increasingly the norm as mercury levels drop are able to be analyzed with better
precision & accuracy. The analyzer is virtually maintenance-free & is ultra-durable for field use. Used
to analyze traps to prove compliance, certify CEMs systems or measure the effectiveness of mercury
control technologies, this analyzer will increase, precision, accuracy, & throughput.
B1.5 PEMS testing: A real-world case study
Ian Havard, New Dusiness Development, Emissions Analytics
Emissions Analytics has collected data from PEMS tests on more than 800 passenger cars to date in the
UK and US. In addition it has undertaken detailed investigations using PEMS for clients such as Shell,
Chevron and Tesco Filling Stations to look at the effect fuels and lubricants have on fuel economy
and emissions control. It also works with engine manufacturers, OEMS, off-highway industries and
technology developers to provide real-world insight into their products. This presentation will share
insights and trends from the inventory of detailed emissions data including CO, CO2, NO, NO2, THCs
and PM. It will look at how PEMS is well suited to testing fuel economy performace in the real world,
sharing the benefit of their extensive experience. It will cite particular case studies from real examples
B2.1 MACT Monitoring Compliance Considerations & Costs from Facility Perspective
Anne McQueen, Senior Associate Engineer, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
Practical experience in complying with utility boiler MACT & other MACT standards involving Hg, HCl, &
PM continuous monitoring, will be discussed, including monitoring equpment evaluation, selection, &
implementation. This presentation will be from the perspective of the facility compliance manager with
limited time & resources for compliance. Key implementation issues include establishing performance
initially & maintaining performance over time, as well as auxiliary issues such as incorporating the new
CEMS into the existing data acquisition system (DAS) & how to prepare & conduct periodic source
testing. Numerous insights have been gained about how the new CEMS are drastically different from
the old CEMS & require a step up in sophistication of staff & procedures. We will provide lessons
learned & pitfalls to avoid using a hands-on approach, while also tying the results to detailed technical
& policy background research performed over a period of several years. Interactions between control
equipment applied & monitoring equipment performance will also be described.
B2.2 Trap Monitoring Systems: ongoing validations and adaption for different applications
Jurgen Reinmann, Branch Manager, Environnement S.A Deutschland
Discussion of CEMS and our experience building systems for MATS compliance.
B2.3 ESP Upgrade for MATS Compliance at Marion 4
Robert Mastropietro, V. P. Technology, KC Cottrell Inc.; Michael Widico
Unit 4 at the Marion Station of Southern Illinois Power Cooperative is a coal-fired 173 MW generating
unit. As part of its compliance plan for the USEPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule, SIPC determined
that it was necessary to upgrade its existing Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) to comply with the PM
limits established in the MATS rule. Sargent & Lundy was hired as the Owners Engineer to prepare the
specification for the ESP upgrade. In late 2013, KC Cottrell Inc. was selected to perform the upgrade
work during the outage scheduled for the Spring of 2014. KC Cottrell’s turnkey contract included
the installation of new discharge electrodes and collecting plates in the first field as well as installing
external top rappers. The work was completed and the unit started back up in the late Spring of
2014. This paper will discuss the planning and execution of the ESP upgrade as well as reviewing the
performance of the ESP before and after the upgrade was performed.
B2.4 Mercury CEM – Emissions & Process Control
Dan Kietzer, Division Manager, National Product Management, SICK, Inc.
Installation of a Mercury CEM for both CEM and process control offer unique challenges, and the
actual measurement of mercury is only one. From certification requirements, and reliability issues on
the CEM side, to repeatability and use in harsh environments on the process control side, successfully
implementing these devices requires proper planning and care. This paper will focus on issues currently
surrounding the use of CMM systems from the point of view of compliance. What are initial and ongoing
QA/QC requirements, and how are they met? What about NIST traceability? Is ongoing maintenance
and reliability an issue? Additionally, we will look at the question of how a sorbent trap user can benefit
from the real time response of a CMM in terms of process control. These locations are typically much
harsher than those of a stack mounted CMM. What issues can arise? Can reliability be maintained
in these conditions? Along with a review of current requirements for these devices, data from field
installations will be discussed.
B2.5 MATS CEMS Definition to Certification; a Consultant’s Checklist for Success
Brian Petermann, Manager, Air Quality Compliance, Sega Inc.
MATS has presented new challenges for Owners, Consultants, and Vendors to fully prepare for the
upcoming monitoring requirements of the recent rule. Although most MATS units already have CEMS,
compliance with MATS requirements is requiring a close assessment of existing system applicability,
adding new pollutant monitoring equipment, upgrading systems, and modifications to the reporting
software. For example, should PM CEMS and/or HCl CEMS be installed or perform periodic testing and
what are the impacts for either decision? How will new equipment integrate with existing CEMS? Do
commissioning plans account for the higher costs and longer certification testing processes for these
new systems? How will these matters be reflected in the CEMS specification, bidding, and selection
process? Drawing from recent/ongoing coordination engineering duties with Owners and Vendors
on CEMS projects, common issues will be discussed and a checklist presented which should help in a
successful implementation of MATS CEMS efforts.