Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants … at a Glance 2009.doc · Web...

STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIIIAGENDA AT A GLANCE

Date & Time 7:00-8:158:30-12:00

(Breaks 10:00-10:30 in Foyer) 12:00-13:30 13:30-17:00 17:00-18:00 18:00-19:15

19:30-22:00(Breaks 20:40-21:00 in

Foyer)22:00-23:00

Sunday March 8

RegistrationSt. Andrews Foyer

Welcome Reception

Grand Lagoon Deck

DinnerPossibly Outside on

Grand Lagoon Deck or

St. Andrews Ballroom V-VI

CONFERENCE OPENING

Conference Chair: LawCo-Chair: Oser

1. Safety BasicsCo-Chairs: Hartman &

LehmannSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

Social HourSt. Andrews Ballroom IV

Monday March 9

BreakfastSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

2. EPA Methods, Monitoring & Policy

Co-Chairs: Westlin & SegallSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

09:00 - Spouses MeetingOleander

LunchGrand Lagoon

Deck

Safety Demonstration

Ad Hoc Sessions Social Hour12. Poster SessionCo-Chairs: Swiggard

& MannSt. Andrews Ballroom IV

DinnerTaste of New Orleans EventSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

3. Instrumental MethodsCo-Chairs: Davis & HefleySt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

Social Hour12. Poster SessionCo-Chairs: Swiggard


Tuesday March 10


Ballroom V-VI

4. Mercury Monitoring & Measurements

Chair: SerneSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

LunchGrand Lagoon

Deck

Ad Hoc SessionsQSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)

Volleyball TournamentAlligator Point Beach

Golf Tourney (12:00-17:00)


Beer Tasting EventGrand Lagoon

Ballroom




5. Accreditation & Qualification

Co-Chairs: England & Burdette

St. Andrews Ballroom I-III



Wednesday March 11


Ballroom V-VI

6. Particulate/Condensable Matter

Co-Chairs: Owens & GraySt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

12. Poster Session (Break)Co-Chairs: Swiggard & Mann


LunchSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

SES BOD Mtg (12:00-13:30)

Oleander

Ad Hoc SessionsEPA/State Mtg (16:30-18:00)Grand Lagoon Ballroom ABQSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)

Conference Steering Committee (13:30-14:30)

OleanderSTAC BOD Meeting

(15:00-16:30) Palmetto

Social Hour

Photo ContestSt. Andrews Ballroom IV

DinnerSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

7. Innovative Technologies/Remote

SensingChair: Merrill


Hall of Fame Roast (22:00-23:15)


Thursday March 12


Ballroom V-VI

8. Air ToxicsCo-Chairs: Mandel & Baldwin


Lunch Grand Lagoon

Deck

Ad Hoc SessionsSES Annual Members Mtg

(13:30-15:00)2010 Conference Planning *

(15:00-16:00)


Conference Awards Banquet

(18:00-19:30)

9. International Perspective Chair: Curtis (19:45-22:15)



Friday March 13


Ballroom V-VI

10. Methods WorkshopCo-Chairs: Eckard & Westlin

CONFERENCE WRAP-UPChair: Law


LunchSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

Technical Presentations Source Evaluation Society Activities Special Events Times shown in red are exceptions from the normal schedule*2010 Conference Planning Meeting will immediately follow the SES Annual Membership Meeting. If you would like to be a speaker or a Session Chair at the 2010 Conference, please come to the meeting!

1

STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIIIAGENDA AT A GLANCE (Extra Copy)

Date & Time 7:00-8:158:30-12:00

(Breaks 10:00-10:30 in Foyer) 12:00-13:30 13:30-17:00 17:00-18:00 18:00-19:15

19:30-22:00(Breaks 20:40-21:00 in

Foyer)22:00-23:00

Sunday March 8

RegistrationSt. Andrews Foyer

Welcome Reception

Grand Lagoon Deck




CONFERENCE OPENING

Conference Chair: LawCo-Chair: Oser

1. Safety BasicsCo-Chairs: Hartman &

LehmannSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III


Monday March 9


Ballroom V-VI

2. EPA Methods, Monitoring & Policy

Co-Chairs: Westlin & SegallSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

09:00 - Spouses MeetingOleander

LunchGrand Lagoon

Deck

Safety Demonstration

Ad Hoc Sessions Social Hour12. Poster SessionCo-Chairs: Swiggard


DinnerTaste of New Orleans EventSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

3. Instrumental MethodsCo-Chairs: Davis & HefleySt. Andrews Ballroom I-III



Tuesday March 10


Ballroom V-VI

4. Mercury Monitoring & Measurements

Chair: SerneSt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

LunchGrand Lagoon

Deck

Ad Hoc SessionsQSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)

Volleyball TournamentAlligator Point Beach

Golf Tourney (12:00-17:00)


Beer Tasting EventGrand Lagoon

Ballroom




5. Accreditation & Qualification

Co-Chairs: England & Burdette




Wednesday March 11


Ballroom V-VI

6. Particulate/Condensable Matter

Co-Chairs: Owens & GraySt. Andrews Ballroom I-III

12. Poster Session (Break)Co-Chairs: Swiggard & Mann


LunchSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

SES BOD Mtg (12:00-13:30)

Oleander

Ad Hoc SessionsEPA/State Mtg (16:30-18:00)Grand Lagoon Ballroom ABQSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)

Conference Steering Committee (13:30-14:30)

OleanderSTAC BOD Meeting

(15:00-16:30) Palmetto

Social Hour

Photo ContestSt. Andrews Ballroom IV

DinnerSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

7. Innovative Technologies/Remote

SensingChair: Merrill


Hall of Fame Roast (22:00-23:15)


Thursday March 12


Ballroom V-VI

8. Air ToxicsCo-Chairs: Mandel & Baldwin


Lunch Grand Lagoon

Deck

Ad Hoc SessionsSES Annual Members Mtg

(13:30-15:00)2010 Conference Planning *

(15:00-16:00)


Conference Awards Banquet

(18:00-19:30)

9. International Perspective Chair: Curtis (19:45-22:15)



Friday March 13


Ballroom V-VI

10. Methods WorkshopCo-Chairs: Eckard & Westlin

CONFERENCE WRAP-UPChair: Law


LunchSt. Andrews

Ballroom V-VI

Technical Presentations Source Evaluation Society Activities Special Events Times shown in red are exceptions from the normal schedule*2010 Conference Planning Meeting will immediately follow the SES Annual Membership Meeting. If you would like to be a speaker or a Session Chair at the 2010 Conference, please come to the meeting!

2

FINAL PROGRAMSTATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING ANDANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIIIBay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, FLMarch 8 – 13, 2009

Sunday Evening, March 8, 20095:00 pm– 6:00 pm Welcome Reception6:00 pm– 7:30 pm DinnerCONFERENCE OPENING7:30 pm – 7:45pm

1.0 SAFETY BASICS7:45 pm - 10:00pmCo-Chair: Mike Hartman (Air Tech Environmental LLC)Co-Chair: Scott Lehmann (Clean Air Engineering)

1. First Hand Experience with Elevators - Thomas Leach (OG&E Electric Services)

2. Cylinder Gas Safety or “How to Keep Your Smile” - Bob Davis (Airgas)

3. Safety Ring Presentation - Mike Hartman (Air-Tech Environmental LLC)

4. Back to Basics – Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling - Mike Denomme

Break (8:40pm – 9:00 pm)

5. Solutions We Can Live With (Round Table)

6. Fall Protection Demonstration - Bill Simpler (Miller Fall Protection) (Monday at Lunch)10:00 pm– 11:00 pm Social Hour/ Reception

Monday Morning. March 9, 20097:00 am - 8:15 am Breakfast2.0 EPA METHODS, MONITORING & POLICY8:30am - 12:00pmCo-Chair: Peter Westlin (US EPA – RTP)Co-Chair: Robin Segall (US EPA – RTP)

1. Air Emissions Measurement and Monitoring 2008-2009 – Barrett Parker & Robin Segall (US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards)

2. Development of PM Fine Wet Stack Test Method and CEMS – Don Bivens (US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards)

Break (10:00am – 10:30am)

3. Problem Board: Jim Meador (Independent Stack Sampler)

4. Particulate Matter Source Measurements: Post 2009 Policy and Technical Implications – Ron Myers (US EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards)

5. A New Direction for the Stationary Source Audit Program – Robin Segall, Candace Sorrell & Gary McAlister (US EPA, Measurement Technology Group) 12:00pm – 1:30 pm Luncheon (Fall Protection)

Monday Evening, March 9, 20095:00 pm–6:00 pm Social Hour & POSTER SESSION6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner3.0 INSTRUMENTAL METHODS7:30pm – 10:00pmCo-Chair: Bob Davis (Air Gas)Co-Chair: Bill Hefley (Air Sampling Associates)

1. Interference Checks for CEM Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20 – Bob Finken (Delta Air Quality Services)

2. The Mad Hatter Strikes Again: Observations through the Looking Glass – James Peeler & Laura Kinner (Emission Monitoring Inc)

3. Field Experience with EPA Method 30A – Sharon Sjostrom (ADA Environmental Solutions)

Break (8:40pm – 9:00 pm)

4. Temperature Range for Continuous Monitoring of Unintentionally Produced POPs (PCDD/Fs, PCBs, HCB) Using Amesa Long Term Sampling System – Jurgen Reinmann (Environment S.A. Deutschland)

5. Reference Method 7E NOX Converter Efficiency Test – Mike Galbraith (Western Kentucky Energy Corp)

10:00–11:00 pm Social Hour & POSTER SESSION

3

Tuesday Morning, March 10, 20097:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast4.0 MERCURY MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS8:30am - 12:00pmChair: Jim Serne (TRC Environmental)

1. Experience with Method 30B in Certification of Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring Systems – Kevin O’Halloren (Clean Air Engineering)

2. Using Utility Testing Method 30B in a HWC MACT Application – Mike Krall (TRC Environmental)

3. Speciated Hg Measurements: Available Techniques and Associated Measurement Considerations – Jeff Ryan (US EPA, Office of Research and Development)

Break (10:00am – 10:30am)

4. Real Field Test Experience Measuring Total and Elemental Mercury Emissions Using a Portable CEM per Method 30A – Phillip J. Dufresne (Ohio Lumex Company)

5. The EPA, EPRI and Utility Industry Cooperative Hg Calibrator Traceability Study – Richard McRanie (RMB Consulting & Research, Inc)

6. Problem Board: Jim Meador (Independent Stack Sampler)12:00 pm– 1:30 pm Luncheon

Tuesday Evening, March 10, 20095:00 pm – 6:00 pm Social Hour6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner5.0 ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION7:30pm – 10:00pmCo-Chair: Glenn England (ENVIRON International Corp.) Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette (TRC Environmental)

1. SES Update: Performance on the SES QSTI/QSTO Exams – A Progress Update and Summary of Findings – Peter Westlin (Chair, QSTI/QSTO Review Panel)

2. STAC Update – Scott Evans (Clean Air Engineering)

3. Professional Accreditation from a State Perspective – Bob Mann (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality)

Break (8:40pm – 9:00pm)

4. Panel Discussion: Testing Body Accreditation and Qualification of Testers and Observers – David Curtis, Scott Evans, John Schakenbach, Bob Mann & Peter Westlin 10:00 pm– 11:00 pm Social Hour & POSTER SESSION

Wednesday Morning, March 11, 20097:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast6.0 PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER8:30am - 12:00pmCo-Chair: Roy Owens (Owens Corning)Co-Chair: Walter Gray (MACTEC)

1. Update on Manual Method for Sampling and Analysis of Fine and Condensable Particulate – Ray Merrill (Eastern Research Group, Inc) & Ron Myers (US EPA)

2. Field Experience with the PM10 and PM2.5 (Other Test Method 027) and the Dry Impinger Condensable PM (Other Test Method 028) Jim Serne (TRC)

3. Back to Basics: How to Ship Samples – Ron McLeod (ALS Environmental)

Break & POSTER SESSION (10:00am – 10:30am)

4. Intercomparison of Field Collected PM Using Gravimetric and Chemical Characterization from Four Side-by-Side Stack Sampling Methods – By Technikon LLC, Presented by Tom Baldwin (Baldwin Environmental Inc) & Kevin Crosby (The Avogadro Group LLC)

5. Performance of Method 201 for Filterable PM2.5 – Chris House (Environment Canada)

6. Particle Size Distributions in Method 5 Stack Samples Determined by Microscopical Methods – Tim Vander Wood (MVA Scientific Consultants)

12:00 pm– 1:30 pm Luncheon

Wednesday Evening, March 11, 20095:00 pm – 6:00 pm Social Hour 6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner7.0 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE SENSING7:30pm – 10:00pmChair: Ray Merrill (Eastern Research Group)

1. Measurement of Long Term Benzene Emissions from Chemical Industry Sites Using Open Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy – Ram Hashmonay & Robert Kagann (ARCADIS) and Gilad Shpitzer (A.S. Research)

2. Application of Optical Remote Sensing for Upstream Oil & Gas Production – Produced Water Treatment Facilities – Jason M. DeWees (US EPA, Measurement Technology Group)

Break (8:40pm – 9:00pm)

3. Recent Progress in Quantitative Spectroscopy Using Millimeter Wavelengths – Grant Plummer (Enthalpy Analytical Inc)

4. New SO3 Test Method and Spiking Apparatus: Finally, Data We Can Believe In, Right? – Caleb Wiza (Clean Air Engineering) 10:00 pm – 11:00 pm HALL OF FAMEINDUCTION CEREMONY (after last paper)

4

Thursday Morning, March 12, 20097:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast8.0 AIR TOXICS8:30am - 12:00pmCo-Chair: Steve Mandel (Spectra Gases Inc)Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin (Baldwin Environmental)

1. ThermoFisher Scientific SO3 Monitoring Update – Dr. Dieter Kita (ThermoFisher Scientific)

2. A Modified EPA Method 308 Sampling Train for Assessing Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE) – William Anderson (Test America)

3. Problem Board: Jim Meador (Independent Stack Sampler)

Break (10:00am – 10:30am)

4. Wet Stack Fine Particulate CEMS Development – Tom Baldwin (Baldwin Environmental)

5. EPA Method 25A – Problems and Solutions – David Word (NCASI)

6. Type B Uncertainty Estimation and Sensibility Analysis for Isokinetic Sampling – Pablo Maiz (Gamatek)

12:00 pm– 1:30 pm Luncheon

Thursday Evening, March 12, 20095:00 pm– 6:00 pm Social Hour6:00 – 7:30 pm CONFERENCE AWARDS CEREMONY 9.0 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 7:45pm – 10:00pmChair: Dave Curtis (STA)

1. Better Regulation and the Impact on Manual Stack Test Emission Monitoring – Rupert Standring (National Monitoring Service)

2. FTIR – A New Standard for Periodic Monitoring – Rod Robinson (NPL)

Break (8:40pm – 9:00pm)

3. Application of Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry in Measuring Mercury from Crematoria – Peter Stockwell (PS Analytical Ltd)

4. Modular Instrumental Reference Mercury Measurement System – Dr. Domenico Cipriano (CESI, Italy) and Dr. Nenad Sarunac (Imbt Labs, PA) 10:00 pm– 11:00 pm Social Hour

Friday Morning, March 13, 20097:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast10.0 METHODS WORKSHOP8:30am - 12:00pmCo-Chair: Steve Eckard (Enthalpy Analytical Inc)Co-Chair: Peter Westlin (US EPA, RTP)

1. M18 Issues and Rewrites – Steve Eckard (Enthalpy Analytical Inc)

2. Stationary Source Audit Sample Update – Ray Merrill (Eastern Research Group)

Break (10:00am – 10:30am)

3. SW 846 New Edition – Laura Autry & Peter Westlin

4. Problem Board(optional): Jim Meador (Independent Stack Sampler)

Conference wrap-up: 2009 Chair, David Law (Air Testing Services Inc)12:00 pm– 1:30 pm Luncheon

12.0 POSTER SESSIONCo-Chair: Scott Swiggard (Golden Specialty Consulting Inc)Co-Chair: Bob Mann (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) Mon 5:00-6:00 pm & 10:00-11:00 pm 1. Mercury Speciation Using Sorbent Traps and Thermal Analysis – Philip J. Dufresne (Ohio Lumex Company)

2. EPA Methods 3A, 4, 7E and 10 by FTIR –Martin L. Spartz, PhD & John Lake (MKS Instruments, Inc)

3. Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO2 CEMS in Coal Fired Units – Jorge Marson (Environment Canada)

Tue 10:00-11:00pm & Wed 10:00-10:30am4. SO3 Monitoring: Where are We Today? – Bob Davis (Airgas)

5. Field Demonstration of a CTM-039 for Stationary Gas-Fired Power Plants – Glenn England (ENVIRON International Corp.), Craig Matis (GE Energy), Kevin Crosby (The Avogadro Group) and Gary Rubenstein (Sierra Research)

6. A Practical Approach to Mass-Basis VOC Measurement –Steven Szambaris (Archer Daniels Midland Co.)

7. Determination Of Combustion Products By FTIR Optical Remote Sensing - Steven V Plowman & Peter G Zemek (MIDAC Corp.), Andre Kuznetsov (Underwriters Laboratories)

5

STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIIIBay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida

March 8 – 13, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINAL PROGRAM ...................................................................................................... 3

CHAIRMAN’S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ............................................................ 9

A HISTORY OF THE STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS CONFERENCE ......................................................................... 10

ABSTRACTS ............................................................................................................ 13

Session 1 – SAFETY BASICS...........................................................................................................131.1 First Hand Experience with Elevators..................................................................................131.2 Cylinder Gas Safety or “How to Keep Your Smile”..............................................................131.3 Safety Ring Presentation.....................................................................................................131.4 Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling).....................131.5 Solutions We Can Live With................................................................................................131.6 Fall Protection Demonstration (Monday Lunch)..................................................................14

Session 2 – EPA METHODS, MONITORING AND POLICY.............................................................152.1 Air Emissions Measurement and Monitoring 2008-2009.....................................................152.2 Development of PM Fine Wet Stack Test Method and CEMS.............................................162.3 Problem Board: Jim Meador...............................................................................................162.4 Particulate Matter Source Measurements: Post 2009 Policy and Technical Implications....172.5 A New Direction for the Stationary Source Audit Program..................................................18

Session 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS.........................................................................................203.1 Interference Checks for CEM Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20...........................................203.2 The Mad Hatter Strikes Again: Observations through the Looking Glass............................213.3 Field Experience with EPA Method 30A..............................................................................223.4 Temperature Range for Continuous Monitoring of Unintentionally Produced POPs

(PCDD/Fs, PCBs, HCB) Using Amesa® Long Term Sampling System...............................233.5 Reference Method 7E NOX Converter Efficiency Test.........................................................24

Session 4 – MERCURY MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS.....................................................274.1 Experience with Method 30B in Certification of Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring Systems274.2 Using Utility Testing Method 30B in a HWC MACT Application...........................................284.3 Speciated Hg Measurements: Available Techniques and Associated Measurement

Considerations.................................................................................................................... 294.4 Real Field Test Experience Measuring Total and Elemental Mercury Emissions Using a

Portable CEM per Method 30A............................................................................................304.5 The EPA, EPRI and Utility Industry Cooperative Hg Calibrator Traceability Study..............314.6 Problem Board: Jim Meador...............................................................................................31

Session 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION....................................................................335.1 SES Update: Performance on the SES QSTI/QSTO Exams – A Progress Update and

Summary of Findings..........................................................................................................335.2 STAC Update...................................................................................................................... 345.3 Professional Accreditation from a State Perspective...........................................................35

6


March 8 – 13, 2009

5.4 PANEL DISCUSSION: Testing Body Accreditation and Qualification of Testers and Observers............................................................................................................................ 37

Session 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER..................................................................396.1 Update on Manual Method for Sampling and Analysis of Fine and Condensable Particulate

............................................................................................................................................ 396.2 Field Experience with the PM10 and PM2.5 (Other Test Method 027) and the Dry Impinger

Condensable PM (Other Test Method 028).........................................................................406.3 Back to Basics: How to Ship Samples................................................................................406.4 Intercomparison of Field Collected PM Using Gravimetric and Chemical Characterization

from Four Side-By-Side Stack Sampling Methods..............................................................416.5 Performance of Method 201 for Filterable PM2.5................................................................426.6 Particle Size Distributions in Method 5 Stack Samples Determined by Microscopical

Methods.............................................................................................................................. 43

Session 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES/REMOTE SENSING...................................................457.1 Measurement of Long Term Benzene Emissions from Chemical Industry Sites Using Open

Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy...................................................................457.2 Application of Optical Remote Sensing for Upstream Oil & Gas Production – Produced

Water Treatment Facilities...................................................................................................467.3 Recent Progress in Quantitative Spectroscopy Using Millimeter Wavelengths...................477.4 New SO3 Test Method and Spiking Apparatus: Finally, Data We Can Believe In, Right?.. .48

Session 8 – AIR TOXICS................................................................................................................... 508.1 ThermoFisher Scientific SO3 Monitoring Update.................................................................508.2 A Modified EPA Method 308 Sampling Train for Assessing Destruction and Removal

Efficiency (DRE)..................................................................................................................518.3 Problem Board: Jim Meador...............................................................................................518.4 Wet Stack Fine Particulate CEMS Development.................................................................528.5 EPA Method 25A – Problems and Solutions.......................................................................548.6 Type B Uncertainty Estimation and Sensibility Analysis for Isokinetic Sampling.................55

Session 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE................................................................................579.1 Better Regulation and the Impact on Manual Stack Test Emission Monitoring...................579.2 FTIR – A New Standard for Periodic Monitoring..................................................................589.3 Application of Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry in Measuring Mercury from Crematoria 599.4 Modular Instrumental Reference Mercury Measurement System........................................60

Session 10 – METHODS WORKSHOP.............................................................................................6210.1 M18 Issues and Rewrites....................................................................................................6210.2 Stationary Source Audit Sample Update.............................................................................6310.3 SW 846 New Edition...........................................................................................................6410.5 Problem Board: Jim Meador...............................................................................................64

Session 11 – BACK TO BASICS / PROBLEM BOARD....................................................................6511.1 How to Ship Samples..........................................................................................................6511.2 Measuring Climate Change Gases......................................................................................6511.3 Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling).....................65

Session 12: POSTER SESSION.......................................................................................................6612.1 Mercury Speciation Using Sorbent Traps and Thermal Analysis.........................................6612.2 EPA Methods 3A, 4, 7E and 10 by FTIR.............................................................................6712.3 Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO2 CEMS in Coal Fired Units........................................6812.4 SO3 Monitoring: Where Are We Today?..............................................................................6912.5 Field Demonstration of a CTM-039 for Stationary Gas-Fired Power Plants........................70

7


March 8 – 13, 2009

12.6 A Practical Approach to Mass-Basis VOC Measurement....................................................7112.7 Determination of Combustion Products by FTIR Optical Remote Sensing..........................72

TABLE OF ACRONYMS (SOUND LIKE A GURU) ................................................. 73

ATTENDEE LISTING ............................................................................................... 75

(Pages 1 to 18) ......................................................................................................... 75 Pages 1 to 18

8


March 8 – 13, 2009

Chairman’s Introductory Remarks

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

On behalf of the Source Evaluation Society and our co-sponsors US EPA, STA (Stack Testing Association, UK), ISA (Instrument Systems and Automation Society) and NACAA (National Association of Clean Air Agencies), I am proud to welcome all of you to the 33rd Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference.

You will find that there are many unique aspects of this conference. We have five breakfast, lunch and suppers, ten coffee breaks, ten social hours and four entire afternoons to meet people and mingle in a social atmosphere. Make sure you eat and drink with some folks you do not know. Ask a Hall of Fame member their secrets to success (beer, llamas…). Share some field work war stories (it was so cold/hot...then the process went off/positive…). Get QSTI qualified! You will leave with new contacts and perhaps some new friends.

Our discussions are active and lively in and out of the sessions. You will have opportunities to interact with experts from the sampling industry, from the source industries/utilities, from academia, from technical institutes, from testing laboratories and from government agencies. I especially welcome new attendees for you will be the future of this conference.

Every year we try a few new things. A key aspect of this conference is to maintain a two-way flow of information from the podium and the audience. We do not want the size of our audience and the microphone to become a barrier. That is one reason we limit the number of attendees. In order to encourage more questions, we are going to take written questions as an option. This year, we are starting a Problem Board as suggested by one of last years attendees. We are also continuing with the well-received Methods Workshop on Friday morning (see you there!). The workshop is designed to define methods, to promote and to participate in improvements to stack methods.

Of course, the meat of the conference is the very strong series of technical posters and oral presentations. Please review the abstracts listed in the following pages as a guide to the upcoming presentations and discussions.

I would like to thank the strong team that has supported the efforts to plan and organize this conference. These include, but are not limited to, my conference Co-Chair, DeAnna Oser, the Session Chairs, the recent past Chairs of the conferences (Ron McLeod, Tom Baldwin, Glenn England, Ray Merrill & Peter Westlin), the SES President, Bob Finken, and Antoinette Chartier, the conference coordinator. It was a pleasure to work with these fine people. A heartfelt thanks to all.

Please, participate and enjoy the conference.

David LawConference Chair, SSSAAP XXXIII

9


March 8 – 13, 2009

A History of the Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference

Over 30 Years of Vital Exchange on Emissions Measurement and Monitoring Technology, Regulations, and Policies

Background

In September of 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) proposed New Source Performance Standards for several major industrial air pollution source categories. Along with these proposed standards, the U.S. EPA proposed new test methods for sampling and analyzing emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen. The Agency proposed that source owners use these test methods to demonstrate compliance with the new proposed emissions limits. The new regulations and test methods were to form the basis for a new part 60 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations that now include regulations for over 60 source categories and over 70 emissions test methods.

Industrial technical experts representing the industries affected by these new proposals and representatives of consulting and laboratory firms determined to meet to discuss the new test methods. The purpose of the meeting was to identify and talk over problems with the new proposed methods and to develop a coordinated response to the proposal that would lead to improved and more flexible methods. The meeting occurred in late 1971(?) and representatives from U.S. EPA instrumental in preparing the proposed test methods also attended. The discussions were animated and informative and in the end resulted in informed decisions and some changes to the proposed methods before promulgation.

Another key consequence of the meeting was an agreement on the need for an ongoing interchange of ideas, findings from field and laboratory studies, and information about new technology developments. The ground rules for that first meeting included an agreement that there would be no published proceedings and that discussions between participants would remain confidential. The participants agreed that such a format was an important factor in the success of that first meeting. The attendees also agreed to meet within 18 months with a similar theme and a formal agenda that encouraged a free flow of information about emissions testing methods, field and laboratory applications, and new technologies. The conference planners established an agenda that provided both formal presentations of field and laboratory experiences and sessions set aside for ad-hoc discussions of interest to particular attendees. The stage was set for the Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants Conference that continues as most comprehensive information exchange about air pollution emissions testing methods and technologies in the US, if not the world.

Schedule and Format

The conference participants arranged with the Engineering Foundation to sponsor and administer the first conferences. Several of the first conferences were held on the West coast at the Asilomar Conference Center in California. Conference planners determined to move the conference around the country to encourage a broader attendance and to highlight particularly urgent issues. The conference location began alternating between coasts and has been held in Ohio, Georgia, Florida, and California. The conference continued on an 18-month schedule until the latter part of the 1980s. Then, attendees agreed that regulatory

10


March 8 – 13, 2009

actions and technology developments were accelerating to the point that justified more frequent conferences. The conference planners established an annual schedule with the meetings in the spring of the year (March or early April).

As noted above, the conference planners believe that the meeting format and the basic operating rules are critical to the success of the information exchange. To minimize interferences from daily business demands, the conference is held at a conference center at a location generally distanced from government or private offices and laboratories. Conference attendees stay in accommodations at the same facility and the conference fees are inclusive of administrative fees, meals, and accommodations. The conference format includes ten successive formal sessions beginning on Sunday evening and continuing with morning and evening sessions through Friday morning. The conference agenda intentionally leaves the afternoon periods free for ad-hoc discussions, recreation, and other opportunities for attendees to interact.

Typical attendees include staff and management professionals from commercial source sampling and analysis companies, industrial operations subject to air pollution emissions standards, research and equipment development organizations, and government regulatory, permitting, and enforcement offices. There are no exhibit areas and presentations focused on promoting vendor-specific products or services are discouraged. Presenters do not provide written papers, there are no written proceedings, and the conference participants are not allowed to publish any of the data or information, other than their own, presented during the conference.

Agenda

The conference agenda includes sessions that focus on implementing environmental regulations, new and developing emissions measurement technologies, field and laboratory problem-solving, data management, and data quality measures. Session chairpersons arrange to have three to five presentations by technical experts for each 3 to 3½ hour session usually focusing on a common issue or theme. Session topics include developing regulatory and method products from the EPA, worker safety, new toxic and criteria pollutant measurement technologies, field and laboratory problem solving, control technology assessment projects, data quality management, and issues faced by the state, local, and international regulatory and permitting authorities. Each presenter provides background on the issue or experience with as much data support as necessary to support the conclusion or frame the question. Each presenter allows time (about half of the time allotted per presentation) for questions and discussion with the conference participants. Session chairpersons have much latitude in arranging sessions including sequential presentations, panel discussions, small and large group engagement exercises, and equipment or procedural demonstrations.

Conference Administration

Responsibility for the planning and organization of each conference is through a conference Chair Person and Co-Chair Person, with guidance from the Conference Steering Committee. The conference Chair Person for the next conference is usually the current Co-Chair Person and has already begun selecting potential sites for the next conference. Site selection is affected by the location of the current conference (e.g., alternating coasts) and climate issues, warm weather being preferable. Traditionally, the Chair Person for the next

11


March 8 – 13, 2009

conference selects a Co-Chair prior to the current conference and begins soliciting possible session chairs. The next conference Chair Person also arranges a planning session during one of the ad-hoc periods at the conference (e.g., Thursday afternoon following the Source Evaluation Society annual meeting). All participants with an interest in planning and participating in the next conference are invited. During this planning session, the conference Chair Person collects ideas for sessions and session chairpersons and generally sets the tone for the next conference.

Much of the registration, mailing, and facilities contract work is done through a professional conference management organization. The conference is self-sustaining, meaning that the attendees provide all the resources necessary to conduct the conference through the registration fees. Attendance steadied for many years at around 80 to 100; however, since passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act and the promulgation of new regulations controlling hazardous and other air pollutants, the attendance has grown to over 200 air pollution professionals. There is no organization underwriting the conference.

The conference planners and the Source Evaluation Society (see below) decided in 2001 to seek bids for conference management support with a view towards lowering the overall costs for participants. Beginning in 2004, conference management has been provided by Hospitality Management Services, Inc.

Source Evaluation Society

In the mid-1970s, the conference participants identified a need for ongoing communications between professionals in the source emissions sampling and analysis field beyond the conference setting. The Source Evaluation Society developed out of this discussion. Members of this professional organization established a constitution that defined officer positions and functions as well as member dues. Memberships are available to individuals rather than corporations or other organizations, and are renewable each year. The SES meets during the conference to announce election results and to discuss and vote on new action items. Among the SES actions over the years are annual Manhattan College scholarship sponsorship and development and distribution of a source sampling safety manual, the only such document for this industry. The SES supports a quarterly newsletter to communicate information about recent regulatory and technical developments and provide a public forum for disseminating papers on related subjects. The SES also has a website with information about the organization, membership contact information, and other related materials. Most recently, the SES has undertaken to develop and implement Qualified Source Test Individual and Qualified Source Test Observer approval programs and, in a separate action, to undertake administrative responsibilities for the annual conference.

12


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS

ABSTRACTS Sunday, March 8 2009, 7:45 pm-10:00 pm

SESSION 1 – SAFETY BASICSCo-Chair: Mike Hartman, Air-Tech Environmental LLCCo-Chair: Scott Lehmann, Clean Air Engineering

1.1 First Hand Experience with Elevators

Thomas Leach, OG&E Electric Services

1.2 Cylinder Gas Safety or “How to Keep Your Smile”

Bob Davis, Airgas

Every year we get hundreds of cases of accidents with compressed gases. All of them are avoidable. The most common accidents for stack testers are how they store, open / close, and move cylinders so we will focus on those issues.

1.3 Safety Ring Presentation

Mike Hartman, Air-Tech Environmental LLC

1.4 Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling) Mike Denomme, LEHDER Environmental Services Ltd.

Stack sampling itself seems to challenge the most seasoned sampler on a normal day. How about when you add adverse cold weather conditions? Many samplers in both the U.S.A and Canada must perform sampling in the winter under extreme circumstances. Unless you have tested in the winter, it is difficult to comprehend all the problems you could encounter on a normal day. This presentation will describe the problems associated with cold weather sampling and some of the solutions utilized to finish a day of sampling in the Great White North.

1.5 Solutions We Can Live With

Participants will be organized into 15 tables of 10-12 people each for a table discussion and documentation of accidents/near misses. Each table then will share its findings with the entire group. The product will be solutions to the problems/accidents that were identified in SSSAAP XXXI in 2007.

1.6 Fall Protection Demonstration (Monday Lunch)

13


March 8 – 13, 2009

Bill Simpler, Miller Fall Protection

Mr. Simpler will demonstrate the need for fall protection and the new equipment that is available. This demonstration is scheduled for Monday immediately after lunch, and will last 30-60 minutes.

14


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Monday, March 9 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm

SESSION 2 – EPA METHODS, MONITORING AND POLICY Co-Chair: Peter Westlin, U.S. EPA – RTP Co-Chair: Robin Segall, U.S. EPA – RTP

2.1 Air Emissions Measurement and Monitoring 2008-2009

Barrett Parker & Robin Segall, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

In this presentation, we will provide a summary look at the latest key developments in air emissions measurement and monitoring techniques, tools, and policy from EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards. Among other topics, we plan to discuss the most recent developments on operational parametric monitoring and predictive emissions monitoring system performance specifications, the final updates to the instrumental test methods, the Electronic Reporting Tool, and status of new and revised organic emissions test methods projects. We will also provide updates on the status of mercury measurement and emissions monitoring methods, new fence-line monitoring for metals, an ASTM method for digital opacity compliance system, and a project for assessing methods for testing PM controls from outdoor wood-fired hydronic heaters.

We will also briefly discuss our initial work in identifying tools, emissions data, and monitoring approaches available for implementing a future greenhouse gas reduction program. We will identify an EPA contact person for each activity along with the discussions of the projects and latest results.

15


March 8 – 13, 2009



2.2 Development of PM Fine Wet Stack Test Method and CEMS

Dan Bivins, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Fine particles in the atmosphere are comprised of a complex mixture of components. Common constituents include: sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other trace elements) generally referred to as crustal material, although it may contain material from other sources. Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less are considered to be fine particles, and are also known as PM2.5. Primary PM2.5 emissions are those emitted directly into the air from a source as a solid or liquid particle including condensable particulate matter. Secondary particles (e.g., sulfate and nitrate compounds) are those that form in the atmosphere outside of the stack between the stack and the ambient PM2.5 receptor as a result of various chemical reactions.

Of particular concern in the measurement of direct PM2.5 is the potential for unrepresentative sampling in stack gases with high relative moisture concentrations and water droplets. To address this issue, we are developing and evaluating a method and associated instrumentation consisting of an in-stack separator followed by a dilution chamber. Partners in this work are Baldwin Environmental, Desert Research Institute, EPRI, and EPA (OAQPS and CAMD). The purpose of the project is to assess whether this separation and dilution technique will enable representative measurement of direct PM2.5 in wet stack gases (e.g., downstream of a wet scrubber). We also want to learn whether the data that this method yields correlate well to ambient monitoring data. We will describe the project to date and a summary of the data in the presentation.

2.3 Problem Board: Jim Meador

Jim Meador, Independent Stack Sampler

16


March 8 – 13, 2009



2.4 Particulate Matter Source Measurements: Post 2009 Policy and Technical Implications

Ron Myers, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

The implementation of the fine particulate (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard and measuring the effects of the rules intended to achieve the necessary emissions reductions place increased emphasis on the quality of national and states emissions inventories. At the heart of the inventory-based decisions about the regulatory programs is the quality of the data supporting those inventories. Assessing and improving emissions data quality starts with the test methods used to measure emissions and develop representative emissions factors.

Over the last two years, U.S. EPA and others have been developing improved methodologies for quantifying PM10 and PM2.5 in response to rules requiring States to reduce the concentration of particulate matter below the ambient air quality standards. This presentation will provide an overview of the benefits of the improved test method over Method 201A and 202, policy decisions affecting the source measurement of particulate matter, progress to codify the improved particulate matter test methods and potential implications associated with different air programs as implemented by Federal, State, and local agencies.

17


March 8 – 13, 2009



2.5 A New Direction for the Stationary Source Audit Program

Robin Segall, Candace Sorrell & Gary McAlister, U.S. EPA, Measurement Technology Group Quality assurance is an important part of evaluating the validity of compliance test data. One way of checking the quality of the data generated during compliance tests is to use audit samples. Audit samples are blind samples that are analyzed alongside the samples collected during the field testing to evaluate the quality of the data.

In the past, there were no private entities supplying stationary source emissions test audit samples, so EPA provided them free of charge to the regulatory agencies responsible for overseeing compliance testing (state and local agencies and EPA Regional Offices). Over the past few years with the emergence of accreditation programs, there has been an increasing need for such samples, and a number of private providers have emerged. EPA feels it is inappropriate for it to compete with private entities and, therefore, has decided to restructure the audit program to allow private accredited suppliers to provide audit samples to industries for use in compliance testing at stationary source facilities. This will not only take EPA out of ‘competition’ with private providers, but will actually increase the number, types, and concentration ranges of audit samples available.

To accomplish this shift in the stationary source audit program, EPA plans to add language to the general provisions of 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, 63, and 51 that will (1) allow accredited providers to supply stationary source audit samples and (2) require affected sources to obtain these samples from the accredited providers and use them in their compliance testing programs.

18


March 8 – 13, 2009



NOTES

19


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm

SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air GasCo-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates

3.1 Interference Checks for CEM Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20

Bob Finken, Delta Air Quality Services

EPA published revisions to Instrumental Reference Method 3A, 6C, 7E, 10, and 20 that became effective August 15, 2006. The revisions contain new interference check procedures that are more rigorous than those previously required. An examination of the requirements and an investigation of several different analyzer models’ ability to meet the requirements were performed. The results of the investigation along with some strategies for meeting the new requirements are presented.

20


March 8 – 13, 2009



3.2 The Mad Hatter Strikes Again: Observations through the Looking Glass

James Peeler & Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Inc.

Mercury, Mercury, Mercury, Mercury, Mercury repeat again…..

Lots has been done and said about mercury measurements. Lots of money has been spent on instrument development, regulations development, and policy development. At this time, there are over 500 mercury CEMs systems that were purchased for application in the Utility Industry. Many companies have mothballed their systems since the vacature of the CAMR and CAIR Rules; however, many states have taken up the cause.

One big mess with the program resides with CEM systems purchased and delivered without NIST or EPA traceable calibration gas generators. In the simplest sense, the generators produce mercury gas from the liquid using a saturated headspace device, and diluent carrier gas. Also available are compressed mercury gas standards, also having NO NIST certification. The need to have a NIST traceable calibration gas is a requirement for CEM systems in general (i.e., EPA protocol gases etc..), but the work is not complete for mercury.

Additionally, industries other than Electric Generation are being targeted for mercury regulation. Application of sampling and monitoring experience from the utility industry does not globally apply because process and effluent conditions vary greatly. Over the past 2 years, EMI has participated in many mercury measurement and development projects. This presentation will cover EMI’s participation in areas of interest to testers, industry and regulatory agencies including;

Developing traceability protocols for oxidized and elemental mercury, Periodic mercury measurement at scrubber inlet and outlet locations, Application of a Thermo Mercury CEM system at a mineral calciner, and EMI’s recommendations about resolving problems for various mercury measurement

issues.

This presentation will include also anecdotal stories about technical blunders and irreproducible results.

21


March 8 – 13, 2009



3.3 Field Experience with EPA Method 30A

Sharon Sjostrom, ADA Environmental Solutions

In 2007, ADA-ES developed a portable mercury CEM system using a ThermoFisher mercury monitor and calibrator for use as an Instrumental Reference Method (IRM) as described in Method 30A. This effort was conducted through a DOE NETL Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) at We Energies Presque Isle Power Plant. Since this time, ADA has conducted several 30A tests and supplementary efforts using the system. This paper provides a discussion of Method 30A illustrated with results from tests conducted at several sites. Procedures conducted include traversing, system integrity, dynamic spiking, and RATA measurements. Corresponding measurements from installed mercury CEMS, Ontario Hydro, and M30B will be presented where available.

22


March 8 – 13, 2009



3.4 Temperature Range for Continuous Monitoring of Unintentionally Produced POPs (PCDD/Fs, PCBs, HCB) Using Amesa ® Long Term Sampling System

Jurgen Reinmann, Environnement S.A. Deutschland

Over the past 10 years it was discovered that especially during start-up and shut-down periods of (state of the art) incinerators the dioxin emissions in the flue-gas can increase compared to normal operation up to factors of 1000 in raw gas and after bag-filters. Another study quantified that around 60 % of the yearly dioxin emissions of a plant are produced and emitted during one start-up. These findings revealed and demonstrated that dioxin and POPs emissions of incinerators cannot be reliably monitored by manual short term sampling since such spot measurements represent only 1 – 2 ‰ of the yearly operating time of the plants during normal operating conditions. Hence it is obvious that short-term measurements are not suitable for compliance measurements of the actual average PCDD/F emissions of a plant. Since continuous online monitoring of PCDD/F is not feasible for compliance measurements, the continuous sampling with e.g. AMESA (Adsorption Method for Sampling of dioxins and furans) is the method of choice for supervision of incinerators and other thermal facilities. The increasing interest can be noted also by the fact that the European CEN/TC 264 WG 1 applied in March 2008 for a project to establish a standard for long-term sampling of PCDD/F and dioxin-like PCBs (as EN 1948-5). Additionally in the assessment of Directive 2000/76 EC the long-term sampling of PCDD/Fs and PCBs was included as a proposed amendment of considerable interest.

A specific area which requires continuous monitoring of PCDD/F and other unintentionally produced POPs (U-POPs) is the destruction of POPs stockpiles (PCBs, pesticide stockpiles) and other waste streams with elevated halogen content (e.g. waste from organochlorine or organobromine industry, electronic waste etc.). POPs destruction projects will increase in the framework of the Stockholm Convention forcing the reduction and elimination of POPs in the next two decades (www.pops.int). These activities will request a strict emission monitoring. It has already been demonstrated successfully that the AMESA system has the capability to monitor all U-POPs (PCDD/F, PCBs and HCB) listed under the Stockholm Convention under standard application (XAD-2, 30 °C, 4 weeks sampling duration). In most thermal plants the ambient temperatures around the stack are above 30 °C and in some cases an active cooling would be necessary. To minimize these cooling efforts it is interesting to evaluate if also by higher sampling temperatures good sampling efficiencies can be guaranteed.

The present presentation describes results from tests with the sample cartridge temperature of up to 50 °C in a hazardous waste incineration plant during long-term sampling of 4 weeks and 2 weeks respectively. The results demonstrate that the AMESA system is capable of sampling PCBs and the full range of Stockholm Convention U-POPs with XAD-2 temperatures up to +50 °C. This is a cartridge temperature which is relatively easy to maintain by the usage of a cooled probe up to flue-gas temperatures of 200 – 250 °C.

23


March 8 – 13, 2009



3.5 Reference Method 7E NO X Converter Efficiency Test

Mike Galbraith, Western Kentucky Energy Corp.

On May 15, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued final technical amendments to the Clean Air Act rules on continuous instrumental tests methods for oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide. Reference Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20 were revised to harmonize equipment, calibration gas quality specifications, and performance criteria. Reference Method 7E – Determination of Nitrogen Oxides Emissions from Stationary Sources, has been revised and now includes the requirement of performing a NO2 to NO conversion efficiency test. While the requirement is not new to the method, it no longer is referenced to Reference Method 20 and the procedure is clearly defined.

Method 7E is a procedure for measuring nitrogen oxides (NOX) in stationary source emissions using a continuous instrumental analyzer. These instruments measure the concentration of total oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Nitric oxide (NO), when combined with ozone (O3) reacts to produce a characteristic luminescence linearly proportional to the NO concentration. Infrared light emission results when electronically excited NO2 molecules decay to lower energy states. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) must be first transformed into nitric oxide (NO) before it can be measured using the chemiluminescent reaction. NO2 is converted to NO by means of an NO2-to-NO converter. Typical construction of the converter is a molybdenum chamber heated approximately to 350 degrees Fahrenheit or a stainless steel chamber heated to 650 degrees Fahrenheit. Reference Method 7E allows two methods for the determination of NO2 to NO conversion efficiency. NO2 calibration gas of EPA traceability protocol can be used directly to determine an acceptable conversion efficiency of 90% or greater. Alternatively NO calibration gas is placed into a Tedlar bag and combined with oxygen. The Tedlar bag is attached to the inlet stream of the analyzer (or probe on dilution based systems). The monitor response is logged for 30 minutes after reaching peak concentration. Acceptable conversion efficiency criteria are a NOX concentration that does not drop more than 2% of the observed peak.

Western Kentucky Energy Corporation operates a mobile laboratory for performing 40 CFR 75 RATAs of thirteen Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) installed on coal fired boilers for electric power generation. RATAs are performed utilizing dilution technology for sample transport to the mobile laboratory. The laboratory has the capability of obtaining simultaneous measurement from two NOX analyzers. The Thermo model 42C contains a molybdenum converter ant the Thermo Model 42CLS contains a stainless steel converter. Numerous converter efficiency tests have been performed using both methods for determining converter efficiency. The two procedures for converter efficiency tests were performed back-to-back, with the simultaneous response from both monitors logged. This data will be presented. Lessons have been learned while performing the converter efficiency tests and will be discussed.

24


March 8 – 13, 2009

25


March 8 – 13, 2009





NOTES

26


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Tuesday, March 10 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm

SESSION 4 – MERCURY MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS Chair: Jim Serne, TRC Environmental

4.1 Experience with Method 30B in Certification of Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring Systems

Kevin O’Halloren, Clean Air Engineering

A little over a year ago, the stack testing industry was gearing up for the impending deluge of mercury RATA testing that would be required by utilities to meet the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR). However, on May 20, 2008 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected EPA and utility industry requests to rehear and overturn the March 14, 2008 mandate that vacated the CAMR. The EPA regulatory references to mercury monitoring contained in 40 CFR Part 75 effectively became suspended at that point, as did the federal requirements for mercury RATAs. The ultimate fate of federal mercury monitoring requirements was still pending at the time that this abstract was prepared.

Despite the uncertainty in the federal regulations, many power plants followed through in 2008 with plans to install and certify mercury CEMS. The reasons for doing so included, among others, individual state programs that were independent of federal CAMR, consent decrees that required mercury monitoring, as well as data gathering efforts to assist in ongoing pollution control engineering and design programs.

Clean Air Engineering manufactures the MET-80, an automated sorbent trap sampling system. The MET-80 was designed to meet the alternative mercury monitoring requirements originally written in Appendix K of Part 75. Over 30 of these systems are currently operating at 18 different utility facilities. These systems have all been certified (or will be certified) for relative accuracy by comparison against the sorbent trap reference method for mercury measurements originally promulgated as USEPA Method 30B in January, 2008.

This presentation describes several of the relative accuracy test audits performed on MET-80 systems. We will discuss problems and their solutions in conducting the Method 30B measurements, and list several pitfalls to avoid for a successful test program using this method. Sampling, analytical and quality assurance issues will be addressed. Data will be presented that highlights issues related specifically to certification of sorbent-based monitoring systems.

27


March 8 – 13, 2009



4.2 Using Utility Testing Method 30B in a HWC MACT Application

Mike Krall, TRC Environmental

EPA Method 30B, “Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps”, was developed to assess mercury emissions existing coal-fired power utilities. The method is a flue gas sampling method that involves passing gas through sorbent traps (usually activated charcoal media) and subsequent analysis by extractive or thermal techniques.

In late 2007, the method was applied to a liquid-fired, mixed waste (hazardous and low-level radioactive components) boiler system regulated by the Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulations to assess whether the system was complying with the mercury (Hg) emission standard in the HWC MACT rule. Adaptations were made to the method by altering the media design of the sorbent tubes to collect and speciate ionic and elemental forms of Hg in the boiler off gas while feeding an elemental Hg complex that was blended into the actual waste feed material (i.e. FAMS). Analysis was performed on-site using the thermal desorption technique to obtain immediate results and facilitate changes to the process operation in an expedited manner.

After the boiler system was retrofitted with Hg abatement equipment, an additional post-installation study was performed comparing several Method 30B tests simultaneously with EPA Method 29 (the required method for Hg by the HWC MACT regulations) testing and the results showed remarkable agreement between the two methods for total Hg emissions.

The use of the adapted Method 30B rather than Method 29 provided data results that assisted in determining:

1) What the off gas partitioning ratio was for the elemental Hg feed material through the boiler system with regard to ionic and elemental Hg in the presence of low concentration halogens (specifically chlorine);

2) The effect that halogens in the waste feed have that affect the Hg partitioning based on comparative data previously generated from the same boiler system;

3) The efficiency of a multi-component air pollution control system (APCS) to remove ionic and elemental Hg emissions; and

4) What the best technology was for the boiler system to efficiently remove elemental Hg in the off gas based on additional testing after abatement technology installation.

The side-by-side comparisons of the two methods and the agreeable results should give regulators some thought concerning the use of EPA Method 30B as an approved, alternate method for Hg measurements in complying with the HWC MACT standard.

28


March 8 – 13, 2009



4.3 Speciated Hg Measurements: Available Techniques and Associated Measurement Considerations

Jeff Ryan, US EPA Office of Research and Development

The measurement of elemental mercury (Hg0) and oxidized mercury (Hg+2) to characterize combustion process emissions is of interest for multiple reasons, including source emission characterization/inventory and process characterization/emission control. The absolute and relative concentration of the oxidized form is typically of primary interest. Several techniques are available for performing speciated Hg measurements, including the Ontario-Hydro (OH) train, speciating Hg CEMS, and speciating sorbent traps. The adaptation of Method 30B for use with speciating sorbent traps is a current EPA ORD research interest. Reliable, speciated Hg measurements are difficult to obtain and are often complicated by the measurement environment, particularly at measurement locations upstream of particulate matter (PM) control devices. Temperature, particulate matter (PM), acid gases, and sampling/measurement system materials and reagents can all impact measurement quality.

This presentation will briefly describe factors that impact speciated Hg measurement quality. The major focus of the presentation will be on currently available speciating Hg measurement techniques, associated measurement considerations, and resulting measurement quality. This will include data from field testing of speciating sorbent traps using the Method 30B approach and other concurrent, speciated Hg measurements.

29


March 8 – 13, 2009



4.4 Real Field Test Experience Measuring Total and Elemental Mercury Emissions Using a Portable CEM per Method 30A

Philip J. Dufresne, Ohio Lumex Company

The marketplace has been lacking a mercury instrument that can be used to certify permanent mercury CEMs per method 30A or evaluate mercury control technologies in real-time and be portable enough to facilitate easy installation at random points. The Ohio Lumex IRM-915 portable mini-CEM uses a unique Zeeman-corrected AA detector that allows for a simple compact instrument that consists of 2-90 pound components. This allows relatively easy installation at the stack to certify the measurements of permanent CEMs or to evaluate the performance of mercury control technologies.

Based on experiences gained from real field tests, installation, operation, and maintenance tips for various applications will be discussed for this unique RATA-certified analyzer. Raw data from field tests will also be presented.

30


March 8 – 13, 2009



4.5 The EPA, EPRI and Utility Industry Cooperative Hg Calibrator Traceability Study

Richard McRanie, RMB Consulting & Research, Inc.

For the past few years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the electric utility industry have conducted cooperative research and field studies on various aspects of Mercury (Hg) continuous monitoring systems (Hg CEMS). The studies have included field applications of Hg CEMS, problem resolution, reference method development and application and NIST traceability of Hg elemental and oxidized Hg calibration gas generators. The last issue is the subject of this presentation.

It became clear in the very early stages of the Hg CEMS field testing that compressed gas cylinder calibration gases would not be a viable option for Hg CEMS. The calibration gas usage is very high due to the Hg CEMS sampling probe design and the cost of the gas is also very high.

Each Hg CEMS is equipped with a dedicated vapor pressure, head space calibrator. These calibrators are designed to provide multiple levels of elemental Hg calibration gas at flow rates consistent with the associated sampling probe design. Although the Part 75 Hg rule required NIST traceable calibrators, EPA was late in preparing the traceability protocol and most calibrators were shipped to utilities without NIST traceability. When the interim traceability protocol was finally released, it was immediately obvious that implementation was, at best, impractical and, at worse, impossible. The details will be discussed in the presentation.

Given that the interim protocol could not be implemented, EPA suggested a joint project to develop traceability protocols that could be implemented in the field without removing the installed calibrators from service. Another objective of the project is to develop QA/QC protocols for the calibrators so that they can be checked periodically to ensure that the output concentration has not appreciably changed since being made traceable. This project was built around a combination of field tests and laboratory tests. The techniques being used are exactly those used by NIST to transfer traceability to vendor calibrators. The results of the field tests for traceability protocol and QA/QC procedure development will be discussed in the presentation.



31


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 4 – MERCURY MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS Chair: Jim Serne, TRC Environmental NOTES

32


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm

SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATIONCo-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental

5.1 SES Update: Performance on the SES QSTI/QSTO Exams – A Progress Update and Summary of Findings

Peter Westlin, Chair, QSTI/QSTO Review Panel

For about 5 years, the Source Evaluation Society (SES) has offered a process for source testers to demonstrate knowledge and abilities commensurate with qualified source testing individuals and observers (QSTI/QSTO). During that time, the SES has approved the applications of numerous QSTI/QSTOs who have passed a written examination and provided documentation demonstrating a high level of skills, experience, and abilities in one or more of four test methods groups. The questions on exams cover areas from basic principles to relatively detailed and complex technical points.

More recently, the SES QSTI/QSTO review panel has also provided an exam review service in response to candidates who wish to appeal scores on one or more exam. Not surprisingly, given the program's relatively early and evolutionary stage, the audits have revealed a few questions in the exam pool with confusing structure, mistakes, or muddled answers. As a result, the panel has made great efforts to cull poor questions from the exam pool and populate the pool with more and better questions. The exercise has improved the program and we expect that effort and direction to continue.

The review panel is also mindful of the informal comments collected from people who have taken one or more of the QSTI/QSTO exams. The comments range from "tough but fair" to "too many of the questions have little to do with real field testing knowledge." To check whether these assertions were fact or myth or somewhere in between, we reviewed the types of questions most often missed and tried to characterize tendencies. The purpose of this presentation is to review those findings, discuss steps SES is taking to improve the program, and solicit input on possible actions for the future.

33


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION Co-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental

5.2 STAC Update

Scott Evans, Clean Air Engineering

This presentation will focus on what has been happening on the Source Test Accreditation Council (STAC) front since the last SES meeting. Topics covered will include:

1) The temporary "stay" of the Part 75 rules -- how long it will last, and what, if any, changes will occur

2) STAC Field Assessment Procedures -- how will field assessments be conducted, by whom, and how much will it cost

3) Activities of other accreditation bodies (such as NELAC and TNI) and how they impact STAC and STAC members

4) The Texas problem and what can be done about it

5) What "self certification" means under the Part 75 rules

6) Future STAC plans

Please bring your questions for a lively discussion.

34


March 8 – 13, 2009



5.3 Professional Accreditation from a State Perspective

Bob Mann, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

The accreditation of individuals and firms is not an uncommon activity. In many cases professionals ranging from lawyers and doctors to beauticians and plumbers must take and pass an examination for skills, and thereafter be continually licensed in a state to practice their profession in that state. In other cases, a firm must register, be bonded, and obtain some type of credentials to do business in a state.

The stack test community has been subject to pressure to accredit their profession and practices. EPA has desired to see some means of accrediting the work practices to ensure that standardized requirements and expectations are in place for the practice of stack testing. Several states including California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida, Georgia and Texas have considered or started programs to ensure that environmental data used to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements and to make regulatory decisions is collected, generated, or supplied by firms with specified credentials. Others with or without federal mandate may follow suit. Unfortunately, like lawyers, a firm or individual can be subject to the differing requirements and fees of individual states to work in each.

The SES has worked for several years to come up with a means to increase the awareness of industry that the trained professional as well as bottom line cost should be dual considerations in contractual/business decisions involving the conduct of stack sampling. And currently much emphasis is being given to the review and critique of ASTM D7036-04. This presentation will look at the current state of affairs, how different states are proceeding to establish programs, and whether we have come up with an optimum approach to encourage one accreditation effort at reasonable cost to meet multiple needs.

Unfortunately, as it is for lawyers and doctors, states are not all on the same page when in comes to accreditation of testing bodies or test individuals, how to reprimand them, how to guarantee that they provide quality services, or how to set the fee structure. So should it be as simple or as big an issue to license Cosmetologists, Electricians, Court Interpreters, Property Tax Consultants, or Stack Emissions Measurement Individuals?

Note: Texas and other states have not provided an approval of the information or position presented. The material included represents a feeling and/or belief of individuals who have positions of employment with state agencies. Although those individuals and agencies may or may not have guidance and direction from the federal government, they must depend on state agency interpretation of state statutes from their respective state legislatures for their guidance and direction. For many of the states it will take new legislative action to proceed with an accreditation program, to implement an approach or to change the current direction. The ability to provide guidance and input to those legislators in making recommendations is of utmost importance to provide continuity of approach and reciprocal recognition of

35


March 8 – 13, 2009

programs from other states. Unfortunately, that job rests with others because most state employees are forbidden to make recommendations to or lobby before their legislators.

36


March 8 – 13, 2009



5.4 PANEL DISCUSSION: Testing Body Accreditation and Qualification of Testers and Observers

A panel of experts closely involved as developers, subjects, and/or end users of stack testing body accreditation and source tester/observer qualification requirements will give their perspectives on the issues and future direction, and field questions from the audience. Please write your questions, they will be collected during the session and presented to the panelists. The panelists will be:

David Curtis, Source Testing Association. Mr. Curtis has served as Director and Chief Examiner of The Source Testing Association (www.s-t-a.org), a non-profit making technical trade association which was established in 1995 and has a corporate membership of over 200 companies from process operators, regulators, equipment suppliers and test laboratories. He also has been involved in the development of STA source tester competency examinations and numerous MCERTS, CEN and ISO standards for emission testing and monitoring.

Scott Evans, Clean Air Engineering. In addition to his role at CAE, Mr. Evans led the development of ASTM D7036, the consensus standard for performance of air emission testing bodies that was developed by stakeholders from testing bodies, source owners and regulatory authorities. He is a founder and Chair of the Source Testing Accreditation Council (www.betterdata.org).

John Schakenbach, U.S. EPA – Clean Air Markets Division. Mr. Schakenbach has been an Environmental Scientist in EPA’s Acid Rain Program for 22 years. He works principally on source emission monitoring. He has been a lead advocate of EPA’s efforts to incorporate requirements for qualified source testers into the Acid Rain Program testing rules to improve data quality. Prior to EPA, John worked at the District of Columbia Department of Environmental Services, and at an environmental consulting company. He holds a B.S. in Meteorology from The Pennsylvania State University.

Bob Mann, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Mr. Mann has worked 12 years for the State of Texas as an air permit engineer, emissions evaluator, technical expert for air measurement methods/support, manager overseeing air and water related programs, and currently Team Lead of group of permit writers in Chemical Section of Air Permits. He currently serves on the SES Board of Directors and was the first state employee to receive QSTI approval. He holds a B.S. degree in chemistry from University of Texas at Austin.

Peter Westlin, US EPA. At EPA, Mr. Westlin has been involved with the development and implementation of countless air emission test methods and federal rule requirements for source testing and monitoring. He also is a founding member of the Source Evaluation Society serving as Treasurer, conference chair, speaker and steering committee member, and currently Qualification Committee Chair. He has been instrumental in the development and implementation of the SES examination and QSTI approval programs.

37

http://www.s-t-a.org/


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION Co-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental NOTES

38


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30am – 12:00 pm

SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens CorningCo-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC

6.1 Update on Manual Method for Sampling and Analysis of Fine and Condensable Particulate

Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group, Inc.Ron Myers, U.S. EPA

On April 25, 2007 (70 FR 20586), EPA promulgated the rules regarding the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the development of State and Tribal plans to implement the 1997 fine particle NAAQS and to ensure that the areas will attain these standards no later than 2015. The promulgated rule to implement the fine particle NAAQS required the measurement of both the filterable and condensable fractions of particulate emissions that are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller (PM2.5) from stationary sources. To quantify the condensable particulate matter (CPM) fraction of fine particle emissions, EPA, States, and emission sources rely on EPA Method 202, Determination of Condensable Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, which was promulgated in 1991 and published in Appendix M of 40 CFR part 51.

Method 202 produces artifacts when sampling emissions sources with sulfur dioxide (SO2). The artifact that forms in the Method 202 impingers translates into a bias in the inorganic CPM emissions. In some compliance test reports, SO2 related material was shown to be the major source of reportable CPM. In November 2005, a “dry impinger” modification to Method 202 resulted in a significant reduction in the sulfate artifact was presented by a private testing contractor.

Beginning in 2006, EPA and Environment Canada (EC) completed exploratory laboratory bench chemistry tests and simulated stack gas train experiments to evaluate Method 202. EPRI also sponsored evaluation of OTM-28 dry impinger train bias recovering SO3/H2SO4

spiked into synthetic stack gas mixtures. This presentation summarizes efforts to evaluate and improve fine and condensable particulate measurement for stationary sources of air pollution. Results of the EC, ERG, and EPRI-sponsored experiments will be presented and discussed.

39


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm


6.2 Field Experience with the PM10 and PM2.5 (Other Test Method 027) and the Dry Impinger Condensable PM (Other Test Method 028)

Jim Serne, TRC Environmental Corporation

Field tests using the Other Test Method 027 and Other Test Method 028 to measure PM10 and PM2.5 in conjunction with the Dry Impinger Condensable Particulate Matter (CPM) test method will be described. This presentation will include a discussion of PM10 / PM2.5 / Dry Impinger Method tests conducted at aluminum melting furnaces and rolling mills. The batch nature and high temperatures encountered at melting furnaces present significant challenges to the successful use of these methods. Comments and recommendations to EPA, as well as users of these methods, will be made during the presentation. Other stack testers with field experience with these methods will have an opportunity to share their experience and thoughts during the Q & A time.

6.3 Back to Basics: How to Ship Samples

Ron McLeod, ALS Environmental

Mr. McLeod will discuss issues and problems associated with the shipment of test samples between the field and laboratory.

40


March 8 – 13, 2009



6.4 Intercomparison of Field Collected PM Using Gravimetric and Chemical Characterization from Four Side-By-Side Stack Sampling Methods

By Technikon LLCPresented by: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental, Inc.

Kevin Crosby, The Avogadro Group LLC

An extensive side-by-side comparison test of four different PM (particulate matter) sampling methods from a metal foundry stack was undertaken. Eight (8) replicate samples were taken during metal casting pouring, cooling, and shakeout processes for the making of gray iron gears. The PM methods employed included U.S. EPA OTM-027/Method 202, U.S. EPA OTM-027/OTM-028, and two dilution samplers: U.S. EPA CTM-039 and the fine particulate dilution sampling system from Baldwin Environmental Inc. and Desert Research Institute that is based on a proposed ASTM guideline for sampling PM from stacks using dilution tunnel techniques. In addition to these methods, DRUM (Davis Rotating-drum Universal-size-cut Monitoring) samplers from the University of California, Davis were used for collection of six (6) PM size fractions from both the stack during the casting processes and from ambient air in the foundry. Gaseous emissions of CO2, CO, CH4, SO2, and total and speciated hydrocarbons, including organic HAPs, were also measured using EPA, OSHA and NIOSH Methods.

Analysis of collected filterable and condensable PM included gravimetry, EC/OC, and ion chromatography. In addition, laser desorption time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LD-TOFMS) was conducted for organic characterization by particle size. Results provided a direct comparison of two dilution tunnel methods and two PM sampling methods for condensable particulate. This the first time a four way side-by-side field comparison of PM stack sampling test methods and PM characterization from those methods has been undertaken.

41


March 8 – 13, 2009



6.5 Performance of Method 201 for Filterable PM2.5

Chris House, Environment Canada

The Air Quality Research Division’s Emissions Research and Measurement Section of Environment Canada (EC) initiated a program to review the performance of key components of Method 201, mainly to determine filterable PM2.5 emissions from stationary sources. The sample train consisted of a PM2.5 cyclone head, a heated probe, an out-of-stack heated filter, and a standard moisture collection system. The first phase of the program focused on dry source applications, and consisted of the following components:

1. Method detection limit by laboratory spiking and recovery2. Fine particulate migration in the train during laboratory runs3. Method precision by co-siting runs and field recovery4. Isokinetic vs. non-isokinetic co-siting field runs5. Traversing vs. single point field runs

The field tests were performed at a cement kiln stack at an ideal sampling location. PM levels generally ranged from 30 to 50 mg/DSm3. Filterable PM2.5 represented approximately 38% of the PM loading. Laboratory tests consisted of 7 repeat runs. Field tests consisted of 9 to 12 repeat paired runs. PM2.5 stratification was explored by combining a dilution sampler with a Grimm optical particle counter.

Preliminary analyses from the cement kiln show consistent PM2.5 co-siting results (2.1% average difference between trains, 4.5% RSD), negligible sensitivity to non-isokinetic sampling, and insignificant PM2.5 stratification. Final results will be presented at the SES conference.

42


March 8 – 13, 2009



6.6 Particle Size Distributions in Method 5 Stack Samples Determined by Microscopical Methods

Tim Vander Wood, MVA Scientific Consultants

The traditional method for determining the particle size distribution in stack emissions is gravimetric analyses of material collected on cascade impactors. But new sources have particulate loadings so low that sampling times of many hours (or days) are required to collect enough particulate for gravimetric techniques.

Collection of Method 5 samples on appropriate filters followed by microscopical analysis of the collected material offers an alternative method of particle size distribution measurement, with sampling times of only minutes to hours required. Particle sizes down to 0.1µm diameter can be measured, and the particle size distribution reported in customizable cutoffs. In addition to mass fraction, number fraction of particles and estimates of particle surface area fraction can be determined for each size category.

43


March 8 – 13, 2009



NOTES

44


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm

SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES/REMOTE SENSINGChair: Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group

7.1 Measurement of Long Term Benzene Emissions from Chemical Industry Sites Using Open Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Ram Hashmonay & Robert Kagann, ARCADISGilad Shpitzer, A.S. Research

Open path Fourier transform infra-red (OP-FTIR) systems are traditionally considered as not sufficiently sensitive for the aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzene. Minimum detection limits (MDLs) for 1-minute integration time and several hundred meters path length are ranging from 20 ppb to about 60 ppb. These sensitivities may not be sufficient for most fenceline monitoring applications as only occasionally event of benzene will be detected and an average benzene concentration for a longer term cannot be calculated accurately. Selective spectral averaging method to retrieve longer time interval average benzene concentration is described. Using the proposed time averaging method is shown to improve the benzene MDLs by about an order of magnitude when reducing temporal resolution from 1 minute to 1 hour. This allowed an accurate and long term representative detection of benzene in many applications. Examples of deployment in a Vertical Radial Plume Mapping (VRPM) configuration to calculate accurate long term benzene emission rates at industrial sites are described. The results of these pilot studies are discussed in context of long term benzene and other air toxics fugitive emission monitoring at refineries and other chemical industrial sites.

45


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE SENSING Chair: Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group

7.2 Application of Optical Remote Sensing for Upstream Oil & Gas Production – Produced Water Treatment Facilities

Jason M. DeWees, US EPA, Measurement Technology Group

EPA Region 8 and, in particular, the state of Colorado and Wyoming is home to numerous active upstream oil and gas operations. In recent years, Colorado and Wyoming have seen ozone levels that exceed national ambient air quality standards with levels increasing at several sites. It is thought that emissions from these upstream oil and gas operations are contributing in part to this deteriorating air quality. With the continued increase in upstream oil and gas operations in the state and the new lowered ozone standards, more exceedences are expected. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) are of such primary concern to the states. States and Region 8 are regularly receiving inquiries from both the public and the press. In addition, the organic emissions from upstream oil and gas operations include a significant proportion of methane which is a potent greenhouse and thus these sources will again be a key concern when EPA moves to greenhouse gas emissions quantification, reporting and control.

The first phase of this effort conducted in the summer of 2008 addressed the immediate need of Region 8 and states to quantify VOC emissions from oil and gas produced water treatment facilities. EPA conducted testing at a produced water treatment facility and an produced water evaporation pit. The testing was conducted using OTM-10 in a four corner configuration using open path scanning FTIRs during a two week campaign. Summa canisters were also deployed and analyzed with TO-14a and TO-15.

This presentation will briefly discuss the upstream oil and gas production sector, a brief overview of OTM-10 and open path instruments, and testing of the produced water facilities.

46


March 8 – 13, 2009



7.3 Recent Progress in Quantitative Spectroscopy Using Millimeter Wavelengths Grant Plummer, Enthalpy Analytical Inc.

Spectroscopic techniques using radiation in the microwave and millimeterwave spectral regions have long been employed to accurately determine molecular structures and perform astronomical observations. Until recently, the radiation sources and detectors required at wavelengths near and shorter than one millimeter (that is, near and above the 300 GHz frequency range) were large and unwieldy, or required the use of high voltage, large magnets, or cryogens. Growing markets for broad-band communication systems, high-resolution radar, and bulk imaging devices continue to drive the technology toward higher frequencies and more practical hardware packages. Progress made over the past decade has now allowed the construction and demonstration of a small (rack-mount size) millimeterwave instrument capable of fast, sensitive, and quantitatively accurate gas phase measurements. Three characteristics of millimeterwave spectroscopy which make it of particular interest in stack testing applications are its 1) virtual lack of spectral interferences from water and carbon dioxide, 2) high degree of molecular specificity, and 3) small sample size requirements. This presentation will describe the basic spectroscopic techniques and hardware, draw comparisons to more familiar methods such as FTIR spectroscopy, and discuss potential applications.

47


March 8 – 13, 2009



7.4 New SO 3 Test Method and Spiking Apparatus: Finally, Data We Can Believe In, Right?

Caleb Wiza, Clean Air Engineering

A revised and refined test method for SO3 measurement utilizing the Controlled Condensation technique has been developed. Though still a work in progress, this method incorporates various new quality assurance procedures never adequately utilized in a widely applied SO3 measurement technique. Of most concern is the new requirement for a dynamic spike delivering a known amount of SO3 to the sampling system and monitoring the success of the sample collection based on the spike recovery.

This paper outlines the new apparatus designed and implemented to comply with these new requirements. It discusses the design and approach needed to achieve the SO3 dynamic spike requirements and offers a base setup to not only generate the SO3 on a consistent and controlled basis, but deliver it to the system to enhance data quality and better understand the actual concentration in the flue gas.

The paper will outline the important facts about the method while focusing on the apparatus itself and how it applies to the method. Finally, data will be presented from laboratory-based tests conducted during the development of the spiking apparatus and also from a series of field evaluation studies performed utilizing the new apparatus and quality assurance procedures.

48


March 8 – 13, 2009



NOTES

49


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Thursday , March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm

SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICSCo-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases IncCo-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental

8.1 ThermoFisher Scientific SO 3 Monitoring Update

Dr. Dieter Kita, ThermoFisher Scientific

Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) and its chemical “cousin” H2SO4 are of increasing concern in fossil fuel plant emissions. Both SO3 and H2SO4 are the major components causing “Blue Plume” under certain stack conditions, and are also potentially large contributors to degradation and corrosion of pollution control equipment.

This presentation will focus on describing different detection methods for SO3/H2SO4, the challenges in obtaining a representative measurable sample, and discuss issues with the generation of suitable calibration standards. ThermoFisher Scientific will present laboratory and field data in support of the above objectives.

50


March 8 – 13, 2009



8.2 A Modified EPA Method 308 Sampling Train for Assessing Destruction and Removal Efficiency (DRE)

William Anderson, Test America

A Modified EPA Method 308 sampling train has been used to evaluate destruction andremoval efficiency (DRE) of allyl alcohol when fed to a bench scale vitrification unit.The train was configured to trap allyl alcohol in midget impingers charged with 0.2 Nsodium hydroxide. The basic charge in the impingers appear to increase the captureefficiency of the solution for allyl alcohol. Sampling and analytical procedures includeperformance based data quality objectives to enable the evaluation of the data set fortrends and data quality issues. Analysis was performed using SW-846 Method 8015(GC/FID). A pre-column and salt trap was installed at the head of the GC column whichaccommodates large sample injection volumes to be applied directly to the instrumentwithout impinger sample pretreatment or dilution.

Results indicate that the method provides an efficient technique for the evaluation of allylalcohol in stack gas that is rich in NOx and halogen acids. The lower level ofquantification is approximately 1.0 micrograms in an individual impinger solution, with amethod detection limit of 0.36 micrograms. Allyl alcohol spikes were placed in the firstimpinger prior to sampling to observe recoveries as indications of analyte stability in thismatrix. For stack gas sample volumes of between 20 and 30 liters, allyl alcohol appearsresilient to chemical reaction, and volatile movement. Analytical data for stack gasvolumes greater than 30 liters indicate significant chemical reaction and/or travel in theallyl alcohol spikes, and some diminished recovery. Sampling volumes are comparableto VOST method of stack gas assessments.

Some additional method applications will be proposed including recommendations for this sampling method as a viable means of sample collection in EPA Method 18.



51


March 8 – 13, 2009



8.4 Wet Stack Fine Particulate CEMS Development

Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental Inc.

There is increasing concern in health and environmental circles about particulate material in the atmosphere, especially very fine particles. Larger particles are filtered by our respiratory tract but fine particles bypass our natural filters and carry allergens and disease causing chemicals to the lungs. There are a significant number of articles in the technical literature on this topic. Chakrabarti et al. (2004) in a paper on small particle measurement gives a good set of background references on the health effects of fine particles; Watson and Chow, 2002 Critical Review—Visibility: Science and Regulation, JAWMA, June 2002, Volume 52, discussing visibility and source emissions impact.

In 1997 the U.S. EPA established air quality standards for PM2.5 based on evidence from numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures to elevated levels of PM2.5. Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.

Fine particles in the atmosphere are comprised of a complex mixture of components. Common constituents include: sulfate (SO4); nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust, sea salt, and other trace elements) generally referred to as “crustal'' material, although it may contain material from other sources. Airborne particles generally less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter are considered to be ”fine particles'' (also referred to as PM2.5. “Primary'' particles are emitted directly into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental carbon from diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles from gasoline engines). “Secondary'' particles (e.g., sulfate and nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical reactions.

The recently promulgated Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, April 25, 2007, requires the States to address PM2.5 in their SIP plans beginning with the 2008 SIP. The 1997 CAA ambient regulation established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652).\1\ The annual standard is set at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, as determined by the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. The 24-hour standard is set at a level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter, as determined by the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) to add new standards for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator. This implementation rule and guidance does not address PM10.

The above summary points out EPA’s urgency to obtain a suitable fine PM method which the States can use to develop their PM source inventory, and will satisfy the following needs:

52

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/1997/July/Day-18/a18577a.htm


March 8 – 13, 2009

1. Be applicable for both wet and dry stack sampling.

2. Properly account for fine PM condensable.

3. Provide source emission data comparable to ambient reference methods for fine

particulate.

4. Sample water droplets, at the correct diameter, in wet stacks; which yield

equivalent PM2.5 dry particulate.

5. Packaged in a compact form which can be used both as a source continuous

emissions monitor, and a traversing stack reference method.

Proposed deadlines for the installation and certification of a fine PM CEMS is January, 2011.

This paper will address progress to date, as continuation of last year’s presentation, applying a dilution sampling methodology, combined with a wet droplet sample transport system for the measurement of PM fine (PM2.5).

53


March 8 – 13, 2009



8.5 EPA Method 25A – Problems and Solutions David Word, NCASI EPA Method 25A is the most commonly used ‘total VOC’ measurement method. The method is rugged, easy to use, and provides ‘real time’ continuous information. However, the method provides significantly low-biased measurements for two commonly sampled matrices: (1) high moisture gas streams and (2) gas streams composed of mixed organic compounds, especially if both oxygenated and non-oxygenated organic compounds are present. NCASI has evaluated these issues and tested a solution. The results will be provided in this presentation.

Gas streams with moisture contents in the range of 5 to 50% have been tested. Negative bias has been demonstrated at levels up to 20%. Higher bias values can be expected if the VOC analyzer has periodic “flame outs.” NCASI has also evaluated common alcohols, organic acids, and aldehydes for response bias. Response factors for some of these compounds have been developed. A summary of results from these field and laboratory evaluations will be provided.

NCASI has developed and laboratory tested a Modified Method 25A sampling system designed to overcome bias due to moisture and low responding compounds. This system and experimental results obtained from the system will be discussed.

54


March 8 – 13, 2009



8.6 Type B Uncertainty Estimation and Sensibility Analysis for Isokinetic Sampling

Pablo Maiz, Gamatek

ISO 17025 accreditation has pushed testing firms to estimate and report their best approximates for uncertainty in emission testing. There are several guidelines and publications that provide procedures for estimating these uncertainties. Most documents refer to Type A (statistical analysis of series of observations) and/or Type B estimations (other than statistical analysis; usually error propagation). The Type B approach, while difficult to complete in many cases, may provide users an estimate of uncertainty similar to a Type A, and may serve ISO 17025’s requirement as well as end-user expectations, but can add other advantages that Type A estimations cannot (at least at low cost). Type B advantages over Type A may be summarized in: (a) allowing users to perform sensibility analysis on the different uncertainty sources; (b) the need of experimental repetitions is lower; (c) calculations may be programmed for routine estimations; (d) mathematical models may be improved or customized for different equipment and applications, and; (e) it allows laboratory estimations to be standardized among them, but still dependent on equipment characteristics, reference materials, standards and laboratory practices.

Type B Uncertainty estimations consist of a 5 step procedure: (1) measurand specification; (2) identification of uncertainty sources; (3) quantification of uncertainty for each source; (4) propagation of error into a combined uncertainty estimate, and; (5) reporting uncertainty. Of all steps, the identification of uncertainty sources (step 2) is by the most challenging and critical. Questions arising in this step include: how does the ± 10% isokinetic criteria affects a PM result?; how does the 0,5 mg for constant weight criteria affects a PM result?; how critical is the sensibility of the barometer?; and so on.

This presentation deals mostly with M5 testing, but can be adapted for similar methods.

55


March 8 – 13, 2009



NOTES

56


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Thursday , March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm

SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVEChair: Dave Curtis, STA

9.1 Better Regulation and the Impact on Manual Stack Test Emission Monitoring Rupert Standring, National Monitoring Service

The Environment Agency for England and Wales aims to provide a more effective, efficient service through better regulation. Part of our role is to ensure that European Directives, such as the Waste Incineration and Large Combustion Plant Directives are effectively implemented in England and Wales.

The presentation will give an overview of how these European Directives relate to the monitoring of industrial stack gas emissions. It will also explain how the Environment Agency implements these Directives through our Environmental Permitting Regulations and Monitoring Certification Schemes (MCERTS).

In summary, MCERTS provides the framework for businesses to meet our quality requirements for monitoring industrial releases. Compliance with MCERTS provides confidence in the monitoring of emissions to the environment. There are a number of MCERTS schemes covering different areas of monitoring.

The presentation will focus on MCERTS for Manual Stack Emission Monitoring. This scheme is based on the accreditation of test laboratories and the certification of stack emission monitoring personnel. Over the seven years the scheme has been running over thirty test laboratories have gained MCERTS accreditation and over 500 people have gained MCERTS certification. A review of the lessons learnt over the past seven years, along with developments planned for the next few years will be discussed.

57


March 8 – 13, 2009



9.2 FTIR – A New Standard for Periodic Monitoring Rod Robinson, NPL

Accreditation for emissions monitoring by extractive FTIR must currently be sought against either ASTM D 6348-03 or USEPA 320. Aimed at the U.S. market these standards are written so that instrument testing is part of the measurement procedure. However, within the E.U. there exist instrument certification schemes, namely, MCERTS in the UK and the UBA scheme in Germany harmonized under a European standard EN 15267-3:2007. Consequently, for instrumentation certified under these schemes only a small set of annual performance tests are needed, making much of the procedure in the U.S. standards unnecessary. We report the key concepts behind a manuscript being drafted by NPL under contract from the UK’s Environment Agency that ultimately will be proposed as a new standard for emissions monitoring by extractive FTIR tailored to the European market. We also discuss recent testing aimed at validating the use of FTIR in the UK for use as a standard reference method.

58


March 8 – 13, 2009



9.3 Application of Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry in Measuring Mercury from Crematoria Peter Stockwell, PS Analytical Ltd.

There has been considerable concern about the fate of mercury in the environment for many years. The use of atomic fluorescence measurements was first reported by Thompson and Reynolds in 1971. Since that time several authors have described enhancements that reduced the formal instrumental detection limits for the technique to the 0-10ng/litre range. Knox et al. have reported detection level less than 1ng/litre. Since 2001 European and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) standard methods have been established.

However the major problem with these standards is not so much the measurement method but the ability to obtain a representative sample from the source of the mercury. The major sources of pollution are from coal fired utilities and from natural gas production facilities. P S Analytical has worked closely with legislators and systems providers to provide complete analytical solutions for such facilities. In the later facilities, the provision of accurate measurements of the mercury level are of considerable commercial significance as the presence of mercury can damage the plant and cause lengthy shut downs. Care in the removal of the mercury and its accurate determination can avoid these issues. Mercury legislation in the coal fired industry has been the subject of much debate over the past few years.

Recently attention has been focused on the emissions from crematoria, where the main source of mercury is derived from dental fillings. Legislation will shortly be in place to limit the emissions from these sources and the cremator manufacturers have focused attention on the development of effective mercury abatement technology.

P S Analytical has worked with suppliers of these abatement systems firstly to assess their effectiveness. Once this has been established then the atomic fluorescence measurements can be integrated to provide some levels of feedback control to optimize the process as well as fulfill the legislative requirements.

59


March 8 – 13, 2009



9.4 Modular Instrumental Reference Mercury Measurement System Dr. Domenico Cipriano, CESI ItalyDr. Nenad Sarunac, Imbt Labs, PA

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) includes provisions related to use of mercury (Hg) continuous emission monitoring systems (Hg CEMs) to measure Hg emissions from coal-fired electric utility steam generating units.

Among these are the Hg monitoring additions to 40 CFR Part 75 and a new Appendix B Performance Specification for 40 CFR Part 60 – “Specifications and Test Procedures for Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in Stationary Sources” (PS-12A). Both of these provisions require a CEM certification process that includes a Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) using an approved EPA reference method (RM).

The goal of proposed project is develop hardware for a performance-based instrumental reference method that would be consistent with the NOx and SOx instrumental methods, would be modular, portable and affordable, and allow Hg RATA testing to be performed in two days or less.

Recognizing the fact that EPA is currently working on several conceptual IRM configurations that are based on the existing technologies, authors propose a complementary but different approach: the existing technology, developed in the U.S. and EU, are combined and modified to provide a modular, flexible and affordable IRM system that would meet EPA and industry objectives concerning RATA testing and Hg CMM certification, and could also be configured for other uses, such as: traversing, field testing and certification of a Hg analyzer using the wet chemistry Reference Method.

Preliminary results from a field test are shown in the works.

60


March 8 – 13, 2009



NOTES

61


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS Friday, March 13 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm

SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOPCo-Chair: Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical Inc. Co-Chair: Peter Westlin, U.S. EPA RTP

10.1 M18 Issues and Rewrites

Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical Inc.

EPA Method 18 was revised in 1994 and then reformatted in 2000. However, even with these two updates, much is left undefined or difficult to interpret in EPA Method 18. Efforts are underway to revise the method again to clarify the procedures and expected Quality Assurance. An update of the status and discussion of the relevant issues that needed addressed will be presented.

A discussion will be included on how/whether to tie Method 18 testing to the EPA guidance on implementing the Performance Approach to stack testing.

62


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOPCo-Chair: Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical Inc. Co-Chair: Peter Westlin, US EPA RTP

10.2 Stationary Source Audit Sample Update

Shawn Kassner, TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc. Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group

The EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) administers a Stationary Source Audit Program (SSAP), which provides free audit samples to state and local agencies for tests to demonstrate compliance with emission limits. Over the past few years, there has been an increasing need for such samples, and a number of private providers have emerged. EPA feels it is inappropriate for it to compete with private entities; therefore, in December 2007, the OAR and The NELAC Institute (TNI) initiated discussions to establish what role TNI might have in transitioning the SSAP administration to the private sector. Towards this goal, TNI has developed a consensus Working Draft Standard (WDS) to establish the specifications for a new privatized SSAP. EPA is expected to withdraw from supplying audit samples no later than October 2009; therefore, TNI is working in an expedited mode to provide for the transition to the new SSAP under the WDS.

The WDS is based on EPA requirements, and provides for the continuation of the SSAP by addressing the manufacture of audit samples, oversight of audit sample providers, frequency of audit sample testing, management of audit sample results, and establishment of acceptance criteria. In this presentation, TNI will describe the components of the WDS, outline the process by which it was created, and provide a response to stakeholder questions and comments.

63


March 8 – 13, 2009


SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOPCo-Chair: Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical Inc. Co-Chair: Peter Westlin, US EPA RTP

10.3 SW 846 New Edition

Lara Autry & Peter Westlin

1 0.5 Problem Board : Jim Meador


64


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS BACK TO BASICS/PROBLEM BOARD

SESSION 11 – BACK TO BASICS / PROBLEM BOARDChair: Jim Meador

Problem Board will be available in with the poster sessions.

11.1 How to Ship Samples

Ron McLeod, ALS Environmental

11.2 Measuring Climate Change Gases

Peter Westlin, US EPA

11.3 Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling) Mike Denomme, LEHDER Environmental Services Ltd.

Stack sampling itself seems to challenge the most seasoned sampler on a normal day. How about when you add adverse cold weather conditions? Many samplers in both the U.S.A and Canada must perform sampling in the winter under extreme circumstances. Unless you have tested in the winter, it is difficult to comprehend all the problems you could encounter on a normal day. This presentation will describe the problems associated with cold weather sampling and some of the solutions utilized to finish a day of sampling in the Great White North.

65


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS

SESSION 12: POSTER SESSIONCo-Chair: Scott Swiggard, Golden Specialty Consulting, Inc.Co-Chair: Bob Mann, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Poster authors will be available by their posters at different times as shown below.

Monday March 9, 5:00-6:00 pm and 10:00-11:00 pm

12.1 Mercury Speciation Using Sorbent Traps and Thermal Analysis

Philip J. Dufresne, Ohio Lumex Company

The use of sorbent traps has become a leading technique for the measurement of total mercury in emission sources. Sorbent traps can also be used for the speciation of mercury in these emissions and coupled with thermal analysis of the sorbents, the technique is quick, easy, and inexpensive compared to traditional speciation methods.

This presentation will discuss the theory of this valuable analytical tool as well as techniques for sampling and analysis (including on-site analysis) gained from extensive research and fieldwork by the leader in this field. Applications and real world test data will be presented.

66


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS

SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSIONCo-Chair: Scott Swiggard, Golden Specialty Consulting, Inc.Co-Chair: Bob Mann, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality



12.2 EPA Methods 3A, 4, 7E and 10 by FTIR

Martin L. Spartz, Ph.D. & John Lake, MKS Instruments, Inc.

FTIR stack emissions monitoring has been expanding for the last 15 – 20 years. In Europe, TUV has certified a number of FTIR systems for CEM usage on trash to power incinerators. These FTIR based analyzer systems are continuously monitoring for NOx, N2O, NH3, SOx, CO, CO2, HF, HCl and H2O. With recent changes to US EPA Emissions Measurement Center Methods 3A, 4, 7E and 10, stack testers in the United States are starting to utilize their FTIR systems for these compliance methods as well as other traditional applications such as low level formaldehyde testing from fiberglass production and stationary turbine engines.

The presentation will cover two topic areas. First, the discussion will cover data that should be collected and the calculations necessary to demonstrate compliance with the aforementioned methods. Second, graphical designs on how to deploy the FTIR to make compliance with the EPA methods easier and more efficient. Data from a representative compliance test will also be presented.

67


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS




12.3 Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO 2 CEMS in Coal Fired Units

Jorge Marson, Environment Canada

The uncertainty associated with various indirect determinations of stack gas moisture (Bws) and stack gas CO2 level in coal fuelled utility boilers was assessed taking in consideration typical operating conditions and the performance specifications of continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

The conclusions regarding stack gas moisture determinations are the following:

a) the use of a single fuel-specific moisture value may become a major contributor to the uncertainty of the CEMS mass measurements, given the seasonal and load related variation range of this parameter (approximately 6% Bws);

b) The EPA sanctioned indirect determination of Bws by O2dry – O2wet monitoring is too sensitive to measurement error, particularly at low excess air conditions typical of full load. The O2 accuracy specification is inconsistent with the expected moisture monitor performance; and

c) an alternate indirect determination of Bws based on O2wet monitoring is likely to meet the ±1.5% Bws specification year round.

The conclusions regarding indirect determination of CO2 wet basis are the following:

a) the EPA sanctioned CO2 determination by O2w measurement and F factor calculations is robust with respect to O2 measurement error and coal rank variation;

b) a variance of this approach that requires ambient moisture (Baw) monitoring is equally robust and may be simpler to implement on units not fitted with wet scrubbers.

68


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS



Tuesday March 10, 10:00-11:00 pm and Wednesday March 11, 10:00-10:30 am

12.4 SO 3 Monitoring: Where Are We Today?

Bob Davis, Airgas

With the increase of SCR’s and SNCR’s there has been a large increase in SO3 into the atmosphere. In some cases Utilities, and others emitting SO3 on such a large scale have created situations where major penalties have been levied, and other civil matters. These issues will be discussed in my paper.

I will discuss the latest technology to reduce SO3, discuss some of the technology which is now being used to measure SO3 on a continuous basis. I will also discuss some of the problems which currently face SO3 CEM technology that need to be determined before it can progress for a process monitor.

69


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS




12.5 Field Demonstration of a CTM-039 for Stationary Gas-Fired Power Plants

Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.; Craig Matis, GE Energy; Kevin Crosby, The Avogadro Group; Gary Rubenstein, Sierra Research

Primary particulate matter emitted from stationary combustion sources is comprised of filterable particulate matter (FPM) and condensable particulate matter (CPM). CPM is traditionally measured using hot filter/iced impinger methods such as EPA Methods 5/201a and 202. CPM measured by such methods are subject to potential positive bias due to: (1) conversion of gases in the sample which are not condensable particulate matter as defined in regulations (such as SO2, NH3, NO2, some VOCs) into residues that are measured as CPM as a result of the conversion, and (2) excessive condensation of organic and inorganic vapors compared to that which occurs as the stack gas mixes with the atmosphere. Although some methods attempt to address some of this bias, no impinger-based methods are bias-free. In addition, methods for measuring FPM typically lack sufficient sensitivity to accurately measure true FPM levels in stack gas from natural gas combustion.

Over the last several years, dilution methods have been proposed as a means of overcoming the limitations of hot filter/wet impinger methods for measurement of low concentration FPM and CPM emissions from stationary sources. Recent PM2.5 measurements on gas-fired sources comparing the dilution and hot filter/iced impinger methods indicate that the dilution method provides more accurate quantification of FPM and much lower results overall. An evaluation of U.S. EPA’s CTM-039 dilution method for determining PM emissions from gas-fired combined cycle plants was conducted in May 2008. This evaluation was intended to assess the suitability of using CTM-039 to measure primary particulate matter from stationary combustion sources for purposes of regulatory compliance with PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits. A joint public-private working group was established, including representatives of federal, state and local agencies, to oversee the technical aspects of the evaluation program. The CTM-039 and traditional test method results obtained during the demonstration program were compared to determine if dilution-based measurement systems are a viable alternative for field testing of PM2.5 and PM10 from gas-fired turbines. This poster will present the test approach and issues with results and data interpretation.

70


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS




12.6 A Practical Approach to Mass-Basis VOC Measurement

Steven A. Szambaris, QSTI, Archer Daniels Midland Co.

VOC mass emissions are determined from the results of Method 25A tests, VOC survey analyses, and Method 25A response factors. The results obtained have been accepted for compliance determinations by Illinois, Iowa and U.S. EPA Region V. This approach is simpler and less expensive than Methods 18 and 320, and avoids the problem of non-compliant results generated by summing multiple compound 'non-detects' at their detection limits.

71


March 8 – 13, 2009

ABSTRACTS POSTERS




12.7 Determination of Combustion Products by FTIR Optical Remote Sensing

Steven V. Plowman & Peter G. Zemek (MIDAC Corp.), Andre Kuznetsov (Underwriters Laboratories)

A number of unique characteristics endow optical remote sensing techniques with a huge potential range of applications. The technique requires no sampling apparatus and reports concentrations in near real time. The only requirement is to have a hot emissions source. In most applications concerning combustion products, this criterion is met by the nature of the research. Firefighters have used FTIR optical remote sensing during building fires, researchers use the method in the analysis of simulated fires, and groups as diverse as volcanologists and process control engineers have found utility in the technique.

This paper reports on a method, data and analysis performed by MIDAC Corporation applications scientists and researchers from Underwriters Laboratories. The data was generated using a MIDAC open path FTIR without a telescope. Polystyrene material, in cardboard boxes and stored on a series of wooden pallets was burned in a controlled indoor experiment. Sprinkler systems were used to maintain a controlled temperature. The OP-FTIR was aimed at the seat of the fire, and good quality data was obtained. This raw data was processed to provide absorbance spectra and these were analyzed for target combustion products.

Among the combustion products, a simple analytical method detected and quantified styrene, ethylene and other hydrocarbons, together with carbon monoxide.

72


March 8 – 13, 2009

TABLE OF ACRONYMS (Sound Like a Guru)

AAQ AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

AP-42 U.S. EPA COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS

ASTM AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS

BACT BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

CAIR CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE

CAM COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING

CAMR CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE

CARB CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

CCM CONTROLLED CONDENSATION METHOD

CEM CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITOR

CEN COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION (EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION)

CFR CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

CMM CONTINUOUS MERCURY MONITOR

CMMS CONTINUOUS MERCURY MONITORING SYSTEM

CPM CONDENSABLE PARTICULATE MATTER

CTM CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD

CVAFS COLD VAPOR ATOMIC FLUORESCENCE SPECTROSCOPY

DOCS DIGITAL OPTICAL COMPLIANCE SYSTEM

DOD DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

DOM DIGITAL OPTICAL METHOD

DSm3 DRY STANDARD CUBIC METER

EC ELEMENTAL CARBON; ALSO ENVIRONMENT CANADA

EF EMISSION FACTOR

EMC EMISSION MEASUREMENT CENTER

EPA-OAQPS U.S. EPA – OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS

EPA-ORD U.S. EPA – OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

ERT ELECTRONIC REPORTING TOOL

ETV ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION

EUAC ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE

FIA FLAME IONIZATION ANALYZER

FID FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR

FTIR FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED (SPECTROSCOPY)

GHG GREENHOUSE GAS

GS GREENBURG-SMITH IMPINGER

HAP HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT

HCB HEXACHLOROBENZENE

Hg MERCURY

HPLC HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY

HPV HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATION

HRPM HORIZONTAL RADIAL PLUME MAPPING

HWC HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTOR

IPCC EMISSION FACTORS

IR INFRARED

IRM INSTRUMENTAL REFERENCE METHOD

ISO INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION

LAER LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE

73


March 8 – 13, 2009

LDAR LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR

LD-TOFMS LASER DESORPTION TIME OF FLIGHT MASS SPECTROMETRY

LIDAR LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING

MACT MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

MDL MINIMUM DETECTION LIMIT

NAAQS NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

NIOSH NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

NIST NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

OC ORGANIC CARBON

OP-FTIR OPEN PATH FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED

ORS OPTICAL REMOTE SENSING

OSHA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

OTM OTHER TEST METHOD

PCB POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL

PCDD/F POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO DIOXINS AND FURANS

PEMS PREDICTIVE EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM

PI-DIAL DIFFERENTIAL ABSORPTION LIDAR

PM PARTICULATE MATTER

PM2.5 PARTICULATE MATTER WITH AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER 2.5 ΜM

PMCEMS PARTICULATE MATTER CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM

PMfine PM2.5

PMcoarse PARTICULATE MATTER WITH AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER BETWEEN 10 AND 2.5 ΜM

POP PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT

PRE PRELIMINARY TEST METHOD

QSTI QUALIFIED SOURCE TEST INDIVIDUALS

RACT REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

RTP RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK

SAB SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD

SBIR SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH

SCAQMD SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

SIP STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SRM STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL

STAC STACK TESTING ACCREDITATION COUNCIL

TAB TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BOARD

TCEQ TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

TDLAS TUNABLE DIODE LASER ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY

TTN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NETWORK

U-POP UNINTENTIONALLY PRODUCED PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT

UV-DOAS ULTRAVIOLET – DIFFERENTIAL OPTICAL ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY

VOC VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND

VRPM VERTICAL RADIAL PLUME MAPPING

WTE WASTE TO ENERGY

XRF X-RAY FLUORESCENCE

74

Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants … at a Glance 2009.doc · Web...

Documents

Transcript of Stationary Source Sampling and Analysis for Air Pollutants … at a Glance 2009.doc · Web...