STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
AGENDA AT A GLANCE
Date & Time
Sunday
March 8
7:00-8:15
Monday
March 9
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Tuesday
March 10
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
8:30-12:00
(Breaks 10:00-10:30 in Foyer)
2. EPA Methods, Monitoring &
Policy
Co-Chairs: Westlin & Segall
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
09:00 - Spouses Meeting
Oleander
4. Mercury Monitoring &
Measurements
Chair: Serne
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
12:00-13:30
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
17:00-18:00
Welcome
Reception
Grand Lagoon Deck
18:00-19:15
Dinner
Possibly Outside on
Grand Lagoon
Deck or
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Ad Hoc Sessions
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
Taste of New
Orleans Event
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Ad Hoc Sessions
QSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)
Volleyball Tournament
Alligator Point Beach
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
Possibly Outside on
Grand Lagoon
Deck or
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
5. Accreditation &
Qualification
Co-Chairs: England &
Burdette
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
7. Innovative
Technologies/Remote
Sensing
Chair: Merrill
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Hall of Fame Roast
(22:00-23:15)
Conference Awards
Banquet
(18:00-19:30)
9. International
Perspective
Chair: Curtis
(19:45-22:15)
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Golf Tourney (12:00-17:00)
Wednesday
March 11
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
6. Particulate/Condensable
Matter
Co-Chairs: Owens & Gray
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
12. Poster Session (Break)
Co-Chairs: Swiggard & Mann
Lunch
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
SES BOD Mtg
(12:00-13:30)
Oleander
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Thursday
March 12
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
8. Air Toxics
Co-Chairs: Mandel & Baldwin
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
Friday
March 13
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
10. Methods Workshop
Co-Chairs: Eckard & Westlin
Lunch
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Technical Presentations
CONFERENCE WRAP-UP
Chair: Law
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Source Evaluation Society Activities
22:00-23:00
13:30-17:00
Registration
St. Andrews Foyer
Safety
Demonstration
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
19:30-22:00
(Breaks 20:40-21:00 in
Foyer)
CONFERENCE
OPENING
Conference Chair: Law
Co-Chair: Oser
1. Safety Basics
Co-Chairs: Hartman &
Lehmann
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
3. Instrumental Methods
Co-Chairs: Davis & Hefley
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Ad Hoc Sessions
EPA/State Mtg (16:30-18:00)
Grand Lagoon Ballroom AB
QSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)
Conference Steering
Committee (13:30-14:30)
Oleander
STAC BOD Meeting
(15:00-16:30) Palmetto
Ad Hoc Sessions
SES Annual Members Mtg
(13:30-15:00)
2010 Conference Planning *
(15:00-16:00)
Special Events
Beer Tasting Event
Grand Lagoon
Ballroom
Social Hour
Photo Contest
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
St. Andrews
Ballroom I-III
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 XXXIII
AGENDA AT A GLANCE (Extra Copy)
Date & Time
Sunday
March 8
7:00-8:15
Monday
March 9
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Tuesday
March 10
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
8:30-12:00
(Breaks 10:00-10:30 in Foyer)
2. EPA Methods, Monitoring &
Policy
Co-Chairs: Westlin & Segall
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
09:00 - Spouses Meeting
Oleander
4. Mercury Monitoring &
Measurements
Chair: Serne
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
12:00-13:30
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
17:00-18:00
Welcome
Reception
Grand Lagoon Deck
18:00-19:15
Dinner
Possibly Outside on
Grand Lagoon
Deck or
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Ad Hoc Sessions
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
Taste of New
Orleans Event
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Ad Hoc Sessions
QSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)
Volleyball Tournament
Alligator Point Beach
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
Possibly Outside on
Grand Lagoon
Deck or
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
5. Accreditation &
Qualification
Co-Chairs: England &
Burdette
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Dinner
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
7. Innovative
Technologies/Remote
Sensing
Chair: Merrill
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Hall of Fame Roast
(22:00-23:15)
Conference Awards
Banquet
(18:00-19:30)
9. International
Perspective
Chair: Curtis
(19:45-22:15)
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Golf Tourney (12:00-17:00)
Wednesday
March 11
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
6. Particulate/Condensable
Matter
Co-Chairs: Owens & Gray
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
12. Poster Session (Break)
Co-Chairs: Swiggard & Mann
Lunch
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
SES BOD Mtg
(12:00-13:30)
Oleander
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Thursday
March 12
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
8. Air Toxics
Co-Chairs: Mandel & Baldwin
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
Friday
March 13
Breakfast
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
10. Methods Workshop
Co-Chairs: Eckard & Westlin
Lunch
St. Andrews
Ballroom V-VI
Technical Presentations
CONFERENCE WRAP-UP
Chair: Law
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Source Evaluation Society Activities
22:00-23:00
13:30-17:00
Registration
St. Andrews Foyer
Safety
Demonstration
Lunch
Grand Lagoon
Deck
19:30-22:00
(Breaks 20:40-21:00 in
Foyer)
CONFERENCE
OPENING
Conference Chair: Law
Co-Chair: Oser
1. Safety Basics
Co-Chairs: Hartman &
Lehmann
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
3. Instrumental Methods
Co-Chairs: Davis & Hefley
St. Andrews Ballroom I-III
Ad Hoc Sessions
EPA/State Mtg (16:30-18:00)
Grand Lagoon Ballroom AB
QSTI Exams (13:00-18:00)
Conference Steering
Committee (13:30-14:30)
Oleander
STAC BOD Meeting
(15:00-16:30) Palmetto
Ad Hoc Sessions
SES Annual Members Mtg
(13:30-15:00)
2010 Conference Planning *
(15:00-16:00)
Special Events
Beer Tasting Event
Grand Lagoon
Ballroom
Social Hour
Photo Contest
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
Social Hour
12. Poster Session
Co-Chairs: Swiggard
& Mann
St. Andrews
Ballroom IV
St. Andrews
Ballroom I-III
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 PROGRAM
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND
ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, FL
March 8 – 13, 2009
Sunday Evening, March 8, 2009
5:00 pm– 6:00 pm Welcome Reception
6:00 pm– 7:30 pm Dinner
CONFERENCE OPENING
7:30 pm – 7:45pm
1.0 SAFETY BASICS
7:45 pm - 10:00pm
Co-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, 2009
7:00 am - 8:15 am Breakfast
2.0 EPA METHODS, MONITORING & POLICY
8:30am - 12:00pm
Co-Chair: Peter Westlin (US EPA – RTP)
Co-Chair: Robin Segall (US EPA – RTP)
1. Air Emissions Measurement and Monitoring 20082009 – 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, 2009
5:00 pm–6:00 pm Social Hour & POSTER SESSION
6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner
3.0 INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
7:30pm – 10:00pm
Co-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, 2009
7:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast
4.0 MERCURY MONITORING AND
MEASUREMENTS
8:30am - 12:00pm
Chair: Jim Serne (TRC Environmental)
Wednesday Morning, March 11, 2009
7:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast
6.0 PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
8:30am - 12:00pm
Co-Chair: Roy Owens (Owens Corning)
Co-Chair: Walter Gray (MACTEC)
1. Experience with Method 30B in Certification of
Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring Systems – Kevin
O’Halloren (Clean Air Engineering)
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. 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)
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 (10:00am – 10:30am)
Break & POSTER SESSION (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, 2009
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Social Hour
6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner
5.0 ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION
7:30pm – 10:00pm
Co-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
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, 2009
5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Social Hour
6:00 – 7:15 pm Dinner
7.0 INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE
SENSING
7:30pm – 10:00pm
Chair: 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 FAME
INDUCTION CEREMONY (after last paper)
4
Thursday Morning, March 12, 2009
7:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast
8.0 AIR TOXICS
8:30am - 12:00pm
Co-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)
Friday Morning, March 13, 2009
7:00 am – 8:15 am Breakfast
10.0 METHODS WORKSHOP
8:30am - 12:00pm
Co-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)
Break (10:00am – 10:30am)
3. SW 846 New Edition – Laura Autry & Peter
Westlin
4. Wet Stack Fine Particulate CEMS Development – Tom
Baldwin (Baldwin Environmental)
4. Problem Board(optional):
(Independent Stack Sampler)
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, 2009
5:00 pm– 6:00 pm Social Hour
6:00 – 7:30 pm CONFERENCE AWARDS
CEREMONY
9.0 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
7:45pm – 10:00pm
Chair: Dave Curtis (STA)
Jim
Meador
Conference wrap-up: 2009 Chair, David Law (Air
Testing Services Inc)
12:00 pm– 1:30 pm Luncheon
12.0 POSTER SESSION
Co-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)
1. Better Regulation and the Impact on Manual Stack
Test Emission Monitoring – Rupert Standring (National
Monitoring Service)
3. Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO2 CEMS in
Coal Fired Units – Jorge Marson (Environment
Canada)
2. FTIR – A New Standard for Periodic Monitoring –
Rod Robinson (NPL)
Tue 10:00-11:00pm & Wed 10:00-10:30am
4. SO3 Monitoring: Where are We Today? – Bob
Davis (Airgas)
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
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 XXXIII
Bay 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 ............................................................................................................ 13
1.1
First Hand Experience with Elevators .................................................................................. 13
1.2
Cylinder Gas Safety or “How to Keep Your Smile” .............................................................. 13
1.3
Safety Ring Presentation ..................................................................................................... 13
1.4
Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling) .................... 13
1.5
Solutions We Can Live With ................................................................................................. 13
1.6
Fall Protection Demonstration (Monday Lunch) ................................................................... 14
Session 2 – EPA METHODS, MONITORING AND POLICY ............................................................. 15
2.1
Air Emissions Measurement and Monitoring 2008-2009 ..................................................... 15
2.2
Development of PM Fine Wet Stack Test Method and CEMS ............................................ 16
2.3
Problem Board: Jim Meador ............................................................................................... 16
2.4
Particulate Matter Source Measurements: Post 2009 Policy and Technical Implications ... 17
2.5
A New Direction for the Stationary Source Audit Program .................................................. 18
Session 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS ......................................................................................... 20
3.1
Interference Checks for CEM Methods 3A, 6C, 7E, 10 and 20 ........................................... 20
3.2
The Mad Hatter Strikes Again: Observations through the Looking Glass ........................... 21
3.3
Field Experience with EPA Method 30A .............................................................................. 22
3.4
Temperature Range for Continuous Monitoring of Unintentionally Produced POPs
(PCDD/Fs, PCBs, HCB) Using Amesa® Long Term Sampling System ............................... 23
3.5
Reference Method 7E NOX Converter Efficiency Test ......................................................... 24
Session 4 – MERCURY MONITORING AND MEASUREMENTS ..................................................... 27
4.1
Experience with Method 30B in Certification of Sorbent Trap Mercury Monitoring Systems27
4.2
Using Utility Testing Method 30B in a HWC MACT Application .......................................... 28
4.3
Speciated Hg Measurements: Available Techniques and Associated Measurement
Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.4
Real Field Test Experience Measuring Total and Elemental Mercury Emissions Using a
Portable CEM per Method 30A ............................................................................................ 30
4.5
The EPA, EPRI and Utility Industry Cooperative Hg Calibrator Traceability Study ............. 31
4.6
Problem Board: Jim Meador ............................................................................................... 31
Session 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION ..................................................................... 33
5.1
SES Update: Performance on the SES QSTI/QSTO Exams – A Progress Update and
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................... 33
5.2
STAC Update ....................................................................................................................... 34
5.3
Professional Accreditation from a State Perspective ........................................................... 35
6
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
5.4
PANEL DISCUSSION: Testing Body Accreditation and Qualification of Testers and
Observers ............................................................................................................................. 37
Session 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER .................................................................. 39
6.1
Update on Manual Method for Sampling and Analysis of Fine and Condensable Particulate
.............................................................................................................................................. 39
6.2
Field Experience with the PM10 and PM2.5 (Other Test Method 027) and the Dry Impinger
Condensable PM (Other Test Method 028) ......................................................................... 40
6.3
Back to Basics: How to Ship Samples ................................................................................ 40
6.4
Intercomparison of Field Collected PM Using Gravimetric and Chemical Characterization
from Four Side-By-Side Stack Sampling Methods ............................................................... 41
6.5
Performance of Method 201 for Filterable PM2.5 ................................................................ 42
6.6
Particle Size Distributions in Method 5 Stack Samples Determined by Microscopical
Methods ................................................................................................................................ 43
Session 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES/REMOTE SENSING ................................................... 45
7.1
Measurement of Long Term Benzene Emissions from Chemical Industry Sites Using Open
Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy .................................................................... 45
7.2
Application of Optical Remote Sensing for Upstream Oil & Gas Production – Produced
Water Treatment Facilities ................................................................................................... 46
7.3
Recent Progress in Quantitative Spectroscopy Using Millimeter Wavelengths ................... 47
7.4
New SO3 Test Method and Spiking Apparatus: Finally, Data We Can Believe In, Right? ... 48
Session 8 – AIR TOXICS .................................................................................................................... 50
8.1
ThermoFisher Scientific SO3 Monitoring Update ................................................................. 50
8.2
A Modified EPA Method 308 Sampling Train for Assessing Destruction and Removal
Efficiency (DRE) ................................................................................................................... 51
8.3
Problem Board: Jim Meador ............................................................................................... 51
8.4
Wet Stack Fine Particulate CEMS Development ................................................................. 52
8.5
EPA Method 25A – Problems and Solutions ....................................................................... 54
8.6
Type B Uncertainty Estimation and Sensibility Analysis for Isokinetic Sampling ................ 55
Session 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ................................................................................. 57
9.1
Better Regulation and the Impact on Manual Stack Test Emission Monitoring ................... 57
9.2
FTIR – A New Standard for Periodic Monitoring .................................................................. 58
9.3
Application of Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry in Measuring Mercury from Crematoria 59
9.4
Modular Instrumental Reference Mercury Measurement System ....................................... 60
Session 10 – METHODS WORKSHOP .............................................................................................. 62
10.1 M18 Issues and Rewrites ..................................................................................................... 62
10.2 Stationary Source Audit Sample Update ............................................................................. 63
10.3 SW 846 New Edition ............................................................................................................ 64
10.5 Problem Board: Jim Meador ............................................................................................... 64
Session 11 – BACK TO BASICS / PROBLEM BOARD .................................................................... 65
11.1 How to Ship Samples ........................................................................................................... 65
11.2 Measuring Climate Change Gases ...................................................................................... 65
11.3 Sampling in the North (A Canadian Perspective on Cold Weather Sampling) .................... 65
Session 12: POSTER SESSION ........................................................................................................ 66
12.1 Mercury Speciation Using Sorbent Traps and Thermal Analysis ........................................ 66
12.2 EPA Methods 3A, 4, 7E and 10 by FTIR.............................................................................. 67
12.3 Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO2 CEMS in Coal Fired Units ........................................ 68
12.4 SO3 Monitoring: Where Are We Today? .............................................................................. 69
7
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
12.5
12.6
12.7
Field Demonstration of a CTM-039 for Stationary Gas-Fired Power Plants ........................ 70
A Practical Approach to Mass-Basis VOC Measurement .................................................... 71
Determination of Combustion Products by FTIR Optical Remote Sensing ......................... 72
TABLE OF ACRONYMS (SOUND LIKE A GURU) ................................................. 73
ATTENDEE LISTING ..................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
(PAGES 1 TO 18) .......................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
Pages 1 to 18
8
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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 Law
Conference Chair, SSSAAP XXXIII
9
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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 1810
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
month schedule until the latter part of the 1980s. Then, attendees agreed that regulatory
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
11
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
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
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
ABSTRACTS
Sunday, March 8 2009, 7:45 pm-10:00 pm
SESSION 1 – SAFETY BASICS
Co-Chair: Mike Hartman, Air-Tech Environmental LLC
Co-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.
13
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
1.6
Fall Protection Demonstration (Monday Lunch)
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
2.2
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
2.4
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
2.5
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
NOTES
19
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
3.5
Reference Method 7E NOX 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
24
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
data will be presented. Lessons have been learned while performing the converter efficiency
tests and will be discussed.
25
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
ABSTRACTS
Monday, March 9 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 3 – INSTRUMENTAL METHODS
Co-Chair: Bob Davis, Air Gas
Co-Chair: Bill Hefley, Air Sampling Associates
NOTES
26
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
4.2
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 postinstallation 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
4.3
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
4.4
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 realtime 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
4.5
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.
4.6
Problem Board: Jim Meador
Jim Meador, Independent Stack Sampler
31
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
NOTES
32
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION
Co-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.
Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION
Co-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.
Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Tuesday, March 10 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 5 – ACCREDITATION AND QUALIFICATION
Co-Chair: Glenn England, ENVIRON International Corp.
Co-Chair: Jeff Burdette, TRC Environmental
NOTES
38
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC
6.4
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
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Method detection limit by laboratory spiking and recovery
Fine particulate migration in the train during laboratory runs
Method precision by co-siting runs and field recovery
Isokinetic vs. non-isokinetic co-siting field runs
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 6 – PARTICULATE/CONDENSABLE MATTER
Co-Chair: Roy Owens, Owens Corning
Co-Chair: Walter Gray, MACTEC
NOTES
44
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES/REMOTE SENSING
Chair: 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, ARCADIS
Gilad 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE SENSING
Chair: Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group
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, highresolution 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE SENSING
Chair: Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group
7.4
New SO3 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Wednesday, March 11 2009, 7:30 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 7 – INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES / REMOTE SENSING
Chair: Ray Merrill, Eastern Research Group
NOTES
49
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
8.1
ThermoFisher Scientific SO3 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
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 and
removal 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 N
sodium hydroxide. The basic charge in the impingers appear to increase the capture
efficiency of the solution for allyl alcohol. Sampling and analytical procedures include
performance based data quality objectives to enable the evaluation of the data set for
trends 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 which
accommodates large sample injection volumes to be applied directly to the instrument
without impinger sample pretreatment or dilution.
Results indicate that the method provides an efficient technique for the evaluation of allyl
alcohol in stack gas that is rich in NOx and halogen acids. The lower level of
quantification is approximately 1.0 micrograms in an individual impinger solution, with a
method detection limit of 0.36 micrograms. Allyl alcohol spikes were placed in the first
impinger prior to sampling to observe recoveries as indications of analyte stability in this
matrix. For stack gas sample volumes of between 20 and 30 liters, allyl alcohol appears
resilient to chemical reaction, and volatile movement. Analytical data for stack gas
volumes greater than 30 liters indicate significant chemical reaction and/or travel in the
allyl alcohol spikes, and some diminished recovery. Sampling volumes are comparable
to 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.
8.3
Problem Board: Jim Meador
Jim Meador, Independent Stack Sampler
51
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 8:30 – 12:00 pm
SESSION 8 – AIR TOXICS
Co-Chair: Steve Mandel, Spectra Gases Inc
Co-Chair: Tom Baldwin, Baldwin Environmental
NOTES
56
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Chair: 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Chair: Dave Curtis, STA
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Chair: Dave Curtis, STA
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Chair: Dave Curtis, STA
9.4
Modular Instrumental Reference Mercury Measurement System
Dr. Domenico Cipriano, CESI Italy
Dr. 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Thursday, March 12 2009, 7:45 pm – 10:00 pm
SESSION 9 – INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Chair: Dave Curtis, STA
NOTES
61
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Friday, March 13 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOP
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Friday, March 13 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOP
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
Friday, March 13 2009, 8:30 am – 12:00 pm
SESSION 10 – METHODS WORKSHOP
Co-Chair: Steve Eckard, Enthalpy Analytical Inc.
Co-Chair: Peter Westlin, US EPA RTP
10.3
SW 846 New Edition
Lara Autry & Peter Westlin
10.5
Problem Board: Jim Meador
Jim Meador, Independent Stack Sampler
64
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
BACK TO BASICS/PROBLEM BOARD
SESSION 11 – BACK TO BASICS / PROBLEM BOARD
Chair: 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12: POSTER SESSION
Co-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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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
12.2
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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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
12.3
Error Sensitivity of Moisture and CO2 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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.
Tuesday March 10, 10:00-11:00 pm and Wednesday March 11, 10:00-10:30 am
12.4
SO3 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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.
Tuesday March 10, 10:00-11:00 pm and Wednesday March 11, 10:00-10:30 am
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 biasfree. 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 gasfired 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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.
Tuesday March 10, 10:00-11:00 pm and Wednesday March 11, 10:00-10:30 am
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 noncompliant results generated by summing multiple compound 'non-detects' at their detection
limits.
71
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
ABSTRACTS
POSTERS
SESSION 12 – POSTER SESSION
Co-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.
Tuesday March 10, 10:00-11:00 pm and Wednesday March 11, 10:00-11:00 am
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 OPFTIR 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
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
TABLE OF ACRONYMS (Sound Like a Guru)
AAQ
AP-42
ASTM
BACT
CAIR
CAM
CAMR
CARB
CCM
CEM
CEN
CFR
CMM
CMMS
CPM
CTM
CVAFS
DOCS
DOD
DOM
DSm3
EC
EF
EMC
EPA-OAQPS
EPA-ORD
ERT
ETV
EUAC
FIA
FID
FTIR
GHG
GS
HAP
HCB
Hg
HPLC
HPV
HRPM
HWC
IPCC
IR
IRM
ISO
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
U.S. EPA COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING
CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CONTROLLED CONDENSATION METHOD
CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITOR
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION (EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR
STANDARDIZATION)
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
CONTINUOUS MERCURY MONITOR
CONTINUOUS MERCURY MONITORING SYSTEM
CONDENSABLE PARTICULATE MATTER
CONDITIONAL TEST METHOD
COLD VAPOR ATOMIC FLUORESCENCE SPECTROSCOPY
DIGITAL OPTICAL COMPLIANCE SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DIGITAL OPTICAL METHOD
DRY STANDARD CUBIC METER
ELEMENTAL CARBON; ALSO ENVIRONMENT CANADA
EMISSION FACTOR
EMISSION MEASUREMENT CENTER
U.S. EPA – OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
U.S. EPA – OFFICE OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ELECTRONIC REPORTING TOOL
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE
FLAME IONIZATION ANALYZER
FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR
FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED (SPECTROSCOPY)
GREENHOUSE GAS
GREENBURG-SMITH IMPINGER
HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANT
HEXACHLOROBENZENE
MERCURY
HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY
HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATION
HORIZONTAL RADIAL PLUME MAPPING
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTOR
EMISSION FACTORS
INFRARED
INSTRUMENTAL REFERENCE METHOD
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDIZATION
73
STATIONARY SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR AIR POLLUTANTS XXXIII
Bay Point Marriot Golf Resort, Panama City Beach, Florida
March 8 – 13, 2009
LAER
LDAR
LD-TOFMS
LIDAR
MACT
MDL
NAAQS
NIOSH
NIST
OC
OP-FTIR
ORS
OSHA
OTM
PCB
PCDD/F
PEMS
PI-DIAL
PM
PM2.5
PMCEMS
PMfine
PMcoarse
POP
PRE
QSTI
RACT
RTP
SAB
SBIR
SCAQMD
SIP
SRM
STAC
TAB
TCEQ
TDLAS
TTN
U-POP
UV-DOAS
VOC
VRPM
WTE
XRF
LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE
LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
LASER DESORPTION TIME OF FLIGHT MASS SPECTROMETRY
LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING
MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
MINIMUM DETECTION LIMIT
NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
ORGANIC CARBON
OPEN PATH FOURIER TRANSFORM INFRARED
OPTICAL REMOTE SENSING
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
OTHER TEST METHOD
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL
POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO DIOXINS AND FURANS
PREDICTIVE EMISSIONS MONITORING SYSTEM
DIFFERENTIAL ABSORPTION LIDAR
PARTICULATE MATTER
PARTICULATE MATTER WITH AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER  2.5 µM
PARTICULATE MATTER CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING SYSTEM
PM2.5
PARTICULATE MATTER WITH AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER BETWEEN 10 AND
2.5 µM
PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT
PRELIMINARY TEST METHOD
QUALIFIED SOURCE TEST INDIVIDUALS
REASONABLY ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATIVE RESEARCH
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
STANDARD REFERENCE MATERIAL
STACK TESTING ACCREDITATION COUNCIL
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BOARD
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
TUNABLE DIODE LASER ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER NETWORK
UNINTENTIONALLY PRODUCED PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANT
ULTRAVIOLET – DIFFERENTIAL OPTICAL ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
VERTICAL RADIAL PLUME MAPPING
WASTE TO ENERGY
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE
74