Continuous Emission Monitoring. James A. Jahnke
Читать онлайн книгу.EPA (2020a). Code of Federal Regulations – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. 40 CFR 60. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
38 U.S. EPA (2020b). Code of Federal Regulations – Performance Specifications, 40 CFR 60 Appendix B. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
39 U.S. EPA (2020c). Code of Federal Regulations – Quality Assurance Procedures. Protection of the Environment, 40 CFR 60 Appendix F. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
40 U.S. EPA (2020d). Code of Federal Regulations – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, 40 CFR 63. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register
41 U.S. EPA (2020e). Code of Federal Regulations – Permits Regulation, 40 CFR 72. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register
42 U.S. EPA (2020f). Code of Federal Regulations – Sulfur Dioxide Allowance System. 40 CFR 73. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
43 U.S. EPA (2020g). Code of Federal Regulations – Continuous Emission Monitoring. 40 CFR 75. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
44 U.S. EPA. (2020h). Code of Federal Regulations – Specifications and Test Procedures, 40 CFR 75 Appendix A. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
45 U.S. EPA (2020i). Code of Federal Regulations – Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures, 40 CFR 75 Appendix B. Washington, DC: Office of the Federal Register.
46 Vermont Air Quality and Climate Division (2002) Continuous Emission Monitoring Regulations – Revision 5. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. www.dec.vermont.gov (accessed 3 June 2021).
47 Villa, T.F., Gonzalez, F., Mljievic, B. et al. (2016). An overview of small unmanned aerial vehicles for air quality measurements: present applications and future perspectives. Sensors 16 (1072): 1–29.
48 Wenlong, W., Xiaofeng, T., Song, C. et al. (ed.) (2011). Thermal Power Plant Continuous Flue Gas Emission Monitoring System Technology and Use. Beijing, China: Electric Power Press.
49 White, J.R. (1995). Survey your options: continuous emissions monitoring. Environmental Engineering World July‐August: 6–10.
50 Wiegleb, G., Franconia, O., Reinmann, J. et al. (2016). Gasmesstechnik in Theorie und Praxis. Springer Vieweg.
51 Willard, H.H., Merritt, L.L., Dean, J.A., and Settle, F.A. (2004). Instrumental Methods of Analysis, 7ee. New York: CBS Publishers.
52 Zhang, C. (2007). Fundamentals of Environmental Sampling and Analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.
CHAPTER 2 CEM REGULATIONS
Environmental control agencies have been the driving force for the installation of continuous emission monitoring systems. The emergence of CEM regulation in the 1970s brought a new perspective to emissions monitoring by requiring a wide range of sources to install systems and by requiring the installed systems to meet specified levels of performance. Although instrumentation had been applied in the 1960s to monitor product loss in the process industries, it was not until environmental control agencies began implementing pollutant monitoring rules that the CEM industry began to develop. This development began almost simultaneously in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). Monitoring requirements have since extended throughout the European Union (EU), to Canada, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia.
National environmental regulatory programs have been initiated to protect the health and welfare of their citizens. Ultimately, regulatory agencies establish limits for pollutant emissions from stationary, mobile, and area sources. This book addresses emissions from stationary sources, i.e., emissions from “smoke stacks.” By measuring the amount of pollutants emitted from stationary sources, assessments can be made as to their contribution to environmental problems. The data that they generate can also serve as a basis for future emission control regulations. Once in place, continuous emission monitoring systems provide a means of keeping score. Although measurements can be made manually and periodically as they were before the 1970s, continuous emission monitoring provides an ongoing record of how well emissions are being controlled and a means of determining at any time, the compliance status of an emissions source with its emission agency‐specified emission limits.
To be used effectively in any environmental program, CEM data must be representative, accurate, precise, and credible. In this regard, calibration, performance testing, certification testing, and periodic auditing are essential in maintaining credibility. An environmental agency monitoring strategy cannot be successful without including these elements.
Continuous monitoring requirements were first promulgated for fossil‐fuel‐fired steam generators in the United States in December 1971. In 1974, Germany passed the Federal Immission Control Act, which incorporated continuous monitoring requirements. Also, in 1974, pollutant emission limits and further monitoring requirements were published as “Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control” (TA‐Luft) in the Federal Republic of Germany. However, intensive monitor development did not begin until 1975 when the U.S. EPA published “performance specification procedures” for continuous emission monitors, and the German Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) published its corresponding “suitability testing guidelines.”
Since then, CEM regulations have expanded, affecting a wider range of sources and requiring a wider range of pollutants to be monitored. The basic CEM program elements established in the 1970s underlie most of the current regulations. The foundation of any regulatory continuous monitoring program incorporates three basic elements: (i) implementing rules, (ii) performance specifications, and (iii) quality assurance requirements. These three elements provide the necessary support for the application of CEM technology (Figure 2‐1).
When placed on uneven surfaces of a wide range of industrial applications, agency regulatory policies must be robust enough to enable CEM systems to produce accurate data. Continuing this analogy, when taking a photograph, a tripod serves to provide a stable base for a camera; the sharpness of the picture depends on the quality of the tripod as well as the quality of the camera. In the same sense, the quality of the data produced by a CEM system is dependent on both the system and the elements that support it.
Figure 2‐1 CEM program elements.
Implementing rules address the source categories and types of units required to monitor emissions, whereas performance specifications provide design, installation, and certification criteria. Quality assurance (QA) requirements specify procedures necessary for obtaining accurate data on a continuing basis. These elements support a CEM program, and a failure in definition of any one element can lead to an ineffective or failed regulatory program. Each of these elements incorporates a number of integral parts, which are illustrated in Figure 2‐2.
The regulatory development of implementing rules, performance specifications, and quality assurance requirements are discussed later in this chapter. Details of performance specification, performance specification test procedures, and quality assurance programs are discussed in the dedicated chapters that follow.
IMPLEMENTING RULES IN THE UNITED STATES
Implementing rules specify the type of source affected by the rule and may further specify types of process units required to monitor emissions. For example, a Kraft pulp mill recovery furnace may be required to monitor opacity and total reduced sulfur (TRS), or a petroleum refinery sulfur recovery unit may be required to monitor SO2 and H2S emissions through an implementing rule.
The