More than 300 people were present early Monday morning for the first 8:00 a.m. session, which featured a wide-ranging panel discussion. Tom Feeley, National Energy Technology Lab, began by summarizing DOE’s perspective on current mercury control technologies. He stated that there have been some great success stories, but there is still more work to do. The goal is to reduce baseline (1999) cost estimates of $60,000 per pound of mercury removed by 25 to 50 percent. Since 2000, over 40 sites have conducted tests and greatly improved the understanding of mercury removal at coal-fired power plants. Some of the major challenges still remaining are: (1) SO₃ interaction with activated carbon; (2) high temperature capture; (3) baghouse impacts, such as hopper fires; (4) ultimate fate of mercury in flyash; and (5) increased particulate loading that could trigger NSR.

Jason Burnett, EPA, discussed particulate matter and its serious implications on health. He expects mercury emissions will be reduced greatly, but notes that a lot of mercury does not come from power plants. One major source is mercury switches in the trunks of old cars. He estimates that about 1 percent of mercury comes from U.S. power plants, while 97 percent comes from other countries. Even if all mercury emissions were stopped today, it would take decades for the mercury concentration in fish to come down.

Praveen Amar, NESCAUM, noted that mercury control is not being uniformly applied. Some states are not covered by CAMR and other states have more stringent rules. He believes billions of dollars in health benefits are possible from these regulations. However, mercury is not just about “averages.” Hot spots exist and may get worse, which is why he opposes cap and trade. He cited a study from July in Steubenville, OH, that concluded that 80 percent of deposition is local. (Editor’s note: Other studies have not shown these results.) He estimates that capital costs for mercury removal will be low.

Larry Monroe, Southern Company, disagreed with him. The U.S. is the first country to issue a mercury control rule and this is a critical time for utilities. They have only three years to select, install, start up and operate a new mercury control system. Some state rules are not even final yet, which reduces the timeline further. Suppliers' schedules are already tight, engineering is in short supply, and there is very little room for error. He cited previous unexpected and unforeseen problems with new technology, all of which happened at Southern Company plants. These included hot-side ESPs, SCR popcorn plugging and low NO_x corrosion problems. Then he asked, “What don’t we know yet about mercury controls that we will find out six months into 2010?” Short-term tests are not long-term performance and just as with a new car, “actual mileage may vary.” He noted that increased particulate loading for ESPs is a very big, legal concern, that not all plants can be above average, and that most performance in real operation will be worse than in short term, controlled tests. He suggested that plant operators worry about their specific plant, not an average one, and that other emissions and long-term balance of plant issues be carefully considered.

The session concluded with two speakers discussing mercury control in other countries. Angela Bednarek, U.S. Dept. of State, reviewed a global mercury program from the UN that seeks to establish a partnership between countries. Information sharing with these countries about why mercury emissions are a problem is the first step. Eric Mazzi, Levelton Consultants, Canada, mentioned that Canada currently has a 4-page mercury emissions document with voluntary controls and is watching how mercury removal methods progress in the U.S.