Mercury Measurement and Control Sharon Sjostrom & Connie Senior ADA Environmental Solutions Hot Topic Hour April 12, 2012 NASDAQ: ADES www.adaes.com
Topics to Cover Overview of MATS for existing & new plants Measurement of Hg Capabilities of available control technologies for mercury control Coal to Stack: Integrated approaches for multipollutant compliance
MATS Final Limits (Coal) Standards for new units are based on outputs Subcategory Filterable PM HCl Mercury New coal, 0.007 lb/mwh 0.0004 lb/mwh 0.0002 lb/gwh 8300 Btu/lb New coal, 0.007 lb/mwh 0.0004 lb/mwh 0.040 lb/gwh <8300 Btu/lb Existing coal, 0.30 lb/mwh 0.020 lb/mwh 0.013 lb/gwh 8300 Btu/lb Existing coal, 0.30 lb/mwh 0.020 lb/mwh 0.040 lb/gwh <8300 Btu/lb Standards for existing units are based on inputs Standards for new units (bituminous, subbituminous) are ~65 times lower than for existing units!
Mercury Measurement Continuous measurement of Hg required CEM or Sorbent Trap Emissions averaging For existing bituminous/subbituminous units, limit of 1.2 lb/tbtu (30-day average) or 1.0 lb/tbtu (90-day average) Facility-wide averaging for similar units Challenges in measuring very low levels of Hg
The Compliance Challenge Integrated Decisions Multiple regulations. Decisions on one pollutant may affect options for others Long-range, multi-plant CapEx decisions, fuel decisions Tight Timeframes Implementation by 2015 for MATS and CSAPR Rapid, informed decisions are now required Limited Resources Testing Services, Engineering and Construction Services, APC Equipment, Chemicals
Fuel Choice Affects MATS Compliance Mercury inputs vary by region and by mine within a region MATS sets limits on Hg emissions, not percent reduction The bar is higher (for control) when Hg input is higher SO 2 and HCl emissions might also have to be controlled under MATS (or CSAPR) Sulfur and chlorine in coal affect ability to reduce Hg emissions Finding the perfect MATS coal?
MATS Compliance Limits: Example for Existing Bituminous Plant Final MACT Limits: PM, HCl, SO 2, lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu lb/mmbtu 1 Hg, lb/tbtu 0.03 0.002 0.2 1.2 Estimated control efficiency, based on fuel: HCl 1 SO 2 Mercury 98% 97% 86% 1 Alternate acid gas limit for units with scrubbers 2 Concentrations at 3% O 2 INPUT COAL PROPERTIES As-received coal composition Dry coal composition Coal Rank Coal S, wt% Coal Ash, wt% Coal HHV, Btu/lb Coal H 2 O, wt% Coal Cl, µg/g Coal Hg, µg/g Bituminous 3.60% 10.30% 11,011 3.30% 1000 0.1 2012 ADA-ES
Factors Affecting Mercury Control Coal Type Halogen content (Cl, Br, other) Sulfur content Mercury content Flue Gas Acid Gases (HCl, SO 2, SO 3 ) Gas Temperature Boiler type Emission Control Equipment (e.g. SCR, ESP, FF, etc.) ACI Design Distribution, residence time, sorbent characteristics Similar factors affect Hg removal from native carbon in ash and activated carbon injection
Native Mercury Removal (Average %): The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Bituminous Subbit. Lignite CSESP 41 17-2 + WFGD 73 21 45 HS ESP 22 14 + WFGD 44 25 FF 87 71 + WFGD 78 SDA + FF 95 31 29 SDA + ESP 50 50 WPS 14-2 30 Projected for MATS 80-90 + 80-90 + 60-90 + Analysis of 1999 EPA ICR data
Total Hg Removal SCR plus FGD Increases Hg Removal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Plant 6, U4 (SCR off-line) Plant 6, U4 Plant 7, U1 (SCR off-line) Plant 7, U1 Source: Bituminous-fired plants from Consol sampling program 2012 ADA-ES
Total Hg Removal SCR-FGD Reduces Hg Emissions but >90% removal not always achieved and trim control with ACI might be needed 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Plant 3, U2 Plant 4, U1 Plant 4, U2 Plant 5, U1 Plant 6, U4 Plant 7, U1 Plant 8, U1 Plant 9, U1 Plant 10, U2 Source: Bituminous-fired plants from Consol sampling program 2012 ADA-ES
%Oxidized Hg at Air Preheater Outlet Halogens Increase Oxidized Mercury 100 80 60 NaCl MgCl2 CaCl2 HCl CaBr2 40 20 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Halogen in Coal, ppmw dry Halogen addition at various full-scale PRB boilers Source: Dombrowski et al., 2006
Removal of Hg across FGD Benefits of Oxidized Mercury Many plants APCDs can take advantage of native capture if there s enough oxidized Hg (Hg 2+) 100% 80% Dry FGD, FF Wet FGD 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fraction Hg 2+ at Inlet
Halogens in Wet Scrubbers Adding halogens (Cl or Br) increases oxidized Hg, which increase capture of Hg in scrubber Wet FGD scrubbers remove halogens efficiently Average Cl removals for wet FGDs (2010 ICR): 81% for subbituminous, 97% for bituminous Removal of Br at Plant Miller wet FGD: 94-96% (Dombrowski et al., 2008) Halogens build up in wet scrubber liquor
Corrosion loss, mm Corrosion in Flue Gas Chlorine corrosion in furnaces can occur for very high levels of chlorine in coal (> 2000 µg/g) Bromine addition at much lower concentrations Indirect evidence that HBr might be more corrosive than HCl at flue gas temperature No direct comparison, but HBr corrosion higher than baseline (no HBr) in simulated flue gas (6-month study) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Baseline 51 ppmv HBr 0 100 200 300 400 Temperature, o F Zhuang et al., 2009
Generation (GW) US Coal-Fired Generation Fleet More than 1100 units in operation ~ 317 GW ~ 66% have SO 2 or NOx controls Unscrubbed units ~ 50 GW bituminous ~ 60 GW subbituminous 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 FGD+SCR SCR FGD None *http://www.eia.gov
Activated Carbon Injection Configuration Range of AC for 90% Control (lb/mmacf) PRB/SDA/FF 1 to 3 PRB/Toxecon 2 to 4 Bit/Toxecon PRB/ESP Bit/ESP 2 to not achieved 2 to not achieved 2.5 to not achieved EPA Estimates 141 GW new ACI
Hg Removal (%) Activated Carbon Injection Performance Depends on Fuel Choice 100 SDA + FF 90 80 PRB ESP 70 60 50 ESP with SO 3 Conditioning LS Bit ESP 40 30 20 HS Bit ESP 10 0 0 5 10 15 Injection Concentration (lb/mmacf) 2012 ADA-ES
Hg Removal (%) Mercury Removal (%) SO 3 Injection and PAC Effectiveness Any SO 3 in gas phase appears to affect Hg capture SO 3 is used to condition fly ash for better capture in ESPs SO 3 higher in bituminous flue gas, especially after SCR Typical injection targets < 10ppm in gas phase 100 90 80 No injected SO3 5.4 ppm SO3 100 80 SO 3 Off 70 60 60 50 40 10.7 ppm SO3 40 20 SO 3 On 30 0 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 10 Sorbent Injection Ratio (lb/mmacf) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 PAC Injection (lb/mmacf) Ameren Labadie Data: DOE DE-FC26-03NT41986 and EPRI PRB, ESP Mississippi Power Plant Daniel Low sulfur bituminous coal
Compliance Strategies for Mercury 80 to >90% control at the stack to meet proposed MATS emission limits required for most units For units with FGD/SCR: Low conversion SCR catalyst and minimize ammonia slip Minimize re-emission of Hg 0 from wet FGD MATS limits achievable with ACI or ACI + coal additives on most subbituminous units if SO 3 flue gas conditioning (FGC) is eliminated MATS limits may be challenging on units with higher sulfur coals and may require SO 3 mitigation
Coal to Stack: Integrated Approaches for Multi-Pollutant Examples: Compliance Fuel (low mercury, low sulfur, low chlorine) DSI as required to meet HCl limits and/or control SO 3 to maximize ACI effectiveness Manage SCR operation and catalyst choice to increase fraction of oxidized mercury and resulting removal in WFGD Utilize coal additives to manage ACI usage and Hg removal effectiveness
% Vapor-phase Removal wrt Baseline Measurement DSI-ACI Synergy: Example Medium-sulfur bituminous plant Lime injection to reduce SO 3 => improve ACI performance for Hg control 100 80 60 40 20 Shawville 3, ESP 1 Darco Hg Shawville 3, ESP 1 Lime/Darco Hg 0 0 5 10 15 20 Sorbent (lb/mmacf) 2012 ADA-ES
% Vapor-phase Removal DSI-ACI Synergy: Example Low-sulfur bituminous plant with SCR Trona injection to reduce SO 3 => improve ACI performance for Hg control 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Effect of milling Effect of temperature Effect of SO 3 sorbent Merrimack 2, Darco Hg-LH Merrimack 2, Darco Hg-LH, APH In, normal CEA Merrimack 2, Darco Hg-LH, Trona, normal CEA Merrimack 2, Darco Hg-LH, Trona, low CEA Merrimack 2, Darco Hg-LH, Mill Trona, low CEA 0 0 5 10 15 20 Sorbent (lb/mmacf) 2012 ADA-ES
Summary: The Multi-Pollutant View Mercury 80 to >90% control required for most units Achievable on most subbituminous units if SO 3 FGC is eliminated Limits may be challenging on units with higher sulfur coals and may require SO 3 mitigation HCl > 90% control required for most bituminous units. May require new scrubbers for some units. < 80% control required for most plants with low-rank coals. Should be achievable with fuel management, DSI or existing FGD for most plants. Total PM May result in several new fabric filters
Energizing the Future with Cleaner Coal ADA Environmental Solutions (303) 734-1727 www.adaes.com NASDAQ: ADES