Release of Mercury Vapor from Coal Combustion Ash

Similar documents
Determination of Expansion Potential of Coal Combustion By-Products

INTERIM FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001

Measurement of mercury flux from coal utilization byproducts with a laboratory flux chamber

Methods for determination of mercury in LP gas

METHOD 3 - GAS ANALYSIS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DRY MOLECULAR WEIGHT. NOTE: This method does not include all of the

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT September 1, 2004, through July 31, 2006

Adsorption of Vapor Phase Mercury on Various Carbons

The Release of Base Metals During Acidic Leaching of Fly Ash

Research & Development Needs for the Clean Coal Plant of the Future

MERCURY CONTROL WITH THE ADVANCED HYBRID PARTICULATE COLLECTOR

Freight Pipeline Company Columbia, Missouri

ABSTRACT. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), which are particulate collectors, are now used as part

Field Test Program to Evaluate Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Facilities with SCR-FGD Systems

Mercury Control in the Boiler

SO 3 Emissions From a Tangentially- Fired Pilot Scale Boiler Operating Under Oxy-Combustion Conditions

Multimedia Impacts of Halogen Injection for Mercury Control in Coal- Fired Boilers

Method Development for Direct Analysis of Mercury by Thermal Decomposition. David L. Pfeil

Controlling Mercury Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants

Application Note AN1501

SMS 100 MERCURY ANALYZER SMS 100. Mercury analysis directly on solid samples from the undisputed leader in Atomic Spectroscopy

earch Center Advanced Coal-Fired Power Systems '95 Review Meeting

Development of Novel Activated Carbon-Based Adsorbents for Control of Mercury Emissions From Coal-Fired Power Plants

Summary of Dakota Gasification Company s CO 2 Capture and Transport, and Future Options for Gasification Systems

An Overview of Proposed Petroleum Refinery Fenceline Monitoring Requirements. A&WMA ACE 2015 Monitoring HAPs in Ambient Air Paper 309 June 23, 2015

CORESTA Recommended Method No. 57

AIR. Ambient, Indoor, Workplace Air and Stack Emissions Proficiency Testing Scheme Version 1 Issue Date 18/09/2018

LARGE-SCALE MERCURY CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TESTING FOR LIGNITE-FIRED UTILITIES OXIDATION SYSTEMS FOR WET FGD

Local Impacts of Mercury from Coal-Fired Power Plants

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT January 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011

Releasing behavior of mercury in coal during mild thermal treatment

Your Technology Resource

Can your unit pass a Particulate Emission Compliance Test?

optimizing mercury removal processes for industrial wastewaters

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT November 1, 2000 through October 31, 2001 DEMONSTRATION OF SORBENT INJECTION PROCESS FOR ILLINOIS COAL MERCURY CONTROL

Worldwide Pollution Control Association. August 3-4, 2010

Commercial Experience with Concrete-Friendly Mercury Sorbents

Development of Mercury and SO3 Control Technology using Gas Gas Heater

An Innovative Approach for Mercury Capture

Coal Characteristics and Biomass Cofiring in Pulverized Coal Boilers

A Better Alternative to SO 3 for conditioning Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)

Accurate determination of trace elements emissions using AFS. Dr Warren Corns. Coal Research Forum 2016 PSA. Slide 1

The KNX TM Coal Additive Technology A Simple Solution for Mercury Emissions Control

FINAL REPORT: June 30, Advanced Technology Systems, Inc. 639 Alpha Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Test Sampling Matrix Location Treatment Samples

A Staged, Pressurized Oxy-Combustion System for Carbon Capture. Ben Kumfer

Evaluation of Nanocrystalline Sorbents for Mercury Removal from Coal Gasifier Fuel Gas

FMA-80 Fluorescence Mercury Analyzer

2.1 This procedure provides steps and conditions for the determination of Vapor Space Organic Compounds in ground waters, and industrial waste waters.

Worldwide Pollution Control Association

SYNGAS-FIRED ALLAM CYCLE PROJECT UPDATE

JV TASK 10 CHARACTERIZATION AND MODELING OF THE FORMS OF MERCURY FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

METHOD #: Approved for NPDES and SDWA (Issued 1974) Mercury (Automated Cold Vapor Technique) ANALYTE: CAS # Hg Mercury

CEMENT PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY FOR ACHIEVING HIGH SO 2 REMOVAL

Selective Catalytic Reduction System Performance and Reliability Review

METHOD 17 - DETERMINATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS FROM STATIONARY SOURCES. NOTE: This method does not include all of the

A Guide to Trace and Ultra-Trace Mercury Testing in Water

ANILINE, o-toluidine, AND NITROBENZENE 2017

METHOD 30B DETERMINATION OF TOTAL VAPOR PHASE MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED COMBUSTION SOURCES USING CARBON SORBENT TRAPS

EDB July ETHYLENE DlBROMlDE. F. Analytical Quantitation... I. Determinative Method. Contents. A. Introduction I3. Equipment...

1. ESPs for Electric Utilities

Evaluation of the Mercury Concentration Accessory for US EPA Methodology

How Green is My Oil? A Detailed Look at Carbon Accounting for CO 2 -EOR Sites

JUNE 14-16, 2016 SHERATON TYSONS CORNER TYSONS, VA. #CCUS

How Can Chemical Reactions Be Used to Improve Air Quality?

Mercury Measurement and Control

Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury from Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Evaluation of Processed Bottom Ash for Use as Lightweight Aggregate in the Production of Concrete Masonry Units

METHOD #: Approved for NPDES and SDWA (Issued 1974) Mercury (Manual Cold Vapor Technique) ANALYTE: CAS # Hg Mercury

Mercury Reduction Performance of Concrete-Friendly C-PAC Sorbent

A Staged, Pressurized Oxy-Combustion System for Carbon Capture. Ben Kumfer

NCASI METHOD CI/SG/PULP CHILLED IMPINGER TEST METHOD FOR USE ON PULP MILL SOURCES TO QUANTIFY METHANOL EMISSIONS

Evaluation of Processed Bottom Ash for Use as Lightweight Aggregate in the Production of Concrete Masonry Units

Corn Starch Analysis B-58-1 SULFUR DIOXIDE

FINE PARTICULATE COLLECTION USING DRY ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS

Attachment 2. Quality Assurance and Operating Procedures for Sorbent Trap Monitoring Systems

The Projected Impacts of Mercury Emissions Reductions on Electricity Prices in Indiana

Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheet

MEGA Dynamic Control of DSI for SO3 Management ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

THIOPHANATE-METHYL in air 5606

Excerpt of Thermal Power Guidelines for New Plants

Method Determination of Condensible Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources

CANADA-WIDE STANDARD FOR MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION PLANTS 2009 PROGRESS REPORT

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) Compact Gasification System

Analysis campaign for measurement of oxy-combustion flue gas from Coal Fired Plants

CHARACTERIZATION OF FLY ASH FROM FULL-SCALE DEMONSTRATION OF SORBENT INJECTION FOR MERCURY CONTROL ON COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Characterization and Modeling to Examine the Potential for CO 2 Storage and Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Bakken Petroleum System

Eric M. Prestbo and Karl R. Wilber Tekran Instruments Research and Development

Proceedings of the 22 nd Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference Paper 5-1 Pittsburgh, PA September 12-15, 2005

TurboMatrix Headspace and Headspace Trap Samplers

Development of standard laboratory based test to measure compost stability Annex A

ASI MODEL DM 100 SERIES DILUTING MODULES

Assessment of Bias in Measurement of Mercury Emissions from Coal Fired Power Plants Comparison of Electronic CEMS and Sorbent Traps

Mercury Measurement and Its Control: What We Know, Have Learned, and Need to Further Investigate

Worldwide Pollution Control Association

Reducing Power Plant Emissions: EPA s New Proposed Rules For Mercury

Technical Process Bulletin

PILOT EVALUATION OF THE CATALYTIC OXIDATION OF MERCURY FOR ENHANCED REMOVAL IN WET FGD SYSTEMS

Stoichiometry Practice Related to Climate Change LESSON 6

Lab Comparisons: Methane, Ethane, Propane, CO2 and Produced Gas for Hydrocarbon Mobilization

INCH-POUND. MIL-PRF-27404C 01 October 97 SUPERSEDING MIL-P-27404B 22 May 1979 PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION PROPELLANT, MONOMETHYLHYDRAZINE

Transcription:

Release of Mercury Vapor from Coal Combustion Ash David J. Hassett and Loreal V. Heebink University of North Dakota, Energy & Environmental Research Center, 15 North 23rd Street, Grand Forks, ND 58203 KEYWORDS: coal combustion by-products (CCBs), fly ash, mercury INTRODUCTION The goal of the research described in this manuscript was to determine and quantitate mercury vapor release to the environment from various coal combustion by-products. Research has been done on enhancing the removal of mercury from flue gas, which often leaves the removed mercury in the coal combustion by-products (CCBs). Little research has been done, however, on determining the fate of mercury in CCBs, especially vapor transport. Some researchers have predicted a high potential for significant offgassing of mercury from CCBs. Prior research done at the University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) on thermal desorption of mercury from CCBs has indicated, however, that there may not be a significant tendency for mercury to offgas from dry disposed CCBs. This work done at temperatures from ambient to 600 C indicated little tendency for mercury offgassing at temperatures below about 250 C. Six CCBs were chosen for use in this research. The samples were those submitted by members of our Coal Ash Resources Research Consortium (CARRC, pronounced cars) members. The ash used consisted of two Powder River Basin subbituminous ashes, two eastern bituminous ashes, and two South African ashes. The ash identities and mercury contents are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Ash Description with Total Mercury Content Ash Coal/Ash Description Sample Total Mercury Content, µg/g 99-188 PRB subbituminous fly ash + FGD material 0.112 99-189 PRB subbituminous + petroleum coke fly ash 0.736 99-692 Eastern bituminous fly ash 0.140 99-693 Eastern bituminous fly ash 0.268 99-722 South African fly ash 0.638 99-724 South African fly ash 0.555

One criteria for CCB selection was the need for a relatively high mercury content. It was decided that a mercury content and CCB total mass that would allow for the accurate determination of 1% of the total mercury in the vapor phase was a good starting point. Many of the ash samples in our ash inventory have extremely low mercury concentrations. The ash samples used in these experiments had some of the highest mercury concentrations of all of the ashes in our CARRC inventory. EXPERIMENTAL Tall, wide-mouth 250-mL bottles with bonded Teflon liner caps were used for the mercury offgassing experiments. The caps had two holes drilled in them for inlet air and for outlet air containing any mercury from CCBs in the bottles. A 100-g aliquot of each sample was placed and compacted into the container shown in Figure 1. Two sets of samples were set up to compare and contrast the release of mercury at ambient and near-ambient temperatures. A gas stream of breathing quality air was introduced at the top of the container through a gas inlet in the cap. This caused the container to become slightly pressurized and forced air through the ash at the bottom. The air passed through the ash and was vented to a trap to collect any mercury released. The outlet of the container was a glass tube in the center of the sample that terminated several millimeters from the bottom of the container. Glass wool and a 0.45-µm Teflon filter prevented ash from escaping with the air. Any mercury released from the ash was trapped on the gold-coated quartz analytical trap shown in Figure 1. The second goldcoated quartz guard trap was present to prevent any mercury in the surroundings from entering the system. Inlet mercury traps were positioned on each container to clean the inlet gas of mercury prior to introduction to the sample. The tubes containing the gold-coated quartz traps were blanked by thermal desorption at approximately 550 C before accumulation of mercury from the samples began. Argon was passed through the ambient temperature samples for 2 days. The analytical traps were then thermally desorbed by heating the tube to 550 C. Atomic fluorescence was used to detect any initial mercury release. Data collection was done both on the atomic fluorescence detector and simultaneously through a Hewlett Packard 3393A integrator for a more permanent record. The effluent mercury from the atomic fluorescence detector was then collected in an impinger containing 20 ml of a 4% permanganate in 10% sulfuric acid solution. This was done in case a large mass of mercury too great for the atomic fluorescence detector would be emitted. After collection of mercury, 10% hydroxyl amine sulfate solution was added to decompose any remaining potassium permanganate. This additional precaution was found to be unnecessary but was continued as a precaution throughout the entire experiment. This initial 2-day experiment was done to determine what equilibration time might be sufficient for mercury offgas determinations over longer time periods. With no readable signal, it was decided to try 90-day equilibration periods for the duration of the experiment.

Figure 1. Apparatus used for mercury offgassing experiments. Breathing quality air was used for the duration of the experiment. A flow rate of 1 ml/min was the target gas flow; however, 1 to 4 ml per minute was actually achieved. The near-ambient samples were set up by placing containers in a 37 C heated sand bath. This sample set and the ambient sample set shared the same gas stream from a common gas manifold.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The initial, 2-day thermal desorption of the ambient sample set yielded a very small peak for only Sample 99-188. All samples indicated that some mercury was released after 90 days. The chromatographs indicated low picogram levels of mercury. The results of all of the testing periods are shown in Tables 2 and 3. The value for N 99-188 is an estimate; the signal was over the atomic fluorescence instrument range and has not been confirmed. The impingers were not analyzed for mercury because of the very low emission rates indicated by the atomic fluorescence determination Table 2. Ambient Temperature Results in Picograms of Mercury per Gram of Ash Sample 2 days 90 days 55 days 26 days 90 days Total 263 days A 99-188 0.059 1.439 0.142 0.011 4.245 5.896 A 99-198 <0.001 0.489 0.133 <0.001 4.501 5.123 A 99-692 <0.001 0.953 <0.001 <0.001 3.167 4.120 A 99-693 <0.001 0.648 <0.001 <0.001 4.980 5.628 A 99-722 <0.001 1.619 0.033 <0.001 6.878 8.530 A 99-724 <0.001 0.240 0.007 <0.001 6.071 6.318 Table 3. Near Ambient Temperature Results in Picograms of Mercury per Gram of Ash Sample 90 days 10 days 26 days 90 days Total 216 days N 99-188 26.369* 0.840 <0.001 3.542 30.751 N 99-189 0.024 <0.001 <0.001 9.307 9.331 N 99-692 0.142 <0.001 <0.001 11.191 11.333 N 99-693 0.855 <0.001 <0.001 3.448 4.303 N 99-722 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 5.636 5.639 N 99-723 2.059 <0.001 <0.001 5.852 7.911 * Over instrument range. CONCLUSIONS No pattern was evident to link the total amount of mercury determined through bulk analysis to the release of mercury vapor. This is evident because Sample 99-188 had the lowest total mercury content but released the highest amount of mercury vapor over the course of the experiment. Experiments are continuing to determine long-term release of mercury from CCBs to confirm the results of this experiment. It is thought that the higher values of emitted mercury for the last equilibration period were due to

saturation of the inlet mercury trap with accumulation of a large blank from the gas stream. The experiments are being repeated to confirm or refute this hypothesis. The average release of mercury from the ambient temperature samples was 5.936 pg/g or 0.023 pg/g/day. The average release of mercury from the near ambient samples was 7.703 pg/g or 0.036 pg/g/day. These values include the higher concentrations seen during the last 90-day period. The near ambient average does not include the value for N 99-188 because the value is suspect and has not been confirmed. The release of 0.023 pg Hg/g CCB/day and 0.036 pg Hg/g CCB/day in the ambient and near ambient temperature samples respectively would equate to 1.810-8 lb Hg/ton CCB/yr and 2.610-8 lb Hg/ton CCB/yr respectively. An overall average from both sets of experiments is 2.210-8 lb Hg/ton CCB/yr, a very small mass of mercury. To put this into context, if one were to apply this figure to a coal-fired power plant with an annual production of 200,000 tons of ash per year, there would be a potential maximum release of 0.0044 pounds of mercury per year. This is equivalent to 2.00 grams of mercury. Will the mercury removed from the flue gas really be removed from the environment or will it be released later as mercury vapor? Currently, all studies indicate that a minute amount of mercury vapor is released into the environment from the disposal of CCBs. As the control of mercury air emissions from coal-fired power plants improves and more mercury is contained in the CCBs, this question will need to be reevaluated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FC26-98FT40321 and by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Grant R 827649-01 to the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC). However, any opinions, finding, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of DOE and EPA, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Information about the EERC can be found on its Web site at www.undeerc.org.