skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing

Abstract

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was asked by PPL Montana LLC (PPL) to provide assistance and develop an approach to identify cost-effective options for mercury control at its coal-fired power plants. The work conducted focused on baseline mercury level and speciation measurement, short-term parametric testing, and week long testing of mercury control technology at Colstrip Unit 3. Three techniques and various combinations of these techniques were identified as viable options for mercury control. The options included oxidizing agents or sorbent enhancement additives (SEAs) such as chlorine-based SEA1 and an EERC proprietary SEA2 with and without activated carbon injection. Baseline mercury emissions from Colstrip Unit 3 are comparatively low relative to other Powder River Basin (PRB) coal-fired systems and were found to range from 5 to 6.5 g/Nm3 (2.9 to 3.8 lb/TBtu), with a rough value of approximately 80% being elemental upstream of the scrubber and higher than 95% being elemental at the outlet. Levels in the stack were also greater than 95% elemental. Baseline mercury removal across the scrubber is fairly variable but generally tends to be about 5% to 10%. Parametric results of carbon injection alone yielded minimal reduction in Hg emissions. SEA1 injection resulted in 20%more » additional reduction over baseline with the maximum rate of 400 ppm (3 gal/min). Week long testing was conducted with the combination of SEA2 and carbon, with injection rates of 75 ppm (10.3 lb/hr) and 1.5 lb/MMacf (40 lb/hr), respectively. Reduction was found to be an additional 30% and, overall during the testing period, was measured to be 38% across the scrubber. The novel additive injection method, known as novel SEA2, is several orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than current SEA2 injection methods. However, used in conjunction with this plant configuration, the technology did not demonstrate a significant level of mercury reduction. Near-future use of this technique at Colstrip is not seen. All the additives injected resulted in some reduction in mercury emissions. However, the target reduction of 55% was not achieved. The primary reason for the lower removal rates is because of the lower levels of mercury in the flue gas stream and the lower capture level of fine particles by the scrubbers (relative to that for larger particles). The reaction and interaction of the SEA materials is with the finer fraction of the fly ash, because the SEA materials are vaporized during the combustion or reaction process and condense on the surfaces of entrained particles or form very small particles. Mercury will have a tendency to react and interact with the finer fraction of entrained ash and sorbent as a result of the higher surface areas of the finer particles. The ability to capture the finer fraction of fly ash is the key to controlling mercury. Cost estimates for mercury removal based on the performance of each sorbent during this project are projected to be extremely high. When viewed on a dollar-per-pound-of-mercury removed basis activated carbon was projected to cost nearly $1.2 million per pound of mercury removed. This value is roughly six times the cost of other sorbent-enhancing agents, which were projected to be closer to $200,000 per pound of mercury removed.« less

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
University Of North Dakota
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
921014
DOE Contract Number:
FC26-98FT40321
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT; 20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS; MERCURY; AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT; COAL; OXIDIZERS; ADDITIVES; ADSORBENTS; FLY ASH; ACTIVATED CARBON; PERFORMANCE TESTING

Citation Formats

John P. Kay, Michael L. Jones, and Steven A. Benson. Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.2172/921014.
Copy to clipboard
John P. Kay, Michael L. Jones, & Steven A. Benson. Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing. United States. doi:10.2172/921014.
Copy to clipboard
John P. Kay, Michael L. Jones, and Steven A. Benson. Sun . "Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing". United States. doi:10.2172/921014. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/921014.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_921014,
title = {Mercury Emission Control Technologies for PPL Montana-Colstrip Testing},
author = {John P. Kay and Michael L. Jones and Steven A. Benson},
abstractNote = {The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was asked by PPL Montana LLC (PPL) to provide assistance and develop an approach to identify cost-effective options for mercury control at its coal-fired power plants. The work conducted focused on baseline mercury level and speciation measurement, short-term parametric testing, and week long testing of mercury control technology at Colstrip Unit 3. Three techniques and various combinations of these techniques were identified as viable options for mercury control. The options included oxidizing agents or sorbent enhancement additives (SEAs) such as chlorine-based SEA1 and an EERC proprietary SEA2 with and without activated carbon injection. Baseline mercury emissions from Colstrip Unit 3 are comparatively low relative to other Powder River Basin (PRB) coal-fired systems and were found to range from 5 to 6.5 g/Nm3 (2.9 to 3.8 lb/TBtu), with a rough value of approximately 80% being elemental upstream of the scrubber and higher than 95% being elemental at the outlet. Levels in the stack were also greater than 95% elemental. Baseline mercury removal across the scrubber is fairly variable but generally tends to be about 5% to 10%. Parametric results of carbon injection alone yielded minimal reduction in Hg emissions. SEA1 injection resulted in 20% additional reduction over baseline with the maximum rate of 400 ppm (3 gal/min). Week long testing was conducted with the combination of SEA2 and carbon, with injection rates of 75 ppm (10.3 lb/hr) and 1.5 lb/MMacf (40 lb/hr), respectively. Reduction was found to be an additional 30% and, overall during the testing period, was measured to be 38% across the scrubber. The novel additive injection method, known as novel SEA2, is several orders of magnitude safer and less expensive than current SEA2 injection methods. However, used in conjunction with this plant configuration, the technology did not demonstrate a significant level of mercury reduction. Near-future use of this technique at Colstrip is not seen. All the additives injected resulted in some reduction in mercury emissions. However, the target reduction of 55% was not achieved. The primary reason for the lower removal rates is because of the lower levels of mercury in the flue gas stream and the lower capture level of fine particles by the scrubbers (relative to that for larger particles). The reaction and interaction of the SEA materials is with the finer fraction of the fly ash, because the SEA materials are vaporized during the combustion or reaction process and condense on the surfaces of entrained particles or form very small particles. Mercury will have a tendency to react and interact with the finer fraction of entrained ash and sorbent as a result of the higher surface areas of the finer particles. The ability to capture the finer fraction of fly ash is the key to controlling mercury. Cost estimates for mercury removal based on the performance of each sorbent during this project are projected to be extremely high. When viewed on a dollar-per-pound-of-mercury removed basis activated carbon was projected to cost nearly $1.2 million per pound of mercury removed. This value is roughly six times the cost of other sorbent-enhancing agents, which were projected to be closer to $200,000 per pound of mercury removed.},
doi = {10.2172/921014},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007},
month = {Sun Apr 01 00:00:00 EDT 2007}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (4.42 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/921014
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • ; ; ; ...
    Wet flue gas desulfurization (wet FGD) systems are currently installed on about 25% of the coal-fired utility generating capacity in the U.S., representing about 15% of the number of coal-fired units. Depending on the effect of operating parameters such as mercury content of the coal, form of mercury (elemental or oxidized) in the flue gas, scrubber spray tower configuration, liquid-to-gas ratio, and slurry chemistry, FGD systems can provide cost-effective, near-term mercury emissions control options with a proven history of commercial operation. For boilers already equipped with FGD systems, the incremental cost of any vapor phase mercury removal achieved is minimal.more » To be widely accepted and implemented, technical approaches that improve mercury removal performance for wet FGD systems should also have low incremental costs and have little or no impact on operation and SO{sub 2} removal performance. The ultimate goal of the Full-scale Testing of Enhanced Mercury Control for Wet FGD Systems Program was to commercialize methods for the control of mercury in coal-fired electric utility systems equipped with wet flue gas desulfurization (wet FGD). The program was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Ohio Coal Development Office within the Ohio Department of Development, and Babcock & Wilcox. Host sites and associated support were provided by Michigan South Central Power Agency (MSCPA) and Cinergy. Field-testing was completed at two commercial coal-fired utilities with wet FGD systems: (1) MSCPA's 55 MW{sub e} Endicott Station and (2) Cinergy's 1300 MW{sub e} Zimmer Station. Testing was conducted at these two locations because of the large differences in size and wet scrubber chemistry. Endicott employs a limestone, forced oxidation (LSFO) wet FGD system, whereas Zimmer uses Thiosorbic{reg_sign} Lime (magnesium enhanced lime) and ex situ oxidation. Both locations burn Ohio bituminous coal.« less

  • ; ; ; ...
    The Energy & Environmental Research Center has completed the first phase of a 3-year, two-phase consortium project to develop and demonstrate mercury control technologies for utilities that burn lignite coal. The overall project goal is to maintain the viability of lignite-based energy production by providing utilities with low-cost options for meeting future mercury regulations. Phase I objectives are to develop a better understanding of mercury interactions with flue gas constituents, test a range of sorbent-based technologies targeted at removing elemental mercury (Hg{sup o}) from flue gases, and demonstrate the effectiveness of the most promising technologies at the pilot scale. Themore » Phase II objectives are to demonstrate and quantify sorbent technology effectiveness, performance, and cost at a sponsor-owned and operated power plant. Phase I results are presented in this report along with a brief overview of the Phase II plans. Bench-scale testing provided information on mercury interactions with flue gas constituents and relative performances of the various sorbents. Activated carbons were prepared from relatively high-sodium lignites by carbonization at 400 C (752 F), followed by steam activation at 750 C (1382 F) and 800 C (1472 F). Luscar char was also steam-activated at these conditions. These lignite-based activated carbons, along with commercially available DARCO FGD and an oxidized calcium silicate, were tested in a thin-film, fixed-bed, bench-scale reactor using a simulated lignitic flue gas consisting of 10 {micro}g/Nm{sup 3} Hg{sup 0}, 6% O{sub 2}, 12% CO{sub 2}, 15% H{sub 2}O, 580 ppm SO{sub 2}, 120 ppm NO, 6 ppm NO{sub 2}, and 1 ppm HCl in N{sub 2}. All of the lignite-based activated (750 C, 1382 F) carbons required a 30-45-minute conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas before they exhibited good mercury sorption capacities. The unactivated Luscar char and oxidized calcium silicate were ineffective in capturing mercury. Lignite-based activated (800 C, 1472 F) carbons required a shorter (15-minute) conditioning period in the simulated lignite flue gas and captured gaseous mercury more effectively than those activated at 750 C (1382 F). Subsequent tests with higher acid gas concentrations including 50 ppm HCl showed no early mercury breakthrough for either the activated (750 C, 1382 F) Bienfait carbon or the DARCO FGD. Although these high acid gas tests yielded better mercury capture initially, significant breakthrough of mercury ultimately occurred sooner than during the simulated lignite flue gas tests. The steam-activated char, provided by Luscar Ltd., and DARCO FGD, provided by NORIT Americas, were evaluated for mercury removal potential in a 580 MJ/hr (550,000-Btu/hr) pilot-scale coal combustion system equipped with four particulate control devices: (1) an electrostatic precipitator (ESP), (2) a fabric filter (FF), (3) the Advanced Hybrid{trademark} filter, and (4) an ESP and FF in series, an EPRI-patented TOXECON{trademark} technology. The Ontario Hydro method and continuous mercury monitors were used to measure mercury species concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the control technology devices with and without sorbent injection. Primarily Hg{sup o} was measured when lignite coals from the Poplar River Plant and Freedom Mine were combusted. The effects of activated Luscar char, DARCO FGD, injection rates, particle size, and gas temperature on mercury removal were evaluated for each of the four particulate control device options. Increasing injection rates and decreasing gas temperatures generally promoted mercury capture in all four control devices. Relative to data reported for bituminous and subbituminous coal combustion flue gases, higher sorbent injection rates were generally required for the lignite coal to effectively remove mercury. Documented results in this report provide the impacts of these and other parameters and provide the inputs needed to direct Phase II of the project.« less

  • ; ;
    This appendix describes the development of a preliminary assessment of the performance and cost of mercury emission control technologies for utility boilers. It is to supplement an EPA examination of the co-benefits of potential pollution control options for the electric power industry to lower the emissions of its most significant air pollutants, one of which is mercury. The examination of the co-benefits was conducted using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM).

  • ;
    The EPA has recognized the need for a rational approach to the incorporation of ecological impact information into power facility siting decisions in the Northern Great Plains. Research funded by the Colstrip, Coal-fired Power Plant Project is a first attempt to generate methods to predict the bioenvironmental effects of air pollution before damage is sustained. Pre-construction documentation of the environmental characteristics of the grassland ecosystem in the vicinity of Colstrip, Montana began in the summer of 1974. Since then, key characteristics of the ecosystem have been monitored regularly to detect possible pollution impacts upon plant and animal community structure. Inmore » the summer of 1975, field stressing experiments were begun to provide the data necessary to develop dose-response models for SO/sub 2/ stress on a grassland ecosystem. These experiments involve continuous stressing of one acre grassland plots with measured doses of SO/sub 2/ during the growing season (usually April through October). Results of the 1976 and 1977 field seasons' investigations are summarized in this publication. The six-year project will terminate in 1980 and a final report will be published after data analyses are complete.« less

  • ; ;
    The Rosebud and McKay coal beds are important aquifers and are the objects of strip coal mining near Colstrip. They transmit about 5,000 cu. ft. of ground water per day across areas that will probably be mined. Hydraulic conductivities and storage coefficients for mine spoils are similar to those of confined coalbed aquifers. Implications are that spoils do not act as barriers to ground-water flow and that rubble zones along the mine floors contain water under pressure greater than atmospheric. Groundwater quality near Colstrip is diverse. Dissolved-solids concentrations range between about 400 and 6,000 mg/l and are generally highest inmore » waters from the oldest mine spoils. Sulfate is the predominant anion; no specific cation is predominant. Dissolved lead is detectable in most waters in the area; concentrations appear somewhat higher in waters associated with mine spoils than in other waters. Mine-cut effluents are chemical mixtures of ground waters normally discharging along outcrops and subcrops; they have not caused degradation of water quality. Water-level measurements since 1974 have detected no mining-related changes around the Rosebud mine; within 1/sup 1///sub 2/ miles west of the Big Sky mine, declines have been 1 foot or more. Ultimately, active mine cuts may physically destroy five reservoirs, four springs, and twenty-six wells; in addition reliabilities of four reservoirs, three springs, and nine wells may be reduced. Where ground-water supplies are lost, new ones will be obtainable from wells completed in deeper aquifers. After mining, ground-water-flow patterns will reestablish in the reclaimed areas and will not differ greatly from present patterns. Ground waters will be chemically diverse; principal constituents will probably be magnesium and sulfate, and dissolved lead concentrations may be generally higher than before.« less