Field Test Program to Develop Comprehensive Design, Operating, and Cost Data for Mercury Control Systems, Final Site Report for: PG&E NEG Salem Harbor Station Unit 1

Durham, Michael D.

ADA-ES, Inc.

关键词: Sorbent Injection Processes;    Activated Carbon;    Fossil-Fuel Power Plants;    Air Pollution Monitors;    01 Coal, Lignite, And Peat;   

DOI  :  10.2172/836620
RP-ID  :  41005R18
RP-ID  :  FC26-00NT41005
RP-ID  :  836620

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

PG&E NEG Salem Harbor Station Unit 1 was successfully tested for applicability of activated carbon injection as a mercury control technology. Test results from this site have enabled a thorough evaluation of mercury control at Salem Harbor Unit 1, including performance, estimated cost, and operation data. This unit has very high native mercury removal, thus it was important to understand the impacts of process variables on native mercury capture. The team responsible for executing this program included plant and PG&E headquarters personnel, EPRI and several of its member companies, DOE, ADA, Norit Americas, Inc., Hamon Research-Cottrell, Apogee Scientific, TRC Environmental Corporation, Reaction Engineering, as well as other laboratories. The technical support of all of these entities came together to make this program achieve its goals. Overall the objectives of this field test program were to determine the mercury control and balance-of-plant impacts resulting from activated carbon injection into a full-scale ESP on Salem Harbor Unit 1, a low sulfur bituminous-coal-fired 86 MW unit. It was also important to understand the impacts of process variables on native mercury removal (>85%). One half of the gas stream was used for these tests, or 43 MWe. Activated carbon, DARCO FGD supplied by NORIT Americas, was injected upstream of the cold side ESP, just downstream of the air preheater. This allowed for approximately 1.5 seconds residence time in the duct before entering the ESP. Conditions tested in this field evaluation included the impacts of the Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system on mercury capture, of unburned carbon in the fly ash, of adjusting ESP inlet flue gas temperatures, and of boiler load on mercury control. The field evaluation conducted at Salem Harbor looked at several sorbent injection concentrations at several flue gas temperatures. It was noted that at the mid temperature range of 322-327 F, the LOI (unburned carbon) lost some of its ability to capture vapor phase Hg, however activated carbon performed relatively well. At the normal operating temperatures of 298-306 F, mercury emissions from the ESP were so low that both particulate and elemental mercury were ''not detected'' at the detection limits of the Ontario Hydro method for both baseline and injection tests. The oxidized mercury however, was 95% lower at a sorbent injection concentration of 10 lbs/MMacf compared with baseline emissions. When the flue gas temperatures were increased to a range of 343-347 F, mercury removal efficiencies were limited to <25%, even at the same sorbent injection concentration. Other tests examined the impacts of fly ash LOI, operation of the SNCR system, and flue gas temperature on the native mercury capture without sorbent injection. Listed below are the main conclusions from this program: (1) SNCR on/off test showed no beneficial effect on mercury removal caused by the SNCR system. (2) At standard operating temperatures ({approx} 300 F), reducing LOI from 30-35% to 15-20% had minimal impact on Hg removal. (3) Increasing flue gas temperatures reduced Hg removal regardless of LOI concentrations at Salem Harbor (minimum LOI was 15%). Native mercury removal started to fall off at temperatures above 320 F. ACI effectiveness for mercury removal fell off at temperatures above 340 F. (4) Test method detection limits play an important role at Salem Harbor due to the low residual emissions. Examining the proposed MA rule, both the removal efficiency and the emission concentrations will be difficult to demonstrate on an ongoing basis. (5) Under tested conditions the baseline emissions met the proposed removal efficiency for 2006, but not the proposed emission concentration. ACI can meet the more-stringent 2012 emission limits, as long as measurement detection limits are lower than the Ontario Hydro method. SCEM testing was able to verify the low emissions. For ACI to perform at this level, process conditions need to match those obtained during testing.