## TOXECONTM RETROFIT FOR MERCURY

AND MULTI

- POLLUTANT CONTROL ON THREE 90

- MW COAL

- FIRED BOILERS

Public Design Report

We Energies ADA Environmental Solutions, Cummins & Barnard, and

the Electric Power Research Institute

DOE Cooperative Agreement No. DE

- FC26

- 04NT41766

December 2009i 

### DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the Unite d States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or proces s disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its

e ndorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.ii 

### ABSTR A CT
This document provides a summary of the design efforts involved in the project “TOXECONTM Retrofit for Mercury and Multi

- Pollutant Control on Three 90

- MW Coal

Fired Boilers. ” This U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) projec t was based on a cooperative agreement between We Energies and the DOE Office of Fossil E nergy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to design, install, evaluate, and demonstrate the EPRI

- patented TOXECONTM air pollution control process. Project
p artners included Cummins & Barnard (C&B) , ADA Environmental Solutions ( ADA

- ES ) , and the Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI ) . The primary goal of this project was to reduce mercury emissions from three 90

- MW units that burn Powder River Basin coal at We Energies ’ Presque Isle Power Plant in Marquette, Michigan. Additional goals were to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter emissions ; allow reuse and sale of fly ash ; advance commercialization of the technology ; demonstrate a reliable mercury continuous emission monitor (CEM) suitable for use at power plants ’ and demonstrate recovery of mercury from the sorbent.
In addition to the primary air pollution control system, balance

- of

- plant design considerations

were a ddressed. These included booster fans, a compressed air system, an ash handling system, ductwork, electrical, and instrumentation and controls. Design considerations of a mercury continuous emissions monitor are included in this report.

The cost s of equi pment and installation for the TOXECONTM and balance

- of

- plant systems

were $34. 6 million, including the engineering effort.
This project demonstrated a significant reduction in the rate of emissions from Presque Isle Units 7, 8 , and 9 , and substantial progr ess toward establishing the design criteria for one of the most promising mercury control retrofit technologies currently available. The Levelized Cost for 90% mercury removal at this site was calculated at $7 7,031 per pound of mercury removed with a capi tal cost of $63,189 per pound of mercury removed. Mercury removal at the Presque Isle Power Plant average d approximately 97 pounds per year.iii 

### POINTS OF CONTACT

Steve Derenne Principal Engineer We Energies 333 West Everett Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 414

- 221

- 4443 steven.derenne@we

- energies.com

Robin Stewart Manager, Contract R&D ADA

- ES, Inc. 8100 SouthPark Way, Unit B Littleton, CO 80120 303

- 734

- 1727 robins@adaes .com

Michael H. McMillian U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory 3610 Collins Ferry Road Morgantown, WV 26507 304

- 285

- 4669 mmcmil@netl.doe.gov

Ramsay Chang Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304

- 1338 650

- 855

- 2535 rchang@epri.comiv 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... vi LIST OF FIGURES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ viii GLOSSARY OF TERMS

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ .... xii 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

- 1 1.1 Purpose of the Public Design Report

................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 1 1.2 Brief Description of the Project

................................ ................................ .................. 1

- 1 1.2.1 Project Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 1 1.2.2 Project Organization

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1

- 2 1.2.3 Project Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

- 3 1.2.4 Project Location

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

- 4 1.3 Objectives of the Project

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

- 5 1.4 Significance of the Project

................................ ................................ .......................... 1

- 6 1.5 DOE's Role in the Project

................................ ................................ ........................... 1

- 7 2.0 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION

................................ ................................ .............. 2

- 1 2.1 Brief Description of the Technology Being Used

................................ ....................... 2

- 1 2.1.1 Proprietary Information

................................ ................................ ............................... 2

- 2 2.2 Overall Block Flow Diagram

................................ ................................ ...................... 2

- 2 3.0 PROCESS DESIGN CRITERIA

................................ ................................ ................ 3

- 1 3.1 Design Recommendations for Presque Isle TOXECON

................................ ......... 3

- 1 3.2 Baghouse Design Specifications

................................ ................................ ................. 3

- 2 3.3 Coal Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3

- 3 4.0 DETAILED PROCESS DESIGN

................................ ................................ ............... 4

- 1 4.1 General Arrangement

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4

- 1 4.2 Equi pment List

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4

- 2 4.3 Baghouse Design

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 2 4.3.1 Inlet Particulate Loading

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 2 4.3.2 Type of Baghouse

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4

- 3 4.3.3 Air

- to

- Cloth Ratios

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4

- 3v 4.3.4 Flue Gas Cooling

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 4 4.3.5 Bag Material and Length

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

- 5 4.3.6 Cleaning Method

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 4

- 6 4.3.7 Compartments

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 7 4.3.8 Tube Sheet Pressure Drop

................................ ................................ ........................... 4

- 8 4.3.9 Model Study Objectives and Results

................................ ................................ ........... 4

- 9 4.4 Powdered Activated Carbon System Design

................................ ............................ 4

- 11 4.5 Balance

- of

- Plant Considerations

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 14 4.5.1 Booster Fans

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 14 4.5.2 Compressed Air System

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 16 4. 5.3 Ash Handling System

................................ ................................ ................................ 4

- 17 4.5.4 Ductwork

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 4

- 22 4.5.5 Electrical

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4

- 25 4.5.6 Instrumentation and Controls

................................ ................................ .................... 4

- 27 4.6 Mercury Measurements

................................ ................................ ............................ 4

- 28 5.0 PR OCESS CAPITAL COST

................................ ................................ ...................... 5

- 1 5.1 Additional Cost of Modifications since Start Up

................................ ........................ 5

- 3 6.0 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS

................................ ................................ ......... 6

- 1 7.0 COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS

................................ ................................ ............ 7

- 1 8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OTHER PROJECT REPORTS

.......... 8

- 1 Appendix A. PAC Data Sheet Appendix B. PAC Injection System Flow Diagram Appendix C. Drawings Appendix D. Modifications Since Startupvi 

### LIST OF TABLES

Table 1

- 1. Flue Gas Composition Downstream of HESPs in Flues 7, 8, and 9 at PIPP.

...... 1

- 5 Table 2

- 1. Stream Data.

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

- 3 Table 3

- 1. Baghouse Design Specifications.

................................ ................................ ........ 3

- 3 Table 3

- 2. PIPP PRB Coal Analysis.

................................ ................................ .................... 3

- 3 Table 4

- 1. Major Equipment List.

................................ ................................ ......................... 4

- 2 Table 4

- 2. Typical Particulate Loading at Presque Isle.

................................ ....................... 4

- 3 Table 4

- 3. Test Bag Materials.

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

- 6 Table 4

- 4. Ductwork Sizing Summary.

................................ ................................ .............. 4

- 23 Table 5

- 1. Summary of Equipment, Balance

- of

- Plant, and Engineering Costs.

.................. 5

- 1 Table 5

- 2. Additional Equipment Costs since Startup.

................................ ......................... 5

- 4 Table 6

- 1. Summary of Operating and Maintenance Costs.

................................ ................. 6

- 1 Table 6

- 2. Summary of Startup Costs.

................................ ................................ .................. 6

- 2vii 

### LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1

- 1. Organizational Chart.

................................ ................................ ........................ 1

- 2 Figure 1

- 2. TOXECONTM Configuration.

................................ ................................ ............ 1

- 3 Figure 2

- 1. Process Flow Diagram.

................................ ................................ ...................... 2

- 3 Figure 4

- 1. Schematic of Thermo Prototype Mercury CEM.

................................ ............. 4

- 29viii 

### LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A/C Air

- to

- cloth ratio acfm Actual cubic feet per minute ACI Activate d carbon injection A/E Architect/Engineer BOP Balance

- of

- plant CCPI Clean Coal Power Initiative CEM Continuous emissions monitor COHPAC ® Compact Hybrid Particulate Collector DCS Distributed control system DOE Department of Energy EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESP Electrostatic precipitator gr/acf Grains per actual cubic foot HESP Hot

- side electrostatic precipitator Hg Mercury HP Horsepower HVAC Heating ventilation air conditioning ID Induced draft I/O Input/output lb/hr Pounds per hour LOI Lo ss on ignition MCC Motor control center MMacf Million actual cubic feet MW Megawatts NEP National Energy Policy NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory NO x Oxides of nitrogen NFPA National Fire Protection Associati on O 2 Oxygen O&M Operation and Maintenanceix

OEM Original equipment manufacturer PAC Powdered activated carbon PIPP Presque Isle Power Plant PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million PPS Polyphenylene sulfide ppt Parts per trillion PRB Powder River Basin psig Pounds per square inch gauge RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit RIO Remote I/O
rpm Revolutions per minute scfm Standard cubic feet per minute SO 2 Sulfur dioxide T/R Transformer Rectifier VAC Volts alternating current VIV Variable inlet vane WAPC Wheela brator Air Pollution Control

” w.c. Inches of water columnx 

### GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The following information provides the reader with an introduction to common terminology related to fabric filters and the TOXECONTM technology.

Pressure Drop/Drag

– Pressure drop and drag are both used to monitor the permeability of the filter and filter cake. Pressure drop is a direct measurement of the pressure difference across the fabric filters. Drag is a calculated number that normalizes pressure drop to flo w by dividing pressure drop by the air

- to

- cloth ( A/C ) ratio. These values are a function of inlet grain loading, filtering characteristics of the particulate matter, flue gas flow rate, and time between cleaning. The particulate matter, or dust, adhering to the outside of the bags is usually referred to as “cake,” which acts as a filtering medium and presents a resistance to flow. A greater inlet loading or longer bag cleaning cycle time will result in deposition of a thicker cake collected on the bag su rface. A thicker cake on the surface results in a higher pressure drop. Excessive pressure drop is undesirable because of the energy required to overcome it. Fans need to be sized to compensate for this expected pressure drop and higher pressure drops r equire larger fans and subsequently more horsepower. Once a system is designed and in operation, excessive pressure drop is a problem if the pressure drop exceeds the fan capacity. In this case, a generating unit becomes load limited due to insufficient fan capacity to run at full load. In addition, the cleaning system needs to run more often, which consumes additional compressed air motor energy, and the bag life is shortened due to additional cleaning cycles. Bags flex when they are cleaned because th ey are made of a fabric material, and this flexing eventually causes a failure of the material ( McKenna, 1989 ).
Cleaning Frequency

– Pressure drop and drag are controlled in a baghouse by the cleaning frequency. Higher inlet loading causes increased press ure drop and subsequent increased cleaning frequency. Cleaning cycles are initiated by a set pressure drop value for the system. When the system pressure drop increases to this point a cleaning cycle is initiated (see “Cleaning Modes” below). C leaning f requency increase s with the increased particulate loading from sorbent injection.xi

Opacity/Emissions

– Cleaning frequency and particulate matter characteristics can affect collection efficiency across the baghouse. Most emissions occur immediately followin g cleaning, so increasing the cleaning frequency can increase outlet emissions. The emissions could also increase if the particulate does not form a high

- efficiency filter, but tends to work through the fabrics.

Air

- to
- Cloth (A/C) Ratio

– The ratio betwee n flue gas flow (acfm) and total fabric surface area (ft 2 ), expressed in ft/min. A lower A/C ratio indicates a larger, more conservative design. Typically, pulse

- jet fabric filters are designed with A/C ratios between 3 and 4 ft/min. COHPAC and TOXECONTM applications target a higher, more economical design between 5 and 8 ft/min.
Cleaning Modes

– Pulse

- jet fabric filters are generally cleaned with either “online” or “offline” cleaning. In either case, cleaning is usually initiated when a predetermined pressure drop or drag setpoint is reached. In the case of offline cleaning, when the setpoint is reached, inlet and/or outlet dampers close, isolating a single compartment. This compartment is then systematically pulsed, row

- by

- row, until i t has been entirely cleaned. The isolating dampers are then opened and flue gas reenters the compartment. In the case of online cleaning, when the setpoint is reached single rows are cleaned around the various compartments without any isolation. Because flue gas continues to flow through the bags being cleaned during online cleaning, the degree of cleaning is reduced. The benefits of online cleaning are that there is not a pressure spike (from isolating a compartment) and there is not a sudden very clea n area in the fabric filter. When a compartment is cleaned offline, it creates a “hole” in the fabric filter, which can temporarily reduce particulate control and potentially mercury control.xii 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document provides a summ ary of the design efforts involved in the project “TOXECONTM Retrofit for Mercury and Multi

- Pollutant Control on Three 90

- MW Coal

Fired Boilers” that was completed on September 30, 2009. This U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCP I) project was based on a cooperative agreement between We Energies and the DOE Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to design, install, evaluate, and demonstrate the EPRI

- patented TOXECONTM air pollution control process. Project partners included Cummins & Barnard (C&B) , ADA Environmental Solutions (ADA

- ES) , and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

.
The primary goal of this project was to reduce mercury emissions from three 90

- MW units that burn Powder River Basin coal at the We Energies ’ Presque Isle Power Plant in Marquette, Michigan. Additional goals were to reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter emissions; allow reuse and sale of fly ash; advance commercialization of the technology; demon strate a reliable mercury continuous emission monitor (CEM) suitable for use at power plants; and demonstrate recovery of mercury from the sorbent.
The project was chosen for award in 2003 with Budget Period 1 taking place in 2004 and early 2005. Budget P eriod 2 of the project began in 2005 and came to a close in September 2009. Budget Period 1 included activities of project definition, design and engineering, prototype testing, major equipment procurement, and foundation installation. Budget Period 2 ac tivities included CEMS demonstration, TOXECONTM erection, TOXECONTM operation, and carbon ash management demonstration.
Technology Overview We Energies and the project team designed, installed, evaluated, and operated an integrated emissions control system f or mercury and particulate matter that treated the flue gases of three 90

- MW subbituminous coal

- fired units. This was the first commercial full

- scale TOXECONTM demonstration using activated carbon injection (ACI) for mercury removal. TOXECONTM is an EPRI

- p atented process ( U.S. Patent 5,505,766 ) for removing pollutantsxiii

from combustion flue gas by injecting sorbent between an existing particulate collector and a fabric filter (baghouse) installed downstream for control of toxic species. At Presque Isle, the existing collectors were hot

- side electrostatic precipitators (HESP) . The TOXECONTM configuration, shown in Figure 1 , allow ed for separate treatment or disposal of the ash collected in the hot

- side ESP (99% or greater) and the ash/sorbent collected in the TOXECONTM baghouse , unlike other configurations that have ACI upstream of the particulate control device

.

Figure 1. Process Flow Diagram.
The TOXECONTM system at Presque Isle consist ed of a modification of the flue gas ductwork from each of the three units into a single duct that led to the new baghouse. A single duct exit ed the baghouse and then split into three individual branches with three new booster fans. The ducts exiting the booster fans were then recombined into a single duct back to the existing stack where the combined duct was again separated into three branches that suppl ied the three existing individual unit stack flues. The combined design conditionxiv

for the three

- unit flue gas system flow was 1,200,000 acfm @ 350 F with approximately 14” w.c. of pressure drop from the I D fan discharges to the stack

. Also included in the TOXECONTM system was the PAC storage silo and injection system ; and a new ash storage silo and ash unloading system.
Design and Engineering Considerations A full evaluation of the commercial potential of TOXECONTM required long

- term data on an installation that was specifically designed for both particulate control and sorbent injection. The installation also needed to have the flexibility to handle potentia l variability in particulate loading due to mercury control parametric and optimization testing, as well as increased loading from injecting sodium sorbents for the sulfur dioxide reduction tests. The design specifications for the pulse

- jet style baghouse are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Baghouse Design Specifications.

Item Specification Total Compartments 10 Bags per Compartment 648 Total Bags in Baghouse 6480 Air

- to

- Cloth Ratio (gross) 5. 2 Design Gas Volume 1,200,000 acfm Cleaning Method On

- line
The bag fabric chosen was 18 oz/yd 2 , 2.7 denier PPS (polyphenylene sulfide fiber) felt. The bags were 26 feet long and 5 inches in diameter. Several test bags made from newer materials were also installed and tested throughout the demonstration project.

Norit Americas DARCO ® Hg and Hg

- LH were the two primary sorbents tested during the project. The activated carbon injection system installed was designed by ADA

- ES and equipment was provided by Norit Americas. The design injection rate was 216 lb/hr ( 3 lb /MMacf total) and there were three injection trains (one per duct). The maximum capacity of the injection system was 600 lb/hr. The silo storage capacity was 4,490 cu ft , and depending upon the PAC density, could hold 80

– 100 tons of sorbent . Several otherxv

experimental and/or imported carbons from Norit and ADA

- ES were also tested full

- scale using temporary injection equipment.
In addition to the primary air pollution control system, balance

- of

- plant design considerations were addressed. These include booster fans, compressed air system, ash handling system, ductwork, electrical, and instrumentation and controls. A task in the project was devoted to advancing a monitoring system that w ould reliably measure mercury in flue gas from coal

fired power plants. Design considerations for the mercury continuous emissions monitors, including reporting and monitoring needs were also incl uded.

Modifications to the Installation After the construction was complete and throughout the demonstration portion of the project, several modifications to the equipment and structures were required.
Baghouse Modifications Several modifications were inco rporated to gain more optimal temperature control in the baghouse and booster fan building including larger ventilation fans and louvered windows at the top of the baghouse , add itional walls in the upper and lower baghouse areas to block flow of hot air f

rom the fan building , add itional louvered windows at the booster fan inlet gate level and modified temperature controls to achieve better heat control , and add itional walls and larger heaters in the lower baghouse area.

Additional modifications were added to improve structural integrity and maintenance access: the baghouse covers were rebuilt with checker plate and angle iron, and additional stiffeners were added across the width of the covers to improve strength; a redesigned lifting spreader for the cove rs was provided to keep from bending the covers when trying to open under negative pressure; platforms were added to access the booster fan outlet; and ice breaks were added to the top of the baghouse vent louvers.
Ash Handling System Modifications Excessi ve dusting was occurring during the use of the wet unloading system, especially when starting the pin mixer. Several modifications were incorporated into the original pin mixer. Finally, a larger pin mixer had to be installed because the modifications st ill did now allowxvi

for a dust

- free unloading process. This helped to eliminate the dusting and equipment issues seen during the demonstration. The main differences between the original mixer and the new mixer were additional fogging and spray nozzles , and the motor was increased from 7.5 H P to 10 H P , thereby increasing the mixer speed at 60 Hz motor frequency from 76 rpm to 100 rpm.
Additional modifications were made to improve flow of the PAC/ash mixture into the pin mixer

. A new rotary valve was added t o replace the original butterfly valve and , although fluidization at the silo discharge was normally not required, the original fluidization valves were replace d by three large air cannons.

There were o ther modifications to improve operability of the ash unloading system

. A rubber skirt was added to the wet unloading spout to improve dust control , the sequencing of the exhauster and system relief valves was optimized to allow dust to be purged from vacuum relief piping before purging , an extension to the unloading shelter to the east of the silo was installed. This reduced the wind tunneling effect and protected the area from the elements.
Ductwork Modifications Two inches of insulation was added to all expansion joints on the baghouse ductwork (approxima tely 28 places) to minimize corrosion due to flue gas condensation on cold spots in and around the joints.
Access Platform Additions Four access platforms were added to the baghouse discharge ducts. Three platforms (one for each unit) were located underne ath the ductwork at the 90 elbows just upstream of the diverter damper. The fourth additional platform was added on top of the Unit 8 ductwork to provide access to the baghouse.
Equipment and Installation Costs The costs of equipment and installation for the TOXECONTM and balance

- of

- plant systems were $34.6 million, including the engineering effort. The cost of the additions and modifications after construction were $413,500.1

- 1



### 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 Purpose of the Public Design Report

This Public Design Report provides non

- proprietary information on the performance and economics of the TOXECONTM air pollution control system installed at We Energies ’ Presque Isle Power Plant (PIPP) located in Marquette, Michigan, under U.S. Department of Energy Coope rative Agreement No. DE

- FC26

- 04NT41766. This report describes the design and equipment associated with the TOXECONTM multi

- pollutant system. This is the second of two final documents describing the installation at PIPP. The first document is the Project Performance and Economics Report (We Energies, 2009). A Preliminary Design Report was issued after the completion of the construction phase (We Energies, 2006), and this document is an expanded update of that report.

1.2 Brief Description of the Project
The p roject described in this report was conducted under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI). The CCPI is an industry/government cost

- shared partnership to implement clean coal technologies.

The CCPI was initiated in 2002 with a goal of accelerating commercial deployment of advanced technologies to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. The CCPI builds upon the advancements made by previous and continuing clean coal research and ensures the ong oing development of advanced systems for commercial power production.

1.2.1 Project Schedule
The project was selected for award in early 2003 with Budget Period 1 taking place in 2004 and early 2005. Budget Period 2 of the project began in 2005 and came to a close in September 2009. Budget Period 1 included activities of project definition, design and engineering, prototype testing, major equipment procurement, and foundation installation. Budget Period 2 activities included CEMS demonstration, TOXECONTM erec tion, TOXECONTM operation, and carbon ash management demonstration.1

- 2

1.2.2 Project Organization
The project team included We Energies, ADA Environmental Solutions (ADA

- ES), Cummins & Barnard (C&B), and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). We Energies
pro vided and operated the demonstration site, as well as provided project management, environmental permitting, and reporting. ADA

- ES was the project management interface with DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and was responsible for the de sign of the mercury control system, design of the mercury monitoring system, demonstration testing of the overall process, and reporting. Wheelabrator was responsible for the design and construction of the baghouse, support of baghouse installation, and
p rovided startup support under a subcontract to We Energies. C&B provided architectural and engineering services, construction management, design and specification of equipment, equipment installation, and startup training for plant operators. EPRI provid ed technical advice to We Energies. Figure 1

- 1 is a simplified organizational chart for the project.

Figure 1

- 1 . Organizational Chart.1

- 3

1.2.3 Project Description
We Energies and the project team designed, installed, evaluated, and operated an integrated emissions control system for mercury and particulate matter that treated th e flue gases of three 90

- MW sub bituminous coal

- fired units. This was the first commercial full

- scale TOXECONTM demonstrat ion using activated carbon injection (ACI) for mercury removal. TOXECONTM is an EPRI

- patented process (U.S. Patent 5,505,766) for removing pollutants from combustion flue gas by injecting sorbent between an existing particulate collector and a fabric filte r (baghouse) installed downstream for control of toxic species. At Presque Isle, the existing collectors were hot

- side electrostatic precipitators (HESPs) . The TOXECONTM configuration, shown in Figure 1

- 2 , allows for separate treatment or disposal of the ash collected in the H ESP (99% or greater) and the ash/sorbent collected in the TOXECONTM baghouse.

Figure 1

- 2 . TOXEC ONTM Configuration. The project advanced the ancillary processes that are significant to mercury control, such as mercury measurement technology and waste minimization. As a secondary priority, the project also investigated SO 2 and NO x control after mercur y control issues had been addressed.1

- 4

1.2.4 Project Location
The project took place at We Energies’ Presque Isle Power Plant (PIPP) located in Marquette, Michigan. PIPP had nine boilers and this project applied to Units 7, 8, and 9. Each of the 90

- MW units had a HESP as the primary particulate matter (PM) control device. The exhausts from the three HESPs were ducted into individual flues of a common stack. The project involved controlling the emissions from the three units using a single baghouse. Integrating the three units into one project and structure provided significant cost savings over treating the units separately, and optimized the use of space.
The TOXECONTM process was ideal for PIPP because the existing HESP exhausts benefitted from the additional PM control, especially during startup and shutdown. Also, the existing HESPs used for PM control did not have the ability to remove mercury from the flue gas, and injection of powdered activated carbon (PAC) into these HESPs was not feasible due to the hi gh flue gas temperatures. The TOXECONTM process also allowed We Energies to continue to sell its fly ash from the HESPs because the carbon was injected downstream of these units.
The PIPP Units 7, 8, and 9 were placed in service in 1978, 1978, and 1979 res pectively by Upper Peninsula Power Company to meet the needs of Cleveland

- Cliffs Iron Co. Wisconsin Electric purchased the plant in 1988. Refer to Appendix C for plant schematics.
The boilers were Riley Turbo units rated for a maximum continuous capacity of 615,000 lb/hr steam flow at 1625 psig superheater outlet pressure and 1005 oF. Reheater steam flow was 555,000 lb/hr at 390 psig and 1005 oF. Each unit was fired by two 10’ X 13’ Riley ball tube mills and directional flame burners.
The precipitators were designed and built by Joy

- Western and were designed as HESPs with an operating range of 565

– 745 oF. The units were two chambers wide and were a weighted wire unit consisting of six mechanical fields per chamber and twelve electrical frames, six
per c hamber powered by six full

- wave transformer/rectifiers ( T/R ) . The units were designed to collect fly ash from a pulverized coal boiler with a gross rating of 93 MW and a design gas volumetric flow rate of 530,000 acfm. The design collection efficiency wa s 99.20%.1

- 5

Typical flow rates and gas components in the flue gas exiting the HESPs of Units 7

– 9 are shown in Table 1

- 1

.

Table 1

- 1 . Flue Gas Composition Downstream of HESPs in Flues 7, 8, and 9 at PIPP.

Characteristic Flue 7 Flue 8 Flue 9 Gas Volumetric Flow Rate, acfm 377,719 375,014 335,439 Average Gas Temperature, oF 364.6 344.8 366.6 Flue Gas Moisture, % by volume 12.1 13.3 12.7 Average % CO 2 by volume, dry basis 12.8 13.0 13.0 Average % O 2 by volume, dry basis 6.2 6.0 6.0 Filterable PM, lb/hr 15.13 9.99 20.35 NO x , lb/hr 407.8 410.5 406.8 SO 2 , lb/hr 461.9 464.7 474.7 Mercury, ppm dry (Average Units 7

– 9) 0.062 0.062 0.062

The combustion process was controlled by an Emerson distributed control system with a SmartProcess ® Combustion Optimization software package to optimize NO x and loss on ignition (LOI).

PIPP burn ed Powder River Basin (PRB) sub bituminous coal in Units 7

– 9. Analysis of the coal sampled at PIPP during the project showed a mercury concentration of 0.0 62 μg/g on a dry basis . PRB coal was supplied by several mines in Wyoming and Montana (dependent on the price of the fuel) and ship ped by rail to Superior, Wisconsin, where it was then loaded onto a lake boat for delivery to PIPP.

1.3 Objectives of the Project
The primary goal of this project was to reduce mercury emissions from three 90

- MW units at the We Energies Presque Isle Power Plan t. Additional objectives were to reduce nitrogen oxide (NO x ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and particulate matter (PM) emissions; allow for reuse and sale of fly ash; develop and demonstrate a reliable mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) suitab le for use in the power plant environment; and demonstrate1

- 6

methods for sorbent regeneration and/or by

- product reuse. This demonstration provided for the use of a novel multi

- pollutant control system to reduce emissions of mercury and other air pollutants while minimizing waste from a coal

- fired power generation system.
The specific objectives of this project were to demonstrate the operation of the TOXECONTM multi

- pollutant control system and achieve:
90% mercury removal from flue gas through activated carb on injection.
An evaluation of the potential for 70% SO 2 control and trim control of NO x from flue gas through sodium

- based or other novel sorbent injection. Reduced PM emission through collection by the TOXECONTM baghouse,
Recovery of 90% of the mercury ca ptured in the sorbent.
100% availability for utilization of fly ash collected in the existing electrostatic precipitator.

D emonstration of a reliable, accurate mercury CEMS suitable for use in the power plant environment.
A successful system integration an d optimization of TOXECONTM operation for mercury and multi

- pollutant control.

1.4 Significance of the Project
The CCPI demonstration of the TOXECONTM process was important to the industry because it provided long

- term operational experience directly applicable to pow er plants that burn western sub bituminous coal. With its proven ability to reduce mercury emissions, the process offers a signific ant benefit to operators of subbituminous

- fueled units in that mercury in flue gas produced by these units exists prima rily in the elemental vapor form that is insoluble in water and, as such, will pass through most types of other air pollution control devices. As a result of this project, the TOXECONTM process is in the position to become a leading mercury control choice for western coals, especially for units that use a hot

- side electrostatic precipitator.1

- 7

A primary benefit of this project was the long

- term demonstration of 90% mercury removal from the stack emissions. The project also demonstrated emission control of pa rticulate matter and sulfur dioxide. In addition, the process is able to maintain the beneficial use of HESP fly ash as a concrete additive.
A very important additional benefit has been identifying and solving the technical hurdles as they were discovered . One of the most notable issues was the overheating and autoignition of the high carbon ash in the baghouse hoppers. The subsequent investigation into the mechanism and development of operational guidelines has proven to be useful to other utilities usi ng the TOXECONTM configuration. Optimization testing also provided important data on reducing sorbent costs and maximizing the life of the bags in the baghouse.
The project was able to significantly reduce the rate of carbon injection needed for achieving an average 90% mercury removal rate. The results of numerous test runs pointed out the importance of various factors that impacted mercury removal efficiency. These factors included the temperature of the flue gas, the amount of time PAC remained on the bags, the amount of PAC on the bags, and the amount of carbon in the fly ash. The result led to a revised control scheme for cleaning the baghouse that reduced operating costs while not impacting emissions or maintenance costs.

1.5 DOE's Role in the Project

T he TOXECONTM project is part of the DOE’s Cl ean Coal Power Initiative, which is an industry/government cost

- shared partnership. Under the CCPI, the DOE provides up to 50% of the funding for the projects. The total cost share for this project was just unde r $48 million with the DOE contributing about $24 million and We Energies contributing about $24 million.

In 2003, a management plan was prepared to provide a suitable strategy for tracking project progress at the task level using an Earned Value Managemen t system. The management plan included final work breakdown structure, final statement of project objectives, schedule baseline, cost baseline, technology baseline, and management controls. As part of the management plan, the DOE had oversight of the pro ject while We Energies communicated1

- 8

project results to DOE to keep DOE fully informed of all aspects of the project. We Energies provided quarterly Technical Progress Reports summarizing technical progress, quarterly Cost Status Reports summarizing financ ial status, and quarterly Schedule Status Reports summarizing schedule status.
The extended project team including the DOE, EPRI, We Energies, and ADA

- ES personnel participated in weekly phone meetings to coordinate project activities and to discuss releva nt project management and technical issues. In this way, all participants including the DOE were able to provide value

- added input to the success of the project.2

- 1



### 2.0 TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTI ON
2.1 Brief Description of the Technology Being Used
Injecting a sorbent such as PAC into the flue gas represents one of the simplest and most thoroughly studied approaches to controlling mercury emissions from coal

- fired boilers (Government Accountability Office, 2005). The ga s
- phase mercury in the flue gas contacts the sorbent and attaches to its surface. The sorbent with attached mercury is then collected by the existing particulate control device, either an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or in the case of a TOXECONTM techn ology, a fabric filter. Over the past several years, the results from numerous full

- scale evaluations of ACI for mercury removal indicate that activated carbon is a viable technology for mercury control on many coal

- fired power plants (Durham, 2003; Busta rd, et al., 2001).
For some plants, one of the disadvantages of injecting activated carbon is its impact on the salability of ash for making concrete. Tests have shown that the activated carbon interferes with chemicals used in making concrete (Bustard, 2 003). This has also been confirmed under the project described in this report. One straightforward, cost

- effective approach to achieving high mercury removal without contaminating the fly ash is the use of the EPRI TOXECON process. With the TOXECONTM co nfiguration, the ash collected upstream of the carbon injection remains acceptable for sale. The downstream fabric filter provides an effective mechanism for the activated carbon to have intimate contact with vapor

- phase mercury, resulting in high levels of mercury control at relatively low sorbent injection rates.

The advantages of the TOXECON configuration are:
Sorbents are mixed with a small fraction of the ash (the less than 1% that exits the primary PM device), which reduces the impact on ash reuse a nd waste disposal.

Full

- scale field tests have confirmed that fabric filters require significantly less sorbent than ESPs to achieve similar mercury removal efficiencies (Bustard, 2004). This was also confirmed on the CCPI project.2

- 2 Outage time can be sign ificantly reduced with TOXECON systems in comparison to the major ESP rebuilds/upgrades that might be required to handle the increased loading and greater collection difficulty of the injected carbon. Since the TOXECONTM unit is added downstream of the ESP, experience shows that it can be built, installed, and checked while the ESP is still in full operation, thus keeping outage time to a minimum.
Baghouse types include shaker

- cleaned, reverse

- air

- cleaned, pulse

- jet

- cleaned, and sonic

- cleaned. A pulse

-

jet

- cleaned baghouse was chosen fo r this application. Pulse jet baghouses use fabric filtration media shaped like tubes called bags, which are usually 4

– 6 inches in diameter and 10 to 26 feet long, to remove the particulate matter from the flue gas stream. The bags are mounted (hung) fro m a tube sheet and the gas stream flows from the outside of the bag through the bag, depositing particulate matter on the outside of the bag. A wire cage inside the bag supports the bag during filtration and cleaning. The particulate matter is removed fr om the bags by a cleaning system that employs compressed air (systems are designed to use compressed air from 30

– 120 psig) to back flush the bags ( McKenna, 1989 ).

2.1.1 Proprietary Information
There is no proprietary information listed in this report.

2.2 Overall Bl ock Flow Diagram
Figure 2

- 1 shows a simplified process flow diagram showing the TOXECONTM retrofit equipment. The inlet CEM probes and lines were integ rated into the three ducts upstream of the ID fans. The ACI lances were installed in each duct downstream of the ID fans and just before the ducts’ exit from the building envelope. Mercury data was taken upstream of PAC injection and downstream of the ba ghouse, and, occasionally, at the stack.2

- 3

Figure 2

- 1 . Process Flow Diagram.

Table 2

- 1 shows some of t he process stream data for the TOXECONTM baghouse. Many stream components remained unchanged, such as gas flow rate and all major flue gas components. Mercury concentration in the flue gas was reduced by an average of 90%. Particulates were significantly reduced through the baghouse also. The flue gas temperature was reduced slightly as it passed through the baghouse. More detailed information can be found in Section 4.1 of this report.

Table 2

- 1 . Stream Data. Stream Parameter Baghouse Inlet Baghouse Outlet TOXECONTM Ash Volumetric Flow Rate 1,200,000 acfm 1,200,000 acfm

---- Mercury Concentration 5.5

– 7.0 ug/m 3 < 1 ug/m 3 40

– 80 ppm Temperature 320

– 375 oF 5 oF below inlet

---- Particulates 0.0116 gr/acf 0.0016 gr/acf Approx. 200 lb/hr PAC/ash mixture Loss on Ignition (LOI) < 1%

---- 40

– 50%3

- 1



### 3.0 PROCESS DESIGN CRITE RIA

3.1 Design Recommendations for Presque Isle TOXECON
A full evaluation of the commercial potential of TOXECONTM required long

- term data on an installation that was specifically designed for both particulate control and sorbent injection. The installation also needed to have the flexibility to handle potentia l variability in particulate loading, as was planned for the SO 2 reduction testing with sodium sorbents, and between the short

- term parametric and long

- term testing periods.

Operational experience from the only two existing COHPAC fabric filters in the U.S. at the time this project was in the design phase (Gaston Units 2 and 3 and TXU’s Big Brown Units 1 and 2) and test results from bench

- , pilot

- , and full

- scale tests provided a good basis for design recommendations (Miller, et al ., 1999; Bustard, et al., 2001). These recommendations included:

Air

- To

- Cloth Ratio

– The Gaston tests showed that TOXECON units designed at lower A/C ratios than COHPAC were capable of high, 90%, mercury removal (short term). The recommendation for th is TOXECON fabric filter, based on the low A/C ratio tests at Gaston, was for a maximum design gross A/C ratio of 6.0 ft/min.

Fabric

– The most accepted fabric for pulse

- jet fabric filters installed on coal

- fired power plants is made from a polyphenylene sulfide fiber, commonly referred to worldwide as PPS. PPS felted material is currently available under the trade names TORCON and PROCON . The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) fabric for the four existing COHPAC fabric filters was an 18 oz/yd 2 , 2. 7 denier PPS felt. Denier is a unit used to measure the fineness of fabric, equal to the mass in grams of 9,000 meters of thread. For example, 9,000 meters of 15 denier nylon, used in nylon stockings, weighs 15 g/0.5 oz, and in this case the thickness of thread would be 0.00425 mm/0.0017 in.
In recent years, advancements have been made with higher permeability fabrics that operate at lower pressure drop. A high permeability fabric made with a 7.0 denier3

- 2 fiber has replaced the OEM fabric at both Gaston an d Big Brown. The 2.7 denier fabric was recommended for PIPP because:

- TOXECON was designed at a lower A/C ratio than COHPAC and did not require higher fabric permeability.

- Field observations indicate that there may be higher particle penetration through 7.0 denier bags. Although this ha d not been quantified, it was desirable in this demonstration to use a more conservative design.

Sorbent

– Norit Americas DARCO ® Hg (formerly DARCO ® FGD) activated carbon ha d been the benchmark sorbent used in test program s starting as early as 1991. This sorbent had a proven record on many different coals, excellent quality control, and adequate capacity to supply 20

– 30 units. DARCO ® Hg is made from Texas lignite coal, has a mass mean diameter of nominally 17 microns and a bulk density of about 30 lbs/ft 3 . Appendix A contains detailed information on DARCO ® FGD carbon. DARCO ® FGD carbon was used at the Gaston plant with excellent mercury removal efficiencies (Bustard, et al. 2004). The initial PAC injection concentratio n was 3.0 lb/MMacf and was based on the Gaston and EPRI tests described above (Bustard et al., 2001; Sjostrom, et al., 2002).
Cleaning

– In order to obtain the highest utilization of the activated carbon, it was originally desirable to keep the carbon on t he bag as long as possible before cleaning. With that in mind, online cleaning was recommended. During the demonstration, mercury removal data indicated that more frequent cleaning improved mercury control by preventing reemission of the mercury from the carbon particles.

3.2 Baghouse Design Specifications
The design specifications for the baghouse are listed in Table 3

- 1

.3

- 3

Table 3

- 1 . Baghouse Design Specifications.

Item Specification Total Compartments 10 Bags per Compartment 648 Total Bags in Baghouse 6480 Air

- to

- Cloth Ratio (gross) 5. 2 Design Gas Volume 1,200,000 acfm Cleaning Method On

- line

3.3 Coal Analysis

Pres que Isle Units 7

– 9 bur PRB subbituminous coal. A typical coal analysis is shown in Table 3

- 2

.

Table 3

- 2 . PIPP PRB Coal Analysis.
Parameter Results (as received) Proximate Water 26.52% Volatiles 30.46% Fixed Carbon 38.45% Ash 4.57% Ultimate Carbon 52.49% Hydrogen 3.65% Oxygen 12.3% Nitrogen 0.75% Sulfur 0.28% Chlorine 0.01% Water 25.85% Ash 4.64% High Heating Value 9052 Btu/lb4

- 1



### 4.0 DETAILED PROCESS DES IGN
4.1 General Arrangement
The TOXECONTM system at Presque Isle consist ed of a modification of the flue gas ductwork from each of the three units into a single duct that led to the new baghouse. The single duct exit ed the baghouse and was then split into three individual branches with three new booster fans. Th e ducts exiting the booster fans were then recombined into a single duct back to the existing stack where the combined duct was again separated into three branches that suppl ied the three existing individual unit stack flues. The combined three

- unit flue gas system flow was 1,200,000 acfm @ 350 F with approximately 14” w.c. of pressure drop from the ID fan discharges to the stack

. Also included in the TOXECONTM system were the PAC storage silo and injection system and a new ash storage silo.

Refer to Appendix C general arrangement drawings 4937

- CGA

- M1000, 4937

- CGA

- M1001, 4937

- CGA

- M1002, 4937

- CGA

- M1003, and 4937

- CGA

- M1004 for a layout of the project. Drawing 4937

- CBA

- M0112 is a piping and instrumentation diagram of the flue gas system.4

- 2

4.2 Equipment List

Table 4

- 1 lists all significant items of process equipment.

Table 4

- 1 . Major Equipment List. Item No. Item Name Number Vendor In Use Spare 1 Baghouse 1 0 Wheelabrator 2 Electrical Equipment n/a n/a Various 3 Controls (Including Enclosure) n/a n/a Emerson 4 Air Compressor/Dryer 1 1 Sullair 5 ID Booster Fans 3 0 Flakt

- Woods 6 Ash System 1 0 United Conveyor 7 PAC System 1 0 Norit 8 Dampers n/a n/a Wahlco 9 Expansion Joints n/a n/a PAPCO 10 Ductwork and Structural Steel n/a n/a Merrill, Cives 11 Mercury Continuous Emissions Monitors 2 0 Thermo Fisher Design conditions were: 1) Unit capacity of 270 MW. 2) Air/cloth = 5. 2 ft/min. 3) Flue gas flow rate of 1,200,000 acfm.

4.3 Baghouse Design
The mercury concentration in the ducts exiting the HESPs at Presque Isle was measured in 2005 using both the Thermo Electron (now Thermo Fisher) CEM and the Sor bent Trap Method (STM) and was found to be around 6 μg/dNm 3 (Sjostrom, 2005). T his was the mercury concentration typically entering the baghouse along with the 1% of the total ash.

4.3.1 Inlet Particulate Loading
The original particulate loading was based on t he collection rate of fly ash (200 lb/hr max) and the injection rate of PAC (450 lb/hr max), which included not only the initial PAC4

- 3

collection, but any recycled material that might be collected in later tests. The total maximum baghouse loading for fly a sh/PAC was 650 lb/hr (0.325 tons per hour). Particulate tests were performed at the stack at Presque Isle in June 2005. Table 4

- 2 shows the particula te loading for Presque Isle and a comparison to the conditions during testing at Gaston.

Table 4

- 2 . Typical Particulate Loading at Presque Isle.

Location Particulate Loading (gr/acf) Carbon Injection

(gr/acf) PIPP Flue 7 0.0047

- PIPP Flue 8 0.0031

- PIPP Flue 9 0.0071

- PIPP Estimated Inlet (Total 7

– 9) 0.0050 0.021 Gaston

– Low Load 0.0062 0.0063

– 0.014 Gaston

– High Load, Mid

- Range Values 0.07

– 0.14 0.0025

4.3.2 Type of Baghouse
A pulse jet style baghouse was selected for Presque Isle. This style reflect ed a typical industry standard and require d a small footprint area for the congested Presque Isle site. Based on a competitive bid process, a baghouse provided by Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control was se lected. The baghouse was appropriate for the Presque Isle TOXECONTM project since baghouses of this type have been installed successfully in other power plant applications where the flue gas flow and particulate loading were much higher than the conditions at Presque Isle.

4.3.3 Air

- to
- Cloth Ratios
Low flow tests performed at Gaston show ed that a baghouse configuration utilizing an A/C ratio of less than 6 ft/min was recommended for new TOXECONTM units (Bustard, et al., 2004). These tests also showed that a mercu ry removal over 90% was achievable under these conditions. These tests also showed that the outlet mercury concentrations varied from 3.2

-4

- 4

0.61 μg/Nm 3 with an injection concentration of 0.9

– 3.3 lbs/MMacf , respectively. For PIPP to have a 90% removal at an inlet concentration of 6 μg/Nm 3 or an outlet concentration of 0.6 μg/Nm 3 , it was anticipated that the design injection rate of 216 lb/hr (3.0 lb/MMacf) was required. Gaston was used as a guide here since no other test data was available. The differences in coal composition and gas temperatures between the two sites were substantial. Knowing this, the installed excess injection capacity allowed for adequate removal considering that the system could inject up to 600 lb/hr (8.3 lb/MMacf). The excess capac ity also allowed testing of additional sorbents such as recycled PAC injection material.
Based on industry historical experience, test results from Gaston, bag supplier experience, the project stated goals, and compartment configuration; an A/C ratio of 5. 2 ft/min was selected. The net (one compartment out of service) and net

- net (two compartments out of service) A/C ratios we re 6.1 and 6.8 ft/min, respectively.

The volumetric flow of 1,200,000 acfm of flue gas was calculated using heat balance software an d compared to test data that were taken for air heater performance tests and stack emissions tests. The final selection of flow was chosen at 350 F, which was determined to be an achievable flue gas temperature considering the historical operational flue gas temperatures.

4.3.4 Flue Gas Cooling
A technical concern of this project was the expected range of flue gas temperatures. The air preheater on each of the three units deviated significantly from its design such that the gas outlet temperature operating ran ge was measured at about 350 °F to 380 °F. This range was above the optimal condition for untreated sorbent performance and would likely preclude acceptable mercury control with the standard sorbent. Additionally, the high gas exit temperature could have a negative impact on unit heat rate and w ould be a risk to the filter bags. As such, efforts were undertaken to reduce the gas outlet temperature using sootblowers on the air preheaters in each of the three units. This should have improve d the efficienc y of the air preheaters and increase d the cooling of the exit gas from the HESPs. Sootblowing tests performed during the demonstration showed a significant reduction in flue4

- 5

gas temperature, allowing 90% mercury removal at relatively low PAC injection rat es (1.2 lb/MMacf for brominated PAC).
The alternative was to use a spray system to cool the flue gas before treating it with sorbent. After completion of the parametric testing and sootblowing tests, the project team determined that a spray cooling system was not needed.

4.3.5 Bag Material and Length

4.3.5.1 Base Bag Design
The fabric filter bag material chosen was a polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) material based on the flue gas temperature, flue gas analysis, and PAC properties (Appendix A). The base design for the TOXECONTM fabric filter was to use PPS fabric bags with the following specifications:
Felted, 2.7 denier PPS fabric
Weight of nominally 18 ounces/yd 2
Singed on both sides
Scrim material made from 3 ounces/yd 2 of PPS
Mullen burst minimum of 500 psi

Maximum temperature for continuous use is 375 oF Permeability at 0.5” w.c. of 25

– 40 cfm/ft 2

Three of the four baghouse proposals offered a 26

- foot bag, while the fourth offered a 20

- foot bag. The final selection was a 26

- foot bag with a nominal 5

- inch diameter.

4.3.5.2 A lternate Test Bag Materials
The TOXECONTM program also included testing of bags and/or materials provided by other manufacturers. A description of the different types of test fabrics installed in Compartment 84

- 6

can be found in Table 4

- 3 . All test bags were installed in bundle A, or the bundle closest to the inlet and outlet plenums. In the case of the Ahlstrom fabric, four approximately 4” x 11” swatche s were installed in frames in a swatch holder, which was placed on the supporting steel above the bags and pulse pipes. Although full

- scale bags were preferred for the tests, using swatches reduce d the risk of premature failures with experimental bags. F or comparison, four OEM swatches were also installed. Additional test bags and swatches were installed and tested throughout the demonstration project. Refer to the Project Performance and Economics Report (We Energies, 2009) for more detail.

Table 4

- 3 . Test Bag Materials. Bag ID Material/Design Benefit Quantity 9065 Dual density Torcon (0.9

and 2 denier blend on filter side, 7 denier on other side) High Perm on one side, high collection efficiency on other side 9

1342 P84 Higher temperature, higher collection efficiency 11

GE/BHA

- TEX Scrim

- supported PPS felt

with a BHA

- TEX Expanded microporous PTFE Membrane Membrane provides higher collection efficiency and promotes light dustcake formation 10

Toray Proprietary material 2 Environmental Products and Systems, Inc. PPS fabric Alternate source of PPS bags 1

Ahlstrom GFTS #4406 Armorguard felt, proprietary

blend Swatches only

4.3.6 Cleaning Method
Baghouses typically clean the filter bags in one of two methods: offline and online cleaning. Offline cleaning is accomplished by isolating an individual compartment in the baghouse from the flue gas flow prior to cleaning the bags. The bags are then cl eaned in the stagnant compartment and the dust allowed to settle into the ash hopper before opening the compartment to the flue gas flow. Offline cleaning is an efficient method for cleaning the bag thoroughly; however, a disadvantage to this method is an increase in velocities and the4

- 7

resulting pressure drop in the other compartments in service when isolating a compartment for cleaning. Online cleaning is accomplished without isolating the compartment from the flue gas flow. As the bags are cleaned, the normal flue gas flow through the compartment would occur. Although the online cleaning method would cause some re

- entrainment of the dust on the bags, an advantage of the online cleaning method is that it can be accomplished in a shorter duration because compartment isolation is not required.
Both cleaning methods clean the filter bags by using pressurized air to blow down the filter bags. The burst of compressed air that travels down the filter bag snaps the bag outward, causing the agglomerated ash and carbon on the bag to fall off the bag and into the collection hopper at the bottom of the compartment.
Online and offline cleaning capabilities were considered and online cleaning was chosen with the objectives of maintaining a consistent pressure drop ac ross the baghouse and dust cake on the bags. With offline cleaning, all of the bags in a compartment are cleaned at once, dislodging the fly ash/activated carbon dust cake and potentially creating an area with lower pressure drop and higher flow that does not have adequate sorbent to maintain a high mercury removal. During the demonstration program, online cleaning proved to be efficient and was chosen for long

- term operation.

T he baghouse was configured to clean three rows of filter bags in a compartment, then advancing to another compartment. Staggering the cleaning cycle through multiple compartments evenly distributed the flow through the baghouse and prevented short circuit issues.
During testing it was determined that moisture in the expo sed baghouse pulse

- air piping may have been freezing and restricting air flow during bag cleaning. The plant built a sheet metal cover to help insulate this piping from the cold weather (ref: JPG_002, Appendix D).

4.3.7 Compartments
The selection of ten compart ments in the baghouse design was based upon the total footprint area available at Presque Isle, and the desire to isolate compartments in order to simulate4

- 8

higher A/C ratios. Each compartment had 18 rows and 18 columns, and contained 648 bags. In this co nfiguration, isolating one or two compartments allowed testing at A/C ratios of 6.1 and 6.8 ft/min.

4.3.8 Tube Sheet Pressure Drop
The specified design pressure drop across the TOXECONTM baghouse tube sheet was expected to be between 4” w.c. and 6” w.c., which is typical for baghouses installed on coal

fired boilers. At this site, the particulate cake consisted of PAC/ash, and adsorption on the cake was the primary mercury removal mechanism.
The PIPP baghouse was sized based on WAPC historic design parameters and the design guideline of the We Energies specifications. The plenums were sized based on traditional flow velocities and were within the guidelines set by the We Energies specifications. Inlet and outlet dampers were sized as large as physically possible for the plenums and compartments selected. The compartments were provided with vanes and perforated plates to achieve the flow and dust distribution required in the specifications and not specifically to reduce pressure loss. Inlet and outlet plenums we re modeled with various vane arrangements to reduce pressure loss without any significant improvements. The model study mechanical pressures losses exceeded the expectations of WAPC. WAPC stated the model study results were not representative of past WAP C baghouse designs.4

- 9

ADA

- ES’s calculation using a residual filter drag coefficient generally accepted in the industry is listed below. The formula for predicting pressure loss in a fabric filter is:

Δ P = Δ P

R +K 2 V 2 Ct/7000 Predictive equation for fabric fi lter pressure loss, where:
K 2 Specific resistance coefficient of freshly deposited dust ( ” w.c.)/(ft/min)/(lb/sq ft) K 2 70 ( ” w.c.)/(ft/min)/(lb/sq ft) Δ P R Anticipated residual drag wa s 0.7” w.c./(ft/min) at design air

- to

- cloth ratio Δ P R 5.48 ft/min V Face velocity or A/C (ft/min) C Dust loading (grains/acf)
t Filtration time (min) The residual filter drag coefficient of 0.7 for this calculation was conservative for this application. The calculated pressure loss based on the above factors was 8.0” w.c . with a cleaning time of about 100 minutes. The allotted pressure drop for the PIPP collector was 8.0” w.c. A minimum accepted cleaning cycle time was every 40 minutes.

4.3.9 Model Study Objectives and Results
NELS Consulting Services modeled the baghouse and surrounding ductwork at a 1:12 scale. The objectives of the flow model study were to determine the configuration of flow distribution devices and to achieve the following:
Determine baghouse gas flow and dust distribution Confirm design velocities and fl ow distribution in compartments Evaluate temperature mixing at the baghouse inlet Determine pressure drop of system Confirm minimal dust deposits in the ductwork Configure PAC injection location flow distribution Determine velocity distribution and gas flow angle at proposed CEM duct location
Confirm balanced flow in the three stacks4

- 10

Flow modeling was used primarily to study gas flow distribution in the inlet and outlet ducts and in the baghouse primarily in the hopper region. These model studies can vi sually show gas distribution patterns. Model testing of filter bag and tube sheet loss was not accurate and was just used to simulate resistance in the system for the purpose of flow and dust distribution. The purpose of the baghouse model study was prim arily for flow and dust distribution.
The findings indicated that the design goals had been achieved. Additionally, the locations and configurations of the flow control vanes were determined by NELS during the testing.
Design velocities within each TOXECO NTM baghouse compartment were chosen based upon ash

- only baghouse designs with similar pressure drop and outlet emissions. Low vertical gas velocity at the bottom of the filter bags was desired since this enabled online bag cleaning. Providing low vertica l gas velocity was accomplished by including gas distribution baffles in the compartment inlet hopper area that direct a portion of the gas flow away from the bottom of the compartment toward the top of the filter bags. This distribution also had an addit ional benefit of providing a flow pattern that caused the particulate flow to impact the bags rather than dropping out when it entered the bag compartment. Deposition of particles on the bags was beneficial in this application because it provided gas

- soli d contact that enabled mercury capture, as compared with conventional baghouse applications where particle dropout is desirable. The distribution baffles were included in the baghouse model study that confirmed their performance.
With regard to particle r e
- entrainment, the individual particles collected on filter bags agglomerate in conventional baghouse applications where fly ash is filtered. This system was designed assuming carbon particles w ould agglomerate with fly ash particles making them large and heavy enough to fall to the hopper, not subject to excessive re

- entrainment. WAPC experience was that a portion of the filter ash cake would fall into the hopper after bags were pulsed and a portion of the ash would return to the filter bags. The pulse would cause all of the ash cake to break and when a portion of the ash would re

- deposit on the filter bag the structure of the ash cake would be altered in a manner that further reduces resistance to gas flow.4

- 11 4.3.9.1 Baghouse Modifications Required After Construc tion
Several modifications were incorporated to gain more optimal temperature control in the baghouse and booster fan building including:

Added l arger ventilation fans and louvered windows at the top of the baghouse
Added walls to the upper and lower bagho use areas that block flow of hot air from the fan building
Added louvered windows at the booster fan inlet gate level and modified temperature controls to achieve better heat control
Added walls and larger heaters to the lower baghouse area

Additional modi fications were added to improve structural integrity and maintenance access:
The baghouse covers were rebuilt with checker plate and angle iron. Additional stiffeners were added across the width of the covers to improve strength.
A redesigned lifting spreader for the covers was provided to keep from bending the covers when trying to open under negative pressure.
Platforms were added to access the booster fan outlet (ref: JPG_006, Appendix D).
Ice breaks were added to the top of the baghouse vent louver s.

4.4 Powdered Activated Carbon System Design

Norit Americas and ADA

- ES provided the PAC injection system for Presque Isle. Norit Americas supplied the PAC and hardware, while ADA

- ES supplied the engineering design for the system, and the distribution and du ct injection system. The system consist ed of two general components: the PAC storage and feeding system and the duct injection system.
The PAC storage and feeding system consist ed of a bulk storage silo with pneumatic truck unloading capability, three PAC feeder trains each consisting of a feed hopper and variable4

- 12

speed feeder, an eductor, and a transport air blower. This system was complete with the necessary control provisions to operate and monitor the system equipment.
The duct injection system con sist ed of the transport piping from the feeding system and the necessary injection lances.
The PAC system was designed for an injection concentration of 3 lbs/MMacf. This projected injection rate was based on data obtained from full

- and bench

- scale testi ng. Appendix B contains a simplified drawing for the PAC system installed at Presque Isle.
The design parameters for the TOXECONTM system using PAC alone at Presque Isle for Units 7, 8, and 9 we re as follows:
Design flue gas flow rate: 1,200,000 acfm at 3 50 oF.
PAC design injection concentration: 3.0 lb/MMacf
PAC design injection rate (total) : 216 lb/hr
Number of PAC injection trains: 3
Capacity of each train: 200 lb/hr
Total injection capacity: 600 lb/hr
Silo storage capacity: 4,490 cu ft

Silo stora ge capacity at 35 lb/cu ft: 157,000 lbs or 78 tons
Storage capacity of bulk storage silo at design injection rate: 30 days
Method for determining PAC distribution to the baghouse compartments: physical flow modeling, 1:12 scale
As a part of the effort t o optimize the design of the injection system and the performance of the PAC system for mercury removal, NELS performed physical modeling of PAC injection at two locations in the ductwork leading to the baghouse using the existing 1:12 scale model.4

- 13

This m odeling looked at the distribution of the injected PAC in the baghouse inlet duct and inlet plenum and at the discharge of each of the compartments. The testing used two methods for making this determination: visible plume testing in the ducts, and carbo n monoxide concentration distribution.
The first injection location consisted of a multi

- lanced injection grid in the duct just prior to the inlet connection to the baghouse. Because of a widely varying flue gas flow distribution at this point, the modeli ng indicated a very uneven PAC distribution to the baghouse compartments using this design.
The second injection location consisted of a single injection lance in the round duct at the ID fan outlet for each generating unit. The modeling indicated that in jecting at these locations gave a significantly better PAC distribution to the baghouse compartments.
Based on these tests, the PAC injection system used a single lance in the discharge duct of each ID fan. With three feeder trains, each generating unit h ad a dedicated injection train, transport line, and injection nozzle. The injection rate was controlled based on several variables, including boiler load/flue gas flow and mercury removal. Two CEMs were used, one measuring mercury concentration prior to ACI and the other in the common booster fan discharge duct.
The overall system design included the capability to inject a recycled PAC/ash mix collected from the baghouse hoppers. Since this mix would include partially spent PAC along with ash, the volume of injected material would increase substantially. Thus, the system capacity would accommodate the injection of the PAC/ash mix with the design PAC injection rate of sorbent (3.0 lb/MMacf) and the ash escaping the HESP. At the time of the original desig n, the benefit of recycling the PAC/ash mixture was unknown. During the demonstration program, it was determined that the PAC quickly reached equilibrium with the mercury in the flue gas and therefore was unable to sequester more mercury. Sorbent re

- inje ction was not tested because of this observation.4

- 14

4.5 Balance

- of

- Plant Considerations

4.5.1 Booster Fans

4.5.1.1 Two versus Three Fans
With the additional pressure drop associated with the installation of the TOXECON baghouse and associated ductwork, new ID booster fans were required. A study was prepared outlining the pros and cons of two versus three booster fans. The final decision to select three booster fans was influenced by the following issues:

Three fans wo uld allow designating a single fan for each of the three boiler units, thereby maintaining the established practice at the plant of individual components for the three units.

The three

- fan arrangement had a smaller impact on the plant’s electrical systems.

Turndown of the three

- fan arrangement would be greater and would ensure compliance with National Fire Protection Association boiler purge flow requirements.

4.5.1.2 Margin (Test Block Performance)
The booster fans were sized for a single unit’s full load flue gas flow and the calculated pressure drop of the new ductwork and baghouse. A margin was then applied to these values based on typical power industry practice of 15% margin on flow, 32% margin on head, and 25 oF margin on temperature. The conditions of the fan with margin were referred to as “Test Block” conditions. The expected operating conditions were referred to as “Net” conditions. Test Block conditions were specified to account for system losses in the actual fan installation as compared to the ideal test setup installation with which the fans have been shop

- tested to determine their capacity.

4.5.1.3 Purge Flow

The booster fans need ed to have sufficient turndown capability in order to purge the boiler during a unit startup. The initial purge flow requireme nts were calculated and it was4

- 15

determined that the fan manufacturer needed to install sealing strips on the fan control damper to limit leakage. This would achieve the turndown on the fan performance necessary to meet the purge flow requirements.

4.5.1.4 Inlet Da mper versus Variable Inlet Vanes
A variable inlet vane (VIV) control damper was selected for the booster fans. The VIV has a higher efficiency than inlet dampers. A 13

– 15% increase in power consumption was projected when an inlet damper configuration was evaluated. The VIV had a higher initial cost; however, the savings in electricity offset this cost.

4.5.1.5 Fan Description

Manufacturer: Fläkt Woods Quantity: 3 Test Block Rating: 460,000 acfm @ 375 oF with 18.5” w.c. Net Rating: 400,000 acfm @ 350 oF with 14” w.c. Total Efficiency : 87.7% (test block), 87.6% (net) Operating Speed: 893 rpm Fan Configuration: Double inlet Fan Blade Style: Airfoil Fan Bearings: RENK

- ERZLQ 18

– 180mm

- Pressure lubricated Control Damper: Radial Variable

- Inlet

- Vane (VIV) Damper Actuator: Jordan Controls SM

- 60000 Motor Size: 1,700 hp Motor Voltage: 2,300 Volts Vibration Transmitters: Alaron Model VT

- 100 Lube Oil Console Manf.: Howard Martin Lube Oil Console Capacity: 3.5 gal/min This minimum design of 400,000 acfm @14” w.c . was consistent with the flow modeling. The flow model report stated “the pressure drop measured in the model study ductwork and baghouse from the ID fan discharges to the stack was 10.72” w.c ., excluding the filter bags, ash cake on the bags, and buoyan cy effects of the hot flue gas in the stack. ” The result of summing the expected pressure drop across the bags and cake (4

– 8” w.c.) and the buoyancy4

- 1 6

effect of the hot flue gas (negative 1.5

– 2” w.c.) was 12

– 16” w.c. This result indicated that the design w as close to the modeling results.
Each fan was sized for one unit’s flue gas flow. The booster fans control led the draft on the discharge side of the ID fans by modulating VIV control dampers at the fan inlet. The booster fans were sized to offset the ad ditional pressure drop of the baghouse and ductwork. The booster fan control scheme was to mimic the existing pressure conditions at the ID fans discharge prior to the TOXECONTM retrofit by measuring the pressure at the common flue gas ductwork and modulat ing the booster fan dampers. Each booster fan had an isolating guillotine gate on the inlet and outlet to allow online maintenance.

4.5.2 Compressed Air System

4.5.2.1 Compressed Air Users
The compressed air system provided instrument quality compressed air to the foll owing systems and equipment:
PAC System (10 SCFM)
Ash Handling System (52 SCFM)
Fabric Filter Baghouse (350 SCFM)
Mercury CEMs Shelter (20 SCFM)

4.5.2.2 Capacity and Design
The compressed air system consisted of the compressed air skid and the associated distribut ion piping network. Refer to Drawing 4937

- CIA

- M0113, Appendix C for a P&ID of the compressed air skid. The compressed air skid was supplied by Sullair and included:

Pressure: 80

– 120 psig (normal operation at 100 psig)
Dew point:

- 40 oF at 100 psig

Partic ulate: Less than 1 micron4

- 17 Oil Content: 0.008 ppm

Maximum Flow: 475 SCFM

4.5.2.3 Equipment Description
The compressed air system consisted of the compressed air skid and the associated distribution piping network. The piping distribution network consisted of ASTM A53 carbon steel piping. The compressed air skid included:
Two single stage, heavy duty, flood lubricated rotary screw type compressor units
Coalescing pre

- filters
Two fully automatic, regenerat ive desiccant dryers composed of a fully automatic pressure swing, twin tower using an activated alumina desiccant bed

Particle after

- filters
Storage tank

Flow controller

4.5.3 Ash Handling System

4.5.3.1 System Type
The ash handling system selected was a dilute

- phase p neumatic conveying system. This type of system has been used in conveying both fly ash and PAC. The supplier of the system was United Conveyor Corporation (UCC).

4.5.3.2 Capacity and Margin
The particulate generation rate was based on the collection rate of fly ash (200 lb/hr max) and the maximum injection rate of sorbent (450 lb/hr max). The total maximum baghouse loading for fly ash/PAC was 650 lb/hr (0.325 tons/hr).4

- 18

The conveying rate of the ash handling system was based on four times the total particulate lo ading rate of 0.325 tons/hr. This converts to 1.3 tons/hr.

4.5.3.3 Ash System Hardware
Refer to drawings M

- 54025

- 020 and M

- 54025

- 021, Appendix C for piping and instrumentation drawings of the ash handling system.
The ash system at Presque Isle was a vacuum dilute

- phase transport system. The hardware consisted of the ten hoppers in the baghouse, transport lines from the bottom of each hopper leading to a filter/separator located on the penthouse of the ash storage silo, the ash storage silo itself, and finally tru cks to transport the ash for disposal. A mechanical exhauster downstream of the filter/separator created the vacuum in the lines.
Each of the ten hoppers had a valve at the bottom to separate the ash from the lines. The ash was removed from the hoppers s equentially, starting at the furthest hopper on one side of the baghouse. When one side was emptied, the sequence was repeated on the other side. A purge cycle then cleared the main line of any residual ash. As each hopper emptied, the ash/air mixture w as conveyed to the filter/separator. When the level probe in the filter/separator was activated, the transport of ash from the hoppers was discontinued. Then the exhauster relief and the system relief valves opened to relieve conveyor line vacuum and

ena bled the mechanical exhauster to pull in atmospheric air. After a predetermined time delay, the bottom gate opened so the ash discharged by gravity into the storage silo. After another predetermined time delay, the bottom gate closed. The exhauster reli ef and the system relief valves then closed, allowing the system to reestablish a vacuum. With sufficient vacuum available, ash transporting resumed to the filter/separator.
Fly ash/PAC was removed from the conical bottom storage silo by two different mea ns. The fly ash/PAC was conditioned with water and unloaded through a pin paddle mixer, or it could be unloaded dry through a telescopic spout.4

- 19 4.5.3.4 Unloading System Selection
Disposal of the fly ash/PAC mixture was by open bed trucks to a landfill. A wet u nloading system was selected to condition the ash/PAC mixture, leaving the storage silo with water thereby binding the dust to allow transportation by open bed trucks. A dry unloading system was also installed on the ash silo to allow the ash/PAC mixture to be recovered dry for use in testing re

- injection (recycling) of the mixture into the flue gas stream, or for testing methods of recovering the mercury from the used PAC.

4.5.3.5 Modifications to the Ash Handling System since Start Up
Excessive dusting was occur ring during the use of the wet unloading system, especially when starting the pin mixer. Several possible causes of the dusting were identified:
Inadequate water mixing in the pin mixer Vacuum relief piping was venting to atmosphere

Inconsistent flow of material from the silo through the valves at the bottom of hopper Bags in filter/separator improperly installed Ash becoming airborne at mixer discharge into truck
Wind tunneling effects creating turbulence in uncovered truck beds

Several modifications wer e incorporated in to the pin mixer:
The mixer cover was raised to allow the water spray to enter above the rotor (ref: JPG_001, Appendix D). A high

- pressure water spray was added and sequenced into the control logic for mixer
start

- up.
Baffles were added in the space above the pin mixer shaft to help control dust flow.
A smaller sprocket was added to the mixer drive to increase the mixer speed. A VFD was added to allow adjustment of mixer speed.4

- 20

Finally, a larger pin mixer was installed (ref: Dwg 5

- 5200

- PIPP, Appendix D ) . This helped to eliminate the dusting and equipment issues seen during the demonstration. The main differences between the original mixer and the new mixer were as follows:

Additional fogging nozzles.

The motor was increased fro m 7.5 Hp to 10 Hp. Mixer speed at 60Hz motor frequency was increased from 76 rpm to 100 rpm.
The tensioner design was changed.
Additional modifications were made to improve flow of the PAC/ash mixture:
A new rotary valve was added to replace the original butterfly valve (ref: JPG_007, Appendix D).
Although fluidization at the silo discharge was normally not required, the original fluidization valves were replaced by three (3) large air cannons (ref: JPG_008, Appendix D).
Other modifications to improve ope rability of the ash unloading system:
A rubber skirt was added to the wet unloading spout to improve dust control (ref: JPG_0012, Appendix D).
The sequencing of the exhauster and system relief valves was optimized to allow dust to be purged from vacuum re lief piping before purging. The 7

- 9 baghouse fly ash system setpoints were modified to provide a better differential pressure between the empty line and empty hopper vacuums. Increasing vacuum on hoppers help ed to ensure they empt ied

. The plant extended the unloading shelter to the east of the present shelter below the silo. This reduced the wind tunneling effect and protected the area from the elements.4

- 21

Two recommendations for any similar program were made:
Use a larger pin mixer
Design the silo hoppe r leg to have a smoother transition into the discharge valves. The current design ha d a somewhat square transition which may have impeded smooth flow of PAC/Ash.
New setpoints:
Full load vacuum (hopper valve closes) : 6.8" Hg
Vibrator vacuum (vibrator is activated in this range) : 4.7"

– 2.5" Hg
Plugged hopper vacuum (if vacuum stays in this range for a fixed amount of time) : 4.7"

– 2.5" Hg
Empty line (index

– no hopper valves open, pulling air through the intake end check ) : 2.8" Hg
No load (hopper ga te opens

- value set between empty line and empty hopper) : 2.5" Hg
Empty hopper (pulling on an empty hopper

- hopper step sequence after time duration) : 2.1" Hg
The vacuum relief piping was rerouted from atmospheric release to release back into silo.

Th e vacuum relief piping was insulated (ref: JPG_005, Appendix D).
An external control station was provided to give the operator a better view of unloading and minimize exposure to dusting (ref: JPG_003, Appendix D).
A silo inspection hatch, access platfor m, and inspection port were added at the bottom of the straight section to assist inspection of silo internals (ref: JPG_004, Appendix D).4

- 22

4.5.4 Ductwork

4.5.4.1 Layout, Area Constraints, Existing Ductwork Tie In
The layout of the ductwork system to tie the existing units to the new baghouse was governed by the configuration of the existing power plant and its surrounding structures and equipment. Refer to general arrangement drawings 4937

- CGA

- M1000, 4937

- CGA

- M1001, and 4937

- CGA

- M1002, Appendix C for a layout of the plant. A location north of the existing Unit 9 boiler building was the site for the new baghouse. The location of the new baghouse was constrained to the north by the existing plant access road and property line, to the south by the existing Unit 9 boile r building, to the west by an emergency coal discharge chute and administration building, and to the east by the plant access road.
The ductwork layout to tie Units 7

– 9 to the new baghouse was constrained by the back wall of the existing boiler building an d the exhaust stack for Units 7

– 9. With the proximity of the new ductwork run to the existing plant, the existing boiler room structure was used to tie into the new ductwork support structure. Because of the space constraints between the plant west wall and the existing stack, the use of round ductwork was precluded and rectangular cross

section ductwork was utilized. The ID fans for the existing units were located inside the existing boiler building near the back wall of the plant. The discharge ducts of the ID fans penetrated the back wall of the building and were routed to the exhaust stack location, which was centrally located on the centerline of Unit 8. The distance between the back wall of the boiler building and the exhaust stack provided just e nough room to tie a supply duct and return duct into the existing flue gas stream. The supply duct and return duct were routed parallel with each other along the back wall of the boiler building and the tie

- in location for each unit was “stepped” into the ductwork flow stream by increasing the vertical height of the common duct as each unit ties in.

4.5.4.2 Velocity Design
The new ductwork was sized to provide a similar cross sectional area to the existing round duct, thereby matching the existing velocity. The c ombined unit ductwork size was larger to provide a lower pressure drop. Tabl e 4

- 4 reflects the sizing of the ductwork and the design velocities.4

- 23

Tabl e 4

- 4 . Ductwork Sizing Summary.

Duct Section Size (ft x ft) Flow Area

(sq ft) Flow

(acfm) Velocity

(ft/s) One unit ’s flow

– existing duct 9.5 dia 70.88 400,000 94.1 One unit ’s flow

– new duct 8.5 x 8.5 72.25 400,000 92.3 Two units’ flow

– new duct 8.5 x 20 170 800,000 78.4 Three units’ flow

– new duct 8.5 x 30 255 1,200,000 78.4

A two

- stage static mixer was included in the inlet duct to the baghouse to provide a more uniform temperature profile from the three units and promote even carbon distribution across the duct cross section. The static mixer consisted of opposed inclined plates and was supplied by KOMAX Systems.

4.5.4.3 Structural Design
The structural design aspects of the ductwork system and its sup porting structure utilized industry standard practices for ductwork and structural steel design. The provisions of the American Institute of Steel Construction’s (AISC) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings

– Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Des ign (ASD) presented in the AISC Manual of Steel Construction

– Allowable Stress Design (AISC

- ASD) were used with allowances made for elevated temperatures in the ductwork system. The load criteria governing the design of the structural systems included dead loads; live loads; environmental loads such as wind, seismic, and snow loads; and operating loads such as normal and transient pressures, unbalanced pressures, operating and excursion temperatures, and ash loading. The various load combinations were analyzed to determine the most critical case for each component of the system. Once the most critical load case was determined for a particular component, the structural aspects of that component were designed to withstand the loads being applied. This p hilosophy was carried through the entire structural system to determine member sizes, spacing, and ductwork support locations.4

- 24 4.5.4.4 Diverter Damper Provisions

The ductwork from each unit between the ID fan and the stack was modified to install two diverter da mpers in series forming a four

- port arrangement. The first port was connected to each unit’s ID fan discharge ductwork, the second port was connected to ductwork that combined the flue gas flows from all three units into a common header directed to the fa bric filter baghouse, the third port connected to the common return ductwork from the baghouse, and the fourth port connected to each unit’s stack. When flue gas was directed to the baghouse, the diverter dampers were aligned to block the direct flow of f lue gas to the stack. If required, the diverter dampers could close the supply and return ductwork to the baghouse and bypass the flue gas directly to the stack. Normally, the combined flows of all three units were directed by the common ductwork to the fabric filter baghouse. Since this was a test project for the TOXECONTM system, the ability to align the flue gas to the baghouse or the stack was a design criterion. The need for diverter dampers in a commercial application would most likely not be requi red.
An engineering and economic evaluation prior to damper procurement compared the costs associated with installation of three diverter dampers in lieu of nine guillotine type dampers. Based on considerations including the purchase cost of the dampers, the required ductwork costs, and flue gas pressure drop through the dampers and associated ductwork, the total evaluated life cycle costs of utilizing the diverter dampers for this application provided an overall savings in cost when compared to the guillo tine damper option.

4.5.4.5 Diverter Damper Upgrades since Start Up
Baghouse discharge duct pressures varied from slightly positive at Unit 9 to negative at Units 7 and 8. The positive pressure at the Unit 9 diverter damper allowed exhaust gas to leak back throug h the seal air system and corrode seal air fan blades. A new tighter sealing, 10” Ultraflo Cast Iron actuated valve was installed and seal air logic was modified to ensure that seal air valves were shut during fan cycling to minimize possibility of leakag e.4

- 25 4.5.4.6 Ductwork Modifications since Start Up
Two inches of insulation was added to the exterior of all expansion joints on the baghouse ductwork (approximately 28 places) to minimize corrosion due to flue gas condensation on cold spots in and around the join ts.

4.5.4.7 Access Platform Additions since Start Up
Four (4) access platforms were added to the baghouse discharge ducts. Three (3) platforms (one for each unit) were located underneath the ductwork at the 90 elbows just upstream of the diverter damper. These platforms allow access to hatch covers that provide maintenance access to the dampers. The fourth additional platform was added on top of the Unit 8 ductwork to provide access to the baghouse. Pictures of these platforms are included in Appendix D (ref: JPG_009 & JPG_010, Appendix D).

4.5.5 Electrical

4.5.5.1 Electrical Constraints and Upgrades
Presque Isle Power Plant is a mature power plant that has been expanded and developed over the course of many years. When installed, the plant electrical systems were designed for nominal load growth. Emissions controls and other upgrades have stretched some of the plant electrical systems past their design parameters.
For startup, the plant relies on reserve system transformers to provide power to the individual unit switchgea r, until the time that the unit is up to operating speed and capable of powering the unit electrical loads via the unit auxiliary transformer. During a unit trip, the unit electrical requirements are transferred from the unit auxiliary transformer to the reserve system to maintain boiler draft and safely shut down unit loads.
Units 7, 8, and 9 switchgear (2,400 VAC) were studied to determine if the existing gear could adequately power the running load, and were capable of starting the motors. The plant

re serve system was also checked to see if it could provide enough power to satisfy the requirements of startup and multiple unit trips. The study verified the suitability of the4

- 26

switchgear to handle the new running loads, but pointed out deficiencies in the reserve system used during emergency situations.
As a result of the study, upgrades to the plant reserve electrical system were identified and implemented to ensure the success of the TOXECONTM project. Refer to drawings 4937

- CMP

- E1000 and 4937

- CMP

- E1001, Appendix C for an overview of the one

- line diagram.

4.5.5.2 Electrical System Configuration and Hardware
The electrical systems supporting the baghouse were related to the function and size of the baghouse equipment. To achieve the desired exhaust gas flow from boiler to stack, ID booster fans were added to the baghouse outlet to compensate for the pressure drop across the baghouse and ductwork to maintain suitable flow to the stack. These booster fan motors were each rated 1,700 hp, with one booster fan associa ted with each unit. These motors were controlled by dedicated medium voltage starters, which are fed from the unit 2,400

- volt switchgear attached individually from each respective unit. The motor starters receive commands from the baghouse distributed co ntrol system (DCS) for start/stop, and supply information to the DCS to allow operators in the control room to monitor booster fan performance. Based on the limitations of the existing plant electrical system and the reserve bus design, the motors were de signed for a soft start utilizing an autotransformer. This allowed the individual motors to start at reduced voltage and current draw.
Remaining baghouse systems comprise d the balance

- of

- plant electrical system. These loads were powered from motor contro l centers (MCCs) operating at 480 volts. This system provided the operating power for all core baghouse functions, as well as the PAC injection system, ash handling, booster fan lube oil system, air compressors, the DCS system, lighting, HVAC, and damper operation for flue gas control.

Essential 480

- volt loads were fed from MCCs, which received power from existing plant equipment to ensure the most reliable source and functionality possible.4

- 27

4.5.6 Instrumentation and Controls
The existing plant DCS system was ba sed on the Emerson Ovation ® platform. The DCS system expansion required to support the Presque Isle Power Plant TOXECONTM project was based on this same platform.
An overview of the DCS expansion for the PIPP TOXECONTM project is shown on the Control System Overview drawings 4937

- CCX

- K6000 and 4937

- CCX

- K6001, Appendix C. This expansion provided all functions required for controlling the plant equipment and monitoring of other plant systems installed as part of the TOXECONTM project.

The DCS expansion include d three new cabinet groups that were interconnected as shown on the Control System Overview drawings. Each cabinet group consisted of the required redundant controllers, I/O modules, redundant power supplies, communication modules, and other components as required to implement the required control strategies.
One of the cabinet groups (Unit 8, Drop 4) provided control and monitoring for the baghouse. Unit 8, Drop 4 consisted of the following cabinets:

79CX

- CPU

- 0004 (Processor I/O Cabinet)

79CX

- EXP

- 0004A ( Expansion I/O Cabinet)
A second cabinet group consisting of unitized remote I/O cabinets (Unit 7, Drop 1; Unit 8, Drop 1; Unit 9, Drop 1) was dedicated to providing controls interfaces with the existing plant control system for booster fan draft control, control of their respective unit booster fans, control of their respective unit baghouse supply and return diverter dampers, and control of their respective baghouse supply and return diverter damper seal air blowers and valves. The remote I/O (RIO) group consisted of the following cabinets:

7CX

- RIO

- 0001 (Unit 7 RIO)

8CX

- RIO

- 0001 (Unit 8 RIO)

9CX

- RIO

- 0001 (Unit 9 RIO)4

- 28

The third cabinet group (Unit 8, Drop 5) was dedicated to control of the remaining TOXECONTM balance

- of

- plant (BOP) equipment including boost er fan draft control, fly ash system, PAC injection system, compressed air system, and baghouse outlet mercury CEMs. Unit 8, Drop 5 consisted of the following cabinets:

79CX

- CPU

- 0005 (Processor I/O Cabinet)

79CX

- EXP

- 0005A (Expansion I/O Cabinet)

79CX

- EXP

- 0005B (Expansion I/O Cabinet)

79CX

- EXP

- 0005C (Expansion I/O Cabinet)

4.6 Mercury Measurements
When this CCPI program was selected in 2003, stack compliance

- grade continuous emissions monitor (CEM) mercury monitors were not available. Several research

- grade

me rcury monitors were proven to be accurate and reliable; however, they required operation by a highly skilled engineer and continuous maintenance.
Throughout the demonstration project, ADA

- ES worked with Thermo Electron (now Thermo Fisher) Corporation to de velop a mercury CEM for use on this program to measure mercury concentrations at the inlet and outlet of the TOXECON fabric filter. ADA

- ES’s role was to validate different components by operating them in parallel with ADA

- ES’s semi

continuous mercury mon itor . The Thermo instrument had four key components: sample extraction probe, sample converter, mercury analyzer, and calibration module. Figure 4

- 1 shows a schematic of these components.4

- 29

Figure 4

- 1 . Schematic of Thermo Prototype Mercury CEM.
The extraction probe used an inertial filter t o obtain a particulate

- free vapor

- phase sample without passing the gas through a fly ash filter cake. This minimized the sample gas interactions with the fly ash, which could cause sampling artifacts. An eductor, driven with compressed, dry, mercury

- free motive air, drew the ash

- free sample from the inertial filter. The line between the inertial filter and the vacuum port on the eductor contained a critical

flow orifice. To maintain a constant sample flow rate to the analyzer, the eductor diluted the

sa mple with the motive air resulting in a dilution ratio between 25:1 and 100:1, depending on the size of the critical

- flow orifice. The dilution ratio was determined based on flue gas conditions and operator preference. All of the extraction probe interna l surfaces exposed to sample gas had a glass coating to prevent unwanted chemical reactions with the mercury.
Calibration gas from the calibration module was introduced into the sample stream either upstream or downstream of the inertial filter.

The conver ter module converted the oxidized mercury in the diluted sample to elemental mercury for a total vapor

- phase mercury measurement, or it scrubbed oxidized mercury from4

- 30

the diluted sample to deliver only elemental mercury to the analyzer when a speciated

mea surement is desired. The proprietary design combined high temperature (> 750 oF) and a chemical reaction to achieve the conversions.
The analyzer measured mercury directly using Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence technology. Because the sample was diluted, i t had low moisture, was relatively non

- reactive, and therefore had minimal interference from other gases. The analyzer detection limit was 1 ng/m 3 ( 0.1 ppt) and no cross interference from SO 2 has been observed.5

- 1



### 5.0 PROCESS CAPITAL COST The capital cost associated with construction of the TOXECONTM was $34,644,237. This is the actual installed cost expressed in 2005 dollars. A listing of the costs by major equipment item is shown in Table 5

- 1

.

Table 5

- 1 . Summary of Equipment, Balance

- of

- Plant, and Engineering Costs.
TOXECONTM and Balance

- of

- Plant Equipment and Installation Costs Presque Isle Power Plant Units 7, 8, and 9 Item Description Cost Baghouse Baghouse Supply and Erection $9,728,779 Equipment Electrical Equipment $624,102 Controls (Including Enclosure) $295,295 Air Compressor/Dryer $121,589 ID Booster Fans $1,199,802 Ash System $623,789 PAC System $360,786 Dampers $655,744 Expansion Joints $101,519 Ductwork and Structural Steel $3,114,209
Erection Construction Supervision and Indirects $1,659,883 Foundations $1,603,112 Electrical Installation $1,455,979 Mechanical and Structural Installation $7,796,968
Other Engineering Costs (A/E and Utility) $3,949,052 Mercury Continuous Emissions Monitors (2) $1,353,629
TOTAL (excludes testing program costs) $34,644,2375

- 2

Baghouse: Includes baghouse casing structure and support steel, hoppers, bags and cages, maintenance elevator, exterior siding and roof structure, inlet and outlet plenums, access stairways and platforms.
Electrical Equipment: Includes medium voltage motor starters, motor c ontrol centers, and transformers.

Controls: Includes a digital control system and a prefabricated enclosure for the digital control system equipment.
Air Compressor/Dryer: Includes skid mounted air compressor with an air receiver tank and dryer.

ID Boost er Fans: Includes booster fans, motors, lube oil skid, and fan control instruments.
Ash System: Includes ash storage silo, ash piping and ash hopper valves, vacuum exhausters, and ash system controls.
PAC System: Includes powdered activated carbon storage silo, blower, piping, injection ports, and control instruments.

Dampers: Includes damper assemblies and drives.
Expansion Joints: Includes ductwork expansion joint material and hardware.

Ductwork and Structural Steel: Includes, ductwork to and f rom the baghouse, internal turning vanes, static mixer, ductwork support steel, booster fan building support steel, access platforms, and stairways.
The bulk of the construction consisted of site fabrication of process elements. One notable exception was the PAC system which was pre

- fabricated. Construction commenced in November, 2004 and ended in December 2005. This resulted in significant work being done during winter weather conditions which can be severe at this location. Construction costs in a mil der climate would be expected to be somewhat less.5

- 3

This installation was a retrofit application which represents higher costs than would be required for a new plant application. However, it is felt that new plant applications of the TOXECONTM technology as demonstrated at this site are unlikely. This is because hot

- side ESP installations on units burning PRB coal are no longer being considered. The application of retrofits using TOXECONTM technology is expected to continue.

5.1 Additional Cost of Modifications since Start Up

Table 5

- 2 is a summary of changes made to the TOXECONTM installation which were not covered in the original proposed costs shown in Table 5

- 1 . These additional costs are broken down into four categories: Baghouse; Pin Mixer; Silo/Unloading; and Diverter Dampers and Ductwork. In gener al, these changes were considered necessary to meet the performance specifications set forth in the original contract and to e nsure trouble

- free operation in the future. The cost for the additional modifications was $413,500.5

- 4

Table 5

- 2 . Additional Equipment Costs since Startup. Item: Baghouse Material Labor Install larger ventilation fans : upper baghouse $15,000 $5,000 Install larger louvered windows : upper BH $3,000 $5,000 Install louvered windows booster fan inlet $4,000 $5,000 New heaters : lower baghouse Warranty $10,000 Insulating wall : lower baghouse $2,500 $2,500 Insulating wall : upper baghouse $2,500 $2,500 Rebuild baghouse covers : checkerplate and angle iron $3,000 $5,000 Build new lifting spreader $1,000 $2,000 Platform additions at booster fan outlet $30,000 $25,000 Ice breaks upper baghouse vent louvers $500 $1,000 Sheet metal cover for purge air piping $500 $500 Item: Pin Mixer Add high pressure washer $2,500 $500 Add baffles $200 $400 Modify cover (raise) $1,500 $500 Add higher speed drive sprocket $500 $1,000 Item: Silo/Unloading Add rotary valve $8,000 $1,000 Add (3) air cannons $3,000 $1,500 Add rubber skirt to wet unloading spout $1,500 $500 Add rubber truck skirt to enclosure $1,500 $500 Add external control station $8,000 $2,000 Insulate/modify vacuum relief piping $500 $500 Add silo hatch $1,500 $1,000 Add inspection nozzle for above $200 $200 Add platform for silo hatch $2,500 $2,000 Extend a sh u nloading b uilding $100,000 Item : Diverter/Dampers/Ductwork Replace 10” seal air valve 4,500 $500 Insulate expansion joints (~ 28 plcs) 10,000 $65,000 Add (3) platforms under duct for Diverter access 15,000 $15,000 Add (1) platform on top of unit 8 20,000 $15,000 Total Cost 142,900 270, 6006

- 1



### 6.0 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS The operating costs for TOXECONTM were determined based on actual project expenditures associated with long term, ongoing operation. This does not include costs associated with testing, technology demonstration, or other costs not directly related to stand ard utility practice. These costs are in 2008 dollars and are summarized in Table 6

- 1 . The operation is assumed to target an average 90% mercury rem oval level on a long

- term basis.

Table 6

- 1 . Summary of Operating and Maintenance Costs.

TOXECONTM Summary of Operating & Maintenance Costs

Annual Fixed O&M Cost Cost, $/yr Operating Labor 27,851 Maintenance Labor 18,574 Maintenance Material 255,719 Administration/Support Labor 43,586 Sub

- Total Annual Fixed O&M Cost 3 45 ,7 30

Variable Operating Cost Commodity Unit $/Unit Qty/hr Cost $/hr Powdered Activated Carbon lb 1.009 72.8 73 Electric Power kW 0.02 3000 60 Waste Disposal Charges ton 81.5 0.07 11 Sub

- Total Annual Variable Cost 145

The startup of the TOXECONTM facility began on December 17, 2005, and was completed on February 12, 2006. The costs associated with this activity are shown in Table 6

- 2 and were $360,000 (based on year of occurrence dollars).6

- 2

Table 6

- 2 . Summary of Startup Costs.

TOXECONTM Summary of Startup Costs Description Cost Internal Labor $50,563 Misc. Expenses $62,332 Contractor Support $148,145 Electrical Power $83,520 PAC $33,004 Waste Disposal $15,405 TOTAL $359,9657

- 1



### 7.0 COMMERCIAL APPLICATI ONS This demonstration project was the first dedicated, full

- scale use of the TOXECONTM process and identified issues relating to the technology itself and balance

- of

- plant is sues. Valuable experience was gained by testing a full

- scale TOXECONTM unit over the course of several years, allowing fine

- tuning of the process. Testing for simultaneous removal of SO 2 and NO x , and mercury using trona injection showed that there is a si gnificant negative impact on mercury removal when injecting trona at the levels required for SO 2 removal. Testing of new bag fabrics will also aid others in choosing fabrics for their installation. Marketplace acceptance will be higher by demonstrating l ong
- term use of the TOXECONTM process and providing economic information so that other potential users can determine if TOXECONTM is cost

- effective for their situation.8

- 1



### 8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLI OGRAPHY OF OTHER PRO JECT REPORTS
Bustard, C.J. (2003). “Field Test Program to Develop Comprehensive Design, Operating, and Cost Data for Mercury Control Systems: Final Site Report for Pleasant Prairie Power Plant Unit 2, Sorbent Injection into a Cold

- Side ESP for Mercury Control.” Topical Report No. 41005R12, U.S. DOE Cooperative Agreement No. DE

- FC26

- 00NT41005, May.
Bustard, C.J., C. Lindsey, P. Brignac, T. Starns, S. Sjostrom, T. Taylor, and C. Larson (2003). “Field Test Program for Long

- Term Operation of a COHPAC System for Removing Mercury from Coal

- Fired Flue Gas,” Quarterly Technical Report, Report #41591R05, October 31.
Bustard, C.J., C. Lindsey, P. Brignac, T. Starns, S. Sjostrom, T. Taylor, and C. Larson (2004). “Field Test Program for Long

- Term Operation of a COHPAC System for Removing M ercury from Coal

- Fired Flue Gas,” Quarterly Technical Report, Report #41591R09, October 25.
Bustard, C.J. (2004). “Full

- Scale Evaluation of Mercury Control by Injecting Activated Carbon Upstream of ESPs and Fabric Filters,” presented at the Air & Waste Ma nagement Association, Rocky Mountain States Section, 2004 Technical Fall Conference, Denver, CO, September 30.
Bustard, C.J., M. Durham, C. Lindsey, T. Starns, K. Baldrey, C. Martin, S. Sjostrom, R. Slye, S. Renninger and L. Monroe (2001). “Full

- Scale Eva luation of Mercury Control with Sorbent Injection and COHPAC at Alabama Power E.C. Gaston,” presented at the A&WMA Specialty Conference on Mercury Emissions: Fate, Effects, and Control and The US EPA/DOE/EPRI Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Sy mposium: The MEGA Symposium, Chicago, IL, August 20

– 23.
Bustard, C.J., T. Grubb, R. Merritt, S. Sjostrom, R. Chang, A. Casey, K. Turchi, and R. Jeanes (2001). “TXU Big Brown COHPAC Performance Improvement with High Permeability Fabric,” presented at A&WM A Specialty Conference on Mercury Emissions:8

- 2

Fate, Effects and Control and the US EPA/DOE/EPRI Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Symposium: The MEGA Symposium, Chicago, IL, August 20

– 23.
Durham, M.D. (2003). “Field Test Program to Develop Compr ehensive Design, Operating and Cost Data for Mercury Control,” presented at the DOE/NETL Mercury Control Technology R&D Program Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 12.

Greiner, G. P. 1993. “ Fabric Filter

- Baghouses II. Operation, Maintenance, and Trouble Shooting (A User’s Manual )

. ” Salem, VA: Valley Printers.
Government Accountability Office (2005). “Emerging Mercury Control Technologies Have Shown Promising Results, but Data on Long

- Term Performance Are Limited,” report to Congressional Reques ters, GAO

- 05

- 612, May.

McKenna, J. D. and J. H. Turner. 19 89. “Fabric Filter

- Baghouses I. Theory, Design, and Selection.” Roanoke, VA: ETS.
Miller, R., W. Harrison, B. Corina, K. Cushing, and R. Chang (1999). “COHPAC ( Co mpact H ybrid P articulate C olle ctor) The Next Generation in Particulate Control Technology, Alabama Power Company’s E.C. Gaston Units #2 and #3: A Success Story,” presented at the EPRI

- DOE

- EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium: The MEGA Symposium, Atlanta, GA, August 16

– 20.
Sjostrom, S. (2005). “Thermo Relative Accuracy Tests at Presque Isle,” memorandum.
Sjostrom, S., T. Ebner, T. Ley, R. Slye and R. Chang (2002). “Evaluation and Comparison of Novel, Low

- Cost Sorbents for Mercury Control,” presented at the Nineteenth Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, September 23

– 27.
We Energies (2009). “TOXECONTM Retrofit for Mercury and Multi

- Pollutant Control on Three 90

- MW Coal

- Fired Boilers: Project Performance and Economics Report.”
We Energies (2006). “TOXECONTM Retrofit for Mercury and Multi

- Pollutant Control on Three 90

- MW Coal

- Fired Boilers: Preliminary Public Design Report.”

### Appendix A. PAC Data Sheet

### Appendix B. PAC Injection System Flow Diagram

### Appendix C. Drawings

This Appendix contains the following drawings related to the project:

Drawing Title

4937

- CGA

- M1000 Site Plan

4937

- CGA

- M1001 Flue Gas Ductwork West Elevation

4937

- CGA

- M1002 Baghouse and Fan Enclosure Elevation

4937

- CGA

- M1003 Fan Enclosure Plan and Sections

4937

- CGA

- M1004 Flue Gas Ductwork Sections and Details

4937

- CBA

- M0112 P&ID Flue Gas System

4937

- CIA

- M0113 P&ID Compressed Air Skid

M

- 54025

- 020 P&ID Fly Ash System

M

- 54025

- 021 P&ID Fly Ash System

4937

- CMP

- E1000 One

- Line Diagram

4937

- CMP

- E1001 One

- Line Diagram 7

– 9

4937

- CCX

- K6000 Control System Overview

4 937

- CCX

- K6001 Control System OverviewF6 PI07MBAK000013 DCS

841G PT INDOOR

OUTDOOR 4" 4" 4"

4" HG

839A AE

STATIC MIXER 826 ZSC 826 ZSO

DCS

826

XO 826 XC 822 XC

822 XO DCS 822

ZSO

822 ZSC

818 XO 818 XC 818 ZSC 818 ZSO

DCS 816

XO 816 XC 816 ZSC 816 ZSO

DCS 824 XO 824 XC 824 ZSC 824 ZSO

DCS DCS 820 ZSO 820

ZSC 820

XC 820

XO

NOTE 3 PM

HG 840 AE

839C AE

WHEELABRATOR 10 COMPARTMENT FABRIC FILTER BAGHOUSE

SEE P&ID’s 3905-3-110 3905-3-111 DCS BOOSTER FAN C BOOSTER FAN B BOOSTER FAN A BA-79-BH-FN-C BA-79-BH-FN-B BA-79-BH-FN-A

STATIC MIXER 815F TE 815A VE 815G TE 815B

VE

815 ZT

815 FZ DCS

DCS DCS DCS

DCS 819F TE 819A VE

819G TE 819B

VE

819 ZT

819 FZ DCS DCS

DCS DCS DCS

DCS DCS DCS DCS

DCS DCS

DCS 823 FZ 823 ZT 823B VE 823G TE 823A VE 823F

TEWAS: ________________ B C D E F 8 7 5 4 2 3 6

B C D E F

PI 07

DRAWN ... ..... D

APVD 3 CHKD APPROVED AS NOTED SCALE DATE
2 ANN ARBOR, MI 48108 5405 DATA COURT, SUITE 100 CUMMINS & BARNARD, INC.

REF FILES CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SINCE 1932

DRAWN

CHECKED ... MICROFILM NO. TEL (734) 761-9130 FAX (734) 761-9881

493704 ORDER NO.

JOB NO. ..... DATE DATE CGS NO. REVISION

1 $DATE$ 4937-CBA-M0112

SM 2 SHEET

FLUE GAS SYSTEM PIPING & INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM PRESQUE ISLE POWER PLANT A

ORDER NO. REFERENCE DRAWINGS A

8 7 REVISION DESCRIPTION REV NO. DATE ORDER NO. 6 0

5 JOB CHKD

DRAWN APVD DATE REV NO. 10/11/04

REVISION DESCRIPTION 4 FOR CONSTRUCTION

JOB NOTES: 1. KOMAX SYSTEMS DWG 28055 2. SIX(6) - 6" TESTING PORTS 3. SAMPLE PORT FOR TEMPORARY NOx, SO2 MONITORING 4. ALTERNATE PAC INJECTION EIGHT (8) 6" PORTS 5. UNIT NUMBER IS 79 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. SYSTEM CODE IS BA UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. PIPING AND INSTRUMENT CONNECTION SIZES ARE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE -PRESSURE CONNECTIONS - 2" NPT -TEST CONNECTIONS - 2" NPT 8. SEE DRAWINGS PI07MBAK000012 (4937-CAA-M0100) FOR SYMBOL LEGEND. 9. TE 896A-C AND 897A-C INSTALLED BY WHEELABRATOR. 10. WATER INSPECTION PORTS (14) BA-79-BH-FN-AA-DA-IL BA-79-BH-FN-BB-DA-IL BA-79-BH-FN-CC-DA-IL

BA-79-BH-FN-AA-DA-OE BA-79-BH-FN-BB-DA-OE BA-79-BH-FN-CC-DA-OE

FROM ID FANS BA-79-BH-EJ-9 BA-79-BH-EJ-10 BA-79-BH-EJ-11 BA-79-BH-EJ-12 BA-79-BH-EJ-13 BA-79-BH-EJ-15 BA-79-BH-EJ-16 BA-79-BH-EJ-17 BA-79-BH-EJ-18

BA-79-BH-EJ-25 BA-79-BH-EJ-26 BA-79-BH-EJ-27 BA-79-BH-EJ-19 BA-79-BH-EJ-20 BA-79-BH-EJ-21 BA-79-BH-EJ-22 BA-79-BH-EJ-23 BA-79-BH-EJ-24

BA-79-BH-EJ-28

BA-79-BH-EJ-29

BA-79-BH-EJ-30

79BA901 79BA902 79BA903 79BA904 79BA905 WAPC

WAPC ISOLATION DAMPER

ISOLATION DAMPER ISOLATION DAMPER

ISOLATION DAMPER ISOLATION DAMPER

ISOLATION DAMPER

NOTE 1

NOTE 1 NOTE 2

C&B #4937.1.1C10198

354533

115894 014 2 M BAK 000 TO STACK F4 PI07MBAK000013 FAN ISOLATION DAMPER SEAL AIR SYSTEM TAG NUMBERS
FAN C

BA-79-BH-FN-CC-DA-IL-SL 79BA001C ZSO-824A ZSC-824A XO-824A XC-824A

BA-79-BH-FN-CC-DA-OE-SL 79BA002C ZSO-826A ZSC-826A XO-826A XC-826A FAN B

BA-79-BH-FN-BB-DA-IL-SL 79BA001B ZSO-820A ZSC-820A XO-820A XC-820A

BA-79-BH-FN-BB-DA-OE-SL 79BA002B ZSO-822A ZSC-822A XO-822A XC-822A FAN A

BA-79-BH-FN-AA-DA-IL-SL 79BA001A ZSO-816A ZSC-816A XO-816A XC-816A

BA-79-BH-FN-AA-DA-OE-SL 79BA002A ZSO-818A ZSC-818A XO-818A XC-818A ITEM DESCRIPTION INLET DAMPER SEAL AIR BLOWER SEAL AIR ISO VALVE OPEN LIMIT SWITCH CLOSE LIMIT SWITCH OPEN COMMAND CLOSE COMMAND OULET DAMPER SEAL AIR BLOWER SEAL AIR ISO VALVE OPEN LIMIT SWITCH CLOSE LIMIT SWITCH OPEN COMMAND CLOSE COMMAND DCS

XC XO ZSC ZSOM

GUILLOTINE ISOLATION DAMPER SEAL AIR BLOWER 79BA003A NC 79BA003B NC 79BA003C NC

DRAIN TO SLAB DRAIN TO SLAB DRAIN TO SLAB 01B-C15-2" 01A-C15-2" 01C-C15-2" 01A-C15-2" 01C-C15-2" 01B-C15-2"

NOTE 2 6"

NOTE 3 NOTE 3 NOTE 4

6"

6"

4"

4"

1 01/10/05 REVISED PAC INJECTION LOCATION, TAG NUMBERS

JLC JAC JAC 1

NOTE 10 TE 897C

TE 897B

TE 897A

TE 896C TE

896B TE

896A NOTE 9 NOTE 9

2 02/11/05 ADDED INSTRUMENTATION

JLC JAC JAC TE 815CB TE

815DB TE

815EB TE 815EA TE 815CA TE

815DA

TE 815AA TE

815BA TE 815AB TE 815BB TE 819CB TE

819DB TE

819EB TE 819EA TE 819CA TE

819DA

TE 819AA TE

819BA TE 819AB TE 819BB TE 823CB TE

823DB TE

823EB 823EA 823CA 823DA

TE 823AA TE

823BA TE 823AB TE 823BB TE TE TE

2 2 2 2

2

2

28 A REFERENCE DRAWINGS F

E

D

C

B 6 3 2 4 5 7 8

0 F

E

D

C

B

A

$DATE$WAS: ________________

JOB PRESQUE ISLE POWER PLANT PIPING & INSTRUMENT DIAGRAM COMPRESSED AIR SKID SYSTEM SHEET 0

SM 4937-CIA-M0113

1 REVISION

CGS NO. DATE

DATE ..... JOB NO.

ORDER NO. 493704

FAX (734) 761-9881 TEL (734) 761-9130

MICROFILM NO.

... CHECKED DRAWN SINCE 1932 ENGINEERS CONSULTING

REF FILES CUMMINS & BARNARD, INC.

5405 DATA COURT, SUITE 100
ANN ARBOR, MI 48108

2 DATE SCALE

AS NOTED APPROVED CHKD 3 APVD D ..... ...

DRAWN PI 07

4 REVISION DESCRIPTION REV NO. DATE APVD ORDER NO. DRAWN CHKD JOB 5 6 ORDER NO. DATE REV NO. REVISION DESCRIPTION 7 0001 PT

0001 TE

0001 PI

0001 TI

TRAP

TRAP

TRAP PORTABLE COMPRESSOR CONNECTION

WET AIR RECEIVER COMPRESSOR A 100%

COMPRESSOR B 100%

AIR DRYER SKID

AIR DRYER SKID PARTICULATE FILTER COALESCING FILTER 125 PSIG SET @

0001 PSV

FO

DRAIN CONNECTION DCS

DCS EXPANSION JOINT

EXPANSION JOINT

COALESCING FILTER PARTICULATE FILTER

NOTES: 1. DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE INDICATOR IS INTEGRAL TO FILTER.

M SAK 000 003 INST. AIR DIST. DCS

DCS

DCS

DCS DPI NOTE 1 DPI NOTE 1

DPI NOTE 1 DPI NOTE 1 SET AT 100 PSI

PI07MBAK000012 "P&ID LEGEND" VENT

VENT

0 03/04/05 FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAP79IA100

79IA101

79IA103

79IA105 79IA104

79IA117 79IA118

79IA119 79IA120

79IA121 79IA122 79IA123 79IA107 79IA106 79IA108

79IA109 79IA111 79IA11679IA10279IA11579IA11479IA11379IA112

79IA110 PV 001

001 PV PI07MIAK000002
B8

AI-79-BH-DY-AA

AI-79-BH-DY-BB AI-79-BH-CM-TK AI-79-BH-CM-BB AI-79-BH-CM-AA2---INTAKE FA,12" X 4",HT,SHRP,NUV,AC,SAV121812-2-030107030001918-3-043110100303AGATE-KNIFE,4",40D,BRLN,AC,LS,SAV85-1918-3534544325-16195750-153505-807-13531-212 2 VALVE MANIFOLD196831-115 - 13DETECTOR-DUST2 DUST CHECK-2"NPT- 54025-248-5-1812-2SK-4411-29 11REGULATOR-AIR PRESSURE,1"VALVE-RLF,1,80 PSIF,BRZ,ASME276VALVE-KNFG,12",HANDWHEEL OPERATEDVIBRATOR-115V,1PH,60HZVALVE-6",BUTTERFLY,AC OPER,SAV,LS197056-5-145308-9197052-2-1-110101-3505-807ITEM* A-B-N82 TRANSMITTER-PRESS VAC, 0' TO 20"HG10 -9 SK-3531-211918-3-043140100303A2 GATE-KNIFE,4",40D,BRLN,AC,LS,SAV340486-2832-000-020111 5-1918-3VALVE-BALL,1",MAN OPN13 - 44324-10 1 FILTER-AIR,1"NPT14 -196831-5 112 -196831-3 4 VALVE-BALL,.5"MAN OPN17 5-1812-21812-2-032007030002 INTAKE FA,12" X 4",HT,SHRP,NUV,AC,SAVVALVE-BALL,.25",MAN OPN16M - 020 -PART NUMBER QTY DESCRIPTIONDRAWING NUMBERM - 021 -PART NUMBER QTY DESCRIPTIONDRAWING NUMBER54025-259 3 CANNON, AIR22 -23 -HOIST, ELECTRIC-1 TON, W/ ELEC TROLLEY54025-258 1SPOUT,TELESCOPIC - LEVEL SENSOR,20 -21 -3 TON HOIST AND TROLLEY54025-24354025-25711VALVE-BALL,.25",MAN OPN18 - 196831-5 119 - 196831-1 2BIN ROOF ENCLOSURE HEATER17 - 54025-246 2 UNLOADING ROOM HEATERUNLOADING ROOM VENTILATION FAN1614 - 54025-242 2BIN ROOF ENCLOSURE VENTILATION FAN13 - 54025-241 2 BIN ROOF ENCLOSURE LOUVER12 - 54025-240 211 - 54025-238 11 VALVE-VAC/PRESS,RLF VENT10 3-1957-329 -ITEM* A-B-N811FAN-VENT,6CIMOTOR- HP, RPM, 480V, 60 Hz, 3 Ph, TEFCVALVE-4",BTFLY,AC OP,SAV,LS54025-23454025-236197052-1-1-21 LEVEL-DETR-USONIC,19',200F MAX, 120VACVALVE-BALL,1",MAN OPN765-2417-8SK-4411-273-3403-88/98BIN VENT FILTER1957-32-411FILTER-AIR,1" NPTPANEL-CONTROL,TELE SPT & FAN1 INDICATOR-LVL,120V,60 HZ,A=4'UNLOADING ROOM LOUVERS54025-24415 - 2- 54025-245 244324-102417-83403-9234602-1-1-1-019-1-1345---DISCHARGE-8" DRY UNLD122326-31-2-31154025-235SPOUT,TELESCOPIC112-2326-31

### Appendix D. Modifications Since Startup

This Appendix contains the following photos and drawing related to the project:

Photo Title

JPG_001 Raised Cover Pin Mixer

Dwg 5

- 5200

- PIPP New Pin Mixer

JPG_002 Baghouse Pulse Pipe Cover

JPG_003 External Control Panel Ash Silo

JPG_004 Silo A ccess Hatch and Inspection Port

JPG_005 New Insulation Vacuum Unloading Pipes

JPG_006 New Platform

– Booster Fan Outlet (TYP 3)

JPG _007 New Rotary Valve for Ash Unloading

JPG_008 Air Canon (TYP3)

JPG_009 Platform on Top of Duct Unit 8

JPG_010 Platform for Diverter Access Doors

JPG_011 Ash Unloading Truck Enclosure

JPG_012 Rubber Skirt , Wet Unloading SystemJPG_001: Raised Cover Pin Mixer...\WinWord\DEL'VE\5-5200-PIPP.dgn 12/7/2009 1:10:18 PMJPG_002: Baghouse Pulse Pipe CoverJPG_003: External Control Panel Ash SiloJPG_004: Silo Access Hatch and Inspection PortJPG_005: New Insulation Vacuum Unloading PipesJPG_006: New Platform – Booster Fan Outlet (TYP 3)JPG _007: New Rotary Valve for Ash UnloadingJPG_008: Air Canon (TYP3)JPG_009: Platform onTop of Duct Unit 8JPG_010: Platform forDiverter Access DoorsJPG_011: Ash Unloading Truck EnclosureJPG_012: Rubber Skirt, Wet Unloading System