2009 NOx 2009 NOx-Combustion/PCUG

February 10, 2009

Assessing DeactivationTrends for Cata

Design and Management Planning Design and Management Planning

Presenter Coauthor

John Cochran

CERAM Environmental, Inc.

(913) 239-9896

Dr Greg Holscher

CERAM Environmental, 

(913) 239-9896
CERAM Environmental Inc.

 U S B d S b idi f CERAM F d d i 2000 U.S. Base

d

S

u

b

sidiary o

f CERAM

Foun

d

e

d

in 2000

 Providing Catalyst Supply Contract Coordination

 Catalyst Design, Flow Modeling, Delivery

Coordination, Training, Startup Services, Guarantee Administration

 Providing Comprehensive Catalyst Management

Services for >30 Coal Based SCRs in the US

 AIG Tunings Reactor Ins

pections

 Catalyst Testing SCR System DCS Data Reporting, Assessments, 

and Troubleshooting and Troubleshooting

 Regeneration and Rejuvenation Services 

Procurement 

 Catalyst Management and SCR Operations Planning Catalyst Management and SCR Operations Planning
Catalyst Deactivates With 

Exposure to Flue Gas

NatuCoa

Ko (Original Catalyst Activity)

e Activity) Coa

BiomWas

o (Relative K/Ko 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

K/Ko

Operation [hrs]

z Definition: K/Ko = Activity at Time of Test (K) /Or

Catal

y y( ) st Activit

y

(Ko

)

z K/Ko @ 16khr Can Range From 0.2 to >0.9 Depen

Fuel Quality and Operating Circumstances
Catalyst Deactivates With 

Exposure to Flue Gas

NatuCoa

Ko (Original Catalyst Activity)

Activity) 

CoaCoaBiomWas

(Relative A K/Ko 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

K/Ko 

Operation [hrs]

Catalyst Design (at hour=0) Must Anticipate DeactiCatalyst Design (at hour=0) Must Anticipate Deacti

End of Guarantee Period to Size Catalyst Prop
Catalyst Deactivation is Very Site and Fuel S

0.91.0

K/Ko vs Time 

0 60.70.8

vity

0.40.50.6

elative Activ

0.10.20.3

Re

0.00.1

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18

Hours of SCR Operation

Tracking K/Ko Trends Critical to Accurately Manage Cat
Reasons for Catalyst 

Additions or Replacements

z Deactivation – Loss of chemical activityz Plugging/Surface Accumulations – Loss of active catalyst surz Erosion – Loss of catalyst material or loss or mechanical intez Sintering – Thermal destruction of activity

Middle Cataly y st La er for Schahfer Unit 14

NORTH SIDE WITH AIG

SH SH SH SH SH 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

2A 50-100% 40-80% 40-80% 20-80% 50-80% 50-80% 40-60% 20

2B 40-50% 20-40% 20-40% 15-20% 20-30% 20-50% 20-50% 202C 15-20% 10-15% 15-20% 10-15% 15-20% 15-20% 20-30% 10

Overall Activity 7.0000

8.0000

Min. Activity 5 0% 0 5% 5 0% 0 5% 5 0% 5 0% 0 30% 0 

2D 5-10% 5 -10% 10-15% 5-10% 10-15% 5-10% 10-15% 5-

2E 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% < 5% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-

W 

E S 2F < 5% 5-10% < 5% < 5% < 5% 5-10% < 5% 5-

T 

S 

I 

D 2G < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5

NH3 Slip 2.0 ppmvd ref. O2

0 ppmvd ref.O2

Relative Activity Layer 3

3.00004.00005.00006.0000

y

D 2G < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5E 

2H < 5% 5-10% < 5% < 5% < 5% 5-10% < 5% < 5

2I < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% 5-10% 5-10% < 5

2J < 5% < 5% < 5% < 5% 5-10% < 5% < 5% < 5

5 10% 5 10% 5 10% 5 10% 5 10% 5 10% 5 10% 5 

Relative Activity Layer 2Relative Activity Layer 1Relative Activity Spare Layer

0.00001.00002.00003.0000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 2K 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-10% 5-

SOUTH SIDE

 < 10% Blockage 10% to 20% Blockage 20% to 40% Blockage 40% to 70% Blockage 70% to 100% Blockage 

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175

Operation Hours x 1000 [h]

Catalyst Activity Reactor Pluggage 
Catalyst Testing is an Essential Element 

Catalyst Management Planning

z Measurements:

 DeNOx Activity (Ko and K) Surface Chemical Analysis Surface Chemical Analysis Bulk Chemical Analysis Other – SO

2 to SO

3 Conversion Rate, Pore 

Volume Specific Surface Area Abrasion Volume, Specific Surface Area, Abrasion

Resistance, Compression Strength

z Predominant Catalyst Test Objectives:

 A D ti ti R t d P j t K/K T d Assess 

Deactivation 

R

a

te an

d

Projec

t K/Ko 

Tren

d

 Identify Deactivation Mechanisms Evaluate Mechanical Properties

z Information Obtained Used to Assess Catalyst 

Capabilities and Project Future Replacements
CERAM Laboratory Capabilitie

z Extensive Laboratory Capabilities

 1 Bench Reactor and 7 Semi-Bench Reactors Testing New and Aged Catalyst Samples (Honeycomb Plate C

Testing New and Aged Catalyst Samples (Honeycomb, Plate, C

Fiber)

 >1000 Tests Performed in 2008 

z 2006 VGB Catalyst Activity Testing Round Robin 2006 VGB Catalyst Activity Testing Round Robin

 Element With Unknown Activity Circulated to

6 Laboratories

 C A l Cl A l CER

AM Resu

lt Was Closest to 

Average Resu

l

t

Activity -0.1% (-0.03 m/h) From Average 1.1% Standard Deviation for 5 Tests

 Other Labs (Total of 37 Measurements in 6 Labs) 

Activity -2.6 m/h (-7.0%) to +3.2 m/h 

() g +8.3%

) From Avera

g

e

Average Activity Variance = 1.0 m/h
Laboratory Test Results

4142

2006 VGB Round Robin Activity Measurement Test Resu

394041

EON (element stCERAMSTEAG (now Ev

373839

Activity, m/h

STEAG (now EvEnBWArgillon (now Joh

3536

A37

KWHEON (element re

3435

012345678

Test #

Overall Test Res

Test

#
Original Catalyst Sizing

z C l S li P j d D i i R (K/K E d h E 

Catalyst 

Supplier 

Projecte

d a 

Deactivation 

Rate (K/Ko 

Expecte

d at t

he 

E

Specified Guaranteed Period) Based on Experience and 

...

 Specified SCR Design Type (High Dust, Low Dust, or Tail-End) Specified Fuel Conditions (S Ash As Fuel Conditions (S, Ash, As, CaO, P K Na etc ) P, K, Na, etc.) Specified Operating Conditions

z Supplier Sized Catalyst (Determined the Required Reactor Potential) Ba

on This K/Ko Projection and on This K/Ko Projection andSpecified Design Point Data.

...

 NOx In/Out and NH

3 Slip

 Flue Gas Temperature 0.80

0.901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trend Indicative o

16,000 

Guara

Flue Gas Temperature

 Gas Flow Rates & Constituents Distributions (V, NH

3/NOx, T)

 Expected Catalyst Pluggage

0.500.600.70

K/Ko

K/Ko Assumed for 

Calculation of Required 

Expected Catalyst Pluggage Reactor Potential 

 Other Specified Items 

0.100.200.30

K0.40

Design/Expected DeactivationOriginal Design Basis K/Ko @16 khrO i i l D i B i K/K @24 kh

G

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas, ho

Original Design 

Basis K/Ko @24 khr
Traditional Catalyst Management

z Utility Pulls Test Elements Utility Pulls Test Elementsz Test Elements Sent to Laboratoryz Laboratory Tests Elements

L b I di if K/K i Ab O i i l Si i B i

Midwest Utility Unit Burning IL Basin 

Relative Activity vs. Operating Hou

z

L

a

boratory 

I

ndicates if K/Ko 

is Above 

O

r

i

g

ina

l Si

z

ing 

Bas

i

s

z Is This Catalyst Management Planning?

This Approach:

0.91.0

o)

This Approach:z Neglects Reactor Mechanical 

Condition (Pluggage)N l Diff D NO

0.70.8

Relative Activity (K/Ko

z

Neg

lects Different 

D

eNOx 

Operating Demands from Design/Specification Basis

0.50.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

Op g () erating Hours x 1000 (hrs)

Guaranteed Life Avg. KAvg. K/Ko for 3 Layers (2004) Avg. KAvg. K/Ko for 3 Layers (2006) Avg K/End of Guarantee Expected K/Ko MinimuExpected Deactivation Curve
K/Ko Tracking is NOT the Only Part of a

Effective Catalyst Management Program

z Items Not Accounted for With K/Ko Testing Include...

 Relative Accuracy of Activity Measurements Reactor Pluggage Present Reactor Pluggage Present Original Catalyst Activity Different From Design Basis Conditions Different Than Design/Specified Basis

Inlet NOxOutlet NOxAmmonia Sli

p

Gas TemperaturesDistributionsFlow Rates Flow RatesFlue Gas Constituents

 Did Catalyst Supplier Estimate the Correct Required Reacto

P t ti l f C diti P t? P

o

tenti

a

l

for 

Conditions 

Present?
Catalyst Deactivation Trends

Catalyst Activity Should be Tracked Ann

0.800.901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trends

3rd Year

2nd Year

1st Year

0 500.600.700 80

Ko

4th Year

0.300.400.50

K/K

Most Recent Test ResultsPrevious Test Results

0.000.100.20

0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000

Design/Expected DeactivationOriginal Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

z Trend Analysis Should Consider All Results With Emphasis on 

Recent Results Recent Results

Case Study – Ameren Duck Creek Unit 1 
Aging Model Applied to Results to 

Determine Long Term Trends

0 901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trends

Trend Based on 

0.700.800.90

All Test Results 

0 400.500.60

K/Ko Test Average (All Tests)

0.200.300.40

Most Recent Test ResultsPrevious Test ResultsDesi

gn/Ex

pected Deactivation

0.000.10

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,0

g p

Original Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours
Most Recent Results May Indicate 

Most Representative Trend

0 901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trends

Trend Based on Most

0.700.800.90 Trend Based on Most

Recent Results Only

0 400.500.60

K/Ko Test Average (Most Recent Tests)

0.200.300.40

Most Recent Test ResultsPrevious Test ResultsDesi

gn/Ex

pected Deactivation

0.000.10

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,0

g p

Original Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours
Catalyst Deactivation Trends - Ameren Duck Creek Unit 1

Things Going According to Plan

0 800.901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trends Ameren Duck Creek Unit 1

360 MW Operation Burning Illinois Basin Coal

Lab Accuracy of -1K 

Value Considered

0.600.700.80

o

0.300.400.50

K/KTest Average (Most Recent Tests)

Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent Tests)Most Recent Test Results

0 000.100.20 Previous Test Results

Design/Expected DeactivationOriginal Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

z The Lab Accuracy ( The Lab Accuracy (±1 K) Should Also Be Considered in the Tre

1 K) Should Also Be Considered in the Tre

Analysis
Is The Trend Changing With Time?

0.901.00

Test Results Projected K/Ko 

0.800.901.00

Catalyst Deactivation Trends - Ameren Duck Creek Unit 1

360 MW Operation Burning Illinois Basin Coal

0.700.80

ed K/Ko at 16khr 

0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

K/Ko Test Average (Most Recent Tests)

A 1K L b A (M R T )

0 400.500.60

Calculate

Individual Results Projected to 16 khr 

Based on Aging Model

0 000.100.200.30

Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most 

Recent 

Tests)

Most Recent Test ResultsPrevious Test ResultsDesign/Expected DeactivationOriginal Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

z Use A

gin

g Models to Project K/Ko Result to 16,000 Hour

0.40

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas at Time of Cata

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

gg j

z K/Ko at 16 khr Projection Provides a Common Basis to A

Deactivation Trends
Which Reactor Level is the Weak Link

0 700.800.90

Level Based Catalyst Activity Tracking

0.901.00

khr

Level Based Test Results Projected 

0.400.500.600.70

K/KoTest Average (Most Recent Tests) Avg Measured -1K (Lab Accuracy) Level 1 Test Results 0.70

0.80

ated K/Ko at 16k

0.000.100.200.30 Level 2 Test Results

Level 3 Test ResultsLevel 4 Test ResultsDesign/Expected DeactivationOriginal Design Basis K/Ko @16 khr

0.400.500.60

Calcula

Individual Layer Based 

Results Projected to 16 kh

Based on Aging Model

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

z Deactivation Rates Can Var

y From Level to Level in the Reacto

r

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas at Time of Cat

z Information Useful to Determine Which Level Has Lowest Activ

Time to Change Out Catalyst
Duck Creek Reactor Arrangement

Initial LPA Screen 

Location

Final LPA Screen 

Location

z Initially No LPA Screen Installed

 LPA Observed and Caused OEM to Install Screen

z First LPA Screen Installed by OEM Above Flow Rectifie

r

 LPA Deposited on Back Side of Reactor 

z Final LPA Screen Located at Economizer Outlet

 High Velocity at LPA Screen (75 to 90 fps) and Failures Passed Further 

High Velocity at LPA Screen (75 to 90 fps) and Failures Passed Further 

Resulting in Pluggage on AIG Side of Reactor
Duck Creek Top Layer Pluggage Map

After 2005 6 7 mm/1mm Wall

SB SB SB SB

2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H

1 90-100% 80-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 80-100% 100% 100%

Top Catalyst Level (6.7 mm Pitch)

NORTH SIDE

After 2005

6.7 mm/1mm Wall

z Initial Operation Witho

2 90-100% 80-90% 50-60% 50-60% 50-60% 80-100% 100% 100%3 90-100% 80-90% 40-50% 50-60% 50-60% 80-90% 100% 100%4 90-100% 80-90% 40-50% 40-50% 50-60% 90-100% 100% 100%

L

70% Average Pluggage <10% Aver

Pluggage

L

z Initial Operation Witho

LPA on AIG Side of R

z LPA Screen Added Ab

LPA Deposited on Far 

After 2 Ozone Seasons o

Pl N Si ifi 

5 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 90-100% 100% 100%6 80-90% 70-80% 50-60% 40-50% 40-50% 90-100% 100% 100%7 80-90% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 80-90% 100% 100%8 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 70-80% 100% 100%

A

I

G

S

I

D

E

BACK

W

A

LL

L

P

L

P

LPA Deposited on Far 

Reactor

Pluggage 

No Significan

Noted With 6.7 mm 

8 90 100% 70 80% 50 60% 50 60% 40 50% 70 80% 100% 100%9 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 70-80% 100% 100%

10 90-100% 80-90% 60-70% 60-70% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%11 90-100% 80-90% 60-70% 60-70% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%

ACCESS A A DOOR

12 90-100% 80-90% 70-80% 70-80% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%

SOUTH SIDE

< 10% Pluggage 10% to 20% Pluggage 20% to 40% Pluggage 40% to 70% Pluggage 

 Unburned Carbon Popcorn Ash / LPA Fly Ash Piles (>1 ft)
Duck Creek Top Layer Pluggage Map

After 2005 6 7 mm/1mm Wall After 2006 8 2 mm/1

SB SB SB SB

2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 2H

1 90-100% 80-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 80-100% 100% 100%

Top Catalyst Level (6.7 mm Pitch)

NORTH SIDE

After 2005

6.7 mm/1mm Wall

z Initial Operation Witho

SH SH SH 

2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 

1 10-15% <5% <5% <5% <5% <

Top Catalyst Level (8.2 mm Pitch)

NORTH SIDE

After 2006

8.2 mm/1

2 90-100% 80-90% 50-60% 50-60% 50-60% 80-100% 100% 100%3 90-100% 80-90% 40-50% 50-60% 50-60% 80-90% 100% 100%4 90-100% 80-90% 40-50% 40-50% 50-60% 90-100% 100% 100%

L

70% Average Pluggage <10% Aver

Pluggage

L

z Initial Operation Witho

LPA on AIG Side of R

z LPA Screen Added Ab

LPA Deposited on Far 

2 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <5% <3 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <4 5-10% 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <

<10% Average P

After 2 Ozone Seasons o

Pl N Si ifi 

5 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 90-100% 100% 100%6 80-90% 70-80% 50-60% 40-50% 40-50% 90-100% 100% 100%7 80-90% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 80-90% 100% 100%8 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 70-80% 100% 100%

A

I

G

S

I

D

E

BACK

W

A

LL

L

P

L

P

LPA Deposited on Far 

Reactor

5 5-10% 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <6 5-10% 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <7 5-10% 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <8 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <

A

I

G

S

I

D

E

Pluggage 

No Significan

Noted With 6.7 mm 

8 90 100% 70 80% 50 60% 50 60% 40 50% 70 80% 100% 100%9 90-100% 70-80% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 70-80% 100% 100%

10 90-100% 80-90% 60-70% 60-70% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%11 90-100% 80-90% 60-70% 60-70% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%

ACCESS A A DOOR 9 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <

10 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <11 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <5% <

12 90-100% 80-90% 70-80% 70-80% 40-50% 50-60% 100% 100%

SOUTH SIDE

< 10% Pluggage 10% to 20% Pluggage 20% to 40% Pluggage 40% to 70% Pluggage 

 Unburned Carbon Popcorn Ash / LPA Fly Ash Piles (>1 ft)

12 5-10% <5% <5% <5% <5% <

SOUTH SIDE
Ameren Duck Creek Unit 1 

Catalyst Management Plan

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

1.8

Catalyst Management Plan Total Reactor Potenti

Req Reactor PotentiaChangesStart of Planning PerEnd of Planning Perio

Total Reactor and Layer (Bottom) Potential (Includes Pluggage Effects)

2

2

2

1.21.41.6

nsidering Pluggage)E1 New L2 6.7mm P

E2 New L3 6.7mm PE3 New L4 6.7mm PE4 New L2 8.2mm P

0 60.81.0

r Layer Potential (Con E5 New L3 8.2mm P

E6 Clean Old L4 6.7mE7 New L2 8.2mm P

3 Levels of 6.7 mm Catalyst Plugged Due to LPA 25 to 70% E8 New L4 8.2mm P

}

Up Rate of Unit from 360 to 440 MW 

Temperatures Increase From 700 to 761 F

0.20.40.6

Reactor or E9 New L1 8.2mm P

E10 New L2 8.2mm PE11 New L3 8.2mm PE12 New L4 8.2mm P

}

Transition to 8.2 mm Pitch Lower 

Oxidation Catalyst (0.5% at 761 F)

}

0.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Catalyst Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Start of Year

z CERAM Hone

ycomb Catal

yst

Oxidation Catalyst (0.5% at 761 F)

The Plan P

Many Be

y y

z Final Oxidation Rate for 8.2 mm Pitch/1 mm Thick 

Catalyst <0.5%@761 F
Catalyst Deactivation Trends

Indiana Utility 500 MW Cyclone 85% PRB B

0.901.00

500 MW PRB Fired Cyclone Unit Deactivation Trends

0 600.700.80

G t

0.400.500.60

K/Ko Design/Expected Deactivation

Test Average (All Tests)A 2K (All T t )

Guarantee 

Sizing Basis

0.100.200.30

Avg -2K (All

Tests)

Catalyst Sizing Basis K/Ko (13.5 khr)Original Design K/Ko Equiv @16 khrMost Recent Test Results (Unit A)Previous Test Results (Unit A)

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Previous Test Results (Unit A)

z Catalyst Sized Based on K/Ko = 0.66 at 13,500 Houz Guarantee: 89% NOx Removal and 2.0 ppm Slip fo
Catalyst Management Plan

Indiana Utility 500 MW Cyclone 85% PRB B

003

005

007

009

011

013

015

017

019

1.8

Catalyst Management Plan

Total Reactor PotenReq Reactor PotentChangesStart of Planning Pe

Total Reactor and Layer (Bottom) Potential (Includes Pluggage Effects)

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

1.21.41.6

sidering Pluggage)

Start of Planning PeEnd of Planning PerE1 New L1 7.4mm PE2 New L2 7.4mm P

Despite Pluggage Levels of 20 to 40% Initial Catalyst Life 

Exceeded 13.5 khr Guarantee Due to High Initial K of Catalyst

0.81.0

Layer Potential (Cons E3 New L3 7.4mm P

E4 New L1 9.2mm PE5 New L2 8.2mm PE6 New L3 8.2mm P

Transitioning From 7.4 mm to 9.2 (Top) d 8 2 (L L l ) Pit h C t l t

0.20.40.6

Reactor or L E7 New L4 8.2mm P

E8 New L1 9.2mm PE9 New L2 8.2mm PSt t f Y

an

d

8.2 (Lower 

Levels) Pit

c

h

C

ataly

st

Hi

gh LOI 

0.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

Catalyst Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Start of Year

The Plan P

Many B

z CERAM Hone

ycomb Catal

yst

g

Pluggage Occurs

y y

z Guarantee – 89% NOx Removal and 2.0 ppm Slip for 13,5
Catalyst Deactivation Trends

Indiana Utility 500 MW Cyclones 85% PRB B

0.901.00

2x500 MW PRB Fired Cyclone Unit Deactivation Trends

Unit B 

0.600.700.80

Results

K/Ko@16khr A

Catalyst Test

0 300.400.500.60

K/Ko Design/Expected Deactivation

Test Average (All Tests)A

v

g -2K (All Tests)

Catalyst Test

Results SummaryReactor AverageLevel 1Level 2

Level 3

0.100.200.30

g ( )

Catalyst Sizing Basis K/Ko (13.5 khr)Original Design K/Ko Equiv @16 khrMost Recent Test Results (Unit A)Previous Test Results (Unit A)Test Results (Unit B)

Level 4Level

3

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Test Results (Unit B)

z Results From Sister Unit (500 MW Cyclone) Burning Pre

Results From Sister Unit (500 MW Cyclone) Burning Pre

Same PRB Blend Exhibits Similar Deactivation Rate
North American Station

2 x 500 MW PRB Blend (80%) Wall Fired U

0.800.901.00

Unit A Catalyst Test Results

0.800.901.00

Unit B Catalyst Test Resu

0 400.500.600.70

K/Ko

0 400.500.600.70

K/Ko

0.100.200.300.40

Plate Catalyst Manufacturer Design PointTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent Tests)Plate Catalyst Test Results

0.100.200.300.40

Plate Catalyst Manufacturer Design PointTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent TestPlate Catalyst Test Results

z Pl t C t l t Si d B 

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

K/Ko@16khr Most Recent Most Recent

Catalyst Test z Plate Catalyst Sized Ba

0.70 at 16,000 Hours

Unit A Unit B

0.616 0.6480.559 0.6290.567 0.621

Catalyst Test

Results SummaryReactor AverageLevel 1Level 2

0.613 0.6380.725 0.706

Level 3Level 4
North American Station 

2 x 500 MW PRB Blend (80%) Wall Fired U

0 800.901.00

Unit A Catalyst Test Results

0 800.901.00

Unit B Catalyst Test Result

Honeycomb 

Results

Hon

R

0.500.600.700.80

K/Ko0.50

0.600.700.80

K/Ko

0.100.200.300.40

K

Plate Catalyst Manufacturer Design PointTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent Tests)Plate Catalyst Test ResultsHoneycomb Catalyst Test Results

0.100.200.300.40

K

Plate Catalyst Manufacturer Design PointTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent TestPlate Catalyst Test ResultsHoneycomb Catalyst Test Results

z Pl t d H b C t l t E hibiti Si il D ti ti 

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Honeycomb Catalyst Test Results

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

Honeycomb Catalyst Test Results

z Plate and Honeycomb Catalyst are Exhibiting Similar Deactivati
North American Station 

500 MW PRB Blend (80%) Wall Fired Un

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

1.82.0

gage

Nanticoke Unit 8 - Catalyst Management Plan 2008 (4 ppm Slip)

Total Reactor PotentialOriginal Design Required ReactR R P i l W/P f B 

Total Reactor and Layer (Bottom) Potential (Includes Pluggage 

Being Considered

1.21.41.6

Considering Plugg

Req 

Reactor Potential W/Perf. B

Fuel Changes

Start of Planning Period (2008)End of Planning Period (2017)E1 New L1 5.7mm Pitch Plate 

2 ppm Slip

4 ppm Slip and

0.60.81.0

r Layer Potential CE2 New L2 5.7mm Pitch Plate E3 New L3 5.7mm Pitch Plate E4 New L4 7.4mm Pitch Honey

E5 New L1 9.2mm Pitch Honey

4 ppm Slip and

Lower NOx In

0.20.4

Reactor o E6 Regenerate L2 5.7 mm Pitch 

E7 Regenerate L3 5.7 mm Pitch Start of Year

0.0

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000

Catalyst Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

z Guarantee – 83% NOx Removal and 2.0 ppm Sli

p for 16,0

The Plan D

Many Be

pp p ,

z Plate and Honeycomb Catalyst in Reactor
North American Station 

2 x 500 MW High Sulfur Bituminous Coa

0.800.901.00

Unit Y Catalyst Test Results

0.800.901.00

Unit Z Catalyst Test Res

0 400.500.600.70

K/Ko

0 400.500.600.70

K/Ko

0.100.200.300.40

OEM Plate Catalyst Manufacturer Design PointTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent Tests)Plate Catalyst Test Results

0.100.200.300.40

OEM Plate Catalyst Manufacturer DesigTest Average (Most Recent Tests)Avg -1K Lab Accuracy (Most Recent TesPlate Catalyst Test Results

z Catalyst Sized Based on K

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

Exposure to Flue Gas, hours

y

0.00

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 

Exposure to Flue Gas, h

K/Ko@16khr Most Recent Most Recent

Catalyst Test z Catalyst Sized Based on K

16,000 Hours

Unit Y Unit Z

0.656 0.6510.669 0.6710.659 0.617

Catalyst Test

Results SummaryReactor AverageLevel 1Level 2

0.640 0.651

Level 4 0.665Level 3
Catalyst Deactivates Independent of Catalys

High Arsenic/Low Calcium Oxide Operating 

1

Relative Activity Vs Time

600 MW Unit With High Arsenic and Low CaO

F l B d Diff t Th

0.70.80.9

Fuels 

Burne

d Differen

t Than 

That Specified Initially

Result is Extreme Deactivation

0.50.6

Activity (K/Ko)

0.20.30.4

Relative A Honeycomb Catalyst Test Results

Corrugated Fiber Catalyst Test Results

0

0.1

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Projected DeactivationExpected Activity for Specified Fuel (16khr)Current Deactivation Trend (16khr)

, , , ,

Exposure to Flue Gas (hrs)
Catalyst Testing is Only One Part o

Effective Catalyst Management Effective Catalyst Management

Activity ObjectivesAIG Checks and Tuning Optimize NH3/NOx Distribution (Check/Tune An

Monitor Ammonia in Fly Ash Test Frequently and Track Ammonia Slip TrendsOperations Data Assessment Evaluate DeNOx Demand (NOx, T, Flow, Delta P

Monitor Fuels Data Evaluate Possible Effects on CatalystReactor Inspections Assess Pluggage and Mechanical ConditionCatalyst Testing Assess Current Activity Levels and Deactivation TCatalyst Management Planning Evaluate Near Term SCR System Performance Ca

Predict Next Need for Catalyst AdditionEvaluate Options for Catalyst Addition (New vs R

AIG = Ammonia Injection Grid
Conclusions

z Ca e u e o S ou d be a d o a Ca a ys S g o s

reful Attention Should be Paid to Initial Catalyst Sizing to Ens

Reactor Potential and K/Ko Basis is Utilized

z Catalyst Deactivation Rates are Independent of Catalyst Typez New Plants: New Plants: Seek Hard K/Ko Data to Substantiate Catalyst Desi

Seek Hard K/Ko Data to Substantiate Catalyst Desi

z Catalyst Testing is Not the Only Part of a Catalyst Management Pz CERAM Performs Comprehensive 

Catalyst Management Services CATLife® Catalyst Management Services – CATLife® Program Program

 Catalyst Testing Reactor Inspections

Catalyst 

Management 

Planning

 AIG Tunings Operating Data and Fuel Quality Assessments Regeneration/Rejuvenation Procurement Reactor I ti /

Catalyst 

Testing 

(K/Ko)

S

g j

 Catalyst Management Planning 

(Manage CATLife® Model)

Considering Full Range of

Inspection/

Mechanical 

Condition

Boiler 

Operations 

Assessment

Considering Full Range of 

Options (New/Wash/Regen)

Assess Fuel 

Quality

Assessment

AIG Tuning
Thanks!!!

Any Questions? Catalyst 

Management 

Planning

Catalyst

(CATLife® Program)

Reactor 

Testing 

(K/Ko)

SCR System 

Inspection/ 

Mechanical 

Condition

Operating 

Demand 

Assessment

Boiler 

Operations 

Assessment

SCR 

Operations 

Assessment

The Plan Depicted 

is One of Many 

Being Considered

Assess Fuel 

Quality AIG Tuning

Assess

NH3 in Ash 

Measurement