Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0056-0043
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-01-27T05:00Z

1
"
DOE/
NETL's
Mercury
Control
Technology
Research
Program
for
Coal­
Fired
Power
Plants,"
Feeley,
et
al,
EM
Magazine,
October
2003.

­
1­
Memorandum
From:
L.
D.
Carter
Director,
Office
of
Planning
and
Environmental
Analysis
Coal
&
Power
Systems,
DOE/
FE­
26
To:
Bill
Maxwell,
USEPA
Subject:
Mercury
Control
Technologies
Date:
January
8,
2004
Introduction
This
memo
presents
DOE's
views
regarding
the
status
of
technologies
for
control
of
mercury
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants.
DOE,
in
partnership
with
the
private
sector,
has
funded
a
multiyear
research
and
development
program
which
is
beginning
to
produce
some
very
promising
technologies.

An
excellent
review
of
our
mercury
control
technology
R&
D
program
was
published
in
October's
EM
Magazine1,
the
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association's
magazine
for
environmental
managers.
I
am
including
a
copy
of
that
article
as
Attachment
1,
and
will
provide
a
brief
overview
below.
I
am
also
including,
as
Attachment
2,
a
tabular
summary
of
the
mercury
control
technology
research
projects
which
were
being
funded
under
DOE's
appropriations,
as
of
Summer
2003.
Additionally,
I
am
attaching
material
describing
longer­
term
field
tests
of
mercury
control
technologies
in
projects
initiated
last
Fall,
and
providing
descriptions
of
our
first
two
full­
scale
demonstration
projects
involving
mercury
emissions
control.
You
will
see
that
there
is
a
broad
range
of
technologies
under
consideration,
consistent
with
our
view
that
we
need
a
portfolio
approach
to
effectively
implement
major
reductions
in
mercury
emissions
from
coalfired
power
plants.
Finally,
this
memo
will
explain
the
temporal
relationships
between
research
and
development
projects,
technology
demonstration
projects,
and
commercial
deployment
of
new
technologies.

Mercury
Control
Technologies
DOE's
mercury
R&
D
program
recognizes
that
conventional
air
pollution
control
technologies
control
about
one­
third
of
the
potential
mercury
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants.
EPA
has
published
an
excellent
report
that
describes
these
technologies
2
See
Control
of
Mercury
Emissions
from
Coal­
fired
Electric
Utility
Boilers:
Interim
Report,
EPA­
600/
R­
01­
109,
April
2002.

­
2­
and
their
effectiveness
in
reducing
mercury
emissions.
2
These
existing
technologies
are
commercially
deployed
today,
but
generally
show
inconsistent
levels
of
mercury
control
from
plant
to
plant.
The
DOE
R&
D
program
focuses
on
ways
to
make
these
existing
technologies
more
effective
and
more
consistent
at
controlling
mercury,
and
on
altogether
new
approaches
for
mercury
control.

There
are
two
overarching
goals
for
the
DOE
R&
D
program:

To
develop
control
technologies
capable
of
50­
70%
mercury
capture
for
commercial
demonstration
at
bituminous
coal­
fired
power
plants
by
2005,
and
at
lower
rank
coal­
fired
power
plants
by
2007;
and

To
develop
lower
cost
control
technologies
capable
of
90%
mercury
capture
for
commercial
demonstration
by
2010.

The
R&
D
program
takes
technologies
from
a
conceptual
level
through
bench
scale
and
pilot
scale
proof
of
concept.
For
the
more
promising
technologies,
defined
in
terms
of
performance
and
cost,
full
scale
field
tests
are
conducted
to
generate
the
information
necessary
for
a
multi­
year
demonstration
project.
In
addition
to
funding
for
the
mercury
R&
D
program,
DOE
is
also
provided
funds
by
Congress
to
conduct
such
full
scale
technology
demonstrations
under
the
Clean
Coal
Power
Initiative.

Several
categories
of
technologies
are
now
under
development
at
DOE.
These
include
sorbent
injection
technologies,
technologies
that
enhance
the
mercury
capture
of
traditional
pollutant
controls,
such
as
SO2
"
scrubbers"
and
electrostatic
precipitators
(
ESP's),
multi­
pollutant
control
technologies,
and
novel
concepts.

Sorbent
Injection
Technologies
DOE
has
supported
sorbent
injection
projects
at
the
bench,
pilot,
and
commercialscale
This
type
of
technology
has
the
greatest
promise
for
taking
mercury
control
beyond
the
performance
of
conventional
(
non­
mercury)
technologies
in
the
near­
term.
During
short
term
tests
(
one
to
three
weeks),
these
technologies
have
achieved
reductions
as
high
as
90%
of
inlet
mercury
levels
on
bituminous
coals.
Performance
on
subbituminous
coal
has
been
as
high
as
65%
reduction.
In
addition,
systems
with
supplemental
fabric
filters
have
been
more
effective
than
those
with
ESP's.
Although
full
scale
sorbent
injection
tests
have
focused
on
activated
carbon
injection,
DOE
is
also
sponsoring
pilot
scale
research
on
lower
cost
sorbents.
DOE
is
now
engaged
in
longer­
term
studies
of
sorbent
injection
technologies
in
order
to
gain
the
information
needed
to
conduct
multi­
year
commercial
demonstrations
of
this
technology.
Given
the
differences
in
the
effectiveness
of
this
technology
on
coals
of
different
rank
and
­
3­
chlorine
content,
it
is
likely
that
several
demonstration
projects
will
be
necessary
to
establish
predictable
cost
and
performance
for
this
type
of
mercury
control.

Enhanced
Conventional
Technologies
Air
pollution
systems
designed
to
capture
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
and
particulate
matter
(
PM)
generally
capture
some
mercury
as
well.
DOE
is
investigating
methods
to
enhance
the
performance
of
such
systems
on
mercury
capture.
In
general,
these
systems
seek
to
increase
the
oxidized
fraction
of
mercury
present
in
the
power
plant's
flue
gas,
and
decrease
the
fraction
of
elemental
mercury,
which
is
more
difficult
to
capture.
DOE
has
had
mixed
results
from
injecting
chemicals
to
enhance
the
mercury
removal
by
wet
scrubbers
designed
for
SO2
capture.
This
research
is
continuing.

URS
Corporation
is
working
with
DOE
to
develop
catalytic
approaches
to
oxidizing
elemental
mercury
in
flue
gases.
This
program
began
in
2001
and
will
continue
through
2004.

Multi­
pollutant
Capture
Technologies
Multi­
pollutant
approaches
have
potential
synergies
which
could
increase
pollution
reduction
and
lower
control
costs.
Work
with
the
Electro­
catalytic
oxidation
process
under
development
by
Powerspan
Corporation
was
initiated
in
2001
and
will
continue
through
2004.
Early
pilot­
scale
results
have
been
encouraging,
but
the
inlet
mercury
for
these
tests
was
much
lower
in
elemental
mercury
than
levels
expected
at
many
commercial
sites.
Additional
elemental
mercury
is
being
added
to
the
test
system
to
simulate
removal
at
other
sites.

Calcium
based
sorbents
and
oxidizing
agents
are
being
evaluated
under
a
cooperative
agreement
between
DOE
and
the
Southern
Research
Institute.
These
systems
could
remove
both
SO2
and
mercury.
Oxidizing
agents
could
be
helpful
particularly
with
lower
rank
coals.

Novel
Approaches
to
Mercury
Control
It
has
long
been
observed
that
poorly
tuned
coal
burners
generate
higher
levels
of
unburned
carbon
in
coal
ash
than
properly
tuned
burners.
This
unburned
carbon,
although
undesirable
from
an
efficiency
perspective,
can
function
like
activated
carbon
injection
and
adsorb
mercury
emissions.
DOE
has
patented
a
process
to
take
advantage
of
this
phenomenon
by
extracting
partially
combusted
coal
from
the
furnace,
and
reinjecting
it
in
the
flue
gas
after
the
air
preheater.
Pilot­
scale
tests
have
been
very
promising.

DOE
is
also
investigating
the
ability
of
a
specific
wavelength
of
ultraviolet
light
to
3
See
http://
www.
fe.
doe.
gov/
news/
techlines/
03/
tl_
ccpi_
2003sel.
html
.

­
4­
oxidize
elemental
mercury
to
a
form
more
easily
captured
by
conventional
air
pollution
control
equipment.

Longer­
term
field
tests
In
contrast
to
most
of
DOE's
short­
term
mercury
R&
D
projects,
in
September
2003,
DOE
initiated
a
series
of
eight
longer­
term,
large­
scale
field
tests
that
will
investigate
the
potential
for
improvements
and
more
wide­
spread
applicability
of
mercury
control
using
one
or
more
of
the
approaches
outlined
above.
The
actual
testing
varies
by
project,
but
generally
will
begin
in
early
2004
and
last
for
several
months.
Technologies
to
be
evaluated
include
both
sorbent­
based
approaches,
like
activated
carbon
injection,
as
well
as
oxidation­
based
approaches
intended
to
improve
mercury
collection
by
more
traditional
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Attachment
3,
"
Phase
II
Field
Testing
of
Advanced
Mercury
Control
Technologies",
provides
more
detail
on
these
longer
term
tests.

Initial
Mercury
Demonstration
Projects
As
discussed
above,
the
DOE
R&
D
program
is
complemented
by
a
demonstration
program
within
the
Clean
Coal
Power
Initiative.
In
January
2003,
DOE
announced
the
first
awards
under
this
program3,
including
the
following
two
projects
that
would
demonstrate
mercury
reduction
technologies:

Wisconsin
Electric
Power
Company's
Presque
Isle
plant
will
evaluate
the
TOXECON
process
combined
with
chemical
additives
as
an
integrated
mercury,
particulate
matter,
SO2,
and
NOx
emissions
control
system.
In
this
project,
sorbents,
including
powdered
activated
carbon
for
mercury
control
and
chemicals
for
NOx
and
SOx
control,
will
be
injected
into
flue
gas
for
subsequent
reaction
with
pollutants
and
collection
in
a
pulse­
jet
baghouse
that
is
installed
downstream
of
the
existing
particulate
control
device.
The
TOXECON
configuration
allows
for
separate
treatment
or
disposal
of
the
ash
collected
in
the
primary
particulate
control
device.
The
duration
of
the
project
is
estimated
to
be
5
years,
and
its
overall
cost
is
$
75
million.

The
City
of
Colorado
Springs
is
teaming
with
Foster
Wheeler
to
demonstrate
an
advanced
circulating
fluidized
bed
combustor,
with
integrated
pollution
controls
expected
to
reduce
mercury
emissions
by
over
90%.
This
6
year
project
carries
a
total
cost
of
just
over
$
300
million.

These
projects
evidence
the
commitment
of
project
participants,
including
DOE,
to
invest
the
resources
needed
to
bring
promising
mercury
control
concepts
to
commercial
readiness.
We
believe
the
nature
of
the
mercury
control
challenge
is
so
complex
that
a
­
5­
number
of
additional
demonstration
projects
will
be
needed,
but
we
are
confident
that
resources
will
be
made
available
to
pursue
those
projects
and
solutions
will
be
developed
that
have
broad
application.

The
Timing
of
Technology
Development
and
Commercialization
The
normal
flow
of
development
of
new
technologies
is
R&
D
at
the
bench
scale
and
pilot
scale
(
typically
2­
4
years),
followed
by
large
scale
testing
(
typically
one
year
under
a
range
of
operating
conditions
and
technology
configurations
at
a
facility),
followed
by
one
or
more
cycles
of
commercial
demonstrations
(
typically
6
years
each).

In
implementing
the
Clean
Coal
Technology
Program,
DOE
has
gained
extensive
experience
with
the
process
of
demonstrating
emerging
air
pollution
control
technologies.
Table
1
shows
the
time
required
for
a
dozen
SO2
and
NOx
retrofit
technology
demonstrations.
The
typical
project
required
a
little
over
6
years
from
selection
of
the
project
to
reports
on
its
technical
performance.
This
time
period
excludes
the
administrative
time
needed
to
solicit
and
evaluate
proposals.
In
addition,
the
actual
project
duration
was
truncated
for
one­
half
of
these
projects
to
exclude
unusually
lengthy
reporting
periods
following
completion
of
the
technology
testing
period.

Although
DOE
is
continuing
to
pursue
some
mercury
control
technologies
at
the
bench
and
pilot
scale,
much
work
has
been
completed
at
this
small
scale.
Some
technologies,
like
sorbent
injection,
have
entered
the
large
scale
field
testing
stage,
and
we
have
initiated
a
commercial
demonstration
project
for
sorbent
injection
technology.
It
appears
that
these
technologies,
with
at
least
50­
70%
mercury
reduction,
will
be
ready
for
broader
commercial
demonstration
on
bituminous
coal
in
2005,
and
on
subbituminous
coal
and
lignite
in
2007.
If
these
demonstrations
are
successful,
commercial
deployment
could
occur
on
a
large
scale
after
2011
and
2013.
Assuming
two
years
to
permit
and
construct
such
commercial
units,
large
scale
operation
of
the
technology
is
feasible
by
2013
and
2015.
It
is
important
to
note
that
reliable
and
predictable
performance
will
be
achieved
only
if
such
demonstration
projects
can
be
completed
on
a
range
of
coal
types
with
a
range
of
characteristics
(
such
as
mercury,
chlorine,
and
sulfur
content),
and
at
plants
with
a
range
of
hardware
(
ESP's
of
varying
relative
sizes;
spray
dryers
on
coals
with
low
chlorine
content).
Additional
technologies,
perhaps
much
lower
in
costs,
should
follow
in
2­
4
additional
years.

Greater
mercury
reduction
performance
is
part
of
DOE's
mercury
control
technology
development
program.
A
second
wave
of
technologies
operating
at
90%
reduction
should
be
ready
for
commercial
demonstration
by
2010,
leading
to
effective
reductions
after
2018.
­
6­
An
important
caveat
to
these
time
projections
is
that
they
could
be
extended
if
the
same
units
being
retrofit
for
mercury
emissions
must
contemporaneously
focus
on
installing
separate
pollution
control
systems
for
other
pollutants.
The
significance
of
this
potential
problem
will
vary
with
the
type
of
control
technologies
being
installed.

Conclusions
Substantial
progress
in
mercury
control
technology
development
has
been
achieved
through
a
partnership
between
government
and
industry.
A
broad
portfolio
of
technologies
is
beginning
to
emerge.
These
technologies
will
probably
be
able
to
provide
50­
70%
reduction
of
mercury
in
the
period
after
2015,
with
up
to
90%
reduction
on
many
applications
after
2018.
­
7­

Table
1.
Elapsed
Time
(
Months)
Total
Time
(
Years)
Reporting
time
truncated
Project
name
Preaward
Design
&

Construction
Operation
&

Reporting
AirPol,
Inc.:
SO2
Gas
Suspension
Absorption
10
24
32
5.5
Bechtel
Corp.:
FGD
10
24
20
4.5
LIFAC­
NAm:
Sorbent
Injection
(
SO2)
11
22
33
5.5
Y
Pure
Air:
Advanced
FGD
15
30
48
7.8
Southern
Co
Serv.:
Chiyoda
Thoroughbred­
121
(
FGD)
19
30
38
7.3
Y
Average
for
SO2
systems
13
26
34.2
6.1
Sunflower
EPC
LNB
&
Boiler
optimization
14
18
6
3.2
Southern
Co
Serv.:
LNB
/
AOFA
/
GNOCIS
(
NOx)
15
6
154
14.6
B&
W
Co.:
Cyclone
coal
reburn
(
NOx)
19
20
27
5.5
B&
W
Co.:
Cell
burner
retrofit
(
NOx)
10
14
28
4.3
Y
EERC:
Gas
reburning
&
LNB
(
NOx)
10
25
38
6.1
Y
Southern
Co
Serv.:
SCR
w/
Hi­
S
coal
unit
20
37
36
7.8
Y
Southern
Co
Serv.:
LNB/
AOFA
T­
fired
unit
24
8
31
5.3
Y
Average
for
NOx
systems
16
18.3
45.7
6.7
Average
for
all
systems
14.8
21.5
40.9
6.4
Source:
Clean
Coal
Technology
Programs:
Project
Fact
Sheets
2003,
USDOE,
October­
2003
http://
www.
lanl.
gov/
projects/
cctc/
factsheets/
factsheets_
t.
html