f/EPA EPA/600/R-09/152 December 2009 Evaluating the Thermal Stability of Mercury and Other Metals in Coal Combustion Residues Used in the Production of Cement Clinker, Asphalt, and Wallboard Susan Alice Thorneloe-Howard Principal Investigator Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. ------- Acknowledgements Technical support for the preparation of this report was provided by ARCADSIS-US, Inc., 4915 Prospectus Drive, Suite F, Durham, NC under EPA Contracts EP-C-04-023 and EP-C-09-027 (Work Assignment 0-27). ARCADIS personnel participating in the research included Kevin Bruce, Peter Kariher, and Elizabeth Lee of ARCADIS. Also, Connie Senior with Reaction Engineering International is acknowledged for assistance in obtaining coal combustion residue samples and related background information for this project. ------- Table of Contents Page i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv List of Acronyms vi Executive Summary viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Coal Combustion Residues from Multi-Pollutant Control Technology 1-1 aCalcium sulfate hemihydrate or gypsum produced by the FGD system 1-5 bSolid phase from hydroclone overflow stream sent to disposal 1-5 °Liquid phase from hydroclone overflow stream sent to disposal 1-5 1.1.1 CCR Use in Cement Clinker 1-5 1.1.2 CCR Use as Aggregate in Asphalt 1-5 1.1.3 FGD Gypsum Use in Wallboard 1-6 1.2 Objective 1-7 Chapter 2 Materials and Methods 2-1 2.1 CCR Materials for Evaluation 2-1 2.1.1 Brayton Point 2-2 2.1.2 Salem Harbor 2-3 2.1.3 Pleasant Prairie 2-5 2.1.4 Facility A 2-5 2.1.5 Facility B 2-6 2.1.6 Facility E 2-6 2.1.7 Facility M 2-6 2.1.8 Facility N 2-7 2.1.9 Facility O 2-7 2.1.10 Facility S 2-7 2.1.11 Facility T 2-7 2.1.12 Facility W 2-8 2.1.13 Facility X 2-8 ------- Table of Contents Page ii 2.1.14 Facility Aa 2-8 2.1.15 Facility Da 2-9 2.1.16 FGD Gypsum Sample from U.S. Gypsum 2-12 2.2 Thermal Stability Protocols 2-13 2.3 Analytical Methods 2-16 2.3.1 Mercury (CVAA Method 7471A, Method 3052, Method 7473, Method 30B) 2-16 2.3.2 Arsenic, Selenium and Lead (ICP-MS, Method 3052, Method 6020) 2-16 2.3.2.1 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL) 2-17 2.3.2.2 Oxford Laboratories 2-17 Chapter3 Results and Discussions 3-1 3.1 Cement Simulations 3-1 3.2 Asphalt Simulations 3-2 3.2.1 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on ADA Fly Ashes 3-2 3.2.2 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on ADA Fly Ashes. 3-3 3.2.3 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability onNon-ADA Fly Ashes 3-5 3.2.4 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on Non-ADA Fly Ashes 3-8 3.2.5 Correlation of Carbon Content and Mercury Volatilization 3-10 3.3 Wallboard Simulations 3-10 3.3.1 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on USG FGD Gypsum 3-11 3.3.2 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on USG FGD Gypsum 3-11 3.3.3 Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on Gypsum Samples 3-12 3.3.4 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability at Various Temperatures 3-14 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Future Considerations 4-1 Chapters Quality Assurance / Quality Control 5-1 5.1 Quality Indicator Goals 5-1 5.2 Ontario Hydro and Method 29 Mercury Analyses 5-1 5.3 Method 29 Analyses for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium 5-3 Chapter 6 References 6-1 Appendix A DOENETL Full-Scale Test Site Flow Diagrams 1 Appendix B Non-DOENETL Full-Scale Test Site Flow Diagrams 1 Appendix C Detailed Results for Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests 1 ------- Table of Contents Page iii List of Tables Table E-l. Boiling Points and Temperatures for 10 Pa (0.075 mm Hg) Vapor Pressure of Mercury, Arsenic, selenium, and lead viii Table E-2. Typical Maximum Process Temperatures of Cement Clinker Kilns, Asphalt, and Wallboard Manufacturing and Laboratory Testing Temperatures viii Table 1-1. Fly Ash and FGD Gypsum Production and Use in the U.S.a 1-3 Table 2-1. Characteristics of air pollution control and for samples obtained from Brayton Point, Pleasant Prairie, Salem Harbor, and Facilities A, B, and E 2-4 Table 2-2. ADA Fly Ashes: Elemental Composition (by X-ray Fluorescence) and Other Characteristics 2-10 Table 2-3. Facility A (SNCR, Facility B (SCR), Facility E (SCR) and Facility M CCRs: Elemental Composition (by X-ray Fluorescence) and Other Characteristics 2-11 Table 2-4. ADA Fly Ashes: Total Content of Mercury, Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Selenium1 2-12 Table 2-5. Facility A (SNCR, Facility B (SCR), Facility E (SCR) and Facility M (SCR) CCRs : Total Content of Mercury, Arsenic, Lead and Selenium 2-12 Table 2-6. USG FGD Gypsum Samples: Total Content of Mercury, Arsenic, Lead and Selenium1 2-13 Table 2-7. Description of Asphalt, Wallboard and Cement Clinker Simulations to Test for Metal Thermal Stability 2-15 Table 3-1. Results of Cement Simulations for Arsenic, selenium, and lead (all values in (ig/g unless noted) 3-1 Table 3-2. Asphalt Simulation Test results for Mercury on ADA Fly Ashes 3-3 Table 3-3. Comparison of Mercury by Method 29 and Ontario Hydro for Brayton Point Fly Ashes 3-4 Table 3-4. Results for Asphalt Simulations of Brayton Point Fly Ashes for Arsenic, selenium, and lead 3-5 Table 3-5. Mercury Results by Ontario Hydro Method forNon-ADA Fly Ashes 3-6 Table 3-6. Comparison of Mercury by Method 29 with Ontario Hydro for Facility B Fly Ashes 3-8 Table 3-8. Results for Asphalt Simulations of Facility M Fly Ash for Mercury, Arsenic, selenium, and lead 3-9 Table 3-9. Results of Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury 3-11 Table 3-10. Results of Wallboard Simulation Tests for Arsenic, selenium, and lead 3-11 Table 3-11. Results of Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury 3-13 ------- Table of Contents Page iv Table 3-12. Results for Wallboard Simulation Tests on Sample DaAW at Various Temperatures 3-14 Table 5-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals 5-1 Table 5-2. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Cement Kiln Simulations 5-3 Table 5-3. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Asphalt Simulations 5-4 Table 5-4. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Gypsum Wallboard Simulations 5-4 Table C-l. Description of Facilities Providing Eight Gypsum Samples 1 Table C-2. Detailed Results for Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests 2 Table C-3. Detailed Results for Wallboard Simulation Tests on Sample DaAW at Various Temperatures 3 List of Figures Figure E-l. Fixed-Bed Reactor Design ix Figure E-2. Results of Fligh-Temperature Cement Kiln Simulations x Figure E-3. Normalized Results of Asphalt Simulations Tests for ADA Fly Ashes xi Figure E-4. Normalized Results of Asphalt Simulation Tests for Non-ADA Fly Ashes xii Figure E-5. Results for Wallboard Simulation Tests on Gypsum Samples xiii lrThe same gas mix was used for the simulation of cement clinker and asphalt production (a flow rate of 400 cc/min of inlet flue gas consisting of 14% CO2, 3% O2, 5.6% H2O and 100 ppm NOX,). The wall board similar used inlet gas of N2 since kettle calciners are indirectly fired and therefore the sample is not exposed to flue gas) 2-14 Figure 2-1. Schematic of the General Setup for Simulating the Production of Cement Clinker, Asphalt, and Wallboard 2-14 Figure 2-2. Asphalt and Wallboard Simulation Quartz Reactor and Furnace with Sample 2-14 Figure 2-3. Fligh Temperature Cement Simulation Furnace with Method 29 Mini-Impinger Train 2-15 Figure 3-1. Results of Cement Simulations for Arsenic, selenium, and lead 3-2 Figure 3-2. Asphalt Simulation Test results for Mercury by Ontario Hydro Method on ADA Fly Ashes 3-4 Figure 3-3. Mercury Results by Ontario Hydro Method for Non-ADA Fly Ashes 3-7 Figure 3-4. Mercury Volatilization as a Function of Carbon Content 3-10 ------- Table of Contents Page v Figure 3-5. Results for Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury 3-14 Figure 3-6. Results for Wallboard Simulation Tests at Various Temperatures 3-15 Figure 5-1. Ontario Hydro spike recovery for multiple runs 5-2 Figure 5-2. Method 29 Mercury spike recoveries for multiple runs 5-3 ------- List of Acronyms : vi List of Acronyms ACI Activated Carbon Injection ADA ADA Environmental Solutions ASTM ASTM International1 BD Below Detection BML Below Method Limit CCR Coal Combustion Residues CVAA Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption DOE Department of Energy DRC Dynamic Reaction Chamber ELAN Emulated Local Area Network EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESP Electrostatic Precipitator FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization FDVIS Flow Injection Mercury System HH V Higher Heating Value HMA Hot Mix Asphalt ICP-MS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectroscopy LOI Loss on Ignition MDL Method Detection Limit MLQ Minimum Level of Quantification NA Not Applicable NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory / DOE NR Not Recorded NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory NT Not Tested OH Ontario Hydro PRB Powder River Basin QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan SCA Specific Collection Area SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction SNCR Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction 'Previously ASTM was used as an acronym for American Society for Testing and Materials. The new name is ASTM International. ------- List of Acronyms Page vii SH Separation Technology Inc. STL Severn Trent Laboratories TBD To Be Determined TPD Temperature Programmed Desorption USG United States Gypsum Company XRF X-Ray Fluorescence ------- Executive Summary : viii Executive Summary Research is underway by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to document changes that may occur to coal combustion residues (CCRs) as a result of implementation of mercury and multi- pollutant control technology at coal-fired power plants. This work was cited as a priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/roadmap.htm') to evaluate the potential for any cross- media transfers from the management of coal combustion residues resulting from more stringent air pollution control at coal fired power plants. This report focuses on the potential for an increase in the volatilization of mercury and other metals from the utilization of CCRs in the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard. All three of these processes require heating during the production process. The four metals evaluated in this study are mercury (Hg), arsenic (As), selenium (Se), and lead (Pb) (Table E-l). Heating temperatures of the CCRs for this study were chosen to simulate actual conditions encountered in the cement, wallboard, and asphalt industries (Table E-2). Table E-l. Boiling points and temperatures for 10 Pa (0.075 mm Hg) vapor pressure of Mercury, Arsenic, selenium, and lead Element Mercury Arsenic Selenium Lead Boiling Point (°C) 357 614 685 1749 Temperature for Vapor Pressure of 10 Pa (°C) 76.6 323 279 815 Table E-2. Typical maximum process temperatures of cement clinker kilns, asphalt, and wallboard manufacturing and laboratory testing temperatures Process Cement Clinker Kiln Asphalt Kettle Wallboard Calciner Kettle* Maximum Manufacturing Plant Temperature (°C) 14,30 168 162 Laboratory Testing Temperature (°C) 1,450 170 120, 140, 160 *There are three processes in making wallboard that could result in Hg loss. However, the highest temperature that Hg is exposed to is during the calciner process. Fly ash and flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum was obtained from a range of facilities in an attempt to span differences in air pollution control configuration and coal types. The samples evaluated include: 1. Fly ash from three different facilities evaluated by ADA-Environmental Solutions (ADA) under contract for the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) field evaluation program of sorbent to enhance mercury capture. At each of the three sites, the use of ------- 2. Executive Summary Page ix activated carbon injection (ACI) was evaluated by adding powdered activated carbon upstream of existing particulate control. Samples analyzed include fly ash from three facilities with and without the use of ACI for a total of six fly ashes; Fly ash from two facilities using selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for post-combustion control of NOX and one utilizing selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) (four with SCR and one with SNCR, total of five samples); and 3. FGD gypsum kettle feedstock obtained from US Gypsum (two samples). 4. FGD gypsum material obtained from eight different power plants (eight samples). A fixed-bed reactor design was used to simulate the thermal processes of concern in this study. Figure E-l provides a schematic of the general setup for simulating asphalt manufacturing, wallboard manufacturing, and cement clinker manufacturing. For all simulations, samples consisting of various mixes and matrices were loaded into shallow-bed containers and placed in the reactor. The fixed-bed reactor used for the asphalt and wallboard simulation assays consisted of a horizontal quartz tube in a thermally controlled unit (furnace). In the case of the high temperature cement clinker manufacturing (1450 °C), a Lindberg high temperature furnace was used. o = one-way valve = two-way valve Figure E-l. Fixed-bed reactor design In each simulation, the tests were performed in duplicate. Samples were exposed to a flow rate of 400 cc/min of inlet flue gas consisting of 14% CO2, 3% O2, 5.6% H2O and 100 ppm NOX) except for the wallboard simulation of the kettle calciner, in which the inlet gas consisted solely of N2, because the kettle calciners are indirectly fired and therefore the sample is not exposed to flue gases. The time in the fixed-bed reactor for each simulation was one hour. The samples placed in the fixed-bed reactor, as well as the temperatures in the processes, varied for each simulation. For mercury, the effluent of the reactor was sampled using a mini-impinger Ontario Hydro train. For sampling the other metals, a Method 29 mini-impinger train was used. ------- Executive Summary Paeex The making of cement involves the heating of various feedstocks in a cement kiln to make "clinker." This clinker is ground with gypsum and transported to ready-mix concrete manufacturers. Various components are needed for feedstock including lime (CaO), iron oxide (Fe2O3), silica (SiO2) or alumina (A12O3). Fly ash can replace a portion of these, representing a maximum of about 5% (by weight) of the typical raw mix to the kiln. Other inputs typically include limestone (90%), iron ore (3%), and sand (2%). Cement kiln residence time is typically one to three hours, and temperatures reach over 1427°C (2600°F) (EPA, 2002). Cement simulation tests for arsenic, Se, and Pb desorption were performed in duplicate on the ADA fly ashes (baseline only). The tests show good reproducibility and indicate that virtually all of the metals tested are volatilized when exposed to high temperature as shown in Figure E-2. o rc E ~ 100% 80% 60% ° £ 40% Brayton Point Pleasant Prairie Salem Harbor D Arsenic n Selenium n Lead Figure E-2. Results of high-temperature cement kiln simulations Note: Se levels for Pleasant Prairie Baseline fly ash were below minimum detection levels; therefore, no volatility results are presented. Hot mix asphalt is a combination of 95% aggregate (e.g., stone, sand, or gravel) bound together by asphalt cement, a product of crude oil. Fly ash can make up approximately 5% of the total aggregate weight, replacing natural fillers such as hydrated lime or stone dust (EPA, 2002). Asphalt manufacturing consists of a very short residence time mixing process (about one minute), a long residence time storage process (several hours), and then application. The storage process occurs at temperatures of about 5 °C higher than the mixing process. Asphalt is delivered to the paving machine at approximately the same temperature as it is stored. Therefore, the most important step (in terms of thermal desorption) is the storage step. Storage temperatures typically range from 127 °C to 143 °C for binder grade PG46-28 and 157 °C to 168 °C for binder grade PG82-22. Results for duplicate asphalt simulations tests at 170 °C using the ADA fly ashes are presented in Figure E-3. Results shown are normalized for mercury measured after completion of the simulation tests. In all cases, the majority of the mercury was retained in the solid after simulation, with minimal measured volatilization of mercury (<10% in all cases). Generally, the addition of ACI increased the tendency for mercury to be retained in the solids at the temperature tested. Total absolute mercury volatilized from samples with activated carbon injection was <1% for all samples tested. ------- Executive Summary Page xi — 100% o | 90% |> | 80% "= £ 70%- 0) ^ /U/0 " a) 60% 0)0) £ 2 50% N £ 40% ™ > 30%- o o 20% 2 | 10%- 0% / /\ s 5.9 ' Braytc Point Baselir K s IO.O' / — -{ c 56° c ' — ? 9.6° —T K 9 j n Brayton Peasant Pleasant Salem Salem Point w/ Prairie Prairie w/ Harbor Harbor w/ le ACI Baseline ACI Baseline ACI D Retained in Solid • Volatilizec Figure E-3. Normalized results of asphalt simulations tests for ADA fly ashes Asphalt simulations were run at 170 °C using fly ashes from six facilities (in addition to the ADA samples). Four of the fly ashes were obtained with and without post-NOx combustion control in use (Facility A and B). None of these samples had ACI in use. Except for Facility M with a mass balance of 74%, the non-ADA fly ashes have a mercury mass balance ranging from 92.5 to 101%. Figure E-4 shows the results of these experiments that have been normalized by adjusting the mass balance to 100%. As was the case for the ADA fly ashes, Facility A and Facility E showed minimal mercury loss upon heating. Facility B, however, demonstrated high mercury volatility (-70-90% loss upon heating). There was no obvious reason for the higher loss of mercury seen for the Facility B fly ash. Perhaps the type of SCR catalyst in use at Facility B may have interacted with the fly ash making the mercury less tightly bound. Additional testing is needed to evaluate this using a wider range of samples Asphalt simulation tests at 170 °C for the Brayton Point and Facility B fly ashes showed no measurable volatilization of arsenic, Se, and Pb at the temperature tested during duplicate runs. ------- Executive Summary 100%^ = 90%- £> 2 _ 80%- c > ° 1 70%- O) O 2 £ 60o/0- § 0 " at 50%- £ 01 Q- ra •a a 40%- N g ra -" 30%- | 20%- 10%- n% /| 38.2% Facility A SNCRon / 34.70/ -? W / / 10.7% i ' — = 23.5% ii Facility A Facility B SCR Facility B SCR SNCR off on off D Retained in Solid •Volatilized / 30.80/ -? W \ - ^-* 54.3% -) Facility E SCR Facility M on SCR on Figure E-4. Normalized results of asphalt simulation tests for non-ADA fly ashes Wallboard is made using calcium sulfate which can be mined as natural rock or obtained from a coal-fired power plant using flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum. The first step in the process to make wall board is to dry the gypsum so that it contains no free moisture - only chemically bound waters of hydration. This material is referred to as "land plaster". The next step is to calcine the land plaster in a kettle for about one hour to form calcium sulfate hemi hydrate (i.e., stucco or plaster of Paris) according to the following reaction: 2 CaSO4-2H2O + heat <-» 2 CaSO^tbO + 3 H2O The stucco is mixed with water and additives to form slurry that is extruded between two sheets of paper to form wallboard. The final step is to dry the wallboard prior to processing and stacking it as final product. Any potential loss is mercury is assumed to occur during the thermal processes with losses most likely to occur during the calcining step. The highest temperature that FGD gypsum is exposed to is 128°C. Loses could also occur in the gypsum dryer and the finished wallboard dryer. However, the maximum temperatures that FGD gypsum is exposed to in the dryers is less than calcining (77 to 110°C). (Sanderson et al., 2008) Sanderson et al., (2008) provide the most extensive study to date on the fate of Hg when FGD gypsum is used as feedstock for wallboard production. This work was conducted by U.S. Gypsum Corporation (USG). Testing of full-scale production facilities is considered more reliable than laboratory testing to simulate wallboard production. However, the study did not include other metals. Therefore, laboratory ------- Executive Summary Page xiii simulation of wallboard production was conducted as part of this study. Results from Sanderson et al., (2008) indicate that the process where Hg loss is more likely to occur is the kettle calciner. Therefore, laboratory simulation of wallboard production was conducted evaluating Hg and other metals with the focus on trying to simulate potential loss across the kettle calciner. Only FGD gypsum samples were used in this simulation since this is the material used in the production of wallboard (and not fly ash). This research was conducted in two phases. The first phase resulted in unacceptable mass balance for Hg. The results for the other metals are considered acceptable. Consequently, additional testing was conducting in a second phase using more recent FGD samples. The first phase of testing suggests that As and Se are more likely retained in the FGD gypsum and less likely to be volatilized during the kettle calcining process. The second phase of testing provided improved Hg mass balance results. The results (Figure E-5) indicate potential Hg loss of 9 to 48%. The USG results from wallboard manufacturing facilities indicate Hg loss across the kettle calciner (excluding the Texas lignite sample) of 2 to 50%. This is considered confirmation of the previous USG research and emphasizes the variability across samples that may be attributed to how the wet scrubber is operated. However, additional research is needed to better understand the parameters that might affect Hg loss across a production facility. 120%- 100% £ 80% o> 2 60%- o> 5 o> a. 40% 20%- 0% /^ , 23% 79% 21% 81% AaAW DaAW NAW OAW SAW TAW WAW XAW Sample ID D Retained in Solid D Volatilized Figure E-5. Results for wallboard simulation tests on gypsum samples. The results from this laboratory study demonstrate the varying degree of volatility for mercury, arsenic, Se and Pb in CCRs depending on the process temperature being used. A high temperature process such as ------- Executive Summary Page xiv cement clinker production has the ability to release all four metals from fly ash when exposed to the high temperatures found in production. Laboratory simulation of the asphalt and wallboard production processes showed a significant release of mercury during heating, but the temperatures were too low to volatilize the arsenic, Se, or Pb. Whereas, the Hg loss for wallboard production suggest non-Hg metals being retained in wallboard with a potential Hg loss of 9 to 48%. However, the actual mass emission rates must be considered when determining potential concern to human health and the environment. ------- Section 1 Page 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction More wide-spread implementation of multi-pollutant controls is occurring at U.S. coal-fired power plants. Research is underway by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to document changes that may occur to coal combustion residues (CCRs) as a result of implementation of mercury and multi- pollutant control technology at coal-fired power plants. The Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD) of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is conducting research to evaluate cross media transfers of mercury and other constituents of potential concern (COPCs) resulting from the management of CCRs resulting from wider use of state-of-the art air pollution control technology. This research was cited as a priority in EPA's Mercury Roadmap to ensure that one environmental problem is not being traded for another. (2006b) The objective is to understand the fate of mercury (Hg) and other COPCs in air pollution control residues and support EPA's broader goal of ensuring that emissions being controlled in the flue gas at power plants are not later being released to other environmental media. The focus of this report is on the use of CCRs in high-temperature processes that are encountered during the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard. 1.1 Coal Combustion Residues from Multi-Pollutant Control Technology Coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of anthropogenic mercury emissions in the U.S. Power plants are also a major source of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and carbon dioxide. New environmental regulations in the U.S. will result in lower mercury air emissions. However, the mercury and other pollutants are transferred from the flue gas to fly ash and other air pollution control residues. The Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) would have required the electric utility sector to remove at least 70% of the mercury released from power plant stack emissions by 2018. CAMR was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2008. EPA is currently developing regulations under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act to reduce hazardous air pollutants (including mercury) from coal-fired power plants. Twenty states have implemented their own mercury regulations already, according to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. (Senior et al., 2009) Other EPA regulations2 will necessitate the addition of new air pollution control devices for NOx and SO2 at some power plants. This can also affect the fate of mercury and other COPCs. Figure 1 illustrates the types of air pollution control that coal-fired power plants are installing to reduce air emissions of concern. These control technologies include the addition of flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) systems to control sulfur dioxide, post-combustion NOx control [selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR)], and activated carbon injection to enhance mercury capture. These controls are typically added to particulate control devices which include the use of electric static precipitators (ESPs). Fabric filters are also in use for particulate control. The specific type and combination of control technology as well as the coal type being burned can impact the physical and 2On March 10,2005, EPA announced the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) (FR 25612, May 2005) which is expected to increase the use of wet scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) units to help reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from coal-fired power plants. On July 11,2008, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded CAIR back to EPA for further review and clarification. Thus the rule remains in effect; however, EPA is in the process of developing a replacement rule that will address the Court's concerns. ------- Section 1 Page 1-2 chemical characteristics of the CCRs. Use of air pollution control technologies will shift Hg and other pollutants from the stack gas to fly ash, FGD gypsum, and other air pollution control residues. Sorbenl injection Scrubber Fabric filter or electrostatic I precipitator Selective catalytic Fixed adsorption device reduction Source: GAO analysis of Electric Power Research Institute data. Figure 1-1. Illustration of the types of air pollution control that can be used at a coal-fired power plant (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009) Annual statistics of CCR production and utilization is provided through the American Coal Ash Association, (www.acaa-usa.org) As of 2008, 136 million tons of CCRs were produced with ~61 million tons (or 45%) being used in commercial, engineering, and agricultural applications (ACAA, 2009). CCRs result from unburned carbon and inorganic materials in coals that do not burn, such as oxides of silicon, aluminum, iron, and calcium. Fly ash, representing 53% of CCRs, is the unburned material from coal combustion that is light enough to be entrained in the flue gas stream, carried out of the process, and collected as a dry material in the air pollution control equipment. Bottom ash is the unburned material that is too heavy to be entrained in the flue gas stream and drops out in the furnace. Boiler slag, unburned carbon or inorganic material in coal that does not burn, falls to the bottom of the furnace and melts. Bottom ash and boiler slag are not affected by air pollution control technology and, therefore, these materials are not being evaluated as part of this study. Both fly ash and FGD residues have been identified as CCRs with the potential to have increased mercury and/or other pollutant concentrations from the implementation of new air pollution technologies (EPA, 2002; Srivastava et al., 2006; Thorneloe et al., 2008). The chemical and physical properties may also change as a result of sorbents and other additives being used to improve air pollution control. The samples used in this study have been evaluated for their chemical and physical composition and the potential for leaching of mercury and other COPCs. Companion reports are available providing additional data on the characterization of these samples. (EPA 2006b, 2008b, 2009) Table 1-1 provides the quantity of fly ash and FGD gypsum generated in 2008, the amount used in commercial applications, and the primary applications (ACAA, 2009). Three commercial applications of ------- Section 1 Page 1-3 CCRs that involve exposure to high-temperature include production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard. As shown in Table 1-1, fly ash and FGD gypsum are used in the production of cement clinker. According to the ACAA, 3.2 million tons of fly ash and 0.4 million tons of FGD gypsum are used in the production of cement clinker. For wallboard production, only FGD gypsum (and not fly ash) is used which avoids the need for mining natural gypsum. Of the 17.8 million tons of FGD gypsum produced in 2008, 8.5 million tons (or 48%) were used in the production of wallboard. Because of the wider use of wet scrubbers in response to CAIR regulations, this amount is expected to increase with a higher volume of FGD gypsum3 being generated. Much less volume of CCRs is used in the production of asphalt. Review of the ACAA statistics indicate that only fly ash is used as mineral filler in the production of asphalt with a quantity of 17 thousand tons (ACAA, 2008). Therefore, of the three high- temperature processes, about 12 million tons of CCRs were used in the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard with asphalt representing less than 1% of this quantity. Table 1-1. Fly ash and FGD gypsum production and use in the U.S." CCRType Fly Ash FGD Gypsum Produced (million tons) 72.4 17.8 Used in Commercial Applications (million tons) 30.1 10.6 Percent Used 42% 60% Primary Applications Concrete & grout, structural fill, waste stabilization/solidification, cement clinker Wallboard, cement clinker, concrete "Data from industry survey by ACAA, 2009 Tracking the fate of Hg and other metals removed from the flue gas at a coal-fired power plant, requires an understanding of the air pollution control in use. Mercury can be found in the gaseous elemental (Hg°), gaseous oxidized (Hg2+), and particulate bound (Hgp) forms. Air pollution control devices designed to capture SO2 and particulate matter (PM) can also remove Hg from flue gases in two ways: removal of Hgp in particulate control devices and removal of Hg2+ in FGD scrubbers. Thus, the Hg removed from the flue gas may be found in fly ash and in the scrubber solids and liquid effluent. (Senior et al., 2009) The Hg that is removed in the FGD scrubber can partition to the solid or liquid streams. Figure 1-2 illustrates the measured partitioning of Hg in FGD outlet streams at five pulverized-coal fired power plants. (Withum, 2006) The plants fired bituminous coals and had cold-side ESPs for particulate control. Each of these plants had a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system forNOx control and a wet FGD using calcium-containing slurry to control SO2. Gaseous Hg removal by the FGDs ranged from 77% to 95%, and the Hg was found to be in the scrubber solids. (Senior et al., 2009) ' If natural or inhibited oxidation occurs, then calcium sulfite and not calcium sulfate (i.e., gypsum) is produced. ------- Section 1 Page 1-4 100% 80% %Hg in Outlet Stream 60% D Stack Gas D Slurry filtrate • Slurry solids Fig. 1-2 Distribution of mercury in FGD scrubber outflows at five bituminous coal-fired power plants with SCR and FGD. (Senior et al., 2009; Withum, 2006) Mercury appears to be concentrated in fine particles of scrubber solids that are predominantly iron oxyhydroxides, and is not strongly associated with the solid calcium sulfate in the scrubber. (Senior et al., 2009; Kaires et al., 2006; Schroeder, 2007). In some wet FGD systems, the fine solids are recycled back to the scrubber after dewatering of the byproduct solid, while in others, they are disposed of, as was the case for two FGDs noted in an EPRI study. (Richardson et al., 2003) Table 2 shows the distribution of mercury in the scrubber outlet streams for three limestone scrubbers in the EPRI study. For the two forced-oxidation scrubbers sampled, most of the Hg leaving the scrubber did so in the gypsum fines or fines liquor after the dewatering process. In forced oxidation scrubbers, this means that Hg can ultimately be in the gypsum fines as well as in the FGD byproduct. Therefore, it is important to understand how the FGD gypsum fines are managed in tracking the fate of Hg and other metals in the use of FGD gypsum in wall board production or other applications. ------- Section 1 Page 1-5 Table 1-2. Distribution of mercury among scrubber outlet streams. (Richardson et al., 2007) Plant - Scrubber Type 1 - Forced Oxidation 2 - Forced Oxidation 3 - Inhibited Oxidation FGD Byproduct" 18.9% 7.3% 48.1% 65.7% Gypsum Fines" 7.8% 5.2% 48.1% Gypsum Fines Liquorc 58.9% 65.6% 0.0% Stack Gas 14.4% 20.8% 3.7% 35.4% aCalcium sulfate hemihydrate or gypsum produced by the FGD system. bSolid phase from hydroclone overflow stream sent to disposal. °Liquid phase from hydroclone overflow stream sent to disposal. 1.1.1 CCR Use in Cement Clinker The making of cement involves the heating of various feedstocks in a cement kiln to make "clinker." This clinker is ground with gypsum and transported to ready-mix concrete manufacturers. Various components are needed for feedstock including lime (CaO), iron oxide (Fe2O3), silica (SiO2) or alumina (A12O3). Fly ash can replace a portion of these, representing a maximum of about 5% (by weight) of the typical raw mix to the kiln. Other inputs typically include limestone (90%), iron ore (3%), and sand (2%). Fly ash contains high amounts of calcium, iron, silicon, and aluminum, replacing or augmenting raw feed stocks used in cement production. Cement kiln residence time is typically one to three hours, and temperatures reach over 1427 °C (2600 °F) (EPA, 2002). Because of the high temperatures, virtually all mercury will be volatilized when CCRs are used as feedstock to cement kilns. Because of the concern for Hg and other hazardous air pollutants, EPA has proposed (74 FR 21136m May 6, 2009) regulations to reduce Hg emissions from cement kilns, which may result in use of air pollution control technology similar to that used at coal-fired power plants (e.g, wet scrubbers and sorbents for enhanced Hg capture). The addition of air pollution control at cement kilns should not affect the ability to use fly ash or FGD gypsum in the production of clinker. However, to avoid installation of air pollution control, kiln inputs (such as fly ash) containing Hg may be avoided which could impact usage of some CCRs. 1.1.2 CCR Use as Aggregate in Asphalt Hot mix asphalt is a combination of 95% aggregate (e.g., stone, sand, or gravel) bound together by asphalt cement, a product of crude oil. Fly ash can make up approximately 5% of the total aggregate weight, replacing natural fillers such as hydrated lime or stone dust (EPA, 2002). Asphalt manufacturing consists of a very short residence time mixing process (about one minute), a long residence time storage process (several hours), and then application. The storage process occurs at temperatures of about 5 °C higher than the mixing process. Asphalt is delivered to the paving machine at approximately the same temperature as it is stored. Therefore, the most important step (in terms of thermal desorption) is the ------- Section 1 Page 1-6 storage step. Storage temperatures typically range from 127-143 °C for binder grade PG46-28 and 157- 168 °C for binder grade PG82-22.). 1.1.3 FGD Gypsum Use in Wallboard In 2007, FGD gypsum (e.g., gypsum produced from use of wet scrubbers) accounted for 35% of the total domestic gypsum production (9.2 million tons of FGD gypsum used versus 26.4 million tons of domestic gypsum supply (ACAA, 2008; USGS, 2008). Almost 85% of the gypsum consumed in the U.S. (approximately 24 million tons) in 2008 was used in the manufacture of wallboard and plaster products with U.S. wallboard plant capacity at 27 billion square feet per year (USGS, 2009). As more coal combustion facilities add scrubbers, the production (and use) of FGD gypsum is projected to grow. FGD gypsum is typically dewatered at the utility plant before shipment to a wallboard manufacturing facility (EPA, 2002). The mercury in the FGD sludge has been reported to be associated with the fines (i.e., fine solid particles) and not the FGD liquors (DOE; 2005; Schroeder and Kairies, 2005). There are several ways FGD solids can be prepared for use at a wallboard manufacturing plant. If the FGD sludge does not meet the wallboard manufacturer's specifications (as-is), then the fine solid particles are typically removed. This removal process is often completed with hydrocyclones and the fines are either disposed or sold for other uses (DOE, 2005). Other facilities have to "blow down gypsum fines" as a part of the chlorine purge, limiting chlorine buildup in the FGD liquor (DOE, 2005). As wall deposits buildup, the scrubber efficiency will be reduced until scrubber water rich in solids or salts is wasted or "blown down" and replaced with low solids water. Since Hg is associated with the fine particles of the FGD sludge (DOE, 2005), both of these processes result in a gypsum product which typically contains less mercury than the wet FGD sludge itself. If the FGD sludge is used as-is, the mercury content is typically greater than those processes that remove the fines. The first process in making wall board is to dry the gypsum so that it contains no free moisture - only chemically bound waters of hydration. This material is referred to as "land plaster". The next step is to calcine the land plaster to form calcium sulfate hemi hydrate (i.e., stucco or plaster of Paris) according to the following reaction: 2 CaSO4-2H2O + heat <-» 2 CaSO^tbO + 3 H2O The stucco is mixed with water and additives to form slurry that is extruded between two sheets of paper to form wallboard. The final step is to dry the wallboard prior to processing and stacking it as final product. The drying step is not likely a release point for mercury since the wallboard is between two sheets of paper at this point and typically does not reach temperatures of more than 100 °C. Meischen (2004) conducted a study on laboratory-produced FGD containing Hg and concluded that Hg volatilization would not be likely where only the edges of the wallboard were exposed. Mercury release diminished as the weight of the wallboard increased. Any potential loss in Hg is considered more likely to occur during the calcining step. The highest temperature that FGD gypsum is exposed to is 128°C. However, possible loses could also occur in the gypsum dryer and the finished wallboard dryer. However, the maximum temperature to which the gypsum is exposed in the dryers is less than during calcining (77 to 110°C). (Sanderson et al., 2008) The drying step is not likely a release point for mercury since the wallboard is between two sheets of paper at this point and typically does not reach temperatures of more than 100 °C. Meischen (2004) conducted a study on laboratory-produced FGD containing mercury and concluded that mercury ------- Section 1 Page 1-7 volatilization would not be likely where only the edges of the wallboard were exposed. Mercury release diminished as the weight of the wallboard increased. Sanderson et al., 2008, provide data evaluating the fate of Hg in FGD gypsum across wallboard production plants. This work was conducted by U.S. Gypsum through funding by DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Table 1-3 provides a summary of the results from measurements of the Hg content in FGD gypsum and across the gypsum dryer, calciner, and wallboard dryer. The results show a wide-range of Hg losses ranging from 2 to 55% loss of mercury in the feedstock and using Ontario Hydro method at the process stacks. Most of the loss was found to occur at the gypsum calciner when the total Hg loss was greater than 10%. There was less of a difference across the gypsum dryer, calciner, and wall board dryer when the mercury loss was below 10%. (Sanderson et al., 2008) The authors caution drawing conclusions from this research because only seven sets of wallboard plant measurements were made and it is difficult to identify what factors impact mercury loss percentages. One finding is that the operation of the wet scrubber can affect the fate of Hg. The effectiveness of the scrubbing solution in removal of COPCs depends on the concentration of the scrubbing chemical which is continuously being depleted during the process. COPCs transferred to the liquid phase are removed from the scrubber by continuous or periodic overflow of blow down. For those facilities using higher blow down rates of chlorides and fine solid particles at wet FGD systems led to higher percentage of Hg loss at the wallboard plant. However, higher purge rates also led to FGD gypsum with lower Hg concentrations. The authors conclude that improved understanding the physical and chemical association of the Hg in gypsum might clarify the conditions that lead to the higher Hg loss. The US Gypsum study did not include analysis of metals other than mercury. Therefore, wallboard simulation study was included as part of this research. However, testing of full scale production facilities is considered preferable over conducting smaller-scale laboratory simulations. US Gypsum provide two samples from their earlier testing to use in this study. 1.2 Objective With the increasing metals content of CCRs as a result of changes in air pollution control at coal-fired power plants, there is interest in evaluating the fate of mercury and other metals. The objective of this research is to conduct laboratory simulations of three high temperatures processes that use CCRs in the production of cement clinker, asphalt and wallboard to determine the likelihood of metals being volatilized during the production process. The metals that were analyzed for this study include Hg, arsenic (As), selenium, and lead (Pb). The study support EPA's broader goal of ensuring that emissions being controlled in the flue gas at power plants are not later being released to other environmental media ------- ------- Section 1 Page 1-1 Table 1-3. Sanderson et al., 2008 study to evaluate of Hg loss across wallboard production facilities Test# Test Date (2 day test) Power Plant Coal Type SCR in use FGD Fines Blow Downa Wallboard plant Hg content, FGD gypsum (ng/g)d Moisture content, wt% 1 July 2004 A High-Sulfur Bituminous Yes Low rate 1 0.96 ±0.03 11.9 2 Dec 20004 A High-Sulfur Bituminous By-passed Low rate 1 1.10 ±0.04 11.1 3 Sept 2004 B High-Sulfur Bituminous Yes High rate 2 0.21 ±0.02 11.3 4 Feb 2005 C Texas Lignite No None 3 0.53 ±0.01 12.6 5 March 2006 E High-Sulfur Bituminous By-passed High rate 4 0.20 ±0.04 10.9 6 Sept 2006 E High-Sulfur Bituminous Yes High rate 4C 0.13 ±0.0 6.3 7 Aug 2007 F Powder River Basin Yes Variable" 5 1.06 ±0.06 7.2 Hg Loss at Wallboardd - % of inlet Hg to each process step -Across Dryer Mill (%) -Across Kettle Calciner (%) -Across Board Dryer Kiln (%) Overall Loss Hg Loss Based on Raw Gypsum & Wallboard Product Hg Cone d,% Hg Loss from Process Stacks, g/hr Hg Loss Rate, Ib/MM ft2 of wallboard Hg Loss Rate, g/ton of dry FGD gypsum 1.1 ±0.9 2.3 ± 1.0 1.9 ±0.6 5.1± 1.7 2.0 ±5.0 4.1 ± 1.7 0.1 0.05 0.3 ±0.1 2.6 ±0.0 5.5 ±2.4 8.3 ±2.0 16±8 2.7 ±0.1 0.1 0.08 1.0 ±0.3 41±2 14 ±6 46 ± 16 66 ±2 8.2 ±0.5 0.2 0.09 0.8 ±0.1 0.8e 0.3e 1.8e 8.7e 0.26e 0.01e 0.01e 1.8 ±0.4 50 ±6 1.4 ± 1.2 51±5 40 ±21 2.0 ±0.2 0.2 0.09 4.1 ± 1.9 45 ± 1 5. 8 ±5.6 55 ±6 32 ±2 1.4 ±0.2 0.1 0.06 0.6 ±0.4 15 ±2 3.2 ± 1.0e 18±2e 32 ±3 4.2±0.6e 0.4e 0.17e "More qualitative than quantitative as reported by Sanderson et al, 2008. bWastewater treatment plant for FGD system uses filter press for removing fine particles from hydrocyclone overflow liquor, so fine and chlorides can be "blown down" independently. TDuring this test, soluble tri-sodium salt (or TMT) was used to precipitate dissolved Hg (by chemically binding to heavy metals via sulfur groups which can be separated from the FGD liquor by filtration). dMean value for three runs 5 ± 95% confidence interval of mean, unless noted otherwise; loss percentages across dryer mill, kettle calciner, and board dryer kiln are based on feed material to each step, so percentages cannot be summed to the wallboard product overall loss percentage show. eMean value for two runs ------- ------- Section 1 Page 2-1 Chapter 2 Materials and Methods 2.1 CCR Materials for Evaluation Twenty-one CCR samples were used to evaluate the thermal stability of mercury and other metals during the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard. This work has been conducted in stages with initial work using samples collected as part of a DOE-funded program to evaluate sorbent technology for enhanced mercury capture. Samples were also obtained through CCR characterization study evaluating changes in CCR composition and constituent release by leaching that may occur to fly ash and FGD gypsum in response to changes in air pollution control technology at coal-fired power plants (EPA 2006, 2008b, 2009). Because samples were obtained on a voluntary basis and represent a minor fraction (<1%) of U.S. boilers, these results are not considered to provide a statistically representative sample. Regardless, care was taken to obtain samples that are considered typical of the CCRs resulting from improvements in air pollution control. The samples analyzed include: 1. Fly ash from three different facilities evaluated by ADA-Environmental Solutions (ADA) under contract for the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Powdered activated carbon was injected upstream of particulate control to improve the capture efficiency of mercury. Samples were collected from Brayton Point, Pleasant Prairie, and Salem Harbor with and without the use of activated carbon injection (ACI) for atotal of six samples as shown in Table 2-4.4 2. Fly ash from two facilities with and without the use of post-NOx combustion control [Facility A using selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and facility B using selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Fly ash from two additional facilities (Facility E and M) both with SCR in use. This represents atotal of five samples as shown in Table 2-5; and 3. FGD gypsum kettle feedstock obtained from U.S. Gypsum (two samples) as part of the research documented in Sanderson et al., 2008. Only a small sample size was provided which did not allow detail characterization as done for the other CCRs. 4 These samples were collected during early test programs to evaluate use of ACI for enhancing mercury capture. Samples were obtained prior to and after ACI in use. Industry has found that less carbon is needed to obtain the same level of mercury capture obtained during the early test programs. Therefore more recent samples are suspected to contain less carbon than that used in this evaluation. However, this is not suspected to impact the thermal evaluation. ------- Section 1 Page 2-2 4. FGD gypsum material obtained directly from eight power plants with web scrubbers in use (eight samples). The fly ash samples from the NETL field evaluation program represent the first time that sorbent was used to enhance mercury capture over a test program of several weeks. All three of the facilities in the NETL program (Brayton Point, Salem Harbor and Pleasant Prairie) have particulate control devices and do not use scrubbers (at the time the samples were collected). The same commercial sorbent, Norit Americas Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Carbon, was used for each test. This sorbent has a surface area of 600 m2/g and a mass-mean diameter of 18 (im. The ACI was injected at a rate of 10 Ib/Macf during the sorbent testing phase of these tests. All of the facilities mentioned above are further described in subsequent sections. Tables 2-1 and 2-3 provide the elemental characteristics of the coal combusted at Brayton point, Pleasant Prairie, and Facilities A, B, and E. Table 2-2 provides the elemental analysis [by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy] of the fly ashes from the ADA samples and Facility A, B, E, and M. Except for the samples from U.S. Gypsum (the sample size was too small), for each of the CCRs used in this study, more detailed information is available on the air pollution control configurations, coal burned, and the CCR composition and leaching characteristics. (EPA 2006, 2008b, 2009). 2.1.1 Brayton Poin t Brayton Point Station, located in Somerset, Massachusetts, is operated by PG&E National Energy Group. Unit 1 of this facility was selected for evaluation. Emissions from this facility are controlled through the use of low-sulfur coal and cold-side ESP which is typical of coal-fired power plants in the eastern U.S. The unit has a tangentially fired boiler rated at 245 MW, fires low-sulfur coal, and uses a cold-side ESP for particulate control (Senior et al., 2003a). The primary particulate control equipment consists of two cold-side ESPs in series, with an EPRICON flue gas conditioning system provides SO3 for fly ash resistivity control and is used on an as-needed basis. The first ESP in this particular configuration was designed and manufactured by Koppers with a weighted wire design and a specific collection area of 0.512 m2/ amVmin (156 ft2/1000 acfm). The second ESP in the series configuration was designed and manufactured by Research-Cottrell with a rigid electrode design and a specific collection area of 1.3 m2/ amVmin (403 ft2/1000 acfm). The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 138 °C (280 °F) at full load (Senior et al., 2003b). The facility uses ACI to increase mercury capture. The ACI control system injects the carbon between the ESPs to capture the mercury with the fly ash. The baseline and post-control ashes used for this study were collected as composite samples from the third row of ash hoppers of the second ESP. The baseline ash was collected on June 6, 2002. The post-control fly ash was collected on July 21, 2002. Both fly ashes were stored in five-gallon buckets in the onsite ADA-ES trailer at ambient temperatures. The buckets were filled to approximately three-fourths capacity. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ashes from baseline and enhanced mercury control testing are provided in Table 2-2. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-4. ------- Section 1 Page 2-3 2.1.2 Salem Harbor PG&E National Energy Group owns and operates Salem Harbor Station located in Salem, Massachusetts. There are four fossil fuel fired units at the facility designated as Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. Units 1-3 fire a low sulfur, bituminous coal and use oil for startup. Unit 1 was selected for the control technology evaluation because of its combination of firing low-sulfur bituminous coal with urea-based selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) for nitrogen oxide reduction, a cold-side ESP, and high loss-on ignition (LOI). This configuration provided an opportunity to quantify the impact of SNCR on mercury removal and sorbent effectiveness. In addition, test results from prior mercury tests have indicated 87 to 94% mercury removal efficiency on this unit. Unit 1 is a B&W single-wall-fired unit with twelve DB Riley CCV-90 burners and is rated at 88 gross MW (Senior et al., 2003b). ------- Section 1 Page 2-4 Table 2-1. Characteristics of air pollution control and for samples obtained from Brayton Point, Pleasant Prairie, Salem Harbor, and Facilities A, B, and E Parameter Measured Coal Type Sulfur, wt% Ash,wt% Moisture, wt: HHV, Btu/lb Hg, ug/g Cl, ug/g As, ug/g Pb, ug/g Se, ug/g Paniculate Control Device Sorbent Injection Point Sampling Location Brayton Point Low sulfur bituminous 0.7 10.8 4.7 12,780 0.044 1475 5.68 8.9 3 Two Cold-Side ESPs in Series Between Two ESPs Ash Hopper Row C Pleasant Prairie Powder River Basin (PRB) sub-bituminous 0.3 5.1 30.7 8,385 0.109 8.1 NT NT NT Cold-Side ESP Before ESP ESP Hopper 1 and 2 Composite Salem Harbor Low sulfur bituminous 0.67 6.48 9.05 12,420 0.0617 64.3 2.4 3.8 4.8 Cold-Side ESP Before ESP ESP Hopper A Facility A Medium sulfur bituminous 1.05 10.29 6.0 12,790 0.086 166 NT NT NT Fabric Filter NA Pug Mill Facility B High sulfur bituminous 3.34 12.4 6.1 12,000 0.08 615 NT NT NT Cold-Side ESP NA Ash Hopper Facility E Low sulfur bituminous 0.83 9.3 4.06 12,852 0.06 4500 4.0 6.0 3.0 Cold-Side ESP NA Ash Hopper NT = Not tested, NA = Not applicable, HHV = Higher Heating Value (Heat of Combustion) ------- Section 2 Page 2-5 The participate control equipment consists of a two-chamber, cold-side ESP (chambers designated 1-1 and 1-2), which provides two separate gas flow paths from the outlet of the tubular air heaters to the inducted draft (ID) fan inlets. This Environmental Elements ESP has a rigid electrode design and a specific collection area of 1.56 m2/ amVmin (474 ft2/1000 acfm). The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 124 °C (255 °F) at full load. Typical LOI of the Unit 1 ash is about 25%. This ash is landfilled (Senior etal., 2003b). The baseline and post-control ashes used for this study were collected as grab samples from the first ash hopper (hopper A) of row 1-1 of the ESP. The baseline ash was collected on June 6, 2002. The post- control fly ash was collected on July 7, 2002. Both fly ashes were stored in five gallon buckets in the onsite ADA-ES trailer at ambient temperatures. The buckets were filled to approximately three-fourths capacity. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ashes from baseline and enhanced mercury control testing are provided in Table 2-2. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-4. 2.1.3 Pleasan t Prairie Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy, owns and operates Pleasant Prairie Power Plant located near Kenosha, Wisconsin. The plant has two 600 MW balanced-draft coal- fired boilers designated units 1 and 2. Unit 2 was selected for inclusion in the NETL program because it burns a variety of Powder River Basin low sulfur, sub-bituminous coals. (Starns et al., 2002). The primary particulate control equipment consists of cold-side ESPs of weighted wire design with a Wahlco gas conditioning system that provides SO3 for fly ash resistivity control. The precipitators were designed and built by Research-Cottrell. The design flue gas flow was 61,164 anrVmin (2,610,000 acfm). The precipitator inlet gas temperature is nominally 138 °C (280 °F) at full load (Starns et al., 2002). Precipitator #2 is comprised of four electrostatic precipitators that are arranged piggyback style and designated 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4. Each of the four precipitators is two chambers wide and four mechanical fields deep with eight electrical fields in the direction of gas flow. The specific collection area is 1.54 m2/ anrVmin (468 ft2/1000 acfm) (Starns et al., 2002). Hopper ash is combined from all four precipitators in the dry ash-pull system. The ash is sold as a "Class C" fly ash to be used as a base for concrete (Senior et al., 2004). The baseline ash was collected as a composite sample from ash hoppers 7-1 and 7-2 of ESP 2-4. The post-control ash was collected as a grab sample from ash hopper 7-2 of ESP 2-4. The baseline ash was collected on September 11, 2001. The post- control fly ash was collected on November 13, 2001. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ashes from baseline and enhanced mercury control testing are provided in Table 2-2. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-4. 2.1.4 Facility A5 The test site was a 440-MW coal-fired power plant with a reverse-air fabric filter followed by a wet flue gas desulfurization system. The unit burns ~1 percent sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The unit operated at nominally full load for the duration of the test program. A schematic diagram of the power plant is shown in Appendix A. The unit is equipped with a pulverized-coal boiler and in-furnace selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR); urea was injected into the boiler during the course of operations within the duration of 5 EPA was requested not to disclose the identity of the other sites. Therefore, the remaining sites are coded as letters. ------- Section 2 Page 2-6 the initial part of this test program. However, urea was not injected into the boiler for the final comparison test ("SNCR off). Gas exiting the furnace is split between two flues equipped with comparable control equipment. Particulate is removed with a reverse-air fabric filter. Flue gas is then scrubbed through a multiple tower wet FGD unit; FGD is a limestone forced-oxidation design. The two flues are joined prior to exhausting to a common stack. The annular stack rises 93.9 meters (308 feet) above the top of the incoming flue. The stack is operated in a saturated condition with no reheat. The fly ash and FGD waste are combined and then dewatered before landfill disposal. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ashes from baseline and enhanced mercury control testing are provided in Table 2-3. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-5. 2.7.5 Facility B The test site was a 640 MW coal fired power plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet flue gas desulfurization system with inhibited Mag-lime (CaO + MgO). The unit burns medium- to high-sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The plant is equipped with a pulverized coal boiler and an in-furnace selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system composed of vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), tungsten trioxide (WO3), and titanium dioxide (TiO2) mixture. One set of samples was collected during a season of elevated ambient ozone while ammonia was injected into the catalyst box at a concentration of 320 ppm ("SCR on") to control NOX. A second set of samples was collected during the winter when ammonia was not being injected ("SCR off). Particulate is removed with a cold-side ESP. Flue gas is then scrubbed through a wet FGD unit; the FGD unit is an inhibited Mag-lime design. The fly ash and FGD waste are combined and then dewatered before landfill disposal in a clay-lined site. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ashes from baseline and enhanced mercury control testing are provided in Table 2-3. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-5. 2.1.6 Facility E The test site was a 390 MW coal fired boiler with cold side ESP. The unit burns low-sulfur eastern bituminous coals. The unit is equipped with a pulverized coal boiler and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system using a titanium dioxide/tungsten trioxide/silicon dioxide/vanadium pentoxide catalyst. Particulate is removed with a cold-side ESP. The fly ash is transported by a dry handling system to a silo where it is combined with fly ash from three additional boilers and wetted with water prior to being transported to a clay-lined landfill. Elemental composition by XRF and additional characteristics of the fly ash are provided in Table 2-3. Results of total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-5. 2.7.7 Facility M This test site was a 1,000 + megawatt (MW) power plant. The plant burns high-sulfur bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverized coal boiler. Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on all units for particulate control, and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry and an inhibited oxidation process. The FGD sludge, consisting primarily of calcium sulfite, is pumped from the absorber to a thickener. Liquid overflow from the thickener is recycled back into the FGD system, and the thickened sludge is pumped to a series of drum vacuum filter for further dewatering. Water removed by the drum vacuum filters is recycled back into the FGD system, and the filter cake is taken by conveyor belt to a pug mill, where it is mixed with dry fly ash and dry quicklime for stabilization. The resulting stabilized FGD solids are taken by conveyor to a temporary outdoor stockpile, and then transported by truck either to a utilization site or to an on-site landfill. The active portion of the landfill is lined and leachate is collected. An older inactive portion of the landfill is clay-lined but does not have leachate collection. ------- Section 2 Page 2-7 2.1.8 Facility N Facility N is a wall fired 715 MW coal-fired power plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet FGD system using wet limestone in a forced oxidation process. The unit burns medium to high sulfur eastern bituminous coals with approximately 3% sulfur. The gypsum is washed, dried and then sold to the wallboard industry. One 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum (NAU) and one 5 gallon bucket of washed gypsum (NAW) were collected from this site. Facility N was sampled on June 1, 2006. The samples were collected by RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. (Raleigh, NC) personnel. The washed gypsum sample (NAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.9 Facility O Facility O is a tangentially fired 500 MW coal-fired plant with cold side ESP followed by a wet FGD system with wet limestone forced oxidation. The unit is equipped with a pulverized coal boiler and ammonia based SCR. This unit burns high sulfur eastern bituminous coals. Slurry from the absorber goes to a primary hydrocyclone for initial dewatering. The gypsum (hydrocyclone underflow) is dried on a vacuum belt and washed to remove chlorides, before use in wallboard. Two samples were collected from the FGD gypsum drying facility by compositing samples collected on June 10, 11, and 12, 2006 when the SCR was operating. On each day, two gallon pails of unwashed gypsum and washed/dried gypsum were collected. The unwashed gypsum was collected from the vacuum belt prior to the chloride spray wash. The washed/dried gypsum was collected from the end of the vacuum belt. The three daily samples were sent to Arcadis for compositing to form sample OAU (unwashed gypsum) and sample OAW (washed gypsum). All samples were collected by plant personnel. The washed gypsum sample (OAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.10 Facility S This test site is a 600 megawatt (MW) per unit power plant. The plant burns eastern high sulfur bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on all units for particulate control, and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry sorbents and an forced oxidation process Samples of washed (SAW) and unwashed (SAU) gypsum were collected at this site in July, 2007. One five-gallon bucket of each was collected by plant personnel. The washed gypsum sample (SAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.11 Facility T This power plant test site has three boilers producing a total of a 2,000+ megawatts (MW). The plant burns medium sulfur eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Units 1 and 2 have coal cleaning equipment to reduce ash ad SOX emissions. All three of these units have low NOX burners and selective catalytic reduction systems for NOX control. Ammonia was injected upstream of the SCR ------- Section 2 Page 2-8 catalysts. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on all three units for particulate control. A wet FGD systems using limestone in a forced oxidation mode are used to reduce SO2 emissions on Unit 3. Four samples were collected by plant personnel on September 17, 2007: one 5 gallon bucket of fly ash from Unit 2 (TFA), one 5 gallon bucket of un-washed gypsum from Unit 3 (TAU), one 5 gallon bucket of washed gypsum from Unit 3 (TAW), and one 5 gallon bucket of FGD waste water treatment plant filter cake from Unit 3 (TFC). The washed gypsum sample (TAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.LI2 Facility W This site is operated by American Electric Power (AEP) and has two 800 MW coal-fired boilers for a plant total of 1,600 MW. The plant burns eastern bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on both units for particulate control, and wet FGD systems are used to reduce SO2 emissions on two units. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry sorbents and a forced oxidation process. SO2 concentrations of the inlet FGD are approximately 1990 ppm with removal efficiencies of 98%. The plant has a Trona injection system for SO3 control, but this system was not operating at the time of sampling. Samples were collected as follows: dry FGD gypsum after water wash (WAW), moist FGD gypsum before the water wash (WAU), wastewater treatment system filter cake (WFC), and dry fly ash (WFA). Five gallon buckets of each of the samples were collected by plant personnel on 11/20/08. Samples were delivered to ARCADIS on 11/28/07. The washed gypsum sample (WAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.13 Facility X Wisconsin Electric Power Company, a subsidiary of Wisconsin Energy, owns and operates Pleasant Prairie Power Plant located near Kenosha, Wisconsin. The plant has two 600 MW balanced-draft coal- fired boilers designated units 1 and 2. Unit 2 was selected for inclusion in the NETL program because it burns a variety of Powder River Basin low sulfur, sub-bituminous coals. In addition, this facility has the ability to isolate one ESP chamber (1/4 of the unit) (Starns et al., 2002). The primary pollution control equipment consists of SCR, cold-side ESPs, and a wet-FGD system. NOX is controlled in the SCR by injecting ammonia in the presence of a catalyst. The forced oxidation FDG system uses wet-limestone as a sorbent for SO2 control. This site also contains an additional mercury oxidation catalyst. Samples were collected as follows: dry FGD gypsum after water wash (XAW), moist FGD gypsum before the water wash (XAU), FGD wastewater treatment system filter cake (XFC), and dry fly ash (XFA). Five gallon buckets of each of the samples were collected by plant personnel and delivered to ARCADIS on 6/16//08. The washed gypsum sample (XAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.14 Facility Aa This test site has four boilers producing a total of 2,424 megawatt (MW) of power. The plant burns eastern-bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. Cold-side electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) are used on three units and hot-side ESP on one unit for particulate control. Unit 1 at this plant was burning ------- Section 2 Page 2-9 medium sulfur coal and the SCR was operating. Unit 2 burns medium sulfur coal and has an SCR, but this unit was not operating during the time of sampling. Unit 3 was burning high sulfur coal and the SCR was operating. Unit 4 was burning low sulfur coal; the SCR was operating, and uses a hot-side ESP to control particulate. A dry handling system is used to collect the fly ash from the ESPs. Units 3 and 4 were connected to a single FGD system. The wet FGD systems utilize limestone slurry sorbents and a forced oxidation process. Samples of the washed (AaAW) and un-washed (AaAU) FGD gypsum were collected. Fly ash was collected from units 1 (AaFA), 3 (AaAB), and 4 (AaFC). Unit 2 was not operating at the time of sampling. The washed gypsum sample (AaAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. 2.1.15 Facility Da This test site has two supercritical boilers producing 2,240 megawatts (MW) of power. The plant burns eastern-bituminous coal in a dry-bottom pulverizer boiler. The primary pollution control equipment consists of low NOX burners, SCR, cold-side ESPs, and a wet-FGD system. NOX is controlled in the SCR by injecting ammonia in the presence of a catalyst. The forced oxidation FDG system uses wet-limestone as a sorbent for SO2 control. A dry handling system is used to collect the fly ash from the ESPs. One five gallon bucket each of fly ash (DaFA), washed gypsum (DaAW), and FGD waste water treatment plant filter cake (DaFC) were collected by plant personnel. Samples were received by ARCADIS on 12/12/2008. The washed gypsum sample (DaAW) was used in the laboratory wallboard simulation. ------- Section 2 Page 2-10 Table 2-2. ADA fly ashes: elemental composition (by X-ray Fluorescence) and other characteristics Element Al As Ba Br Ca Cl Cr Cu Fe I K Mg Mn Na Ni Pb Pxl Se Si Sr Sx2 Ti V Zn Zr Total Carbon (%) Surface Area (m2/g) LOI(wt%) Reference Fly Ash Average % 14.7 0.010 0.110 BML 0.860 0.026 0.017 0.018 5.11 BML 2.46 0.637 0.015 0.346 0.011 0.008 0.087 BML 26.4 0.089 0.174 0.897 0.031 0.023 0.050 0.76 1.36 0.85 Pleasant Prairie Baseline Average % 10.0 BML 0.695 BML 18.4 BML 0.016 0.022 4.31 BML 0.371 2.81 0.057 1.66 0.006 BML 0.560 BML 16.6 0.369 0.635 0.964 0.030 0.009 0.035 0.25 1.8 0.60 w/ACI Average % 10.2 BML 0.647 BML 16.6 0.045 0.013 0.022 4.28 BML 0.455 2.46 0.020 1.31 0.006 BML 0.508 BML 16.2 0.341 0.971 0.943 0.033 0.010 0.035 3.6 23 3.5 Brayton Point Baseline Average % 13.4 BML 0.010 0.005 6.08 0.030 0.022 0.022 4.650 BML 1.85 0.800 0.041 0.511 0.015 BML 0.161 0.005 23.1 0.124 0.351 1.015 0.043 0.021 0.031 2.3 6.5 5.5 w/ACI Average % 12.4 BML 0.095 0.065 2.03 0.440 0.018 0.020 2.50 0.014 1.50 0.641 0.020 0.242 0.016 0.010 0.042 0.020 23.2 0.083 0.582 0.100 0.032 0.011 0.031 13 92 12 Salem Harbor Baseline Average % 9.52 BML 0.091 BML 1.30 0.101 0.011 0.007 4.87 BML 1.250 0.785 0.045 0.270 0.009 0.005 0.086 0.005 21.9 0.042 0.335 0.453 0.029 0.013 0.019 7.8 28 21 w/ACI Average % 7.62 BML 0.099 BML 0.803 0.203 0.012 0.008 3.63 BML 0.977 0.420 0.021 0.293 0.009 BML 0.057 0.005 23.5 0.032 0.761 0.407 0.030 0.013 0.019 11 36 25 Notes: BML=below method limit (As<0.009%, CKO.006%, KO.006%, Pb<0.003%, Se<0.003%); Tx = phosphorus in oxidized form such as phosphate; 2Sx = sulfur in oxidized form such as sulfate ------- Section 2 Page 2-11 Table 2-3. Facility A (SNCR, facility B (SCR), facility E (SCR) and facility M CCRs: elemental composition (by X-ray Fluorescence) and other characteristics Element Al As Ba Br Ca Cl Co Cr Cu Fe Ga Ge K La Mg Mn Mo Na Nb Ni Pb Pxl Rb Sc Se Si Sr Sx2 Ti V Y Zn Zr Total Caibon (%) Surface Area (m2/g) LOI(wt%) Fly Ash Facility A With SNCR % 11.4 0.013 0.096 0.009 3.53 0.542 0.007 0.018 0.019 4.68 0.005 BML 1.67 0.012 0.835 0.030 BML 0.375 BML 0.012 0.007 0.122 0.011 0.003 0.003 19.5 0.092 0.364 0.767 0.033 0.009 0.013 0.026 9.15 13.9 17.6 Without SNCR % 12.8 0.014 0.124 0.008 3.60 0.610 0.006 0.017 0.018 5.20 0.005 BML 2.10 BML 0.931 0.052 BML 0.362 0.004 0.010 0.007 0.137 0.013 0.002 0.003 23.1 0.116 0.394 0.931 0.029 0.009 0.013 0.031 3.69 2.57 5.30 Fly Ash Facility B With SCR % 10.8 0.014 0.128 BML 3.40 0.044 0.005 0.024 0.005 10.782 0.004 0.003 1.960 BML 0.869 0.025 BML 0.724 0.003 0.007 0.004 0.235 0.013 0.002 BML 21.2 0.111 0.711 0.596 0.019 0.003 0.014 0.021 5.74 5.30 10.8 Without SCR % 11.0 BML 0.122 BML 3.11 0.030 BML 0.022 0.006 11.1 BML BML 1.87 BML 0.774 0.024 BML 0.663 BML 0.005 BML 0.170 0.011 0.002 BML 21.2 0.099 0.512 0.570 0.019 0.005 0.013 0.020 2.37 6.20 11.0 Fly Ash Facility E With SCR % 15.7 0.010 0.116 BML 1.21 0.010 0.014 0.020 0.023 4.17 0.011 0.003 2.50 0.011 0.714 0.021 BML 0.350 0.004 0.021 0.013 0.060 0.016 0.003 BML 25.2 0.100 0.162 1.03 0.041 0.012 0.022 0.030 1.12 4.48 5.62 FGD Fly Ash Mix Facility M With SCR % 6.44 BML 0.021 BML 32.3 0.096 0.004 0.009 0.013 7.63 0.003 0.006 0.972 0.009 0.797 0.018 0.005 0.884 BML 0.044 0.007 0.056 0.006 0.008 BML 11.6 0.038 37.7 0.399 0.024 0.003 0.021 0.016 0.75 7.36 4.01 Notes: BML=below method limit (As<0.009%, CKO.006%, KO.006%, Pb<0.003%, Se<0.003%); Tx = phosphorus in oxidized form such as phosphate; 2Sx = sulfur in oxidized form such as sulfate ------- Section 2 Page 2-12 Table 2-4. ADA fly ashes: total content of mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium1 Sample ID Brayton Point Baseline Brayton Point (w/ACI) Pleasant Prairie Baseline Pleasant Prairie (w/ACI) Salem Harbor Baseline Salem Harbor (w/ACI) Mercury (ng/g) 651+ 6.8 1530+ 1.1 158+ 0.2 1180 + 1.2 528 + 5.2 412 +13 Arsenic (Hg/g) 80.5 + 1.9 27.9+ 2.1 21.3+0.3 24.0 + 0.8 25.9 + 0.04 26.0 + 0.03 Lead (u-g/g) 117 + 4.9 82.9 + 2.3 41.5+0.8 47.0 + 0.3 24.9 + 1.4 24.0 + 0.02 Selenium (u-g/g) 51.4 + 1.7 152 + 6.2 BML BML 41.9 + 0.06 44.0 + 0.04 1 All analyses according to EPA Method 3052. Mercury analysis performed by ARCADIS, arsenic, Pb, and Se analysis performed by STL Savannah. All samples tested in duplicate. BML = below method limit (4.0 ug/g) ACI = Activated Carbon injection (sorbent for enhancing mercury capture) Table 2-5. Facility A (SNCR, facility B (SCR), facility E (SCR) and facility M (SCR) CCRs : total content of mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium All analyses were conducted according to EPA Method 3052. Mercury analysis performed by ARCADIS, arsenic, Pb, and Se analysis performed by STL Savannah. Sample ID Facility A Fly Ash (SNCR on) Facility A Fly Ash (SNCR off) Facility B Fly Ash (SCR on) Facility B Fly Ash (SCR off) Facility E Fly Ash (SCR on) Facility M Fly Ash (SCR on) Mercury (ng/g) 602 + 5.2 380 + 7.0 88.3+27.4 114 + 9.6 396 + 57.4 121+0.2 Arsenic (u-g/g) 70.8 + 1.4 88.2 + 0.3 82.3 + 12.6 90.0 + 3.4 50.1+0.1 106 + 6.8 Lead (ng/g) 80.5+2.1 68.6 + 0.3 47.4 + 8.1 36.0 + 0.1 34.1+0.1 5.2 + 0.4 Selenium (u-g/g) 25.6 + 0.2 21.9 + 0.6 2.5+0.4 2.9+ 0.0 24.0 + 2.9 91.0 + 6.5 Note: All samples tested in duplicate. 2.1.16 FGD Gypsum Sample from U.S. Gypsum As discussed in Section 1.1.3, U.S. Gypsum (USG) performed an evaluation of mercury release from FGD gypsum use in the production of wallboard. This evaluation was completed at five wallboard manufacturing plants (Marshall et al., April 2005). The USG study was limited to mercury and did not evaluate other metals. Therefore, samples of the FGD gypsum from the USG study were obtained for a simulation test in the U.S. EPA laboratory. The first USG sample, corresponding to Task #1 of the USG/DOE study, obtained for this study was from a power plant that burned high-sulfur bituminous coal, used limestone as the FGD reagent, had in situ forced oxidation, online SCR, and did not practice fines blow down (no fines removed) (Marshall et al., April 2008). The sub-sample consisted of the FGD gypsum fed to the kettle calciner (the most likely point of release as discussed in Section 1.1.3). For ------- Section 2 Page 2-13 further details on the characteristics of this sample see Marshall et al., April 2005. The second USG sample obtained for this study was from the same plant during recent testing performed by DOE. This plant was sampled during a time period during which the SCR was bypassed. Results for total content analyses for mercury, arsenic, Pb, and Se are provided in Table 2-6. Table 2-6. USG FGD gypsum samples: total content of mercury, arsenic, lead and selenium1 Sample ID USG Sample #1 (Corresponds to DOE Task #1) USG Sample #2 (Corresponds to DOE Task #2) Mercury (ng/g) 674 ± 0.4 468 ± 21 Arsenic Og/g) 5.88 ±0.4 5.74 ± 0.26 Lead Og/g) 2.31 ±0.03 2.08 ±0.09 Selenium (ng/g) 5.4 ±0.7 5.26 ±0.98 1 All analyses according to EPA Method 3052. Mercury analysis performed by ARCADIS, arsenic, Pb, and Se analysis performed by STL Savannah. All samples tested in duplicate. 2.2 Thermal Stability Protocols A fixed-bed reactor design was used to simulate the thermal processes of concern in this study. Figure 2-1 provides a schematic of the general setup for simulating asphalt manufacturing, wallboard manufacturing, and cement clinker manufacturing. For all simulations, samples consisting of various mixes and matrices were loaded into shallow-bed containers and placed in the reactor. The fixed-bed reactor used for the asphalt and wallboard simulation assays consisted of a horizontal quartz tube in a thermally controlled furnace. The low temperature furnace was manufactured by Lindberg/Blue M (Model 55035) and had a reactor size of 12" by 1" and a maximum temperature of 1200 °C (Figure 2-2). In the case of the high temperature cement clinker manufacturing (1450 °C), a high temperature furnace was utilized. This high temperature furnace was manufactured by Lindberg/Blue M (Model STF54233C) and had a reactor size of 12" by 2" and a maximum temperature of 1500 °C (Figure 2-3). In each simulation the tests were performed in duplicate. Samples were exposed to a flow rate of 400 cc/min of inlet flue gas consisting of 14% CO2, 3% O2, 5.6% H2O and 100 ppm NOX, except for the wallboard simulation of the kettle calciner, in which the inlet gas consisted of N2. Kettle calciners are indirectly fired and therefore the sample is not exposed to flue gases. The time in the fixed-bed reactor for each simulation was one hour. The samples placed in the fixed-bed reactor, as well as the temperatures in the processes varied for each simulation. For mercury, the effluent of the reactor was sampled using a mini-impinger Ontario Hydro train (ASTM, 2002). For sampling the other metals, a Method 29 (EPA, 1996b) mini-impinger train was utilized. Table 2-7 outlines the differentiations in the various simulations. Some simulations involved the addition of sand, limestone (CaCO3) or iron powder. All added materials were certified reagent grade from Fisher Scientific. ------- Section 2 Page 2-14 Low Temperature Furnace Method 29 or OH Train O = one-way valve \^_) = two-way valve lrThe same gas mix was used for the simulation of cement clinker and asphalt production (a flow rate of 400 cc/min of inlet flue gas consisting of 14% CO2, 3% O2, 5.6% H2O and 100 ppm NOX,). The wall board similar used inlet gas of N2 since kettle calciners are indirectly fired and therefore the sample is not exposed to flue gas) Figure 2-1. Schematic of the setup for simulating the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard Figure 2-2. Asphalt and wallboard simulation quartz reactor and furnace with sample ------- Section 2 Page 2-15 Figure 2-3. High temperature cement simulation furnace with Method 29 mini-impinger train Although the percentage of fly ash in asphalt is typically 5%, a mix containing 50% fly ash was tested for the ADA fly ashes. During the initial phase of these studies a 50% mix was used as a conservative approach to optimize the chances of detecting any volatilized mercury. The fly ashes from Facilities A, B and E were tested using a mix containing 10% fly ash. Table 2-7. Description of asphalt, wallboard and cement clinker simulations to test for metal thermal stability Simulation Asphalt (ADA-ES samples) - Hg Asphalt (Facilities A and B samples) - Hg Asphalt - As, Se, Pb Wallboard Cement clinker (high temp) Sample 5 g of fly ash and 5 g of quartz sand 1 g of fly ash and 9 g of quartz sand 1 g of fly ash and 9 g of quartz sand 10 g of FGD gypsum kettle feed 1 g of fly ash, 8.55 g CaCO3, 0.3 g iron powder and 0.2 g sand Inlet Gas Flue gases Flue gases Flue gases Nitrogen Flue gases Temperature 170 °C 170 °C 170 °C 160 °C 1450 °C Notes: all samples were tested in duplicate, exposed to gases/temperatures for one hour. ------- Section 2 Page 2-16 2.3 Analytical Methods 2.3.1 Mercury (CVAA Method 7471A, Method 3052, Method 7473, Method SOB) Gas phase mercury emissions from the simulation studies for the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and USG gypsum testing were analyzed according to ASTM Method D6784-02, Ontario Hydro (OH), with the following modifications. Due to spacing constraints, mini-impingers were used for sampling instead of the large impingers described in the OH method. The method states that flow will be pulled through the impingers using negative pressure; however, for these experiments the flow had to be pushed through the impingers using positive pressure in order to not change the flow through the reactor. The method also requires a dry gas meter to continuously measure flow, but instead a Gilian Gilibrator 2 (Sensidyne, Inc.) bubble flow meter was used and measurements were recorded every five minutes throughout the entire sampling period. A silica gel trap was not used in this study, so the measurements obtained were wet gas flow rates. Because the flue gas was not particle-laden, the filter apparatus setup prior to the impingers (i.e., Method 5 filter) was not required. Analysis of the samples was performed as outlined in Method D6784-02, Ontario Hydro. Sample preparation for the cement clinker, asphalt, and USG gypsum solids was carried out by HF/HNO3 microwave digestion according to Method 3052 (EPA, 1996a). Mercury analysis of each digest was carried out by Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (CVAA) according to EPA SW-846 Method 7470A "Mercury in Liquid Waste (Manual Cold Vapor Technique)", (EPA, 1998a). A Perkin Elmer FIMS 100 Flow Injection Mercury System was used for the analyses. The instrument was calibrated with known standards ranging from 0.025 to 1 |o,g/L Hg. The method detection limit for Hg in aqueous samples is 0.01 Gas phase Hg sampling for the repeated gypsum testing was performed using an EPA Method SOB (EPA 2008a) system. This technique used an iodated activated carbon tube to capture the Hg in the gas stream. A Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman effect atomic adsorption Hg analyzer with a RA-91C combustion furnace attachment to analyze the carbon tubes. The Hg analyzer was calibrated with known standards ranging from 50 to 1000 ng of Hg. The method detection limit for Hg in the carbon tube is 0.2 ng. Blank samples measured by the analyzer resulted in an average of 0.5 ng detectable concentration by the software. Thermal Hg analysis was conducted of the FGD solids that were retested. This analysis used a modified Method 7473 "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry" (EPA, 1998b). The instrument used was a Lumex RA-915+ Zeeman effect atomic adsorption Hg analyzer with a RA-91C combustion furnace attachment for solids analysis. The instrument was calibrated with known standards ranging from 50 to 1000 ng of Hg. The method detection limit for Hg in solids is 0.145 ng/g. Blank samples measured by the analyzer resulted in a 0.0 ng/g. 2.3.2 Arsenic, Selenium and Lead (ICP-MS, Method 3052, Method 6020) Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) analysis for other elements of interest were carried out by Oxford and STL laboratories. Liquid samples were analyzed by ICP-MS as recovered from the Method 29 trains. Solid samples were digested by EPA Method 3052 prior to ICP-MS analysis. ------- Section 2 Page 2-17 2.3.2.1 Severn Trent Laboratories, Inc. (STL) STL (Savannah, Georgia) was selected to carry out the solid digest ICP-MS analyses for this project. Analysis for As, Se, and Pb was performed on an Agilent ICP-MS with octopole reaction system (ORS). Mixed calibration standards were prepared for each metal at five levels ranging from 0.5 (ig/L to 100 jig/L. 2.3.2.2 Oxford Laboratories Oxford Laboratories (Wilmington, North Carolina) was selected to carry out the ICP-MS analyses for this project on the Method 29 impinger samples. Analysis for As, Se, and Pb was performed on an Agilent ICP-MS with octopole reaction system (ORS). Mixed calibration standards were prepared for each metal at five levels ranging from 0.5 (ig/L to 100 (ig/L. ------- ------- Section 3 Page 3-1 Chapter 3 Results and Discussions 3.1 Cement Simulations Cement simulation tests for As, Se, and Pb desorption were performed in duplicate on the ADA fly ashes without the use of ACI. Because of its inherently high volatility, Hg was assumed to volatilize at the 1450°C and therefore recovery was not analyzed in the samples. Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 present the results of these tests. Therefore the focus was on the other metals (i.e., As, Se, and Pb). The tests show excellent reproducibility and indicate that virtually all of the metals tested were volatilized when exposed to a temperature of 1450°C. Table 3-1. Results of cement simulations for arsenic, selenium, and lead (all values in ug/g unless noted) Metal Arsenic Selenium Lead Run As received Runl Run 2 As received Runl Run 2 As received Runl Run 2 Brayton Point (ng/g) 80.5 ±1.9 82.6 81.8 103% 102% 51.4 ±1.7 53.6 52.6 104% 102% 117 ±4.9 118.6 106.0 101% 90.4% Pleasant Prairie (Mg/g) 21.3 ±0.3 20.6 20.6 96.8% 96.6% BML BML BML NA NA 41.5 ±0.8 40.6 38.8 97.9% 93.5% Salem Harbor (Mg/g) 25.9 ±0.04 27.5 25.2 106% 97.5% 41.9 ±0.8 39.8 43.6 94.9% 104% 24.9 ±1.4 21.5 23.4 86.3% 94.1% BML - Below method limit (4.0 NA = not applicable ------- Section 3 Page 3-2 •a 9) N ^. IE in •S c JS = o •- > o « c o o _ro^ 100% 80% 60% "5 §• 400/0 20% 0% Brayton Point Pleasant Prairie Salem Harbor D Arsenic n Selenium n Lead Note: Se was not tested for Pleasant Prairie fly ash; the amount in the baseline fly ash was below minimum detection levels. Figure 3-1. Results of cement simulations for arsenic, selenium, and lead 3.2 Asphalt Simulations 5.2.7 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on ADA Fly Ashes Results for duplicate asphalt simulation tests using the ADA fly ashes are presented in Table 3-2. In all cases, the majority of the Hg was retained in the solid after simulation, with minimal measured volatilization of Hg (<10% in all cases). Generally, the addition of carbon increased the tendency for Hg to be retained in the solids at the temperature tested. Total Hg volatilized from samples with activated carbon injection was <1% for all samples tested. Figure 3-2 shows the results of these experiments that have been normalized by adjusting the mass balance to 100%. Mass balances were approximately 90% for all tests except for the Pleasant Prairie Baseline tests (-67%). No reason for the lack of closure for Hg for this sample was found, though it is noted that the as-prepared sample had the lowest initial Hg value of these fly ashes. For confirmatory purposes, measurements of volatilized Hg were taken from Method 29 total metals analyses for comparison to the Ontario Hydro values for the Brayton Point fly ashes. Table 3-3 shows the comparison. The Method 29 runs agree well with the total Hg values obtained from the Ontario Hydro tests, indicating minimal volatilization of Hg. ------- Table 3-2. Asphalt simulation test results for mercury on ADA fly ashes Section 3 Page 3-3 Brayton Point Baseline Brayton Point ACI Pleasant Prairie Baseline Pleasant Prairie ACI Salem Harbor Baseline Salem Harbor ACI Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 As Prepared ng/g) 650.6 ±6.8 1529.6 ±1.1 157.7 ±0.2 1180.1 ±1.2 528.5 ±5.2 411.5 ±12.6 After Simulation (Solid) ng/g 526 606 1,340 1,420 105 95.5 1,110 1,100 488 486 388 387 HgV ng/g 31.7 5.3 BML BML BML BML 1.3 2.2 0.1 BML BML BML Hg°gas ng/g 8.0 1.8 BML BML 1.9 7.3 2.3 o o J.J BML BML 0.5 BML Total Percent Volatilized Hg 6.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 4.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Mass Balance 86.9% 94.7% 87.3% 93.2% 67.8% 65.2% 94.6% 93.9% 92.4% 91.9% 94.4% 94.0% BML=below method limit (Hg<0.05 ng/g) 3.2.2 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on ADA Fly Ashes Since significant amounts of Hg were not significantly released from the ADA fly ash samples (and Hg is the most volatile of the metals being investigated), only one of the three ADA facility sites was chosen to evaluate the release of other metals. The Brayton Point facility samples were chosen because they contained the highest amount of As and Se. Asphalt simulation tests for As, Se, and Pb volatilization were performed on the Brayton Point fly ashes. Table 3-4 summarizes the results. The tests showed no non-Hg metals in the gas phase, indicating that all the As, Se, and Pb were retained in the solid. While the mass balances between the solids after simulation and the as-prepared sample prior to testing are not ideal (varying between 50 and 150%), they generally agree and support that the metals are retained in the solids for the asphalt simulation. ------- ection 3 age 3-4 w 1 00% o § 90% S) | 80%- 1 ? 70%- " a) 60% Q) 0) UU /0 °- 5 50% •C Q) N £ 40% | > 30% o o 20% * | 10% 0% ^^fl 5.9 — 1 o| 1^ w ' — / 10. 01 c ^=j 5.6° / 0 s 1 c 0 9.6C n 0 ^ = 1( > I0.01 9 ^ — / 9.9°, Brayton Brayton Peasant Peasant Salem Salem Point Point w/ Prairie Prairie w/ Harbor Harbor w/ Baseline ACI Baseline ACI Baseline ACI n Retained in Solid • Volatilized Figure 3-2. Asphalt simulation test results for mercury by Ontario Hydro Method on ADA fly ashes Table 3-3. Comparison of mercury by Method 29 and Ontario Hydro for Brayton Point fly ashes Sample Brayton Point Baseline Brayton Point w/ACI Run Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 As Prepared ng/g 651 ±6.8 1530±1.1 Gas-Phase Mercury ng/g 72.0 23.0 20.0 23.0 Percent Volatilized 11.1% 3.5% 1.3% 1.5% Method 29 Average 7.3% ±5.3% 1.4% ±0.1% OH Average 3.6% ±3.5% 0.0% ±0% ------- Table 3-4. Section 3 Page 3-5 Results for asphalt simulations of Brayton Point fly ashes for arsenic, selenium, and lead Metal Arsenic Selenium Lead Run Baseline Test 1 Baseline Test 2 ACI Test 1 ACITest2 Baseline Test 1 Baseline Test 2 ACI Test 1 ACI Test 2 Baseline Test 1 Baseline Test 2 ACI Test 1 ACI Test 2 As Received Hg/g 80.5 ±1.9 27.9 ±2.1 51.4 ±1.7 152 ±6.2 117 ±4.9 82.9 ±2.3 As Prepared Hg/g 90.5 ± 6.6 41.9±0.15 47.7 ±2.6 156.7 ±9.3 245 ±71 194 ±0.68 After Simulation (solid) fig/g 85.5 ±2.0 95.5 ±22 26.0 ± 0.07 50.1 ±8.6 45.7 ±8.0 53.7±13 83.1 ±7.3 208 ± 47 318±25 279 ± 55 227 ± 74 291 ±14 Volatilized Metal (gas phase) fig/g BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML Mass Balance 94.5% 106% 62.1% 120% 95.8% 113% 53.1% 132% 128% 113% 117% 150% BML=below method limit (As<4.0 ug/g, Pb<0.6 ug/g, Se<4.0 ug/g) 3.2.3 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on Non-ADA Fly Ashes Asphalt simulations were run using the non-ADA fly ashes. These samples were from utilities not using ACI; rather, the samples were taken from utilities using SNCR (Facility A) and SCR (Facilities B and E) for NOX control, or none (Facility M). Table 3-5 shows the results of these experiments. Mass balances for all runs were excellent (92.5 to 101%). Figure 3-3 shows the results of these experiments that have been normalized by adjusting the mass balance to 100%. As was the case for the ADA fly ashes, minimal Hg loss upon heating was found for the fly ashes from Facilities A and E. Facility B, however, demonstrated high Hg volatility (-70-90% loss upon heating). Facility M showed moderate amounts of the Hg being volatilized. As with the Brayton Point fly ash, Method 29 sampling for Hg was conducted to confirm the results obtained using the Ontario Hydro methodology. These comparisons are shown in Table 3-6. While differing slightly from the Ontario Hydro results, the Method 29 experiments confirm that the Facility B samples showed significantly greater loss of Hg on heating than the other fly ashes tested. ------- Section 3 Page 3-6 Table 3-5. Mercury results by Ontario Hydro Method for non-ADA fly ashes Sample Facility A SNCROn Facility A SNCROff Facility B SCR On Facility B SCR Off Facility E SCR On Facility M Run Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 As Prepared ng/g 602 380 88.3 114 396 121 After Simulation (Solid) ng/g 576 583 366 358 9.2 9.3 27.0 23.1 365 326 57.5 Hg2^ ng/g 5.2 4.6 9.8 8.5 36.5 37.6 37.5 40.4 15.0 22.6 NA Hff° S gas ng/g 6.0 5.8 8.8 13.5 41.3 38.5 42.8 42.2 14.7 17.6 NA Total Percent Volatilized Hg 1.9% 1.7% 4.9% 5.8% 88.1% 86.2% 70.4% 72.4% 7.5% 10.1% 26.6% Mass Balance 97.5% 98.6% 101% 100% 98.5% 98.6% 94.1% 92.7% 99.6% 92.5% 74.2% Facility M was sampled by Method 29 under Asphalt Simulation Conditions. Gas phase total Hg emissions for Facility M were 32.1 ng/g. NA = not applicable / no gas phase speciation ------- Section 3 Page 3-7 01 E «• 01 - O) O •r Ol & O) ^" CO = 5. (B Facility A SNCRon Facility A Facility B SCR Facility B SCR Facility E SCR Facility M SNCR off on off on SCR on 1 Retained in Solid 1 Volatilized Figure 3-3. Mercury results by Ontario Hydro Method for non-ADA fly ashes Facility M was sampled by Method 29. Series 1 = Retained in Solid, Series 2 = Gas Phase under Asphalt simulation Conditions. ------- Section 3 :3-8 Table 3-6. Comparison of mercury by Method 29 with Ontario Hydro for facility B fly ashes Facility B SCR on Facility B SCR off Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 As Prepared, ng/g 88.3 ±27.4 114.0 ±9.6 Method 29Gas-Phase Mercury, ng/g 44.2 37.8 75.2 57.5 Method 29 Percent Volatilized 50.1% 42.8% 65.9% 50.5% Ontario Hydro Gas-Phase Mercury, ng/g 77.8 76.1 80.3 82.6 Ontario Hydro Percent Volatilized 89.4% 89.1% 74.8% 78.1% No clear-cut reason for the higher loss of Hg seen for the Facility B sample can be demonstrated. The SCR design is of the in-furnace variety, contact between fly ash and SCR catalyst occurred even during tests when SCR was not in use. Speculation is that contact between fly ash and SCR catalyst occurred even when no ammonia injected. However, too little information is available to make a more definitive statement. In addition, a similar effect was not found for the sample from Facility E (which is also has SCR in use). Therefore, these results suggest that additional research may be warranted on a wider range of samples to evaluate potential Hg loss from use of CCR in asphalt applications. 3.2.4 Asphalt Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on Non-ADA Fly Ashes Because of the high volatility seen for Hg in the Ontario Hydro analyses for the Facility B fly ash, the Facility B fly ash was selected for testing of volatility of As, Se, and Pb. Results from Method 29 tests are shown in Table 3-7. As was the case for the Brayton Point fly ash, mass balances from the tests show a high degree of variability (41-300%). However, once again no metals were detected in the gas phase, indicating that As, Se, and Pb were retained in the solid after heating. The Pb results likely indicate some degree of contamination of the solid sample prior to analysis. However, As, Se, and Pb were not detected in the gas phase for the Facility B sample. ------- Table 3-7. lead Section 3 Page 3-9 Results for Asphalt Simulations of Facility B Fly Ashes for arsenic, selenium, and Metal Arsenic Selenium Lead Run SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR off Test 1 SCR off Test 2 SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR off Test 1 SCR off Test 2 SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR off Test 1 SCR off Test 2 As Prepared Hg/g 95.8 96.0 75.6 75.8 5.4 5.4 13.5 13.5 236 237 81.2 81.4 After Simulation (solid) fig/g 85.4 89.6 88.2 104 5.6 5.7 6.6 5.6 292 180 239 215 Volatilized Metal (gas phase) fig/g BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML Mass Balance 89.1% 93.3% 117% 137% 104% 105% 48.8% 41.4% 124% 76.0% 295% 264% BML=below method limit (As<4.0 ug/g, Pb<0.6 ug/g, Se<4.0 ug/g) Table 3-8. Results for asphalt simulations of facility M fly ash for mercury, arsenic, selenium, and lead Metal Arsenic Hg/g Selenium Hg/g Lead fig/g Mercury ng/g Run SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 SCR on Test 1 SCR on Test 2 As Prepared 101 110 5.5 4.9 86.4 95.6 121 120 After Simulation (solid) 106 108 6.0 5.5 91.2 90.6 57.8 57.2 Volatilized Metal (gas phase) BML BML BML BML BML BML 31.6 32.5 Amount Volatilized 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 27 Mass Balance 105 97.5% 111 113 106 94.8% 74% 74% Note: As, Se, and Pb concentrations in ug/g, Hg concentration in ng/g BML = below method limit (As<4.0 ug/g, Pb<0.6 ug/g, Se<4.0 ug/g) ------- Section 3 Page 3-10 5.2.5 Correlation of Carbon Content and Mercury Volatilization In general, Hg volatilization appears to decrease with increasing carbon content. This was the case for 18 of the 22 samples evaluated. The four facilities that did not fit this trend are from the facility that has the in-furnace SCR system. The mercury results were normalized using the ratio of the amount volatilized to the total Hg remaining in the solids plus the amount of mercury volatilized. Figure 3-4 provides these results along with the equation that was derived. The significant figures are not considered more than 1 given the uncertainties. Recommendations for future work include using a larger sample size to evaluate potential Hg loss during asphalt production and to evaluate if the correlation for carbon content and Hg loss is confirmed. 12.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% Percent of Carbon in Fly Ash Note - The % Hg volatilized is "normalized" by dividing by the total amount of mercury in the solid and gas phase. Significant figures are not greater than one. Figure 3-4. Mercury volatilization as a function of carbon content 3.3 Wallboard Simulations Sanderson et al., (2008) provide the most extensive study to date on the fate of Hg when FGD gypsum is used as feedstock for wallboard production. Testing of full-scale production facilities is considered more reliable than laboratory testing to simulate wallboard production. However, the study did not include other metals. Therefore, laboratory simulation of wallboard production was conducted. Results from Sanderson et al., (2008) indicate that the process where Hg loss is more likely to occur is the kettle calciner. Therefore, laboratory simulation of wallboard production was conducted evaluating Hg and other metals with the focus on trying to simulate potential loss across the kettle calciner. Only FGD gypsum samples were used in this simulation since this is the material used in the production of wallboard (and not fly ash). This research was conducted in two phases. The first phase resulted in unacceptable ------- Section 3 Page 3-11 mass balance for Hg. The results for the other metals are considered acceptable. Consequently, additional testing was conducting in a second phase using more recent FGD samples. The results from this work are reported along with the results from phase 1. Please note, only the results from non-Hg metals for phase 1 are considered reliable. However, we have not excluded the Hg results from phase 1. 3.3.1 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Th ermal Stability on USG FGD Gypsum Results for multiple wallboard simulations using the two samples received from U.S. Gypsum are shown in Table 3-9. As noted, the results for the first USG sample had poor mass balance. The amount of Hg remaining in the solids ranged between 90 to 99% which agrees fairly well with the results reported by USG (-98.6%). The results for the second USG sample had a better mass balance than the first sample; however, the mass balances were still less than ideal. The gas-phase results, however, indicate that the samples lost between 75 and 105% of the Hg compared to a USG-reported value of-2.3%. The gas phase results are not considered reliable as indicated by the poor Hg mass balance results. Therefore, and additional testing was conducted. Table 3-9. Results of wallboard simulation tests for mercury Pre test (solid), ng/g USG-1 USG-2 Runl Run 2 Run3 Run 4 Runl Run 2 674.0 ± 0.4 467.9 ±21.3 After Simulation (solid), ng/g 664 626 627 606 98.4 81.9 Volatilized Mercury (gas phase), ng/g 518 602 606 705 478.7 334.9 Percent Volatilized3 77% 89% 90% 105% 102% 71.6% Percent Remaining in Solid 99% 93% 93% 90% 21.0% 17.5% Mass Balance 175% 182% 183% 195% 123% 89.1% "These results are not considered reliable as indicated by the Hg mass balance. Therefore, additional testing was conducted. 3.3.2 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Non-Mercury Metals Thermal Stability on USG FGD Gypsum Results for duplicate wallboard simulations using samples received from U.S. Gypsum are shown in Table 3-10. In general, the results for the first USG sample showed that the non-Hg metals including As, Se and Pb did not volatilize from the sample during the wallboard simulation test. While the mass balances between the solids after simulation and the as-prepared sample prior to testing are not ideal (varying between 116 and 128%). However, the results tend to suggest that As and Se are more likely retained in the FGD gypsum and less likely to be volatilized during the kettle calcining process. Table 3-10. Results of wallboard simulation tests for arsenic, selenium, and lead Metal Run As Prepared After Volatilized Mass ------- Section 3 Page 3-12 Arsenic Selenium Lead USG-1 USG-2 USG-1 USG-2 USG-1 USG-2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Runl Run 2 Hg/g 5.88 5.74 5.39 5.26 2.31 2.08 Simulation (solid) fig/g 7.02 7.34 5.89 5.79 6.27 6.62 5.17 5.30 2.95 2.82 2.04 1.97 Metal (gas phase) fig/g BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML BML Balance 119% 125% 102% 100% 116% 123% 98.2% 101% 128% 122% 98.2% 94.7% BML=below method limit (As<0.4 ug/g, Pb<0.06 ug/g, Se<0.4 ug/g) 3.3.3 Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability on Gypsum Samples Because of the unacceptable Hg mass balance in the previous wallboard simulation, additional testing was conducted using FGD samples from eight different facilities. Sufficient quantity of the USG FGD gypsum was not available to be used in the repeated wallboard simulation tests. The experimental method was modified to include additional quality assurance. Vapor phase Hg was collected with iodated carbon sorbent tubes using Method SOB, at a constant temperature of 160 °C. Method 7473 was used to analyze the Hg content of the solid gypsum. For each sample, three replicates were conducted. The amount of volatilized Hg was calculated using the Hg trapped on the carbon tubes and the solid gypsum before heating. The amount remaining in solid was calculated using the solid gypsum before and after heating. Table 3-11 shows the averages and standard deviation for each sample. Figure 3-6 shows the amount of Hg retained in solid and Hg volatilized. Appendix C has more detailed results. This series of tests gave improved mass balance results compared to the earlier testing to loss of Hg across the kettle calciner. The results (Figure 3-5) indicate potential Hg loss of 9 to 48%. The USG results from wallboard manufacturing facilities indicate Hg loss across the kettle calciner (excluding the Texas lignite sample) of 2 to 50% (found in Table 1-3). This is considered confirmation of the previous USG research with emphasis on the degree of variability across samples. ------- Section 3 Page 3-13 Table 3-11. Results of additional wallboard simulation tests for mercury Sample ID AaAW DaAW NAW OAW SAW TAW WAW XAW Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Pre-test (solid), ng/g 538 20.9 653 15.0 466 9.27 44.3 2.12 312 6.75 765 58.3 938 18.6 1,030 6.24 After Simulation (solid), ng/g 426 24.3 529 6.86 228 17.8 32.0 1.29 159 27.8 519 17.5 865 26.1 815 14.0 Volatilized Mercury (gas phase), ng/g 122 24.5 134 3.86 204 7.51 15.5 0.68 151 17.3 198 64.6 87.5 44.4 212 16.8 Percent Volatilized 23% 5% 21% 1% 44% 2% 35% 2% 48% 6% 26% 8% 9% 5% 21% 2% Percent Remaining in Solid 79% 5% 81% 3% 49% 3% 72% 6% 51% 8% 68% 6% 92% 3% 79% 2% Mass Balance 102% 4% 102% 4% 93% 3% 108% 7% 99% 3% 94% 4% 101% 5% 100% 2% ------- Section 3 Page 3-14 120% AaAW DaAW NAW OAW SAW Sample ID TAW WAW XAW D Retained in Solid D Volatilized Figure 3-5. Results for additional wallboard simulation tests for mercury 3.3.4 Wallboard Simulation Tests for Mercury Thermal Stability at Various Temperatures Gypsum sample DaAW was tested at three temperatures (120°C, 140 °C, 160 °C) to compare the amount of volatilized Hg versus temperature during the simulation test. Method 3 OB and Method 7473 were used. Table 3-12 and Figure 3-7 display a summary of the results and show that the amount of volatilized Hg increases as temperature increases. The linear trend line in Figure 3-7 shows an R-squared value of 0.9269. Detailed results are included in Appendix C. Therefore, the operating temperature of the kettle calciner is important to consider in predicting potential loss at a production facility. Table 3-12. Results for wallboard simulation tests on sample DaAW at various temperatures Furnace Temperature, °C 120 i An 160 Average StDev Average StDev Average StDev Pre-test (solid), ng/g 551 8.85 621 34.7 653 15.0 Simulation (solid), ne/e 532 5.13 588 23.3 529 6.86 Volatilized Mercury (gas phase), ng/g 10.8 2.64 42.1 1.80 134 3.86 Percent Volatilized 2% 0% 7% 1% 21% 1% Percent Remaining in Solid 97% 1% 95% 2% 81% 3% Mass Balance 99% 2% 102% 2% 102% 4% ------- Section 3 Page 3-15 20% - 3 0) "o 0) o> « 10% - 0) 0) 0% - 1C Sample Da AW . N i R2 = 0.9269 ./ s' s/ // /^. /^ ^ DO 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 Furnace Temperature (degrees C) Figure 3-6. Results for wallboard simulation tests at various temperatures ------- ------- Section 4 Page 4-1 Chapter 4 Conclusions and Future Considerations Approximately 40% of the 126 million tons of CCRs produced in the U.S. as of 2006 were utilized in agricultural, commercial, and engineering applications. The remainder (i.e., 75 million tons) was managed in either landfills or impoundments. The physical and chemical characteristics of CCRs make them potentially suitable as replacements for materials used in a wide range of products including cement, concrete, road base, and wallboard. Use of CCRs as an alternative to virgin materials helps conserve natural resources and energy, as well as decrease the amount of CCRs being land disposed. This study evaluated the potential loss of Hg and other metals for the production of cement clinker, asphalt, and wallboard. When this study was originally started, there were no controls for Hg from the production of cement. Subsequent to this research, EPA has proposed (74 FR 21136m May 6, 2009) regulations to reduce mercury emissions from cement kilns, which may result in use of air pollution control technology similar to that used at coal-fired power plants (e.g, wet scrubbers and sorbents for enhanced Hg capture). The addition of air pollution control at cement kilns should not affect the ability to use fly ash or FGD gypsum in the production of clinker. However, to avoid installation of air pollution control, kiln inputs (such as fly ash) containing Hg may be avoided which could impact usage of some CCRs. The focus of the laboratory simulation of cement clinker production using a high-temperature Lindberg was on non-Hg metals (i.e., As, Se, and Pb). The results indicate that all of the As, Se and Pb are volatilized as a result of the high temperatures (1450 °C) the samples are exposed to during this process. With potential changes in air pollution control at cement plants, there will be less Hg and other metals being emitted. However, these metals will be retained in the cement kiln dust and the air pollution control residues. Ensuring that these metals are not later released based on how the air pollution control residues (FGD gypsum and cement kiln dust) are managed, requires additional research to evaluate the potential leaching of Hg and other metals for the conditions that the residues are managed. Currently there are no federal requirements for lining of landfills used for cement kiln dust disposal. In addition, some sites are using cement kiln dust in engineering and commercial applications. The asphalt manufacturing simulation results presented indicate that all of the non-Hg metals including As, Se and Pb are retained in the samples after exposure. Mercury showed minimal volatilization from the ADA samples as well as the samples from Facilities A and E. The Facility B results, however, showed significant loss of Hg into the gas-phase as a result of exposure to the asphalt manufacturing conditions. Facility B is the only facility included in this study that has an in-furnace SCR design. This design type necessitates that the fly ash come in contact with the SCR catalyst surface regardless of whether ammonia is being injected or not. Further investigation of fly ashes from facilities with an in-furnace SCR design is probably warranted. Sanderson et al., (2008) provide the most extensive study to date on the fate of Hg when FGD gypsum is used as feedstock for wallboard production. Testing of full-scale production facilities is considered more reliable than laboratory testing to simulate wallboard production. However, the study did not include other metals. Therefore, laboratory simulation of wallboard production was conducted as part of this ------- Section 4 Page 4-2 study. Results from Sanderson et al, (2008) indicate that the process where Hg loss is more likely to occur is the kettle calciner. Therefore, laboratory simulation of wallboard production was conducted evaluating Hg and other metals with the focus on trying to simulate potential loss across the kettle calciner. Only FGD gypsum samples were used in this simulation since this is the material used in the production of wallboard (and not fly ash). This research was conducted in two phases. The first phase resulted in unacceptable mass balance for Hg. The results for the other metals are considered acceptable. Consequently, additional testing was conducting in a second phase using more recent FGD samples. The first phase of testing suggests that As and Se are more likely retained in the FGD gypsum and less likely to be volatilized during the kettle calcining process. The second phase of testing provided improved Hg mass balance results. The results (Figure 3-5) indicate potential Hg loss of 9 to 48%. The USG results from wallboard manufacturing facilities indicate Hg loss across the kettle calciner (excluding the Texas lignite sample) of 2 to 50% (found in Table 1-3). This is considered confirmation of the previous USG research with emphasis on the degree of variability across samples. Additional testing was conducted at three different temperatures that the kettle calciner can be operated. The linear trend line in Figure 3-7 shows an R-squared value of 0.9269. Therefore, the operating temperature of the kettle calciner is important to consider in predicting potential loss at a production facility. In interpreting the results from this study, please note that the samples are not considered to be a representative sample. Samples were obtained on a voluntary basis and represent a minor fraction (<1%) of U.S. boilers at coal-fired power plants. However, every effort was made to obtain samples that are considered typical of the air pollution control configurations to be more widely used as the result to changes in U.S. EPA and state regulations. The results from this laboratory study demonstrate the varying degree of volatility for mercury, arsenic, Se and Pb in CCRs depending on the process temperature being used. A high temperature process such as cement clinker production has the ability to release all four metals from fly ash when exposed to the high temperatures found in production. Laboratory simulation of the asphalt and wallboard production processes showed a significant release of mercury during heating, but the temperatures were too low to volatilize the arsenic, Se, or Pb. Whereas, the Hg loss for wallboard production suggest non-Hg metals being retained in wallboard with a potential Hg loss of 9 to 48%. However, the actual mass emission rates must be considered when determining potential concern to human health and the environment. ------- Section 4 Page 4-3 This page intentionally left blank. ------- ------- Section 5 Page 5-1 Chapter 5 Quality Assurance / Quality Control 5.1 Quality Indicator Goals Data quality indicator goals for critical measurements in terms of accuracy, precision and completeness are shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1. Data Quality Indicator Goals Measurement As, Se, and Pb Concentration Hg Concentration Method ICP/6010B CVAA/7470A Accuracy 90-110% 80 - 120 % Precision 10% 10% Completeness >90% >90% Accuracy was determined by calculating the percent bias from a known standard. Precision was calculated as relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate values and relative standard deviation (RSD) for parameters that have more than two replicates. Completeness is defined as the percentage of measurements that meet DQI goals of the total number measurements taken. Types of QC samples used in this project included blanks, instrument calibration samples, replicates, and matrix spikes 5.2 Ontario Hydro and Method 29 Mercury Analyses Accuracy and precision for the Ontario Hydro samples for Hg concentration in the process gas determinations were made using replicates and matrix spike analyses. The Figure 5-1 shows the spike recoveries obtained during the analysis of the recovered fractions. Figure 5-2 shows the spike recoveries for Hg obtained during the Method 29 sampling. The Ontario Hydro samples had a completeness of 98% and the Method 29 samples had a completeness of 94%. Required QC samples for metals and Hg sampling trains are detailed in EPA Method 29 and the Ontario Hydro Method. QC samples required for CVAA analysis are detailed in 7470A. The Hg analyzer software has been programmed with the acceptance criteria for Method 7470A. All calibrations and samples analysis parameters have passed the QA/QC criteria and may be considered valid samples. The Ontario Hydro samples had a completeness of 98% and the Method 29 samples had a completeness of 94%. 5-1 ------- Section 5 •5-2 o 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% • KMNO4 fraction —•—KCI fraction H2O2 fraction Acceptance criteria Figure 5-1. Ontario Hydro spike recovery for multiple runs ------- Section 5 Page 5-3 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 10 • H2O2/HNO3 fraction —•— KMNO4 fraction Acceptance Criteria Figure 5-2. Method 29 mercury spike recoveries for multiple runs 5.3 Method 29 Analyses for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium QA/QC samples for the determination of As, Pb, and Se included blanks, replicates, and matrix spikes. Table 5-2 presents accuracy of the matrix spike recovery data for the Method 29 cement kiln simulation metals analyses. Table 5-3 presents the accuracy of the matrix spike recovery data for the asphalt simulation testing. Table 5-4 presents the accuracy of the matrix spike recovery data for the gypsum wallboard simulation testing. Table 5-2. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Cement Kiln Simulations Facility Name Brayton Point BL Pleasant Prairie BL Salem Harbor BL As 111% 104% 92% Se 104% 102% 90% Pb 108% 109% 89% 5-3 ------- Section 5 •5-4 Table 5-3. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Asphalt Simulations Facility Name Brayton Point BL Brayton Point ACI Facility B (SCR on) Facility B (SCR off) USG-1 USG-2 As 109% 109% 91% 93% 106% 101% Se 111% 103% 92% 97% 107% 103% Pb 101% 111% 91% 110% 108% 100% Table 5-4. Method 29 Matrix Spike Recoveries for Arsenic, Lead, and Selenium for the Gypsum Wallboard Simulations Facility Name USG-1 USG-2 As 106% 101% Se 107% 103% Pb 108% 100% Overall completeness for the Method 29 non-Hg metals matrix spike samples was 30 valid out of 33 total matrix spikes or 91%. ------- Section 6 Page 6-1 Chapter 6 References ACAA (American Coal Ash Association), 2004. 2003 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey, http://acaa.affiniscape.com/associations/8003/files/2003_CCP_Survey (10-l-04).pdf Accessed July 2008. ASTM. Standard test method for elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury in flue gas generated from coal-fired stationary sources (Ontario-Hydro method), Method D 6784-02, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2002. Garrabrants, A. C., F. Sanchez, and D. S. Kosson. Changes in constituent equilibrium leaching and pore water characteristics of a Portland cement mortar as a result of carbonation, Waste Management 24: 19-36 (2004). Gervais, C., A. C. Garrabrants, F. Sanchez, R. Barna, P, Moszkowicz, and D. S. Kosson. The effects of carbonation and drying during intermittent leaching on the release of inorganic constituents form a cement-based matrix. Cement and Concrete Research 34:119-131, (2004). Kilgroe, J., C. Sedman, R. Srivastava, J. Ryan, C. W. Lee, and S. Thorneloe. Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers: interim report. EPA-600/R-01-109, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 2001. Marshall, Jessica, Gary Blythe and Mandi Richardson. Fate of mercury in synthetic gypsum used for wallboardproduction, topical report, task 1 wallboardplant test results. U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA, Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC26-04NT42080, April, 2005. Marshall, Jessica, Gary Blythe and Mandi Richardson. Fate of mercury in synthetic gypsum used for wallboard production, topical report, task 2 wallboard plant test results. U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA, Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC26-04NT42080, August, 2005. Marshall, Jessica, Gary Blythe and Mandi Richardson. Fate of mercury in synthetic gypsum used for wallboard production, topical report, task 3 wallboard plant test results. U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburgh, PA, Cooperative Agreement Number DE-FC26-04NT42080, August, 2005. Meischen, S. The effect of mercury controls on wallboard manufacture. ECM-01-CBRC-M12, Combustion Byproducts Recycling Consortium, Tennessee Valley Authority, Final Report, July, 2004. Sanderson, J., Blythe, G.M., and Richardson, M. 2008. Fate of Mercury in Synthetic Gypsum Used for Wallboard Production. Final Report. http: //www .net!. doe .gov/technologies/coalpower/ewr/coal_utilization_byproducts/pdf/420 8 OFinal Rpt20080624.pdf. Retrieved: March 10, 2009. 6-1 ------- Section 6 Page 6-2 Schroeder, K. and C. Kairies. Distribution of mercury in FGD byproducts. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2005. Senior, C., S. Thorneloe, B. Khan, and D. Goss (2009). "Fate of Mercury Collected from Air Pollution Control Devices." Environmental Management. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA): 15-21. Senior, C., C. J. Bustard, K. Baldrey, T. Starns, and M. Durham. "Characterization of Fly Ash From Full- Scale Demonstration of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control on Coal-Fired Power Plants," presented at the Combined Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium, Washington D.C., May 19-22, 2003. Senior, C., C. J. Bustard, M. Durham, T. Starns, and K. Baldrey. "Characterization of Fly Ash From Full- Scale Demonstration of Sorbent Injection for Mercury Control on Coal-Fired Power Plants," presented at the Air Quality IV Conference and Exhibition, Washington D.C, September 22-27, 2003. Senior, C., C. J. Bustard, M. Durham, K. Baldrey, and D. Michaud. Characterization of fly ash from full- scale demonstration of sorbent injection for mercury control on coal-fired power plants. Fuel Processing Technology 85: 601-612, 2004. Srivastava, R.K., and W. Jozewicz. Flue gas desulfurization: the state of the art. Journal of Air and Waste Management 51, 1676-1688,2001. Srivastava, R.K., N. Hutson, B. Martin, F. Princiotta, and J. Staudt. Control of mercury emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers. Environ. Sci. & Technol. A-Pages, 40(5): 1385-1393, 2006. Starns, T., J. Bustard, M. Durham, C. Lindsey, C. Martin, R. Schlager, B. Donnelly,S. Sjostrom, P. Harrington, S. Haythornthwaite, R. Johnson, E. Morris, R. Change, and S. Renninger. "Full-Scale Test of Mercury Control with Sorbent Injection and an ESP at Wisconsin Electric's Pleasant Prairie Power Plant," presented at the Air & Waste Management Association 95th Annual Conference and Exhibition, Baltimore, MD, June 23-27 2002. Thorneloe, S., D. Kosson, F. Sanchez, B. Khan, and P. Kariher. "Improved leach testing for evaluating the fate of mercury and other metals from management of coal combustion residues," In Proceedings for the Global Waste Management Symposium, Copper Mountain Conference Center, Colorado, USA, September 7-10, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey, 2009. Gypsum, Mineral Commodity Summaries, Prepared by Alan Founie, http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/gvpsum/mcs-2009-gypsu.pdf; Accessed on 11/10/09. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a. Microwave assisted acid digestion of siliceous and organically based matrices, SW-846, Method 3052, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b. "Method 29, Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources." In Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60, Appendix A, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1996. ------- Section 6 Page 6-3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998a. Mercury in liquidwaste (manual cold-vapor technique). SW-846, Method 7470A, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998b. Study of hazardous air pollutant emissions from electric utility steam generating units-final report to congress, Volume I, EPA-453/R-98-004a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Air Quality and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998c. Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods, SW-846, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998d. Method 7473, "Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation, and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry." Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Report to congress-wastes from the combustion of fossil fuels: Volume 2-methods, findings and recommendations, EPA 530-R-99-010, Washington, DC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Characterization and management of residues from coal- fired power plants, interim report. EPA-600/R-02-083, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Revised Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches, EPA-821-B-04-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a. Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control"(EPA-600/R-06/008) Feb 2006, Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division (APPCD), Research Triangle Park, NC, 2006. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r06008/600r06008.pdf U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA's Roadmap for Mercury, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0013. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/pdfs/FINAL-Mercury-Roadmap-6-29.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a. Method 30B, "Determination of Total Vapor Phase Mercury from Coal-Fired Combustion Sources Using Carbon Sorbent Traps." Code of Federal Regulations, 40 CFRPart 60; January, 2008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008b. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Wet Scrubbers for Multi-Pollutant Control (EPA/600/R-08/077) July 2008, ORD/NRMRL/APPCD, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r08077/600r08077.htm. 6-3 ------- Section 6 •6-4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities-Leaching and Characterization Data. Anticipated publication date is December 2009. ------- Section 6 Page 6-5 This page intentionally left blank. 6-5 ------- ------- Appendix A Page A-1 Appendix A DOE NETL Full-Scale Test Site Flow Diagrams A.1 Brayton Point Unit 1 • Carbon injected upstream of second ESP (Research Cottrell). Only !/> of the unit was treated, or carbon was injected into one of the two new ESPs (Research Cottrell ESPs). • Hopper ID's also shown. Samples from C-row are from the first row of hoppers in the second ESP. Gas Flow Hg S-CEM HgS-CEM Air Prcheater First ESP (Koppers) Hg S-CEM Sorbent Injection -Second ESP (Research-Cottrell) -Hg S-CEM Figure A-l. Brayton Point Unit 1 ------- Appendix A Page A-2 Old Pracslpg Bast West ^ Figure A-2. Brayton Point Unit 1 Hopper Identification ------- Appendix A Page A-3 A.2 Pleasant Prairie Unit 2 • Carbon injected upstream of cold-side ESP. Only 1/4 of the unit was treated. Test ESP was ESP 2-4. TO ID, BIN Figure A-3. Pleasant Prairie Unit 2 ------- Appendix A Page A-4 A.3 Salem Harbor Unit 1 • Carbon injected upstream of cold-side ESP. Row-A hoppers were the front hoppers. Boiler Long Air Heater Short Air Heater Steam Coils Figure A-4. Salem Harbor Unit 1 ------- Appendix B Page B-l Appendix B Non-DOE NETL Full-Scale Test Site Flow Diagrams B.1 Facility A Coal ' Sampling Ontario Hydro Sampling Figure B-l. Facility A ------- Appendix B Page B-2 This page intentionally left blank. ------- Appendix B Page B-3 ------- ------- Appendix C Page C-l Appendix C Detailed Results for Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests Table C-l. Description of Facilities Providing Eight Gypsum Samples. Sample ID AaAW DaAW NAW OAW SAW TAW WAW XAW Coal Rank Eastern- Bituminous Eastern- Bituminous Bituminous Bituminous High Sulfur Bituminous Eastern- Bituminous Eastern- Bituminous Sub- Bituminous Powder River Basin NOx Control SCR SCR None SCR SCR SCR SCR off SCR Paniculate Control ESP ESP CS-ESP CS-ESP CS-ESP CS-ESP ESP ESP FGD Scrubber Type Lime Type Limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone Limestone Lime Limestone Trona Limestone Oxidation Forced Forced Forced Forced Forced Forced Forced Forced Date Received 10/14/08 12/12/08 6/1/06 6/10-6/12/06 7/19/07 9/18/07 11/28/07 6/16/08 SCR = selective catalytic reduction ESP = electro static precipitator CS-ESP = cold-side electro static precipitator ------- Appendix C Page C-2 Table C-2. Detailed Results for Additional Wallboard Simulation Tests Sample ID AaAW DaAW NAW OAW SAW TAW WAW Runl Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Run? Average Pre-test (solid), ng/g 571 554 515 522 536 531 538 20.9 647 670 641 653 15.0 473 455 469 466 9.27 46.7 42.8 43.3 44.3 2.12 307 320 309 312 6.75 831 723 739 765 58.3 910 929 928 960 933 955 954 938 After Simulation (solid), ng/g 428 467 440 412 414 398 426 24.3 528 523 536 529 6.86 240 207 237 228 17.8 30.7 32.0 33.3 32.0 1.29 127 172 178 159 27.8 521 536 501 519 17.5 843 836 870 866 890 906 843 865 Volatilized Mercury (gas phase), ng/g 107 112 97.2 111 149 157 122 24.5 132 132 139 134 3.86 196 206 211 204 7.51 15.5 16.2 14.8 15.5 0.68 167 153 133 151 17.3 240 123 230 198 64.6 97.3 24.0 33.7 128 103 84.1 141 87 Percent Volatilized 19% 20% 19% 21% 28% 30% 23% 5% 20% 20% 22% 21% 1% 41% 45% 45% 44% 2% 33% 38% 34% 35% 2% 54% 48% 43% 48% 6% 29% 17% 31% 26% 8% 11% 3% 4% 13% 11% 9% 15% 9% Percent Remaining in Solid 75% 84% 85% 79% 77% 75% 79% 5% 82% 78% 84% 81% 3% 51% 46% 51% 49% 3% 66% 75% 77% 72% 6% 41% 54% 58% 51% 8% 63% 74% 68% 68% 6% 93% 90% 94% 90% 95% 95% 88% 92% Mass Balance 94% 104% 104% 100% 105% 105% 102% 4% 102% 98% 105% 102% 4% 92% 91% 96% 93% 3% 99% 113% 111% 108% 7% 96% 101% 100% 99% 3% 92% 91% 99% 94% 4% 103% 93% 97% 104% 107% 104% 103% 101% ------- Appendix C Page C-3 XAW StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev 18.6 1033 1023 1021 1026 6.24 26.1 799 823 823 815 14.0 44.4 222 193 222 212 16.8 5% 21% 19% 22% 21% 2% 3% 77% 80% 81% 79% 2% 5% 99% 99% 102% 100% 2% Table C-3. Detailed Results for Wallboard Simulation Tests on Sample DaAW at Various Temperatures Furnace Temperature (°C) 120 140 160 Runl Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Runl Run 2 Run 3 Average StDev Pre-test (solid), ng/g 547 546 546 564 551 8.85 640 642 581 621 34.7 647 670 641 653 15.0 After Simulation (solid), ng/g 525 531 536 536 532 5.13 601 603 561 588 23.3 528 523 536 529 6.86 Volatilized Mercury (gas phase), ng/g 8.87 14.6 9.08 10.6 10.8 2.64 40.4 41.8 44.0 42.1 1.80 132 132 139 134 3.86 Percent Volatilized 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 0% 6% 7% 8% 7% 1% 20% 20% 22% 21% 1% Percent Retained in Solid 96% 97% 98% 95% 97% 1% 94% 94% 97% 95% 2% 82% 78% 84% 81% 3% Mass Balance 98% 100% 100% 97% 99% 2% 100% 100% 104% 102% 2% 102% 98% 105% 102% 4% ------- |