DOCSLIB.ORG

Duke Energy-Carolina's WFGD Retrofit Program: 12 Months Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Duke Energy-Carolina's WFGD Retrofit Program: 12 Months Of Duke Energy Carolinas’ WFGD Retrofit Program: 12 Months of Operation at Marshall Ronald E. Laws, P.E. Senior Engineer, Program Engineering ([email protected] ph. 704-382-8411, fax 704-382-9769) Duke Energy Carolinas 526 S. Church Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Dave Styer FGD Area Coordinator ([email protected] ph. 828-478-7506, fax 828-478-7613) Duke Energy Carolinas Marshall Steam Station 8320 East NC Hwy. 150 Terrell, NC 28682 Kelly Barger Technology Manager ([email protected] ph. 865-560-1654, fax 865-694-5203) Jürgen Dopatka, P.E. Technology Manager ([email protected] ph. 865-694-5342, fax 865-694-5203) Alstom Power Environmental Control Systems 1409 Centerpoint Boulevard Knoxville, TN 37932 Jim McCarthy, P.E. Chief Engineer Mechanical/Piping, Power Division – Fossil Sector, Shaw Group ([email protected] ph.704-331-6043, fax 704-331-1310) 128 S. Tryon St., Suite 400 Charlotte, NC 28202 Presented at: POWER-GEN International 2007 New Orleans, LA December 11 - 13, 2007 Page 1 of 15 ABSTRACT Duke Energy Carolinas is committed to a multiphase fleetwide SO2 emissions reduction program where four of eight coal-fired stations are being retrofitted with high efficiency WFGD systems by 2012. Engineering started in 2003, one station has started up, one station is being commissioned, construction is under way at the third, and the fourth started engineering in 2007. A brief overview of the retrofit progress at each site will be presented. The state-of-the-art WFGD system at the Marshall Station has been operating for 12 months, and the performance testing on each of three absorbers and the overall system has been completed. The operating experience, maintenance requirements, and performance results at Marshall are the main focus of this paper. Specifics include: · Absorber performance without spare spray levels, with dual orifice spray nozzles, and with organic acids · Operation of the damperless open-bypass flue gas handling system employing very long duct work runs and unique materials · Selection of FRP outlet flues and stack liners · HDPE piping: engineering, construction, and operation · Duke’s Gypsum Recycling Program · Effectiveness of wetlands for removal of selenium and mercury from WFGD blowdown · Overall operating and maintenance experience during the first 12 months, including O&M provisions and equipment reliability Page 2 of 15 1. INTRODUCTION In 2002 Duke Energy Carolinas embarked on an ambitious program to retrofit flue gas desulphurization equipment on 12 of its largest units over the course of the next 10 years. The total affected generating capacity exceeds 6,000 MW. This is the largest and most complex plant modification program ever undertaken on the Duke Energy Carolinas fossil fleet. Total predicted costs approach $1.5 billion. The affected stations are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Stations Affected by Desulphurization Station/Unit Location Approx. Net Expected Startup Capacity Each (MW) Allen 1 and 2 Belmont, NC 165 2009 Allen 3, 4 and 5 Belmont, NC 275 2009 Belews Creek 1 and 2 Walnut Cove, NC 1,120 2008 Cliffside 5 Cliffside, NC 560 2010 Marshall 1 and 2 Terrell, NC 385 2007* Marshall 3 and 4 Terrell, NC 660 2007*/2006* *Denotes actual startup Duke Energy Carolinas has teamed with ALSTOM Power and Shaw/Stone & Webster to engineer, procure, construct and commission these systems. The size and importance of this program has posed numerous challenges and opportunities for innovative engineering solutions. Implementation of the SO2 emission reduction program is based on a staged approach. Using the results of the fleetwide Phase I study as a starting point, a site- specific Phase II study was conducted for each unit. Actual implementation (Phase III) commenced upon approval of funding, usually 3 – 4 months after completion of the Phase II study. The first of these retrofits, Marshall Steam Station with its four boiler units, has been operating with a new state-of-the art WFGD system for 12 months. The operating experience, maintenance requirements, and performance results at Marshall are the main focus of this paper. A discussion of the overall program approach is discussed elsewhere.1, 2 Page 3 of 15 2. CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS Marshall Steam Station The Marshall Station is located on Lake Norman, approximately 35 miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina. The plant was constructed in the 1970s and consists of four (4) tangentially fired pulverized coal units. Units 1 and 2 have an approximate net capacity of 385 MW each while Units 3 and 4 are larger at 660 MW (net) each. Construction on the Unit 4 FGD absorber started in summer 2005. In late fall 2006, Unit 4 FGD was the first one of the program to go into service, and Unit 3 followed in March 2007. The final two boiler units, Units 1 and 2, have been operating with a WFGD since May 2007. Figure 1 shows clean flue gas from Marshall Units 3 and 4 leaving the stack. Figure 1. Marshall’s New Stack with Unit 3 & 4 WFGD Online. Belews Creek Steam Station The Belews Creek Station is the largest coal-burning power plant operated by Duke Energy Carolinas, and is located on Belews Lake near Walnut Cove, North Carolina. The plant was constructed in the 1970s and consists of two (2) coal-fired units, each of which can generate 1,120 MW net output. Construction at the Belews Creek Station began in May 2005. As of July 2007, the overall project is over 90% complete. Figure 2 shows the current construction status of the Belews Creek WFGD System. Allen Steam Station The Allen Station is a five unit station located in Belmont, North Carolina on the Catawba River. Units 1 and 2 (165 MW net each) began operating in 1957; unit 3 in 1959; unit 4 in 1960 and unit 5 Figure 2. Belews Creek Stacks and Absorbers. in 1961 (all 275 MW net each). Allen is the only Duke Energy Carolinas station with five units under one roof. The current construction status of the Allen stack and absorbers is shown in Figure 3. The phase II study for Allen was completed in March 2006. The Phase III construction is currently underway with 36% complete as of June 2007. Page 4 of 15 Figure 3. Allen Stack and Absorbers Embedded Rings. Cliffside Unit 5 Cliffside Steam Station is a five-unit coal generating facility located in Cliffside, North Carolina. Units 1 – 4 are part of the original plant built in 1940. Due to their small size and age they will not be retrofitted with WFGD. Although part of the same station, Unit 5 (560 net MW) is located in Cleveland County 1/2 mile from the other four units. This unit is equipped with a selective catalytic reduction system. Although Unit 5 WFGD was part of the original fleetwide program, the scope has been expanded to include AQCS equipment associated with a new Unit 6 plant. Engineering on Cliffside Unit 5 started in May 2007. In July 2007, the engineering related to the Unit 6 Absorber began. 3. 12 MONTHS OF OPERATION AT MARSHALL Marshall’s first WFGD absorber has been operating since October 2006. Since that time, the remaining two absorbers have come on-line, and performance testing is still being conducted. This section discusses some of the features unique to Marshall’s FGD system and the station’s operations and maintenance (O&M) experience during the first 12 months of operation. 3.1 Absorber Design The absorber design for all the stations represents the proven state-of-the-art ALSTOM Power open spray tower system with a number of features to improve efficiency and operational flexibility and at the same time reduce capital cost. · The absorbers were designed without a dedicated spare spray level, resulting in capital cost savings associated with the reduced tower height and the spray system (i.e. pumps, piping, valves, motors, switchgear, etc.). In the event of an unplanned Page 5 of 15 spray pump outage, organic acid (DBA) will be injected into the system allowing the required SO2 removal performance to be maintained with one pump out of service. The design also allows for the flexibility to achieve 99% SO2 removal with all recycle pumps in service and DBA addition for enhanced performance when desired. · The absorber is equipped with Alstom Power’s patented Performance Enhancement Plates (PEPs), also known as wall rings. These PEPs minimize ‘sneakage’ of untreated gas along the absorber wall, and at the same time re-entrain slurry that got lost to the absorber walls. · In addition, the PEPs are complemented by state-of-the-art dual orifice spray nozzles, which spray both vertically up and down in all but the upper spray elevation. This increases the retention time of droplets for increased mass transfer with the acidic gases compared to conventional down-spray only configurations, with favorable impact on the draft loss. Both of the above absorber components afford high efficiency operation with practically no extra energy input. 3.2 Absorber Performance Performance of the Marshall FGD System has met expectations. Unit 4 performance testing was conducted in January 2007. Due to the station’s dispatch requirements, the performance testing was staggered in January to operate at steady state for at least three solids residence times prior to testing. Two phases of testing were completed for Unit 4 – phase I at 2.4 lb SO2/MMBtu without DBA and phase II at 2.8 lb SO2/MMBtu with DBA. Table 2 summarizes the key performance parameter results from the Unit 4 performance testing. Table 2. Unit 4 Performance Testing Summary Design Test Result SO2 Removal without DBA 95.7%* 96.2% SO2 Removal with DBA 99% 99.4%** Particulate Emission 0.03 lb/MMBtu 0.006 lb/MMBtu Gypsum Quality 95 ± 2 % Purity 94.4% Purity, <10% moisture 9.1% Moisture *Corrected for actual gas flow lower than design and SO2 inlet condition of 2.2 lb/MMBtu during testing **Actual SO2 inlet condition was 2.65 lb/MMBtu Unit 3 performance testing was conducted in May 2007.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Community Impact Analysis of Ash Basin Closure Options at the Marshall Steam Station
    Community Impact Analysis of Ash Basin Closure Options at the Marshall Steam Station Community Impact Analysis of Ash Basin Closure Options at the Marshall Steam Station Prepared on behalf of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Prepared by Dr. Ann Michelle Morrison Exponent 1 Mill & Main Place, Suite 150 Maynard, MA 01754 November 15, 2018 Exponent, Inc. 1805955.000 - 1990 Contents Page List of Figures v List of Tables vi Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Limitations x Executive Summary xi 1 Qualifications 1 2 Assignment and Retention 3 3 Reliance Materials 4 4 Introduction 5 4.1 Site Setting 6 4.2 Closure of the Ash Impoundments at Marshall 11 5 Approach to Forming Conclusions 16 5.1 Net Environmental Benefit Analysis 18 5.2 Linking Stakeholder Concerns to NEBA 20 5.3 NEBA Risk Ratings 26 5.4 Risk Acceptability 27 6 Summary of Conclusions 29 7 Conclusion 1: All closure options for the MSS ash basin are protective of human health. 31 7.1 Private water supply wells pose no meaningful risk to the community around MSS. 31 7.2 CCR constituents from the Marshall ash basin pose no meaningful risk to human populations. 33 7.3 NEBA – Protection of Human Health from CCR Exposure 38 1805955.000 - 1990 iii 8 Conclusion 2: All closure options for the MSS ash basin are protective of ecological health. 39 8.1 No meaningful risks to ecological receptors from CCR exposure exist under current conditions or any closure option. 39 8.2 NEBA – Protection of Environmental Health from CCR Exposure 43 9 Conclusion 3: CIP and hybrid closure options limit the duration of community disturbance.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Use by US Power Plants, a Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative, by Kristen Averyt, Jeremy
    AR-1501 Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants El Ectricity’s thirst for a PrEcious rEsourcE A Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants ElEctricity’s thirst for a PrEcious ResourcE Kristen Averyt Jeremy Fisher Annette Huber-Lee Aurana Lewis Jordan Macknick Nadia Madden John Rogers Stacy Tellinghuisen EW3 scientific advisory committee Peter Frumhoff George Hornberger Robert Jackson Robin Newmark Jonathan Overpeck Brad Udall Michael Webber A Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative NOvembeR 2011 ii Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative Citation: Averyt, K., J. Fisher, A. Huber-Lee, A. Lewis, J. Macknick, N. Madden, J. Rogers, and S. Tellinghuisen. 2011. Freshwater use by U.S. power plants: Electricity’s thirst for a precious resource. A report of the energy and Water in a Warming World initiative. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. November. © 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. For more information about UCS, visit our website at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available on the UCS website (www.ucsusa.org/publications) or may be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. coveR photos Top: iStockphoto.com /AvTG; bottom, left to right: Longview News-Journal/Kevin Green, ecologypress.com, BrightSource energy, Flickr/Andy Shapiro Title page photo: Flickr/David Joyce freshwater use by u.s.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Duke Energy Sustainability Report
    2017 DUKE ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY REPORT 2017 | 2018 Recognitions Table of For the 12th consecutive year, Duke Energy Contents was named to the Dow Jones Sustainability Index for North America. Duke Energy was named to Fortune magazine’s 2018 About This Report ........... 3 “World’s Most Admired Companies” list, ranked 5th among A Message From Our CEO ..... 4 gas and electric utilities, up from 9th in 2017. Duke Energy At A Glance ...... 6 The 2017 Newsweek Green Rankings ranked Duke Energy No. 72 Our Value Creation Model ..... 8 (No. 7 in our industry, top 15 percent overall), up from 107 in 2016, Our Stakeholders and out of the 500 largest U.S. companies. What Matters Most ......... 10 Forbes magazine named Duke Energy to its “America’s Best Employers Our Sustainability Plan And Goals ................ 12 for Diversity” in its 2018 list. Management Approach to The Southeastern Electric Exchange recognized Duke Energy as the top Sustainability ............. 14 performing overall company and the top transmission and distribution Customers ............... 15 organization in terms of 2017 safety results. Growth .................. 23 Black Enterprise magazine named Duke Energy to its 2017 Operations ............... 32 “50 Best Companies for Diversity.” Environmental Metrics ...... 42 Duke Energy earned the Human Rights Campaign’s distinction as a Employees ............... 45 “Best Place to Work for LGBTQ Equality” with a perfect score of 100 percent in its Corporate Equality Index. The Edison Electric Institute presented Duke Energy with its 2017 overall Excellence Award for supplier diversity efforts. Site Selection magazine named Duke Energy to its “Top Utilities in Economic Development” list for the 13th consecutive year.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report for Mcguire
    Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage McGuire Nuclear Station This page intentionally left blank. McGuire Nuclear Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Introduction Introduction Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) submits this Environmental Report (ER) as part of Duke’s application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to renew the operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 of the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire). The Duke application is a combined application to renew the licenses for Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 for twenty years beyond the end of the current licenses. In compliance with applicable NRC requirements, this ER analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with renewal of the McGuire licenses. A separate ER is submitted as part of the application to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the renewal of the Catawba licenses. This ER is designed to assist the NRC Staff in preparing the McGuire-specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement required for license renewal. The McGuire ER complies with 10 CFR § 54.23, which requires license renewal applicants to submit a supplement to the Environmental Report which complies with requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. This Report also addresses the more detailed requirements of NRC environmental regulations in 10 CFR §§ 51.45 and 51.53, as well as the underlying intent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. For major federal actions, NEPA requires preparation of a detailed statement that addresses their significant environmental impacts, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the proposed action, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementation of the proposed action.
    [Show full text]
  • Thyroid Cancer & Structural Coal Ash Facility Iredell County Community
    Thyroid Cancer & Structural Coal Ash Facility Iredell County Community Questions and NC Multi-Agency Response Agency Response Key: ▪ Duke University = (Duke) ▪ Iredell County Health Department = (ICHD) ▪ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality = (DEQ) ▪ North Carolina Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch = (OEEB) ▪ North Carolina Representative John Fraley (Republican) John Fraley = (Rep. John Fraley) ▪ North Carolina Senator Vickie Sawyer = (Senator Vickie Sawyer) ▪ The Town of Mooresville = (Mooresville) ▪ UNC Chapel Hill - Department of Epidemiology – Gillings School of Public = (UNC) I. I. Cancer in General A. Can you speak to rumors of high overall cancer rates in the area and specifically within the population who have attended Lake Norman High School? 1. OEEB: Information on overall cancer rates, including age-adjusted cancer incidence rates, is publicly available at the county-level and can be compared to the state average rate here. 2. OEEB: This info at this website shows that for the most recent time period (2013-2017), the age-adjusted rate of new cases of all types of cancer combined was 474.5 cases per 100,000 people for Iredell County, compared to 468.4 cases per 100,000 people for North Carolina. Although the Iredell County rate is slightly higher, statistically the difference is minimal. Both rates are currently falling. 3. OEEB: Most of the focus in Iredell County has been on thyroid cancer. According to a 2019 NC DHHS report, the rate of new thyroid cancer diagnoses in Iredell County was higher than the rate in North Carolina as a whole during 2005–2016, especially in the southeastern and southwestern regions of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • February 13, 2018 VIA First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail Mr. Sergei
    February 13, 2018 VIA First Class U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail Mr. Sergei Chernikov NCDEQ/Division of Water Resources Water Quality Permitting Section - NPDES 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Draft NPDES Major Modification– Marshall Steam Station, #NC0004987 Dear Mr. Chernikov: On behalf of the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. (the “Foundation”), the Sierra Club, and the Waterkeeper Alliance (together the “conservation groups”), we are providing these comments on the draft major modification of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit noticed for public comment by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) Division of Water Resources for Duke Energy’s Marshall Steam Station (“Marshall”), located near Terrell, North Carolina. The conservation groups challenged the existing permit in the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in October 2016 (16 EHR 09913); the challenge is stayed pending expected resolution through this modification. DEQ’s proposed modifications address major flaws in the existing Marshall permit that are subject to the pending challenge in OAH, and these are changes we support. Our comments will address these needed changes. Although this is a positive step, DEQ also proposes to grant a new set of changes for Duke Energy that, unfortunately, introduce new errors. Among the most problematic: DEQ caves to Duke Energy’s unjustified request to extend its date to comply with federal effluent limitation guidelines (“ELGs”), which means Duke Energy will dump heavy metals in Lake Norman for longer; DEQ attempts to bypass ordinary modification procedures for future, hypothetical law changes; and DEQ eliminates a condition requiring “physical/chemical treatment” of wastewater during decommissioning of the ash pond, supposedly for faster dewatering, but does not specify how water quality will be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Allen Steam Station FILED Location:
    Kerin Appendix 1 ELECTRONICALLY Page 1 of 35 Docket No. 2018-319-E Allen Steam Station FILED Location: - • Gaston County, North Carolina 2018 Historic CCR Storage Areas: November • Retired Ash Basin • Active Ash Basin • RAB Ash Landfill 8 • DORS Areas 12:14 Closure Option Selected: PM • Cap-in-place - SCPSC - I. History of CCR Management Docket Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC’s (“DE Carolinas” or the “Company”) Allen Steam Station (“Allen Plant”) is situated along Lake Wylie in Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina. DE # Carolinas began commercial operations at the Allen Plant in 1957. The Allen Plant has two 2018-319-E onsite ash basins that were constructed to receive sluiced coal combustion residuals (“CCR”) from the coal-fired electric generation units at the plant. The first ash basin, known now as the Retired Ash Basin, was constructed in 1957 and was in operation until 1973. The second ash basin, known now as the Active Ash Basin, was constructed in 1972 and is still in operation today. - Page There are four areas designated as Distribution of Residual Solids (“DORS”), which are unlined dry ash stack overfills located above the west portion of the Retired Ash Basin that 1 of began receiving ash in 1995 through 2006. The DORS ash was dredged from the Active Ash 35 Basin in order to extend the useful life of the Active Ash Basin. The DORS have served as laydown areas and access roads, and have improved drainage in the areas nearby. In 2009, the Allen Plant replaced its fly ash sluicing operation with a flue gas desulfurization (“FGD”) facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Duke Energy CCR Management Program
    DUKE ENERGY MARSHALL STEAM STATION COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CLOSURE PLAN CLOSURE BY EXCAVATION CCR BASIN PreparedCLOSURE for PLAN REPORT Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 400 South Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 December 18, 2019 Prepared by 1600 Perimeter Park Dr. Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 AECOM December 18, 2019 Duke Energy – Marshall Steam Station CCR Surface Impoundment CBE Closure Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... vii 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Closure Plan Objectives ................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Report Organization ....................................................................................................... 1 2. GOVERNING LAWS ....................................................................................................... 2 3. FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND EXISTING SITE FEATURES ........................................ 2 3.1 Surface Impoundment Description .................................................................................. 2 3.1.1 Site History and Operations ................................................................................ 2 3.1.2 Estimated
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants Electricity’S Thirst for a Precious Resource
    Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants ElEctricity’s thirst for a PrEcious ResourcE A Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants ElEctricity’s thirst for a PrEcious ResourcE Kristen Averyt Jeremy Fisher Annette Huber-Lee Aurana Lewis Jordan Macknick Nadia Madden John Rogers Stacy Tellinghuisen EW3 scientific advisory committee Peter Frumhoff George Hornberger Robert Jackson Robin Newmark Jonathan Overpeck Brad Udall Michael Webber A Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative NOvembeR 2011 ii Energy and Water in a Warming World initiative Citation: Averyt, K., J. Fisher, A. Huber-Lee, A. Lewis, J. Macknick, N. Madden, J. Rogers, and S. Tellinghuisen. 2011. Freshwater use by U.S. power plants: Electricity’s thirst for a precious resource. A report of the energy and Water in a Warming World initiative. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists. November. © 2011 Union of Concerned Scientists All rights reserved The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. For more information about UCS, visit our website at www.ucsusa.org. This report is available on the UCS website (www.ucsusa.org/publications) or may be obtained from: UCS Publications 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105 Or, email [email protected] or call (617) 547-5552. coveR photos Top: iStockphoto.com /AvTG; bottom, left to right: Longview News-Journal/Kevin Green, ecologypress.com, BrightSource energy, Flickr/Andy Shapiro Title page photo: Flickr/David Joyce freshwater use by u.s.
    [Show full text]