The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Chapter 32
Environmental Considerations
Since the early 1960s, there has been an increas-
ing worldwide awareness that industrial growth and
energy production from fossil fuels are accompanied
by the release of potentially harmful pollutants into
the environment. Studies to characterize emissions,
sources and effects of various pollutants on human
health and the environment have led to increasingly
stringent legislation to control air emissions, waterway
discharges and solids disposal.
Comparable concern for environmental quality has
been manifest worldwide. Since the 1970s, countries
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development have reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from power plants in
relation to energy consumption. In at least the fore-
seeable future, emission trends are expected to con-
tinue downward due to a combination of factors: change
in fuel mix to less polluting fuels, use of advanced tech-
nologies, and new and more strict regulations. In Japan,
the reductions in SO2 emissions were particularly pro-
nounced due to strong environmental measures taken
in the 1970s. As an example, in the United States (U.S.)
between 1980 and 2001, electricity generation increased
by 56%, while SO2 emissions declined 38%.
Environmental control is primarily driven by gov-
ernment legislation and the resulting regulations at
the local, national and international levels. These have
evolved out of a public consensus that the real costs
of environmental protection are worth the tangible
and intangible benefits now and in the future. To
address this growing awareness, the design philoso-
phy of energy conversion systems such as steam gen-
erators has evolved from providing the lowest cost
energy to providing low cost energy with an accept-
able impact on the environment. Air pollution control
with emphasis on particulate, NOx, SO2, and mercury
emissions is perhaps the most significant environmen-
tal concern for fired systems and is the subject of Chap-
ters 33 through 36. However, minimizing aqueous dis-
charges and safely disposing of solid byproducts are
also key issues for modern power systems.
Sources of plant emissions
and discharges
Fig. 1 identifies most of the significant waste
streams from a modern coal-fired power plant. Typi-
cal discharge rates for the primary emissions from a
new, modern 615 MW coal-fired supercritical pressure
boiler are summarized in Table 1.
Atmospheric emissions arise primarily from the
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
byproducts of the combustion process (SO2, NOx, par-
ticulate flyash, and some trace quantities of other
materials) and are exhausted from the stack. A sec-
ond source of particulate is fugitive dust from coal piles
and related fuel handling equipment. This is especially
significant for highly dusting western U.S. subbitu-
minous coals. Some low temperature devolatilization
of the coal can also emit other organic compounds. A
final source of air emissions is the cooling tower and
the associated thermal rise plume which contains
water vapor.
Solid wastes arise primarily from collection of the
coal ash from the bottom of the boiler, economizer and
air heater hoppers, as well as from the electrostatic pre-
cipitators and fabric filters. Pyrite collected in the pul-
verizers (see Chapter 13) is usually also included. Most
of the ash is either transported wet to an ash settling
pond where it settles out or is transported dry to silos
from which it is taken by truck for beneficial use (e.g.,
cement additive). The chemical composition and char-
acteristics of various ashes are discussed in Chapter 21.
The second major source of solids is the byproduct from
the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) scrubbing process.
Most frequently, this is a mixture containing primarily
calcium sulfate for wet systems and calcium sulfite for
dry systems. After dewatering, the wet system byproduct
may be sold as gypsum or landfilled. Additional sources
of solids include the sludge from cooling tower basins,
wastes from the water treatment system and wastes from
periodic boiler chemical cleaning.
Aqueous discharges arise from a number of sources.
These include once-through cooling water (if used),
cooling tower blowdown (if used), sluice water from the
ash handling system (via the settling pond), FGD waste
water (frequently minimal), coal pile runoff from rain-
fall, boiler chemical cleaning solutions, gas-side water
washing waste solutions, as well as a variety of low vol-
ume wastes including ion exchange regeneration ef-
fluent, evaporator blowdown (if used), boiler blowdown
and power plant floor drains. Many of these streams
are chemically characterized in Chapter 42. Additional
discussions of these systems as well as the controlling
regulations are provided in References 1 and 2.
Air pollution control
U.S. legislation – Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) is the core driv-
ing force for all air pollution control legislation in the
United States (U.S.). The original CAA was first en-
32-1
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Heat- Fugitive Dust
Thermal Rise
Plume
Coal Pile
Coal Pile
Water Runoff
Boiler
Turbine
SCR
Condenser
Cooling Air
Tower Hopper Heater
Ash
Cooling
Tower Bottom
Blowdown Ash
Noise
Sludge / Landfill Blowdown
Water Note: SCR-Selective Catalytic
Chemical Cleaning
Waste Liquid
Gas Side Washing
Waste Water WESP-Wet Electrostatic Precipitator
Fig. 1 Typical bituminous coal-fired power plant effluents and emissions.
acted in 1963, and since that time the Act has evolved
through five significant amendment cycles in 1965,
1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990.
The primary objective of the CAA is to protect and
enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources to
promote the public health and welfare and the pro-
ductive capacity of its population.3 The legislation gen-
erally provides for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to set national air quality standards and
other minimum regulatory requirements through fed-
eral regulations and guidance to state and local regu-
latory agencies. The individual states are required to
develop state implementation plans (SIPs) to define how
they will meet the minimum federal requirements. How-
ever, state and local government agencies may also de-
velop and implement more stringent air pollution con-
trol requirements. The CAA as amended prior to 1990
included the following regulatory elements of potential
interest to boiler owners and operators.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Fed-
eral standards were developed to define acceptable air
quality levels necessary to protect public health and
welfare. The EPA promulgated National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six Criteria Pollutants: sulfur
dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monox-
ide (CO), ozone (O3), particulate matter and lead. Two
levels of standards have been established: primary
standards aimed at prevention of adverse impacts on
human health and secondary standards to prevent
damage to property and the environment. All geo-
graphic areas of the country are divided into a num-
ber of identifiable areas known as air quality control
regions which are classified according to their air qual-
ity. Air quality control regions that meet or better the
NAAQS for a designated pollutant are classified as
32-2
Flue Gas
SO2
NOX
Particulate
VOC
CO
CO2
Other
WESP
Fabric Filter
or
Precipitator FGD
Stack
FGD Waste
Saleable Treatment FGD
Ash and Waste
Dewatering Water
Reduction System
FGD-Flue Gas FGD Byproduct
Desulfurization System Gypsum or
Landfill Sludge
attainment areas for that pollutant, and regions that fail
to meet the NAAQS are classified as nonattainment ar-
eas for that pollutant.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Federal
New Source Performance Standards were established
for more than 70 categories of industrial processes and/
or stationary sources. The NSPS rules set source-spe-
cific emission limitations and corresponding monitor-
ing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements that
must be met by new sources constructed on or after
the effective date of an applicable standard. Sources
constructed prior to the promulgation of an applicable
NSPS are generally grandfathered and are not sub-
ject to the standards until such time that the source
undergoes major modification or reconstruction. The
EPA’s NSPS regulations are published under Title 40,
Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations.4 Table 2
provides reference to select Subparts of 40 CFR 60
applicable to a variety of industrial and utility boil-
ers. The various NSPS rules governing fossil fuel-fired
boilers include emission limitations for NOx, SO2, par-
ticulate and opacity. The NSPS emission limits are
based on the EPA’s evaluation of best demonstrated
technology, and these limits are subject to periodic
review and revision. Finally, the NSPS rules gener-
ally establish the least stringent emission limitation a
new source would have to meet. Typically, more strin-
gent emission limitations are necessary to meet other
federal, state or local permitting requirements. For
example, any significant new source or major modifi-
cation to an existing source of emissions may be subject
to the federal New Source Review rules discussed below.
New Source Review (NSR) New Source Review regu-
lations were established to: 1) preserve existing air
quality in areas of the U.S. that are in compliance with
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Table 1
Modern 615 MW Supercritical Coal-Fired Steam Generator Emissions and Byproducts*
(2.3% Sulfur, 7.7% Ash, 13,100 Btu/lb Fuel)
Discharge Rate  t/h (tm /h)
Emission Typical Control Equipment** Uncontrolled Controlled
SO2 WFGD 9.1 (8.3) 0.27 (0.25)
SO3 ESP or BH in conjunction
with WFGD and WESP 0.2 (0.2) 0.03 (0.03)
NOx as NO2 SCR (with LNB) 0.8 (0.7) 0.08 (0.07)
CO2 None (except cycle efficiency improvement) 536 (487)  
Thermal discharge to water sources Natural draft cooling tower 2.6 x 109 Btu/h (750 MWt ) ∼0 (∼0)
Flyash to air*** ESP or BH in conjunction
with WFGD and WESP 13.0 (11.8) 0.03 (0.02)
Ash to landfill Landfill or saleable product 2.6 (2.3) 16 (14)
WFGD gypsum byproduct Landfill or saleable product 0.0 (0.00) 24 (22)

* See Table 1 in Chapter 1 for a typical 500 MW subcritical coal-fired steam generator.
** Definitions:
WFGD − Wet flue gas desulfurization (limestone reagent with forced oxidation)
ESP − Electrostatic precipitator
BH − Baghouse fabric filter
WESP − Wet electrostatic precipitator
SCR − Selective catalytic reduction
LNB − Low NOx burners with overfire air
*** As flyash emissions to the air decline, ash shipped to landfills or alternate uses increases.

the NAAQS, and 2) avoid further degradation and im-
prove air quality in those areas of the U.S. that do not
meet the NAAQS. NSR as discussed herein refers to
two separate and distinct regulatory programs: Pre-
vention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
nonattainment NSR. In general, the NSR process re-
quires any major new source or major modification to
an existing source, which exceeds certain specified
emission thresholds defined in the regulations,5 to
obtain permits and undertake other obligations prior
to construction. A new or modified source subject to
NSR generally must: 1) evaluate its potential impact
on existing air quality, and 2) evaluate and utilize
state-of-the-art air pollution control technologies.
Under NSR, an affected project must conduct a pol-
lutant-by-pollutant emissions evaluation. If a source
is located in (or is impacting) an area which is in at-
tainment with the NAAQS, the PSD rules apply. If the
source is located in (or is impacting) a nonattainment
area, the nonattainment NSR rules apply. Because a
source may be located in an attainment area for one or
more designated pollutants and in a nonattainment area
for other designated pollutants, both the PSD and
nonattainment NSR rules can apply simultaneously.
The PSD permitting process typically requires an
air quality modeling analysis (which may require more
than a year’s worth of ambient air monitoring data)
to demonstrate that new emissions will not cause a
violation of the NAAQS or result in a significant de-
terioration of the existing air quality. Numerical lim-
its (air quality increments) have been established by
regulation for NOx, SO2 and fine particulate matter
that restrict how much of the existing ambient air
quality (µg/m3) can be consumed by a new or modi-
fied emission source. All areas in the U.S. that meet
the NAAQS are ranked into one of three classifica-
tions which determine the allowable increment con-
sumption. Class I areas (national parks and designated
wilderness areas) are to be kept in a pristine condi-
tion, whereas Class II or III areas allow for some fur-
ther industrial growth. As might be expected, Class I
areas allow almost no degradation of existing air qual-
ity. In addition to air quality impact analyses, the PSD
process requires the use of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT). A permit applicant must conduct
a thorough evaluation of available control technolo-
gies (considering energy, environmental and economic
impacts) for each pollutant subject to PSD review. The
permitting authority then evaluates, accepts or rejects
the proposed control technology. Once the control tech-
nology is agreed upon, the applicant and permitting
authority determine a final permit limit that represents
BACT. As part of this process, BACT limits contained in
other PSD permits issued to similar sources throughout
the U.S. must be considered and final BACT limits can
not be less stringent than any applicable NSPS limit.
Unlike the PSD permitting process, nonattainment
NSR does not require ambient air modeling or moni-
toring; however, a new or modified source subject to
nonattainment NSR must offset the impact of new
emissions by securing emission reductions from other
sources in the area. The amount of reduction (offset)
must be as great as, or greater than, the new increase
in emissions, and the required offset is based on the
severity of the area’s air quality issues. The more pol-
luted the air, the greater the required emissions off-
set. Offsets must be real reductions in existing emis-
sion rates, not otherwise required by regulations un-
der the Clean Air Act, must be enforceable by the EPA,
and must result in a positive net air quality benefit.

Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations 32-3

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Table 2
Selected Categories − New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR Part 60)4
40 CFR Part 60
Subpart Title/Description
D Performance Standards for Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators (≥250 x 106 Btu/h) constructed after
08/17/71 (Note: generally superceded by Subparts Da or Db)
Da Performance Standards for Electric Utility Steam Generating Units constructed after 09/18/78
Db Performance Standards for Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam Generating Units
(≥100 x 106 Btu/h) constructed after 06/19/84
Dc Performance Standards for Small (<100 x 106 Btu/h) Industrial, Commercial, Institutional Steam
Generating Units constructed after 06/09/89
Cb Emission Guidelines for Large Municipal Waste Combustors constructed on or before 09/26/94
Ea Performance Standards for Municipal Waste Combustors constructed after 12/20/89 and on or before
09/20/94
Eb Performance Standards for Large Municipal Waste Combustors constructed after 09/20/94 or modified
after 06/19/96
Y Performance Standards for Coal Preparation Plants
BB Performance Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills (Note: includes kraft recovery boilers)
AAAA Performance Standards for Small Municipal Waste Combustors constructed after 08/30/99 or modified
after 06/06/01
BBBB Emission Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste Combusion Units constructed on or before 08/30/99

In general, offsets must be secured for the life of the
source. In addition to achieving a net improvement
in air quality through offsets, an affected source must
utilize state-of-the-art controls to achieve the Lowest
Achievable Emission Rate (LAER). LAER is based on the
most stringent emission limitation contained in any SIP,
contained in an existing permit, or achieved in practice
by a similar source, regardless of cost or other economic
consideration. Final LAER emission limits are estab-
lished as an integral part of the NSR permitting process.
For further details and current information regard-
ing the NSR rules, including NSR reforms that may
impact the utility industry, see the following EPA Web
page: www.epa.gov/nsr/
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments added many
new provisions to the existing Act, several of which
have significantly impacted the electric utility indus-
try. Under Title I of the Act, areas of the country that
do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS) were given new classifications and
deadlines to achieve compliance. This provision of the
Act has forced a dramatic reduction in NOx emissions
from utility and large industrial boilers located in the
eastern U.S. because large portions of the northeast
are ozone nonattainment areas and NOx is a primary
precursor to the formation of ozone. Title III of the Act
authorized a new regulatory scenario for controlling
188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from a wide
range of industrial and commercial sources. Title IV
of the Act established a new Acid Deposition Control
program principally aimed at reducing SO2 and NOx
emissions from older electric utility plants.
SO2 and NOx control under the 1990 Clean Air Act Prior
to the 1990 CAA, a large population of existing elec-
tric utility boilers, generally built before 1971, were
grandfathered and did not have to meet NSPS emis-
sion limits or comply with NSR requirements unless
they were significantly modified or upgraded. Coal-
fired utility boilers built between 1971 and 1978 were
required (by promulgation of New Source Perfor-
mance Standards) to limit SO2 emissions to 1.2 lb/106
Btu heat input and compliance could be achieved by
utilizing low-sulfur coals. However, coal-fired utility
boilers built after 1978 were further required (by pro-
mulgation of additional New Source Performance
Standards) to install scrubbers to achieve between 70
and 90% SO2 removal efficiency.
Under the 1990 Amendments, Title IV of the Act
(Acid Deposition Control) established a new SO2 con-
trol program aimed at reducing emissions from all
existing electric utility boilers through an innovative
cap-and-trade program. The Acid Deposition Control
program (commonly referred to as the Acid Rain pro-
gram) set a goal of reducing annual SO2 emissions by
10 million tons in a two-phased process. Phase I of the
SO2 program began in 1995 and initially affected 263
units at 110 mostly coal-burning electric utility plants
located in 21 eastern and mid-western states. Phase
II, which began in 2000, tightened the annual emissions
limits imposed on the Phase I units and set limitations
on smaller, cleaner plants fired by coal, oil, and natural
gas, ultimately impacting more than 2,000 total units.
Under the SO2 cap-and-trade program, an affected
unit must hold (own) one SO2 Allowance to cover each
ton of SO2 emitted in a given year. Existing units were
initially given a pre-determined allocation of yearly

32-4 Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
allowances based on historical fuel consumption rates
(heat input) and a mandated SO2 emission rate (lb per
million Btu heat input). A source owner has various
options available to demonstrate compliance includ-
ing: 1) reducing emissions through fuel switching, 2)
adding more control equipment or improving the per-
formance of existing control equipment, or 3) acquir-
ing (purchasing) SO2 allowances from other units. The
bottom line compliance measure is straight forward;
total SO2 emissions from a unit in any given year must
be covered by an equivalent number of SO2 allow-
ances. Once an allowance is used it is retired and any
unused allowances may be sold or held (banked) with
certain restrictions for future use. The total number
of yearly SO2 allowances allocated nationwide under
Phase II of the program is fixed at 8.95 million tons
and new power plants do not receive allowances. This
effectively caps yearly SO2 emissions from utility boil-
ers at 8.95 million tons and ensures that the mandated
reductions are maintained over time.
The Acid Rain program also mandated NOx emis-
sion reductions from all existing utility boilers through
a more traditional command-and-control approach
where different types of boilers or combustion equip-
ment were required to meet specified performance lev-
els (i.e., a NOx limit in pounds per million Btu of heat
input). The NOx command-and-control requirements
were also implemented in a two-phased process with
a goal of reducing utility boiler NOx emissions by 2
million tons from 1980 levels.
The EPA’s rules governing the Acid Rain program
are published in the Code of Federal Regulations,
under Title 40, Part(s) 72 through 78.
Further to the NOx reductions mandated under the
Acid Rain program, the EPA also implemented addi-
tional control measures (as authorized under Title I
of the Act) to reduce interstate transport of NOx emis-
sions that contribute to ozone nonattainment problems
in the eastern part of the U.S. These additional NOx
control measures (referred to herein as the NOx Bud-
get programs) are structured similarly to the SO2 cap-
and-trade program discussed above. However, unlike
the SO2 program which applies to all utility boilers year
round, the NOx Budget programs only apply to speci-
fied sources in the eastern part of the U.S. during the
five month ozone season extending from May through
September. As of this writing, the EPA has imple-
mented the broadest of these NOx Budget programs
through a SIP Call (request for State Implementation
Plans) mandating further NOx reductions from elec-
tric utility boilers and other large industrial sources
located in 21 eastern states and the District of Colum-
bia (see Fig. 2).
For further details and current information regard-
ing the SO2 and NOx trading programs see the follow-
ing EPA Web page: www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
Control of air toxics under the 1990 Clean Air Act The
1990 CAA Amendments significantly changed the pre-
existing regulatory structure for addressing air toxics.
Prior to the 1990 amendments, the Act required the
EPA to identify and regulate, on a pollutant-by-pol-
lutant basis, each non-criteria air pollutant that in its
judgment caused significant health risks. This regu-
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
latory approach was largely ineffective as the EPA
became involved in many legal, scientific, and policy
debates over which pollutants to regulate and how
stringently to regulate them. As a result, only seven
pollutants had been regulated by 1990.
The 1990 CAA redirected the EPA to impose tighter
controls for a broad range of air toxics through a two-
phase approach. The first phase requires the EPA to
develop technology-based standards for categories of
sources that have the potential to emit significant
quantities of 188 (originally 189) HAPs which were
specifically identified in the Act. The second phase
requires the EPA to impose further controls, beyond
the initial technology-based standards, as necessary
to address any remaining health risk concerns. Un-
der the first phase, the EPA must develop Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards for
different classes or categories of sources that could be
considered major emitters of HAP as well as other
smaller area HAP sources. A major HAP source is de-
fined as any type of stationary source with the poten-
tial to emit 10 tons per year of a single HAP or 25 tons
per year of a combination of HAPs. An area source is
defined to include smaller source categories (such as
dry cleaners, gas stations, etc.) that are not by them-
selves a major source, but may collectively emit HAPs
in sufficient quantities to warrant regulation. The
applicable MACT standard for a given type or category
of source must reflect emission performance levels that
are already being achieved in practice by the better
controlled, lower emitting units within a common
source category. As of this writing, the EPA has pro-
posed or promulgated MACT standards for more than
80 different source categories including but not lim-
ited to industrial, commercial and institutional boil-
ers and process heaters; combustion sources at kraft,
soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills; and fossil fuel-
fired electric utility boilers. The EPA’s final MACT rules
Fig. 2 Area covered by NOx SIP Call is shown in gray.
32-5
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
for various categories of sources are published in the
Code of Federal Regulations, under Title 40, Part 63.
The 1990 CAA specifically directed the EPA to study
hazardous air emissions, including mercury, from elec-
tric utility plants and to regulate such emissions as
necessary to protect public health. In December 2000,
the EPA issued a formal determination that regula-
tion of HAP emissions, principally mercury from coal-
fired electric utility boilers and nickel from oil-fired
utility boilers, was appropriate and necessary. As dis-
cussed later in this chapter in the mercury emissions
and control technologies section, several regulatory
options are being proposed to address mercury con-
trol as of the date of this publication.
For further details and current information regard-
ing the HAP regulations, including source-specific
MACT standards and proposed alternatives for regu-
lating mercury from electric utility boilers, see the fol-
lowing EPA Web page(s): www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/
index.html and www.epa.gov/mercury/
Pending legislation/regulation As of the date of this
publication, a number of U.S. Federal and State leg-
islative and regulatory initiatives are underway to
further reduce air emissions from fossil fuel-fired
power plants. The most significant of the near-term
initiatives are addressed in an inter-related suite of
proposed rules collectively known as the Clean Air
Rules. This suite of rules includes the proposed mer-
cury cap-and-trade program discussed later; proposed
rules to achieve further reductions in emissions of SO2
and NOx from power plants; and additional measures
to address ozone and fine particle pollution through-
out the U.S. While the final form of these regulatory
initiatives can not be determined at the time of this
writing, the direction of future regulatory actions will
no doubt focus on achieving further improvements in
air quality in the most effective way possible. For fur-
ther details and current information regarding these
initiatives and others, see the following EPA Web
page: www.epa.gov.
International regulations – air pollution control
The passage of the Clean Air Act in the U.S. in 1963,
marked the first enactment of air pollution control
legislation by a major industrial nation. Since that
time, air pollution control regulations have become
more widespread in industrial and developing nations,
particularly in Japan, Canada, and the European
Union.6,7 Many of the rapidly developing nations such
as Korea, Taiwan, China, and the countries of former
Eastern Europe are also aggressively controlling power
plant emissions as their rapidly growing economies
strain local ecosystems. As in the U.S., steam gener-
ating plants have been one focus of these regulatory
measures, and the most common emissions of concern
from combustion processes are SO2, NOx, particulates,
and air toxics. The detailed regulations continue to
evolve rapidly and are quite country specific. However,
two trends are widespread:
1. Allowable emission limits for controlled pollutants
will continue to decline with time.
2. A wider array of species will be considered for control.
32-6
Without attempting to be comprehensive, the fol-
lowing items provide a brief overview of worldwide
SO2 and NOx regulatory efforts. These items provide
a general indication of the range and application of
control measures.
Control approaches One or more of the following mea-
sures have typically been adopted to control emissions:
1. Emission standards These limit the mass of SO2,
NOx, or other pollutant emitted by volume, by heat
input, by electric energy output, or by unit of time
(hourly, daily, annually).
2. Percent removal requirements These specify the
portion of the uncontrolled emissions that must be
removed from the flue gas.
3. Fuel requirements Primarily aimed at SO2 control,
these either limit the type of fuel that can be
burned or the fuel sulfur content.
4. Technology requirements These typically indicate
the type of control technology specifically required
or indicate the use of the best available control tech-
nology or reasonably available control technology at
the time of installation. These requirements depend
in many cases on some level of economic feasibility.
The most widely used control approach is emission
standards, although this is usually combined with one
or more of the other approaches. Emissions from new
plants are usually more tightly controlled than emis-
sions from existing capacity. Occasionally, older plants
are not controlled, although this is changing, espe-
cially with the application of national cap-and-trade
policies in the U.S. There have also been significant
discussions on the applicability of international cap-
and-trade programs that will link two or more national
cap-and-trade programs together. The international
cap-and-trade programs are proposed in the European
Union (EU) Directive.
Emission control legislation and regulations
throughout the world are currently in a state of flux
as a variety of new and increasingly stringent regu-
lations are phased in. Reference 6 provides a compre-
hensive and detailed summary of regulatory measures
and current trends as of the end of 2003. The result-
ing compilation is quite complex as countries and ar-
eas consider the most effective alternatives. Reference
7 provides more detail for NOx control.
Emissions standards worldwide are stated in a va-
riety of units. See Appendix 1, Conversion Formulae
for Emission Units.
Kinds of pollutants, sources and impacts
Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere
which, because of their quantity or characteristics,
have deleterious effects on human health and/or the
environment. The sources of these pollutants are clas-
sified as stationary, mobile or fugitive. Stationary
sources generally include large individual point
sources of emissions such as electric utility power
plants and industrial furnaces where emissions are
discharged through a stack. Mobile sources are those
associated with transportation activities. Fugitive
emissions generally include discharges to the atmo-
sphere from conveyors, pumps, valves, seals and other
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

process points not vented through a stack. They also sions, approximately 90% comes from coal-fired boil-
include emissions from area sources such as coal piles, ers. The most deleterious effects come from NO2 which
landfills, ponds and lagoons. They most often consist forms from the reaction of NO and oxygen. NO2 also
of particulates and occur in industry-related activities absorbs the full visible spectrum and can reduce vis-
in which the emissions are not collected. ibility. NOx has been associated with respiratory dis-
The focus of this chapter is stationary emission orders, corrosion and degradation of materials, and
sources, particularly fired utility and industrial boiler damage to vegetation. NOx has also been identified as
systems. Key pollutants from these sources are SO2, a precursor to ozone and smog formation.
SO3, NOx, CO and particulate matter. Another class Carbon monoxide This colorless, odorless gas is
of emissions is called air toxics. These are potentially formed from incomplete combustion of carbonaceous
hazardous pollutants that generally occur in only fuels. CO emissions from properly designed and oper-
trace quantities in the effluents from fired processes. ated utility boilers are a relatively small percentage
However, they are undergoing more intense exami- of total U.S. combustion source CO emissions, most of
nation because of their potential health effects. which come from the internal combustion engine in
Sulfur dioxide Most of the sulfur in fuel converts to the transportation sector. The primary environmen-
SO2 with small quantities of sulfur trioxide (SO3). The tal significance of CO is its effect on human and ani-
main source of sulfur oxides is from the combustion mal health. It is absorbed by the lungs and reduces
of coal, with lesser amounts from other fuels such as the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. Depend-
residual fuel oil. Based upon the August 2003 revi- ing on the concentration and exposure time, it can
sion of the U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory cause impaired motor skills and physiological stress.
(NEI) program, the utility and industrial sectors Particulate matter Solid and liquid matter of organic
(smelters, iron and steel mills, refineries) remain the or inorganic composition which is suspended in flue
largest emitters of sulfur oxides (see Table 3).8 Sulfur gas or the atmosphere is generally referred to as par-
oxides have been related to irritation of the human ticulate. Particle sizes from combustion sources are in
respiratory system, reduced visibility, materials corro- the 1 to 100 µm range, although particles smaller than
sion and varying effects on vegetation. The reaction 1 µm can occur through condensation processes.
of sulfur oxides with moisture in the atmosphere has Among the effects of particulate emissions are im-
been identified as contributing to acid rain. paired visibility, soiling of surrounding areas, aggra-
Sulfur trioxide Some of the sulfur dioxide that forms vation of adverse effects of SO2, and human respira-
converts to sulfur trioxide (SO3). The typical conver- tory problems.
sion rate is 1% or less in the boiler. However, the cata- PM10 and PM2.5 Subsets of particulate matter, PM10
lytic process that is frequently used to control NOx lev- is particulate matter 10 µm and finer and PM2.5 is par-
els has the undesirable side effect of converting addi- ticulate matter 2.5 µm and finer. Fine particles are
tional SO2 to SO3, which can range from 0.5 to 2% emitted from industrial and residential oil combustion
additional conversion. The SO3 readily combines with and from vehicle exhaust. Fine particles are also
water to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) at flue gas tem- formed in the atmosphere when gases such as SO2,
peratures less than 500F (260C). This acid can create NOx and VOCs, emitted by combustion processes, are
extremely corrosive conditions. The sulfuric acid con- transformed into fine particulate by chemical reactions
denses to form a fine mist when the flue gas passes in the air (i.e., sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and photo-
through a wet flue gas desulfurization system that is chemical smog). PM2.5 is considered to have more del-
used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2). This sulfuric acid eterious health affects than coarser particulate.
mist contributes to the total stack particulate loading. VOC Volatile organic compounds represent a wide
Such mist is extremely fine, less than 0.5 micron, and range of organic substances. These compounds con-
very small amounts of this mist (5 ppm or less) can cause
visible, bluish stack plumes, even in the absence of solid
particulate. Table 3
Nitrogen oxides (NOx ) This category includes numer- 2002 U.S. Emissions
ous species comprised of nitrogen and oxygen, al- U.S. EPA National Emission Inventory8
though nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
are the most significant in terms of quantity released Emissions (103 short tons)
Category SO2 NOx VOC TSP
to the atmosphere. NO is the primary nitrogen com-
pound formed in high temperature combustion pro- Utility combustion 10,293 4,699 52 695
cesses where nitrogen present in the fuel and/or com- Industrial combustion 2,299 2,870 170 269
bustion air combines with oxygen. The quantity of Other combustion 575 725 790 405
NOx formed during combustion depends on the quan- Industrial process 1,399 1,000 7,418 1,127
tity of nitrogen and oxygen available, the tempera- Transportation 696 11,452 7,231 515
ture, the intensity of mixing and the time for reaction. Other 91 356 883 19,142
Control of these parameters has formed the basis for Total 15,353 21,102 16,544 22,153
a number of control strategies involving combustion
Notes: SO2  Sulfur dioxide
process control and burner design. Based on the most NOx  Nitrogen oxides as NO2
recent EPA emissions inventory, utilities account for VOC  Volatile organic compounds
22% of NOx emitted in the U.S., with the transporta- TSP  Total solid particulate (PM-10)
tion sector emitting 56%. Of the total utility NOx emis-

Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations 32-7

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
sist of molecules containing carbon and hydrogen, and
include aromatics, olefins and paraffins. A major
source is the refining and use of petroleum products.
Also included among VOCs are compounds derived
from primary hydrocarbons including aldehydes, ke-
tones and halogenated hydrocarbons. The major
source of these compounds is the transportation and
the commercial/residential combustion sectors. VOCs
are environmentally significant because of their role
in the formation of photochemical smog through pho-
tochemical reactions with NOx. Control of VOCs has
been a primary means of addressing areas of ozone
nonattainment. Smog arising from VOC emissions can
cause respiratory problems, eye irritation, damage to
vegetation and reduced visibility.
Toxic air pollutants This is a large category of air
pollutants that could have hazardous effects.9 The
EPA had only promulgated standards for arsenic, as-
bestos, benzene, beryllium, mercury, radionuclides
and vinyl chlorides for certain defined industries be-
fore the passage of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean
Air Act. The 1990 Act first identified 189 toxic pollut-
ants for which emissions are to be regulated. The list
includes a wide range of simple and complex indus-
trial organic chemicals and a small number of
inorganics, particularly heavy metals. The EPA has
identified hundreds of categories of air toxics sources,
among which are municipal solid waste combustors, in-
dustrial boilers, and electric utility boilers. For these com-
bustion sources, mercury has been the primary focus.
Mercury Present in only trace amounts in coal,
mercury is released during the combustion process as
elemental mercury, and is predominantly in the va-
por phase at the exit of the furnace. Emissions from
utility plants are extremely low. While other pollut-
ants are recorded in pounds per million Btu (mg/Nm3),
mercury emissions are typically six orders of magni-
tude less and are frequently expressed in units of
pounds per trillion Btu or µg/Nm. Fig. 3 indicates that
the utility emissions account for approximately one-
third of the U.S. manmade emissions of mercury or
48 tons/year (43.5tm/year). (See Reference 10.)
Mercury in some chemical forms is very toxic. From
whatever source, mercury can find its way into water
sources where it can be converted into water soluble
species such as methyl-mercury by microorganisms and
accumulate in the fatty tissues of fish. Consumption of
contaminated fish is the main identified risk to humans.
Carbon dioxide During the 1980s, concern in-
creased about the potential impact of carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions from manmade sources. CO2 is one of
several so-called greenhouse gases which may impact
the climate and contribute to global warming. CO2 is
emitted from a variety of naturally occurring and
manmade sources including the combustion of all fossil
and hydrocarbon based fuels.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. totaled 1906
million metric tons in 2000, of which 83% or 1583
million metric tons was CO2. CO2 from the electric
power sector totaled 642 million metric tons or 33.6%
of total greenhouse gas emissions.11
Improving the power cycle efficiency (more power
from less fuel) and the use of fuels with less carbon
32-8
content are potential methods to address CO2 emis-
sions from any combustion source. Another option is
separation and capture followed by sequestration.
However, technology similar to SO2 scrubbers or par-
ticulate collectors does not exist for carbon dioxide.
Although CO2 separation technologies exist, they are
at present not economically viable for the large vol-
umes of flue gas produced by electric power genera-
tion. Geologic, terrestrial, or ocean sequestration have
their own technical and political challenges. Geologic
sequestration holds considerable potential, as the stor-
age capacity is estimated to be centuries of emissions, and
this route may be the most environmentally acceptable.
Air pollution control technologies
The strategies for control of all emissions from a util-
ity or industrial boiler are formulated by considering
design fuels, kind and extent of emission reduction man-
dated, and economic factors such as boiler design, loca-
tion, new or existing equipment, age and remaining life.
SO2 control strategies and technologies SO2 emissions
from coal-fired boilers can be reduced using pre-com-
bustion techniques, combustion modifications and
post-combustion methods.
Pre-combustion These techniques include the use of
natural gas or low sulfur oil in new units or the use of
cleaned (beneficiated) coal or fuel switching in exist-
ing units. By using natural gas, sulfur emissions can
be reduced to almost zero while the use of low sulfur
oil will minimize SO2 emissions. While the low sulfur
content of oil and gas is advantageous, the price vola-
tility and availability of these fuels make them less at-
tractive. Switching to oil and gas in existing boilers
requires attention be given to receiving equipment,
storage facilities, combustion equipment including
safety systems and boiler design. In the case of new
systems, oil or gas firing can significantly reduce steam
system capital costs. Even switching from one coal to
another lower sulfur coal can have a dramatic impact
on fuel handling, combustion and particulate collec-
tion equipment. These effects are explored in more
detail in Chapters 21 and 44.
Hazardous Waste
Other
Combustors
Utility Plants
Chlor-Alkali
Plants
Medical
Waste
Incinerators
Commercial
and Municipal Waste
Industrial Boilers Combustors
Fig. 3 Anthropogenic (manmade) emissions of mercury in the U.S.
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Combustion modifications These techniques are pri-
marily used to reduce NOx emissions but can also be
used to control SO2 emissions in fluidized-bed combus-
tion where limestone is used as the bed material. The
limestone can absorb up to 90% of the sulfur released
during the combustion process. (See Chapter 17.)
Sorbent injection technologies Sorbent injection, while
not involving modification of the combustion process,
is applied in temperature regions ranging from those
just outside the combustion zone in the upper furnace
to those at the economizer and flue work following the
air heater. Sorbent injection involves adding an alkali
compound to the coal combustion gases for reaction
with the SO2. Typical calcium sorbents include lime-
stone [calcium carbonate (CaCO3)], lime (CaO), hy-
drated lime [Ca(OH)2] and modifications of these com-
pounds with special additives. Sodium or magnesium
based compounds are also used.
Wet and dry scrubbing technology Worldwide, wet and
dry scrubbing or flue gas desulfurization (FGD) sys-
tems are the most commonly used technologies in the
coal-fired electric utility industry. 2003 data indicate
that in the U.S. more than 30% of the coal-fired util-
ity capacity have SO2 emission control. In contrast,
more than 90% of coal-fired utility boilers in Germany
and Japan have SO2 control. Both wet and dry scrub-
bing use slurries of sorbent and water to react with
SO2 in flue gas, producing wet and dry waste products.
(See Chapter 35.)
In the wet scrubbing process, a sorbent slurry con-
sisting of water mixed with limestone, lime, magne-
sium promoted lime or sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) is
contacted with flue gas in a reactor vessel. Wet scrub-
bing is a highly efficient (> 97% removal at calcium/
sulfur molar ratios close to 1.0), well established tech-
nology which can produce usable byproducts.
Dry scrubbing involves spraying an aqueous sor-
bent slurry into a reactor vessel so that the slurry
droplets dry as they contact the hot flue gas [~300F
(~149C)]. The SO2 reaction occurs during the drying
process and results in a dry particulate containing
reaction products and unreacted sorbent entrained in
the flue gas along with flyash. These materials are
captured downstream in the particulate control equip-
ment. Dry scrubbing is a well established technology
with considerable operational flexibility. The waste
residue is dry.
NOx control technologies NOx emissions from fossil
fuel-fired industrial and utility boilers arise from the
nitrogen compounds in the fuel and molecular nitro-
gen in the air supplied for combustion. Conversion of
molecular and fuel nitrogen into NOx is promoted by
high temperatures and high volumetric heat release
rates found in boilers. The main strategies for reduc-
ing NOx emissions take two forms: 1) modification of
the combustion process to control fuel and air mixing,
and reduce flame temperatures, and 2) post-combus-
tion treatment of the flue gas to remove NOx. (See
Chapters 11, 14, 16, and 34.)
Combustion modification This approach to NOx reduc-
tion can include the use of low NOx burners, combus-
tion staging, gas recirculation or reburn technology.
Low NOx burners slow and control the rate of fuel and
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
air mixing, thereby reducing oxygen availability in the
ignition and main combustion zones. Low NOx burners
can reduce NOx emissions by 50% or more, depending
upon the initial conditions, are relatively low cost, and
are applicable to new plants as well as retrofits.
Staged combustion uses low excess air levels in the
primary combustion zone with the remaining (over-
fire) air added higher in the furnace to complete com-
bustion. In some cases, the primary combustion zone
may be operated substoichiometrically. Significant NOx
reductions are possible with staged combustion, al-
though reducing zones and potential for corrosion and
slagging exist.
Flue gas recirculation reduces oxygen concentra-
tion and combustion temperatures by recirculating
some of the flue gas to the furnace without increas-
ing total net gas mass flow. Large NOx reductions are
possible with oil and gas firing while only small re-
ductions at best are possible with coal firing. Modifica-
tions to the boiler in the form of ducting and an effi-
ciency penalty due to power requirements of the recircu-
lation fans can make the cost of this option higher than
some of the other in-furnace NOx control methods.
Reburning is a technology used to reduce NOx emis-
sions in selected applications. In reburning, 75 to 80%
of the furnace fuel input is burned in the primary com-
bustion zone with minimum excess air. The remain-
ing fuel (gas, oil or coal) is added to the furnace above
the primary combustion zone. This secondary combus-
tion zone is operated substoichiometrically to gener-
ate hydrocarbon radicals which reduce NO formed in
the initial combustion to N2. The combustion process
is then completed by adding the balance of the com-
bustion air through overfire air ports in a final burn-
out zone further up the furnace.
Post-combustion The two main post-combustion
techniques for NOx control are selective noncatalytic
reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic reduction
(SCR). In SNCR, ammonia or other compounds such
as urea (which thermally decomposes to produce am-
monia) are injected downstream of the combustion
zone in a temperature region of 1400 to 2000F (760
to 1093C). SCR systems remove NOx from flue gases
by reaction with ammonia in the presence of a cata-
lyst (see Chapter 34). SCR is being used worldwide
where high NOx removal efficiencies are required in
gas-, oil- or coal-fired industrial and utility boilers.
Particulate control technologies Particulate emis-
sions from boilers arise from the noncombustible, ash
forming mineral matter in the fuel that is released
during the combustion process and is carried by the
flue gas. Another source of particulate is the incom-
plete combustion of the fuel which results in unburned
carbon particles. A brief description of the principal
options for particulate emissions control in industrial
and utility boilers follows while Chapter 33 provides
an in-depth discussion.
Coal cleaning Historically, physical coal cleaning has
been applied to reduce mineral matter, increase en-
ergy content and provide a more uniform boiler feed.
Although reduction in flue gas particulate loading is
one of the potential benefits, coal cleaning has been
driven by the many other boiler performance benefits
32-9
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
related to improved boiler maintenance and availabil-
ity and, more recently, the reduction in SO2 emissions.
Mechanical collectors These are generally cyclone
collectors and have been widely used on small boilers
when less stringent particulate emission limits apply.
Cyclones are low-cost, simple, compact and rugged de-
vices. However, conventional cyclones are limited to col-
lection efficiencies of about 90% and are poor at collect-
ing the smallest particles. Improvements in small par-
ticle collection are accompanied by high pressure drops.
Fabric filters These filters, also commonly referred
to as baghouses, are available in a number of designs
(reverse air, pulse jet, and shake/deflate), each hav-
ing advantages and disadvantages in various appli-
cations. Applications include industrial and utility
power plants firing coal or solid wastes, plants using
sorbent injection and spray dryer FGD, and fluidized-
bed combustors. Collection efficiency can be expected
to be at least 99.9% or greater. Fabric filters have the
potential for enhancing SO2 capture in installations
downstream of sorbent injection and dry scrubbing
systems as discussed in Chapter 35.
Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) ESPs are available
in a broad range of sizes for utility and industrial
applications. Collecting efficiency can be expected to
be 99.8% or greater of the inlet dust loading. ESPs are
considered to be less sensitive to plant upsets than
fabric filters because their materials are not as sensi-
tive to maximum temperatures. They also have a very
low pressure drop. ESP performance is sensitive to
flyash loading, ash resistivity and coal sulfur content.
Lower sulfur concentrations in the flue gas can lead
to lower ESP collection efficiency. ESPs tend to collect
coarser particulate more easily, whereas a fabric fil-
ter tends to have a more uniform collection efficiency
across the particle size range. Therefore, a fabric fil-
ter has higher collection efficiency of fine particulate
than an ESP. The desire to further control sulfuric
acid mist emissions and very fine flyash has led to the
utilization of wet ESPs downstream of wet flue gas des-
ulfurization systems.
Mercury emissions and control
technologies
Regulatory considerations
As discussed earlier in this chapter, mercury emis-
sions are regulated under the hazardous air pollut-
ants (HAPs) sector of the Clean Air Act. Mercury
emission regulations are already in place for munici-
pal solid waste (MSW) combustors, medical waste in-
cinerators, and cement plants with the following lev-
els as of this writing:
Source Regulation
MSW combustion 0.08 mg/DSCM or 85% reduction
Medical waste 0.55 mg/DSCM or 85% reduction
incinerators
Cement plants 0.12 mg/DSCM (existing plants),
0.056 mg/DSCM (new plants)
Note: DSCM = dry standard cubic meter (at 32F/0C)
32-10
The EPA has also determined that it is both appro-
priate and necessary to regulate utility units for emis-
sions of mercury. As of this writing, the EPA has pro-
posed several regulatory alternatives for controlling
mercury emissions from new and existing electric util-
ity boilers which generally fall into two categories: 1)
MACT standards as discussed above, or 2) alternate
performance standards coupled with a market based
cap-and-trade program. EPA has promulgated rules
for a cap-and-trade program where mercury reduc-
tions would occur over a two-phase process. When
fully implemented by 2018, this would result in esti-
mated mercury emission reductions of 33 tons (30.0
tm) per year or approximately 70%. As of this writing,
the pros and cons associated with the regulatory al-
ternatives are the subject of extensive debate and the
final outcome and timing are uncertain. However, mer-
cury will be controlled and emissions reduced over time.
Mercury in U.S. coals
Coals vary in mercury content by rank, seam, mine,
and mine internal location. Table 4 summarizes the
mercury content data obtained for U.S. bituminous,
subbituminous and lignite coals fired at U.S. utilities
as part of an EPA study (see Reference 12). There are
only modest differences between the average mercury
contents of the three ranks of coal. However, the varia-
tion in mercury content among coals within a given
rank is much larger.
Mercury in coal combustion flue gas
Mercury appears in coal combustion flue gas in both
the solid and gas phases (particulate-bound mercury
and vapor-phase mercury, respectively). Due to the
high volatility of mercury and many of its compounds,
most of the mercury found in flue gas is vapor-phase.
Vapor-phase mercury, in turn, can appear as elemen-
tal mercury (elemental, metallic mercury vapor) or as
oxidized mercury (vapor-phase species of various com-
pounds of mercury). The form of mercury present,
commonly referred to as speciation, is a key factor in
the development of emissions control strategies.
Mercury speciation and emissions data have been
gathered under an EPA study, wherein a subset of
the U.S. boiler population was selected for flue gas
emissions sampling on the basis of fuel type, boiler con-
figuration, particulate control device, and SO2 control
technology (see Reference 12). This EPA study is
known as the Information Collection Request (ICR).
Flue gas sampling, in triplicate, was performed at
approximately 84 U.S. plants to quantify total mer-
cury and mercury speciation at the inlet and outlet of
the last emission control device. The EPA Preliminary
Test Method 003 [PRE-003: Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound, and Total Mer-
cury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Station-
ary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)] was used to
determine the particulate-bound and vapor-phase
mercury emissions. In the Ontario Hydro Method, flue
gas samples are withdrawn isokinetically from the
flue. The mercury species are collected on a quartz
fiber filter, in potassium chloride (KCl) solutions, and
in acidic peroxide and acidic potassium permangan-
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

dryer FGD with fabric filter and about 90% with car-
bon injection added. Most of the mercury produced by
Table 4 these MSW combustors is oxidized mercury.
Mercury in Selected U.S. Coals12 For utility coal-fired boilers, the development of
lb Hg/trillion Btu (HHV)
mercury emissions control technology in the U.S. over
Number of the past decade has progressed from a very limited
Coal Type Analyses Low High Median database to one in which utilities, various government
agencies, and system suppliers have increasingly
Bituminous 27,884 0.04 103.81 8.59 quantified various parameters that influence mercury
Subbituminous 8,193 0.39 71.08 5.74 emissions control. This work is ongoing and reflects
Lignite 1,047 0.93 75.06 10.54 the complexity of the measurement and control issues.
There are three basic methodologies for controlling
mercury stack emissions from coal-fired power plants:
1. Choice of a coal with as low a mercury concentra-
ate (KMnO4) solutions. Mercury speciation is reported
tion as possible. The degree to which the coal has
on the basis that the oxidized form of mercury is col-
been characterized and represents the inlet con-
lected in the KCl impingers, and the elemental form
ditions for the emissions control devices is the first
of mercury is collected in the peroxide and potassium
step in setting the expectations for equipment
permanganate impingers.
performance. The potential effectiveness of emis-
Results of these extensive studies indicated that the
sion control devices is influenced most directly by
speciation of vapor-phase mercury depends on coal
the form of the mercury, either solid or vapor
type and other factors. Eastern U.S. bituminous coals
phase, and the vapor phase mercury speciation,
tend to produce a higher percentage of oxidized mer-
elemental mercury versus oxidized mercury. The
cury than do western subbituminous and lignite coals.
presence of a selective catalytic reduction system
Western coals have low chloride content compared to
(SCR) for NOx emission control upstream of the
typical eastern bituminous coals. It has been recog-
particulate control device tends to increase the
nized for several years that an empirical relationship
oxidized mercury present, which is subsequently
holds between the chloride content of coal and the
easier to control in a downstream FGD system.
extent to which mercury appears in the oxidized form.
2. Use of a suitably injected sorbent for mercury cap-
Fig. 4 illustrates the relationship between coal chlo-
ture, such that the sorbent particulate matter is
rine content and vapor-phase mercury speciation for
captured with the flyash. Powdered activated car-
the plants and coals tested in the EPA study. An im-
bon is the most likely sorbent and can be effective
portant reason for the significant uncertainty (scat-
for both elemental and oxidized mercury capture,
ter) is that mercury oxidation proceeds by both homo-
though the costs can be significant. Typically, the
geneous (gas-to-gas) and heterogeneous (gas-to-solid)
amount of activated carbon needed with down-
reaction mechanisms. Boiler convection pass and air
stream fabric filtration is less than that required
heater temperature profiles, flue gas composition,
when using electrostatic precipitation. Flyash from
flyash characteristics, and the presence of unburned
coal-fired utility boilers frequently is sold for
carbon have all been shown to affect the conversion
byproduct uses such as cement manufacturing.
of elemental mercury to oxidized mercury species.
However, flyash contaminated with activated car-
Table 5 provides a summary of general mercury spe-
bon is generally not marketable. One solution is
ciation by coal type.
to inject the powder activated carbon downstream
Mercury control technologies of the primary dust collector and add a separate
dust collector to trap the injected activated carbon.
For industrial sources, such as MSW combustors,
the typical mercury control technology is activated
carbon injection in conjunction with a spray dryer 100
FGD system and fabric filter. Activated carbon injec-
tion is used to reduce both mercury and dioxin emis-
sions. The system is comprised of a series of injection
% Hg as Elemental Hg

nozzles located in the flue gas stream between the last

boiler heat trap (economizer or air heater) and the en-
trance to the spray dryer absorber (SDA). At this lo- 50
cation, the injected carbon particles adsorb both mer-
cury and dioxin onto their surfaces by direct contact.
When the carbon particles become trapped in the down-
stream fabric filter, additional adsorption takes place. A
typical carbon injection rate is 0.2 lb (0.09 kg) of carbon
per ton of MSW combusted. Thus, for a 750 t/d (680 tm/
d) refuse boiler, approximately 150 lb (68 kg)/day of 0
10 100 1000 10000
activated carbon would be used. Long-term experience CI in Coal (ppm, dry basis)
reveals that mercury reduction without carbon injection Fig. 4 Relationship between coal mercury content and mercury
averages around 70% for a system with only a spray speciation for U.S. EPA Information Collection Request.

Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations 32-11

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Table 5
Typical Mercury Speciation by Coal Type
Relative Content
Coal Type Mercury
Bituminous (Eastern U.S.) Intermediate
Bituminous (Western U.S.) Low
Subbituminous (Powder River Basin) Low
Lignite High
3. Use of the dry or wet FGD system to provide sub-
stantial mercury removal from the gas stream.
This approach is particularly suitable if the vapor
phase mercury contains a relatively high propor-
tion of oxidized mercury species.
Mercury capture in conventional
coal-fired systems
Mercury removal efficiency across air pollution con-
trol devices at existing U.S. coal-fired plants was also
quantified under EPA’s ICR study.12 Average mercury
removal for bituminous coals was higher than that
achieved for the subbituminous coals and lignites. This
is due to the higher percentage of oxidized mercury
produced by eastern coals, but also may result, in part,
from differences in flyash properties and the tendency
of bituminous coals to produce higher levels of un-
burned carbon.
FGD systems Both wet and spray dryer FGD sys-
tems perform better at removing mercury with bitu-
minous coal than with the low rank fuels. The differ-
ence is due almost entirely to the higher percentage
of oxidized mercury produced by the bituminous coals.
Oxidized mercury, typically mercuric chloride, is
soluble in water, making it amenable to removal in
SO2 scrubbers. Elemental mercury, insoluble in wa-
ter, passes through most scrubbers. In the scrubber,
the soluble mercury species react with the slurry to
produce insoluble mercuric sulfide that is collected as
a solid waste byproduct. There is a growing body of
evidence that a phenomenon known as mercury re-
emission can exist in a wet FGD system. Some of the
captured oxidized mercury is actually reduced back
to elemental mercury and released into the outlet flue
gas. The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) has de-
veloped a patented additive for wet FGD systems to
minimize re-emission.
SCR systems The same catalysts that reduce NOx
to N2 in SCR systems also help oxidize elemental mer-
cury. As the flue gas passes through the SCR reactor
and over the catalyst, a portion of the elemental mer-
cury is converted to mercury oxidized species, for ex-
ample mercuric chloride and mercury oxides, which
can then be more readily removed in the FGD system.
The current data suggests that the presence of HCl
in the flue gas is needed for mercury oxidation to oc-
cur across the SCR.
Fabric filter systems Fabric filters tend to remove
significantly more mercury than do ESPs. Both sys-
tems are capable of high-efficiency removal of particu-
32-12
Primary Mercury
Chlorine Form in Flue Gas
High Oxidized
Intermediate Mixture
Low Mixture, more elemental
Low Primarily elemental
late-bound mercury. Fabric filters may perform bet-
ter on the same flue gas by providing more intimate
contact between the flue gases and flyash as the flue
gases pass through the filter cake on the filter bags.
This intimate contact may promote the adsorption of
mercury species onto the flyash or unburned carbon
particles in the filter cake. While providing many in-
sights into the behavior of mercury species in coal-fired
systems, it should be noted that the EPA ICR data are
subject to a variety of limitations. The individual plant
data represent a brief period in time and give little in-
sight into the variability of mercury emissions due to
variability in coal properties, impacts of plant operat-
ing conditions, or mercury sampling uncertainties.
Enhanced mercury capture
Numerous other studies have been and continue to
be conducted by B&W and others to shed additional light
on the behavior of mercury in coal-fired systems, and to
develop cost-effective approaches to its control.
Powdered activated carbon (PAC) Many studies have
focused on the injection of some form of PAC. Adsorp-
tion is a technique that has often been successfully
applied for the separation and removal of trace quan-
tities of undesirable components. PAC injection is used
to remove mercury in municipal waste combustor ex-
haust gases, as discussed above. Although this ap-
proach appeared attractive for coal-fired boilers in
early work, the economics of high injection rates can
be prohibitive when applied to these plants. More re-
fined studies are now in progress to define more pre-
cisely what can and can not be achieved with PAC.
Other studies seek to enhance PAC technology by
impregnation with additives such as halides to yield
improved chemisorption of the mercury species that
may be present.
Enhanced scrubbing As noted above, conventional
emissions control system components are capable of
removing oxidized mercury due to its water solubil-
ity. A variety of advanced technologies are currently
under development to enhance the performance of
these systems. Some of these increase the effectiveness
of the wet scrubbing systems in capturing the mercury
once it is in the soluble state. Others introduce oxidiz-
ing agents to the flue gas to increase the conversion of
elemental mercury to soluble oxidized species.
Commercial demonstration Efforts to develop mer-
cury emission control technology have progressed to
full-scale limited-term demonstration tests. During
2001, full-scale PAC injection tests were run at Ala-
bama Power’s Plant Gaston and at We Energies’ Pleas-
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
ant Prairie Power Plant. At about the same time, B&W
conducted full-scale tests of its enhanced wet FGD pro-
cess at both Michigan South Central Power Agency’s
Endicott Station and at Cinergy’s Zimmer Station.
Such demonstrations are an important step in gain-
ing commercial acceptance of the technologies. As of
this writing, additional testing is ongoing.
Water pollution control
U.S. legislation – Clean Water Act
In 1972, the U.S. Congress enacted landmark leg-
islation that greatly expanded existing laws designed
to control water pollution. Commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act (CWA),13 the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972 and successive amendments,
the Clean Water Act of 1977, and the Water Quality
Act of 1987 provide the basic framework for protect-
ing the quality of surface waters in the United States.
The stated objective of the CWA is to restore and main-
tain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the nation’s waters.
Two significant elements of the 1972 Act were the
creation of the National Pollution Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES), a permitting program to regu-
late pollutant discharges from industrial and munici-
pal sources, and the establishment of technology-
based end of pipe effluent standards for specified in-
dustries and processes.
Requirements under the Act The NPDES permit pro-
gram requires that every industrial or municipal facil-
ity or other point source discharging into public waters
obtain a NPDES permit. The NPDES program also
regulates wet weather discharges including storm wa-
ter runoff associated with many industrial activities.
NPDES permits include specific numerical limits for
a wide range of conventional, toxic and other non-
conventional pollutants to ensure that discharges to
receiving waters are protective of human health and
the environment. NPDES permits may contain tech-
nology-based effluent limits (generally industry/pro-
cess specific standards), water quality-based effluent
limits (as may be necessary to protect the quality of
the receiving waters according to designated use clas-
sifications), or a combination of both.
The intent of technology-based effluent limits is to
establish a minimum level of treatment or control of
pollutants in point source discharges using available
treatment technologies. In 1982, the EPA promul-
gated technology-based effluent limits and pretreat-
ment standards for 21 major industrial categories in-
cluding new and existing steam power facilities [Note:
pretreatment standards apply to any indirect dis-
charges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
that are not otherwise covered under a facility’s
NPDES discharge permit]. The key effluent limits
applicable to steam power plants are summarized in
Table 6. The detailed requirements are set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations – 40 CFR Part 423.
Another provision of the CWA, initially focused on
large steam electric facilities, required the EPA to de-
velop regulations governing the capacity, location,
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
design and construction of water intake structures
used to draw large volumes of cooling water from
lakes, rivers, estuaries and oceans. This CWA require-
ment is unique in that it applies to the intake and not
the discharge of water. The major goal of the require-
ment is to protect aquatic life by minimizing the im-
pingement and entrainment of fish and other organ-
isms into cooling water systems. Phase I rules, appli-
cable to new utility facilities with a water intake flow
of greater than two million gallons per day and using
25% or more for cooling purposes, were promulgated
in December 2001 (Re: 40 CFR Part 125). Phase II
rules governing cooling water intake structures at
existing electric utility plants withdrawing 50 million
gallons or more of water per day were promulgated
in July of 2004. Phase III rules governing water in-
take structures at certain other existing utility and in-
dustrial facilities (not covered under the Phase II rules)
were proposed in November of 2004 and are due to
be finalized by June of 2006.
Visit the EPA’s home page on the World Wide Web
at www.epa.gov for further information regarding the
CWA and related regulatory programs.
Power plant discharge sources
The following describes the principal aqueous dis-
charge streams from utility power plants.
Once-through cooling water Water from rivers,
lakes or oceans is used to absorb heat from the steam
condenser. The cooling water exiting the steam con-
denser is at an elevated temperature and can be re-
turned to the source or pumped to a cooling tower for
evaporative cooling before being returned to the steam
condenser. In the former case, the cooling water con-
tains significant concentrations of only one principal
regulated pollutant, total residual chlorine (TRC),
which arises out of chlorine addition for condenser
fouling control. The duration of each chlorination
event is limited. The concerns over TRC discharge
include toxicity to living organisms and the genera-
tion of halogenated hydrocarbons.
Cooling tower blowdown When the heated cooling
water from the steam condenser is cooled in an evapo-
rative cooling tower, a buildup of dissolved solids and
suspended matter occurs. Most of this buildup is re-
moved from the system by cooling tower blowdown.
Some of the suspended matter can settle out in the
cooling tower basin and is removed at infrequent in-
tervals. All of the dissolved solids and the remaining
suspended solids are removed largely by cooling tower
blowdown. Blowdown flow is adjusted to keep the con-
centration of dissolved and suspended solids below the
limits required to control condenser tube fouling and
corrosion. Other sources of chemical pollutants in
blowdown include chlorine and organic chemicals for
control of biofouling, corrosion inhibitors (consisting
of chromate, zinc, polyphosphates, etc.), chemicals for
scale control and products of corrosion. Some of these
maintenance chemicals appear on the EPA’s regulated
toxic pollutants list and none are permitted to be
present in detectable levels in cooling tower blowdown
after treatment (except for chromium and zinc, which
are separately regulated).
32-13
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

ents, a number of trace elements that can appear in

Table 6 pond overflow and which may need to be treated.
Aqueous Discharge Limits for Coal pile runoff Open storage of large quantities of
New Steam Power Generating Systems (Note 4) coal is required for an uninterrupted fuel supply to
utility plants [on the average, 800 to 2400 yd3 (611 to
NSPS Effluent Limits, mg/l 1834 m3) per megawatt of rated capacity is kept on
Source and Pollutant (Notes 2 and 3) hand]. The water and oxygen from the air react with
(Note 1) Maximum Average the minerals in bituminous coal to produce a leachate
All discharges contaminated with ferrous sulfate and sulfuric acid.
pH (unitless) 6 to 9  The low pH from the acid accelerates dissolution of
PCBs No discharge  many of the metals present in the coal minerals.
Low volume waste (Note 5): FGD blowdown In wet FGD systems, a portion of
TSS 100 30 the absorber slurry that is sprayed into the flue gas
OG 20 15 stream to remove SO2 is removed from the absorber
Chemical metal cleaning tank for dewatering. In the dewatering process, the
wastes: solid reaction products are separated from the liquor.
TSS 100 30 The liquor is recycled to the absorber tank where ad-
OG 20 15 ditional sorbent is added. Recycling of the liquor can
Copper 1.0 1.0 result in chloride buildup which, in turn, can cause
Iron 1.0 1.0 increased corrosion to the alloys in the system. This
Bottom ash transport water: buildup can be controlled by the loss of liquor retained
TSS 100.0 30.0 in the dewatered sludge or by a blowdown. An aque-
OG 20.0 15.0 ous blowdown discharge would typically contain cal-
Once-through cooling water: cium sulfate, calcium sulfite and calcium chloride. Also,
Total residual chlorine (TRC) 0.2  depending on flyash carryover, traces of metal ions
Free available chlorine 0.5 0.2 could also be present. In setting effluent limitations
Cooling tower blowdown: in 1982, the EPA reserved regulating FGD aqueous
Free available chlorine 0.5 0.2 discharge to a future date.
Zinc 1.0 1.0 Metal cleaning wastes These aqueous wastes can
Chromium 0.2 0.2 arise from either chemical or nonchemical cleaning of
Other 126 priority metal heat transfer surfaces in the boiler.
pollutants No detectable amount Chemical metal cleaning uses chemical solvents for
Coal pile runoff: water-side cleaning of boiler system components to
TSS (1980) 50  remove corrosion products. Cleaning intervals are
measured in years for large utility boilers, and produce
Notes: three to four boiler water volumes [20,000 to 100,000
1. Nomenclature: TSS − total suspended solids; OG − oil gal (75,707 to 378,533 l)] of waste water per cleaning.
and grease. The composition of the waste solvents depends on the
2. New Source Performance Standards. construction material of the boiler system, but largely
3. 30 day rolling daily average (Average); maximum any consists of iron with lesser amounts of copper, nickel,
one day (Maximum). zinc, chromium, calcium and magnesium. The disposal
4. Adapted from Reference 1. method for the spent solvent depends on the type of
5. Low volume wastes include ion exchange, water chemical cleaning solvents used. When hydrochloric
treatment, evaporator blowdown, boiler blowdown, acid based solvents are used, spent solvent is treated
lab and floor drains, plus FGD waste water. on-site by neutralization and is discharged subject to
the effluent limits in Table 6 or more stringent water
quality standards. With approval from appropriate
Ash handling water waste Ash produced from the regulating bodies, organic-based solvent wastes are
combustion of fuel, whether oil or coal, is collected at often incinerated in other operating boilers at the site.
different points in the combustion process. Flyash is The metals in the chemical cleaning wastes are re-
the finer size ash collected by particulate collection tained with the normal boiler ash.
systems and bottom ash is removed from hoppers at Nonchemical water cleaning is used to remove fire-
the furnace bottom. Additional hoppers at intermedi- side deposits by means of high pressure jets of water.
ate points also accumulate ash. In many cases, ash is The waste water can contain the same metals and
moved from these points with sluice water, which then pollutants contained in the ash deposits being re-
goes to a settling pond and can typically contain 5% moved. Because the deposit composition varies with
suspended solids by weight. location in the boiler, the wash water composition will
The ash settling pond overflow contains dissolved depend on the location of the area being cleaned.
and suspended solids, the quantities of which will These waste waters may be classified as either low vol-
depend on the source of the ash, the type of combus- ume wastes or metal cleaning wastes and are treated
tion process and the point from which it is extracted according to the corresponding effluent limits.
from the combustion process. Coal ash contains, in Low volume wastes These include discharges from
addition to the eight or nine major elemental constitu- ion exchange water treatment, evaporator blowdown,

32-14 Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations

 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
boiler blowdown, cooling tower basin cleaning, labo-
ratory and floor drains, and drains and losses from
house service water systems. FGD blowdown is also in-
cluded until the EPA develops specific regulations for this
stream. By EPA definition, low volume wastes are those
from all sources taken collectively as if they were from
one source. Excluded are those wastes for which specific
effluent limits are established.
Water pollution control technologies
The technologies for waste water treatment used to
meet limits for discharge include clarification and fil-
tration.
Clarification This process is used to settle out larger
suspended particles and condition smaller colloidal par-
ticles to make them settle and allow filtration for re-
moval. A pond, reservoir or tank is used to allow larger
particles to settle in a matter of hours. The finer par-
ticles overflow and are made to settle more quickly by
the addition of chemical agents, coagulants and poly-
mers that cause agglomeration to sizes large enough
to settle out of suspension.
Filtration This uses a porous barrier across flowing
liquid to remove suspended materials. Filtration can
be used to supplement clarification and permits reduc-
ing suspended solids to the parts per million level.
Filter types include sand filters that are generally slow
and do not handle fine clay well. Preconditioning with
coagulants can improve filtration rates. Dual media
filters improve on sand filters by superimposing a
coarse, granular material over the fine bed. This al-
lows more of the filter bed to be used, reduces head
loss, and provides higher flow rates and longer oper-
ating cycles before cleaning.
As required, and with approvals from appropriate
regulating bodies, final waste stream pH is controlled
by combining various plant streams to provide a neu-
tral pH product. Where needed, acid or alkali addi-
tion can be used to achieve the final pH. Other treat-
ments are also available to address other criteria pol-
lutants where concentration warrants.
In selected cases, zero discharge water management
is provided which does not return any waste water to
water sources. Effectively all water brought into the
plant is evaporated through cooling towers, ponds,
evaporators, or the stack. Residual solids are then sent
to disposal.
Solid waste disposal
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The rapid growth of industrial activity and use of
consumer goods by society have resulted in an explo-
sive growth in the generation of solid wastes. The EPA
has estimated that over 100 million tons of fossil fuel
combustion wastes are generated annually in the
U.S., principally from coal ash residues generated at
utility power plants.
In 1976, the U.S. Congress passed the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 14 as an
amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal act of 1965.
The RCRA establishes the regulatory framework to en-
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
sure that solid and hazardous wastes are properly
managed to protect human health and the environ-
ment. Subtitle C of the Act establishes a comprehen-
sive management system to regulate hazardous waste
from the time it is generated until its final disposal,
commonly referred to as a cradle to grave approach.
Subtitle D of the Act directs states to develop and
implement solid waste management plans and regu-
lations to promote environmentally sound manage-
ment practices for non-hazardous wastes which ad-
dress landfill performance standards and recycling/
beneficial use programs. Subtitle I of the Act regulates
petroleum products and other hazardous substances
that are stored in underground tanks.
As originally drafted, RCRA did not clearly address
how fossil fuel combustion wastes should be regulated
and in 1980, the U.S. Congress passed the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments which included what is
commonly referred to as the Bevill Exemption. The
Bevill Exemption excluded, among other things, fos-
sil fuel combustion wastes from being regulated as
hazardous waste under RCRA Subtitle C, pending
completion of a report to Congress and a formal de-
termination by the EPA as to whether regulation un-
der Subtitle C is warranted.
In August 1993, the EPA published the first of two
regulatory determinations concerning fossil fuel com-
bustion wastes. This first determination applied only
to separately managed, large volume wastes includ-
ing flyash, bottom ash, boiler slag and flue gas emis-
sion control waste generated at coal-fired electric utili-
ties and independent power facilities. The EPA deter-
mined that if managed properly, these materials
would remain exempt from regulation as a hazard-
ous waste under Subtitle C of the RCRA. The EPA’s
second ruling, published in May 2000, generally ex-
tended the hazardous waste exemption to other de-
fined categories of low volume wastes generated at
electric utilities and industrial facilities that combust
coal, oil, natural gas, petroleum coke or mixtures of
coal and other fuels. These low volume wastes, when
properly co-managed with large volume combustion
wastes, would typically include (but are not limited to)
coal pile runoff, coal mill rejects/pyrite, water treat-
ment sludge, and boiler chemical cleaning waste.
However, if certain wastes are managed indepen-
dently and exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous
waste, they are subject to the hazardous waste regu-
lations. For more detailed information refer to the
EPA’s final regulatory determination published in the
Federal Register on May 22, 2000 (65 FR 32213).
While the EPA has concluded that fossil fuel com-
bustion wastes do not warrant regulation as hazard-
ous waste, the agency further determined that national
non-hazardous waste standards under RCRA Subtitle
D are needed for coal combustion wastes disposed in
landfills and surface impoundments, or used in minefill
applications. However, national regulations have yet
to be developed under Subtitle D; therefore, the man-
agement and regulation of combustion waste products
are currently handled by the individual states.
Finally, the EPA has concluded that beneficial uses
of coal combustion waste (other than for minefill) pose
32-15
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
no significant risk and no additional national regula-
tions are needed. The EPA has stated they do not want
to add any unnecessary barriers to the beneficial uses
of combustion waste products because such uses conserve
natural resources, reduce disposal costs and reduce the
total amount of waste ultimately destined for disposal.
Solid combustion wastes
The principal solid waste streams in coal- and oil-
fired utility boilers include the following:
1. Bottom ash is the portion of fuel ash that falls to
the bottom of the furnace or from the stoker dis-
charge. In coal-fired Cyclone furnace boilers, the
bottom ash consists of slag that drops from the bot-
tom of the furnace into a slag tank for solidification.
2. Flyash is the finer ash material that is borne by
the flue gas from the furnace to the back end of
the boiler; it drops out in the economizer and air
heater hoppers or is collected by particulate con-
trol equipment.
3. Pyrite is iron sulfide, an impurity which is sepa-
rated from coal in the pulverizer and which is com-
bined with bottom ash for disposal.
FGD waste characteristics depend on the particu-
lar technology used:
1. Wet scrubbing (calcium-based system) A natural
oxidation system produces a wet sludge contain-
ing a mixture of calcium sulfite and calcium sul-
fate reaction products, trace amounts of flyash and
unreacted limestone. In a forced oxidation system,
the principal difference is that the reaction prod-
uct is almost totally in the form of calcium sulfate
or gypsum, which is more easily dewatered to a
filter cake for wallboard, landfill or other use.
2. Dry scrubbing Waste is dry and contains calcium
sulfite, calcium sulfate, flyash and unreacted sor-
bent (hydrated lime). The potential uses for this
material are more limited.
3. Dry lime injection Waste is dry and contains cal-
cium sulfite, calcium sulfate, flyash and a large
proportion of calcium oxide (CaO).
Solid waste treatment methods
To dispose of waste materials from wet FGD systems,
treatment methods are applied to ultimately produce
a solid. These methods include dewatering, stabiliza-
tion and fixation, and are designed to achieve waste
volume reduction, stability and better handling, and
liquid recovery for reuse.
Dewatering This process is used to physically sepa-
rate water from solids to increase the solids content of
the product and recover water for reuse and further
treatment.
A settling pond is the simplest method for dewater-
ing, is not sensitive to inlet solids content, requires low
maintenance and is highly reliable. Ponds are often
used for ash or wet FGD scrubber slurries. Sizing pro-
vides low flow velocity so that solids can settle undis-
turbed by gravity. Settling ponds are unpopular with
regulatory agencies, require substantial acreage and
must be shut down for solids removal.
32-16
Thickeners are large cylindrical tanks with radial
rakes at the bottom. The rakes carry plows to push
material on the bottom that slopes toward the center.
The plows push settled material toward the underflow
discharge. Thickeners rely on gravity to separate high
specific gravity solids. Although thickeners are com-
plicated and have high capital and maintenance costs,
they have high throughput rates and require less land
area than settling ponds.
Liquid cyclones or hydroclones are now commonly
used in place of thickeners to remove solids from slur-
ries by centrifugal and liquid shear effects.
Hydroclones separate and collect particles down to a
particular size, with finer particles staying with the
liquid overflow. Hydroclones do not separate material
less than 5 µm effectively and are not efficient with
slurries containing more than 20% solids. They are low
in cost, have low space requirements, and produce low
solids content in the overflow and a high solids frac-
tion in the underflow.
Vacuum filters, either of the drum or belt type, are
generally used for second stage dewatering of wet
scrubber slurries. They take little space and produce a
high solids content product, up to 95% for FGD slurry.
Centrifuges are also an option for second stage dewa-
tering.
Stabilization This process increases the solids con-
tent of scrubber waste by adding dry solids such as
flyash. Stabilization is applied to impart greater
physical stability to the waste, making it easier to place
in the landfill and making it less susceptible to future
problems. Stabilization and fixation are generally ap-
plied to scrubber wastes as the final treatment step
after dewatering. Bottom ash and flyash, because of
their more granular nature, generally dewater easily
and do not require stabilization for disposal. For sta-
bilization, a dry solid such as soil or flyash is mixed
with the waste slurry, spreading the water in the
waste over a larger mass of solids. Also, there is im-
provement in particle size distribution that leads to
closer packing, lower permeability and lower combined
volume. Stabilization can be reversible and if the
waste is rewetted, it may fluidize and fail structurally.
Fixation This process involves the addition of an
agent such as lime to produce a chemical reaction to
bind free water and produce a dry product. Fixation
includes a number of processes. Mixing suitable pro-
portions of scrubber slurry with alkaline flyash con-
taining sufficient CaO produces chemical reactions
that result in a material with compressive strength
comparable to low-strength concrete and with very low
permeability. Both characteristics contribute to ease
of placement and minimal leaching problems.
When the flyash does not have sufficient alkalin-
ity, lime may be added to the flyash and scrubber
slurry mixture to produce the cementitious reaction.
Four percent addition of lime has produced material
with the necessary physical properties for disposal or
use. The cured material is suitable for structural fill,
providing a site that can be used for building construc-
tion after completion of the landfill. Comparable fixa-
tion reactions with scrubber sludge have been ob-
tained with additions of 5 to 10% blast furnace slag.
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Disposal and utilization methods
and requirements
Ultimate disposition of utility plant wastes (ashes and
FGD residues) is by disposal (in landfills or impound-
ments) or by utilization. Where disposal is used, the
waste stream is analyzed, and the site is permitted and
approved by the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Disposal methods These can be either wet or dry,
depending on the physical condition of the material.
Wet disposal requires construction of a pond which
may be below or above grade with impermeable bar-
riers or dikes. Below grade construction may be con-
sidered and depends on suitable geology and hydrol-
ogy at the site. With wet disposal, the waste is placed
in slurry or liquid form. After settling, the liquid that
has separated is collected, treated and either released
or recycled. Dry disposal can use a simple method of
landfill construction in which the waste is placed and
compacted to form an artificial hill. The trend is to-
ward dry disposal because of smaller volumes and more
options for site or material reclamation.
Utilization methods These become more attractive
as waste management costs increase. Bottom ash,
flyash and boiler slag are used in applications where
they can be substituted for sand or gravel. The char-
acteristics of boiler slag and bottom ash also make
these materials useful for blasting grit, roofing gran-
References
1. Elliot, T.C., Ed., Chen, K., Swanekamp, R.C., Standard
Hankbook of Power Plant Engineering, Second Ed.,
McGraw-Hill Company, New York, New York, 1998. See
chapter entitled, “Legislation and pollution sources,” by
D.A. Kellermeyer.
2. Corbitt, R.A., Ed., Standard Handbook of Environmen-
tal Engineering, Second Ed., McGraw-Hill Company, New
York, New York, 1998.
3. Clean Air Act, 42 USCA S7401 et seq., Sec. 101 (b) (1).
4. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60, United
States (U.S.) Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., July, 2004.
5. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 51 and 52
(51.165, 51.166, and 52.21), United States (U.S.) Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., July, 2004.
6. Lesley, S., “Trends in Emissions Standards,” Report
CCC/77, International Energy Agency (IEA), Clean Coal
Centre (CCC), London, England, United Kingdom, Novem-
ber, 2003.
7. Wu, Z., “NOx Control for Pulverized Coal-Fired Power
Stations,” Report CCC/69, International Energy Agency,
Clean Coal Centre, London, England, United Kingdom,
December, 2002.
Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations
ules and controlled fills. Flyash, because of its chem-
istry and physical properties, is applicable in the
manufacture of Portland cement and concrete mixes.
The value of these materials is so low that the cost of
transportation severely limits their use to applications
close to the producing power plant.
With the increased use of ammonia reagents for NOx
emissions control, flyash (particularly from bituminous
coal) can adsorb excess ammonia present in the flue
gas and this adsorption may hinder the beneficial use
or end disposal of flyash or FGD byproduct streams.
Ammonia absorbed by flyash can be released (off-
gassed) when coming in contact with water. Cur-
rently, there are various processes in development to
remove residual ammonia from flyash.
FGD byproduct use is potentially in the areas of
agriculture, sulfur recovery and gypsum. Agricultural
use is limited. Trace elements from flyash contamina-
tion could have an unacceptable impact and make
wide use doubtful. Use for sulfur recovery is limited
by incomplete technology development, high capital
cost, and the low market price of sulfur.
FGD byproduct from forced oxidation wet scrubbing
systems, primarily gypsum, has seen extensive com-
mercial use in wallboard production. However, gyp-
sum byproduct specifications may vary significantly
by end user and must be established and confirmed
prior to FGD system design.
8. United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), National Emissions Inventory Criteria Pollutant
Data: Current Emissions Trends Summary 1970-2002,
Accessed August 28, 2003. Available online at:
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html
9. Patrick, D.R., Toxic Air Pollution Handbook, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York, 1994.
10. “Mercury Study Report to Congress,” United States
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Report
EPA-452/R-97-2003, December, 1997.
11. “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States
(U.S.), 2000 Summary,” Report DOE/EIA-0573, Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Agency (EIA),
U.S. Department of Energy, February 22, 2002.
12. Senior, C.L., “Behavior of Mercury in Air Pollution
Control Devices on Coal-Fired Utility Boilers,” Power Pro-
duction in the 21st Century: Impacts of Fuel Quality and
Operations Conference, Engineering Foundation, New
York, New York, 2001.
13. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C., S1251 et seq., Section
101(a), United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
14. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
42 Act, 42 U.S.C., S9601 et seq., Section 1004(5).
32-17
 The Babcock & Wilcox Company

Integrated emission control systems on this western U.S. power plant include low NOx burners, SCR, dry scrubber, and baghouse.

32-18 Steam 41 / Environmental Considerations