SCRCostManualchapter Draftforpubliccomment6!5!2015

6/5/2015 Draft for Public Comment
Chapter 2
Selective Catalytic Reduction
John L. Sorrels
Air Economics Group
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
David D. Randall, Karen S. Schaffner, Carrie Richardson Fry

RTI International
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
June 2015
Chapter 2 Selective Catalytic Reduction
CONTENTS
2. Selective Catalytic Reduction ..................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Process Description .......................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Reduction Chemistry, Reagents, and Catalyst ..................................................... 8
2.2.2 SCR Performance Parameters ............................................................................ 12
2.2.3 SCR System Configurations .............................................................................. 24
2.2.4 SCR System Primary Equipment ....................................................................... 29
2.2.5 SCR System Auxiliary Equipment .................................................................... 35
2.2.6 Other Considerations ......................................................................................... 38
2.3 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................... 43
2.3.1 Boiler Heat Input................................................................................................ 43
2.3.2 Heat Rate Factor ................................................................................................ 44
2.3.3 System Capacity Factor ..................................................................................... 45
2.3.4 Uncontrolled NOx and Stack NOx...................................................................... 46
2.3.5 NOx Removal Efficiency.................................................................................... 46
2.3.6 NOx Removal Rates ........................................................................................... 46
2.3.7 Actual Stoichiometric Ratios ............................................................................. 47
2.3.8 Flue Gas Flow Rate ............................................................................................ 47
2.3.9 Space Velocity and Area Velocity ..................................................................... 48
2.3.10 Theoretical NOx Removal Efficiency, for NH3 Slip Determination .................. 49
2.3.11 Catalyst Volume................................................................................................. 50
2.3.12 SCR Reactor Dimensions .................................................................................. 51
2.3.13 Estimating Reagent Consumption and Tank Size.............................................. 53
2.4 Cost Analysis ..................................................................................................... 54
2.4.1 Total Capital Investment .................................................................................... 56
2.4.2 Total Annual Costs ............................................................................................ 63
2.5 Example Problem #1 ...................................................................................................... 71
2.5.1 Design Parameter Example #1 ........................................................................... 72
2.5.2 Cost Estimation Example................................................................................... 75
2.6 Example Problem #2 ...................................................................................................... 78
2.6.1 Design Parameter Example #2 ........................................................................... 79
2.6.2 Cost Estimation Example #2 .............................................................................. 82
References ............................................................................................................................... 86
2. SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION
2.1 Introduction
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) has been applied to stationary source fossil fuelfired
combustion units for emission control since the early 1970s and is currently being used in Japan,
Europe, the United States, and other countries. In the U.S. alone, more than 1,000 SCR systems
have been installed on a wide variety of sources in many different industries, including utility
and industrial boilers, process heaters, gas turbines, internal combustion engines, chemical
plants, and steel mills [1]. Other sources include fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCUs), ethylene
cracker furnaces, nitric acid plants, catalyst manufacturing processes, nitrogen fixation processes,
and solid/liquid or gas waste incinerators [2, 3]. In the U.S., SCR has been installed on more than
300 coal-fired power plants ranging in size from <100 MWe to 1,400 MWe [1, 4]. Other
combustion sources with large numbers of SCR retrofits include more than 50 gas-fired utility
boilers ranging in size from 147 MWe to 750 MWe, more than 50 industrial boilers and process
heaters (both field-erected and packaged units), and more than 650 combined cycle gas turbines
[1]. SCR can be applied as a stand-alone NOx control or with other technologies, including
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) and combustion controls such as low NOx burner
(LNB) and flue gas recirculation (FGR) [2].
SCR is typically implemented on stationary source combustion units requiring a higher
level of NOx reduction than achievable by selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) or
combustion controls. Theoretically, SCR systems can be designed for NOx removal efficiencies
up close to 100 percent (%). In practice, commercial coal-, oil-, and natural gasfired SCR
systems are often designed to meet control targets of over 90%. However, the reduction may be
less than 90% whenSCR follows other NOx controls such as LNB or FGR that achieve relatively
low emissions on their own. The outlet concentration from SCR on a utility boiler rarely is less
than 0.04 lb/MMBtu [1].1 In comparison, SNCR units typically achieve approximately 25 to 75%
reduction efficiencies [5].
Either ammonia or urea may be used as the NOx reduction reagent in SCR systems. Urea
is generally converted to ammonia before injection. Results of a survey of electric utilities that
operate SCR systems indicated that about 80 percent use ammonia (anhydrous and aqueous), and
the remainder use urea [4]. A survey of coal-fired power plants that control NOx emissions using
either SCR or SNCR found anhydrous ammonia use exceeds aqueous ammonia use by a ratio of
3 to 1. Nearly half of these survey respondents also indicated that price is their primary
consideration in the choice of reagent; safety is the primary consideration for about 25 percent of
the operators [6].
SCR capital costs vary by the type of unit controlled, the fuel type, the inlet NOx level,
the outlet NOx design level, and reactor arrangement. Capital costs also rose between 2000 and
2010 (at least for utility boiler applications), even after scaling all data to 2011 dollars. For a
small number of early SCR retrofits on utility boilers prior to 2000, the average costs were about
1 Data in the Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database also suggest SCR units rarely achieve emissions less
than 0.04 lb/MMBtu.
2-1
$100/kW, in 2011 dollars, and there was little scatter in the data. From 2000 to 2007, the SCR
costs for 32 utility boilers ranged from about $100/kW to $275/kW (2011$), and a slight
economy of scale was evident (i.e., using a regression equation, costs ranged from about
$200/kW for a 200 MW unit to $160/kW for an 800 MW unit). For 2008 to 2011, the average
SCR costs exhibited great variability and again a modest economy of scale was evident (i.e.,
about $300/kW for a 200 MW unit to $250/kW for an 800 MW unit; 2011$). For eight utility
boilers either installed in 2012 or projected to be installed by 2014, the SCR costs ranged from
about $270/kW to $570/kW, in 2011$; generating capacity for these units ranged from 400 MW
to 800 MW [7b]. Typical operation and maintenance costs are approximately 0.1 cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh) [7a,8]. Table 2.1a provides capital cost estimates for electric utility boilers,
and Table 2.1b presents capital cost estimates for SCR applications of various sizes in several
other industry source categories.
The procedures for estimating costs presented in this report are based on cost data for
SCR retrofits on existing coal-, oil-, and gas-fired boilers for electric generating units larger than
25 MWe (approximately 250 MMBtu/hr). Thus, this reports procedure estimates costs for
typical retrofits of such boilers. The methodology for utility boilers also has been extended to
large industrial boilers by modifying the capital cost equations and power consumption
(electricity cost) equations to use the heat input capacity of the boiler instead of electric
generating capacity.2 The procedures to estimate capital costs are not directly applicable to
sources other than utility and industrial boilers. Procedures to estimate annual costing elements
other than power consumption are the same for SCR units in any application. The cost for SCR
as part of a new plant often is likely to be less than would be estimated using these procedures. In
addition, the cost procedures in this report reflect individual SCR applications. Retrofitting
multiple boilers with SCR can allow for some economies of scale for installation, thus yielding
some reduction in capital costs per SCR application. The cost methodology incorporates certain
approximations; consequently, it should be used to develop study-level accuracy (30%) cost
estimates of SCR applications. Such accuracy in the cost methodology is consistent with the
accuracy of the cost estimates for the other control measures found in this Cost Manual as stated
in Section 1.
2 Industrial boilers as a term used in the Control Cost Manual is meant to cover not only industrial but also
commercial and institutional (or ICI) boilers, unless noted otherwise.
2-2
Table 2.1a: Summary of SCR Cost Data for Utility Boilers

Capital Cost
Source
Category Unit Size Fuel Type Min Avg Max $ Year Comments Reference
Electric NAa NA $55/kW $140/kW <2000$b Retrofit costs. [9]
Generating ~300-1,400 NA ~$70/kW ~$120/kW <2000$b Retrofit costs. Six boilers. No economy of [9]
Units MW scale.
1501,000 Coal $80/kWnet $160/kWnet 2002$ Retrofit costs. Author of referenced [10]
MW document scaled original costs to 2002
dollars. More than 20 boilers. Little to no
economy of scale.
NA Coal $60/kW $100kW $200/kW <2004$b Retrofit costs [11]
<300 MW Coal $167/kW $186/kW <2004$ Costs for 26 boilers. [12]
301600 MW Coal $148/kW $192/kW <2004$ Costs for 15 boilers. [12]
601900 MW Coal $124/kW $221/kW <2004$ Costs for 22 boilers. [12]
>900 MW Coal $118/kW $195/kW <2004$ Costs for 9 boilers. [12]
100399 MW Coal $70/kW $123/kW ~$175/kW <2004$b Costs for 5 boilers. [13]
>900 MW Coal ~$80/kW $117/kW ~$190/kW <2004$b Costs for 10 boilers. [13]
191 MW Coal $149/kW 2006$ Retrofit costs. [14]
~100 MW- NA ~$125/kW $275/kW ~$440/kW 2008$ Retrofit costs for 15 boilers installed in [7a]
~800MW 2008 to 2010. Most costs between
$200/kW and $350/kW. Slight economy
of scaleregression average about
$340/kW for 100 MW to $250/kW for 800
MW.
~400 MW to NA ~$270/kW ~$420/kW ~560/kW 2011$ Retrofit costs for 8 boilers either installed [7b]
~800 MW in 2012 or projected to be installed by
2014.
a Not Available.
b Year of reference.
2-3
Table 2.1b: Summary of SCR Cost Data for Miscellaneous Industrial Sources
Source
Category Unit Size Fuel Type Capital Cost: average (range) $ Year Comments Reference
Industrial- 350 MMBtu Coal NA ($10,000$15,000/MMBtu/hr) 1999$ Retrofit costs. Authors of referenced [15]
Commercia document estimated the low end of the range
l Boilers assuming a cost of about $100/kW for a 100
MW (1000 MMBtu/hr) utility boiler and
assuming that economies of scale would be
greater for utility boilers than for industrial
boilers (so that the cost for a 350 MMBtu/hr
industrial boiler would be comparable to or
greater than the cost for a 1000 MMBtu/hr
utility boiler on a $/MMBtu basis).
1001,000 Coal NA ($7,300$14,600/MMBtu/hr) 1999$ Retrofit costs. Generally costs available for [16]
MMBtu/hr one boiler with each type of fuel. Authors of
1001,000 Oil NA ($5,550$11,100/MMBtu/hr) 1999$ referenced document estimated costs for [16]
MMBtu/hr other sizes assuming ratio of small-to-large
$/MMBtu costs are related to ratio of large to
1001,000 Gas NA ($4,010$8,010/MMBtu/hr) 1999$ small heat inputs raised to the 0.3 power. [16]
MMBtu/hr
100 MMBtu/hr Gas NA ($7,500/MMBtu/hr) 1999$b [15]
350 MMBtu Oil, Gas, or NA ($4,000$6,000/MMBtu/hr) 1999$ [17]
Wood
57 MMBtu/hr Wood NA (>$560,000 and 1999$c Costs for a new boiler. [15]
$9,500/MMBtu/hr)
321 MMBtu/hr Wood NA ($1,980/MMBtu/hr) 2006$ [18]
Petroleum 650 MMBtu/hr Gas or NA ($3,100$25,800/MMBtu) 2004$ c Retrofit costs. Equipment costs based on [19]
Refining refinery fuel range of costs found in literature search
Steam gas (references were not provided). Installation
Boilers costs estimated using factors from the
Control Cost Manual for thermal and catalytic
incinerators.
Petroleum 350 MMBtu/hr Gas/refinery NA ($3,100$25,800/MMBtu) 2004$ c Same comment as above. [19]
Refining fuel gas
350 MMBtu/hr Refinery oil NA ($3,100$25,800/MMBtu) 2004$ c Same comment as above. [19]
2-4
Source
Process 10 MMBtu/hr Gas or $19,200/MMBtu ($12,000 1999b Costs are based primarily on quotes from two [20]
Heaters refinery fuel $26,500/MMBtu) vendors (and additional discussions). Authors
gas/NG of the referenced report added costs for fan,
combo motor, and ductwork costs based on
procedures in the Control Cost Manual.
50 MMBtu/hr Gas or $5,140/MMBtu ($4,020 1999b Same comment as above. [20]
refinery fuel $6,280/MMBtu)
gas/NG
combo
gas/NG
combo
gas/NG
combo
gas/NG
combo
68 MMBtu/hr Refinery fuel NA ($22,100/MMBtu) 1991 Retrofit costs. [15]
(Two 32 gas
MMBtu/hr)
Petroleum 70,000 NA NA ($9.1 million) 2004$c Estimated cost by vendor. [3]
Refining barrels/stream
FCCU day
(bbl/stream
day)
27,000 NA NA ($8-$12 million) 2009 [21]
bbl/stream day
<20,000- NA NA (order of magnitude range; low 2005 to Costs reported by 6 petroleum refining [22]
>100,000 end higher than two entries above) 2010 companies for 7 FCCUs in responses to EPA
bbl/stream day ICR. One new, 6 retrofits.
NA NA NA ($20 million) 2006 Approximate cost for SCR retrofits at several [23]
refineries
2-5
Source
Portland 1.09 million NA NA ($6.9 per short ton clinker) 2006a Retrofit cost. Estimate based primarily on [24,25]
Cement short tpy SCR procedures for boilers in fifth edition of
(dry kilns) clinker the Control Cost Manual. Clinker capacity
obtained from the second reference.
1.13 million NA NA ($5.9 per short ton clinker) 2006a Same comment as above. [24,25]
short tpy
clinker
2.16 million NA NA ($3.9 per short ton clinker) 2006a Same comment as above. [24,25]
short tpy
clinker
1.4 million NA NA ($5.9 per short ton clinker) 2004 Retrofit cost for European kiln. Cost in euros [26]
short tpy converted to dollars assuming a ratio of
clinker $1.3/euro.
1.055 million NA NA ($4.4 per short ton clinker) 2004 Cost for new kiln. [27]
tpy clinker
1.095 million NA NA ($4.4 per short ton clinker) 2011 Cost for new kiln. Cost based on quote for the [28]
short tpy SCR equipment, and standard installation
clinker factors from the Control Cost Manual for
other types of control devices.
Portland 0.3 million NA NA ($17.5 per short ton clinker) 2006a Retrofit costs for 4 kilns. Rated clinker [24,29]
Cement short tpy production capacity obtained from the second
(wet kilns) clinker reference.
0.320 million NA ($15.6-$16.6 per short ton 2006a Retrofit costs for 3 kilns. Rated clinker [24,25]
short tpy clinker) production capacity obtained from second
clinker reference.
Gas NA Gas NA ($50-$70/kW) 1999$a Retrofit costs. [15]
Turbine, 80 MW Gas NA ($51/kW) 1999$a Retrofit cost, excluding balance of plant [15]
Simple costs.
Cycle
2 MW Gas NA ($237/kW) 1999$a Retrofit cost. [15]
12 MW Gas NA ($167/kW) 1999$a Retrofit cost. [15]
Internal 1,800 hp Diesel (No. 2 NA ($0.18 million) [N] NA [15]
Combustio fuel oil)
n Engine
a Year of reference.
b Year analysis was conducted (assumed vendor contacts were made that year).
c Commission year of the SCR.
2-6
2.2 Process Description

Like SNCR, the SCR process is based on the chemical reduction of the NOx molecule.
The primary difference between SNCR and SCR is that SCR employs a metal-based catalyst
with activated sites to increase the rate of the reduction reaction. The primary components of the
SCR include the ammonia storage and delivery system, ammonia injection grid, and the catalyst
reactor [2]. A nitrogen-based reducing agent (reagent), such as ammonia or urea-derived
ammonia, is injected into the post-combustion flue gas. The reagent reacts selectively with the
flue gas NOx within a specific temperature range and in the presence of the catalyst and oxygen
to reduce the NOx into molecular nitrogen (N2) and water vapor (H2O).
The use of a catalyst results in two primary advantages of the SCR process over SNCR.
The main advantage is the higher NOx reduction efficiency. In addition, SCR reactions occur
within a lower and broader temperature range. However, the decrease in reaction temperature
and increase in efficiency is accompanied by a significant increase in capital and operating costs.
The capital cost increase is mainly due to the large volumes of catalyst required for the reduction
reaction. Operating costs for SCR consist mostly of replacement catalyst and ammonia reagent
costs, and while historically, the catalyst replacement cost has been the largest cost, the reagent
cost has become the most substantial portion of operating costs for most SCR [7b].3
Figure 2.1 shows a simplified process flow schematic for SCR. Reagent is injected into
the flue gas downstream of the combustion unit and economizer through an injection grid
mounted in the ductwork. The reagent is generally diluted with compressed air or steam to aid in
injection. The reagent mixes with the flue gas, and both components enter a reactor chamber
containing the catalyst. As the hot flue gas and reagent diffuse through the catalyst and contact
activated catalyst sites, NOx in the flue gas chemically reduces to nitrogen and water. The heat of
the flue gas provides energy for the reaction. The nitrogen, water vapor, and any other flue gas
constituents then flow out of the SCR reactor. More detail on the SCR process and equipment is
provided in the following sections.
There are several different locations downstream of the combustion unit where SCR
systems can be installed. Flue gas temperature and constituents vary with the location of the SCR
reactor chamber. SCR reactors located upstream of the particulate control device and the air
heater (high-dust configuration) have higher temperatures and higher levels of particulate
matter. An SCR reactor located downstream of the air heater, particulate control devices, and
flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system (low-dust or tail-end configuration) is essentially
dust- and sulfur-free but its temperature is generally below the acceptable range. In this case,
reheating of the flue gas may be required, which significantly increases the SCR operational
costs. Section 2.2.3 discusses the various SCR system configurations.
3 Several cost analyses in recent years have shown the largest operating cost is for reagent usage rather than for
catalyst costs. For example, for the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona, a 2010 BART analysis report on an 812
MW gross coal-fired unit estimates annual operating costs for ammonia reagent of $1,035,000 (based on
$465/ton) and for catalyst replacement of $672,000 (based on $8,000/m3) [30].
2-7
Figure 2.1: SCR Process Flow Diagram [31, 32]
2.2.1 Reduction Chemistry, Reagents, and Catalyst

The reducing agent employed by the majority of SCR systems is gas-phase ammonia
(NH3) because it readily penetrates the catalyst pores. The ammonia, either in anhydrous or
aqueous form, is vaporized before injection by a vaporizer. Within the appropriate temperature
range, the gas-phase ammonia then decomposes into free radicals, including NH3 and NH2. After
a series of reactions, the ammonia radicals come into contact with the NOx and reduce it to N2
and H2O. The global representation of these reactions is given below. Note that the NOx is
represented as nitrogen oxide (NO) because that is the predominant form of NOx within the
boiler. The ammonia reaction equation is represented as follows:
1
2 NO 2 NH 3 O2 catalyst
2 N 2 3H 2 O (2.1)
2
The equation indicates that one mole of NH3 is required to remove one mole of NOx. The
catalyst lowers the required activation energy for the reduction reaction and increases the
reaction rate. In the catalytic reaction, activated sites on the catalyst rapidly adsorb ammonia and
gas-phase NO to form an activated complex. The catalytic reaction, represented by Equation 2.1,
results in nitrogen and water, which are then desorbed to the flue gas. The site at which the
reaction occurs is then reactivated via oxidation.
2-8
The high temperature of the flue gas converts the ammonia to free radicals and provides
the activation energy for the reaction. The reaction also requires excess oxygen, typically 24%,
to achieve completion. NOx reduction with ammonia is exothermic, resulting in the release of
heat. However, because the NOx concentration in the flue gas at the inlet of the SCR is typically
0.010.02% by volume, the amount of heat released is correspondingly small. Thermodynamic
equilibrium is not a limiting factor in NOx reduction if the flue gas is within the required
temperature range [33].
Reagent
The SCR system can use either aqueous or anhydrous ammonia for the reduction
reaction, and some plants use urea-to-ammonia reagent systems where aqueous ammonia is
produced onsite (often called onsite urea-derived ammonia production or ammonia-on-
demand). Anhydrous ammonia is nearly 100% pure ammonia. It is a gas at normal atmospheric
temperature; therefore, it must be transported and stored under pressure. Anhydrous ammonia is
classified as a hazardous material and often requires special permits as well as additional
procedures for transportation, handling and storage.
SCR applications using aqueous ammonia generally transport and store it at a
concentration of 29.4% ammonia in water, although some applications use a 19% solution [33].
The use of aqueous ammonia reduces transport and storage problems related to safety. In
addition, certain locations may not require permits for concentrations less than 28%. Aqueous
ammonia, however, requires more storage capacity than anhydrous ammonia and also requires
shipping costs for the water solvent in the solution. Although the 29.4% solution has substantial
vapor pressure at normal air temperatures, a vaporizer is generally required to provide sufficient
ammonia vapor to the SCR system. Table 2.2 gives the properties of anhydrous ammonia and the
properties of a 29.4% aqueous ammonia solution.
The type of reagent used affects both the capital costs and annual costs. Anhydrous
ammonia typically has the lowest capital and operating costs, excluding highly site-dependent
permitting and risk management planning and implementation costs. Urea systems have the
highest capital costs due to the complexity of the processing equipment. Aqueous ammonia
systems tend to have the highest operating costs, primarily because of the cost for transportation.
Urea systems have the highest energy consumption costs because the energy needed to hydrolyze
or decompose urea tends to be higher than the energy needed to vaporize aqueous ammonia.
Although the price per ton of anhydrous ammonia is higher than the price per ton of urea, the
cost per ton of NOx removed is higher for urea due to ureas much higher molecular weight. For
example, one SCR supplier estimated capital costs for a 130 lb/hr ammonia system to be
$280,000 for anhydrous ammonia, $402,000 for 19% aqueous ammonia, and $750,000 for urea
[34]. Another reference reported that the equipment cost for urea is generally twice the
equipment cost for anhydrous ammonia [35]. According to one reference, the total SCR system
cost is 2-5% higher when using a urea reagent system instead of an anhydrous ammonia system
[10]. Relative to anhydrous ammonia, one reference estimated annual operating costs for 19%
aqueous ammonia are 50% higher, costs for 29% aqueous ammonia are 33 percent higher, and
costs for urea are 25% higher [36]. Another reference stated that as a general rule, operating
costs for urea systems are about 50 percent more than the operating costs for anhydrous
ammonia [35]. One reference estimated energy costs for an unspecified application to be
2-9
$167,000 for a urea system, $73,000 to $117,000 for aqueous ammonia systems, and $16,000 for
anhydrous ammonia [37].
This presentation is valid for anhydrous or aqueous ammonia; the capital cost procedures
are based on the typical mix of systems actually in operation, while the procedures for estimating
annual costs apply to any ammonia system (the examples in section 2.5 illustrates the procedures
for a system using 29% aqueous ammonia as the reagent).
Catalyst
SCR catalysts are composed of active metals or ceramics with a highly porous structure.
Within the pores of the catalyst are activated sites. These sites have an acid group on the end of
the compound structure where the reduction reaction occurs. As stated previously, after the
reduction reaction occurs, the site reactivates via rehydration or oxidation. Over time, however,
the catalyst activity decreases, requiring replacement, washing/cleaning, rejuvenation, or
regeneration of the catalyst. Catalyst designs and formulations are generally proprietary. Both the
catalyst material and configuration determine the properties of the catalyst.
Table 2.2: Ammonia Reagent Properties
Property Anhydrous Ammonia [38,39] Aqueous Ammonia
Liquid or gas at normal air Liquid at high pressure; gas at Liquid
temperature atmospheric pressure
Concentration of reagent normally 99.5% (by weight) 29.4% (by weight of NH3)
supplied
Molecular weight of reagent 17.03 17.03 (as NH3)
Ratio of ammonia to solution 99.5% (by weight of NH3) 29.4% (by weight of NH3)
Density of liquid at 60F 5.1 lb/gal 7.5 lb/gal
Vapor pressure at 80F 153 psia 14.6 psia [39, p. 3]
Flammability limits in air 1625% NH3 (by volume) 1625% NH3 (by volume)
Short-term exposure limit 35 ppm 35 ppm
Odor Pungent odor at 5 ppm or more Pungent odor at 5 ppm or more
Acceptable materials for storage Steel tank, rated for at least Steel tank, rated for at least 25 psig
250 psig pressure (no copper or pressure (no copper or copper-
copper-based alloys, etc.) based alloys, etc.)
Originally, SCR catalysts were precious metals such as platinum (Pt). In the late 1970s,
Japanese researchers used base metals consisting of vanadium (V), titanium (Ti), and tungsten
(W), which significantly reduced catalyst cost. In the 1980s, metal oxides such as titanium oxide
(TiO2), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), vanadium pentoxide (V2O5), and silicon oxide (SiO2) were
employed to broaden the reaction temperature range. Zeolites, crystalline alumina silicates, were
also introduced for high temperature (6751000F; 360540C) applications; however, zeolites
tended to be cost prohibitive. From 1980 to 2008, the cost of catalyst has dropped from
approximately $34,000/m3 to a range of $5,000 to $6,000/m3 (costs are in 2011$) [7b].4 This
4 An earlier reference shows that from 1980 to 2006, the cost of catalyst dropped by 75% from approximately
$16,000/m3 to less than $4,000/m3 [37]. These costs are for the cost year reported and are not adjusted for
escalation to current year.
2-10
reference also reported that catalyst prices remained in the approximate range of $5,000 to
$6,000/m3 through 2012.
Improvements to the catalyst formulations over time have decreased unwanted side
reactions such as sulfur oxide conversions (SO2 to SO3) and increased the resistance to flue gas
poisons, and newer catalysts can oxidize metallic mercury (Hg) into ionic forms (for easy
removal downstream in wet scrubbers and wet electrostatic precipitators [ESPs]) [40]. Improved
catalyst designs have also increased catalyst activity, surface area per unit volume, and the
temperature range for the reduction reaction. As a consequence, there is a corresponding
decrease in the required catalyst volumes and an increase in the catalyst operating life. For coal-
fired boiler applications, SCR catalyst vendors typically guarantee the catalyst for an operating
life ranging from 8,000 to 24,000 hours [1]. Applications using oil and natural gas have a longer
operating life, typically greater than 32,000 hours [41]. In addition, operating experience
indicates that actual catalyst deactivation rates are lower than the design specifications [33]. The
latest demands on catalyst technology for both higher and lower sulfur coal-fired boilers include
design NOx removal of 90%; control of residual NH3 to 2 ppm (i.e., ammonia slip); guarantees
for SO2 oxidation to less than 1%, and in many cases, to less than 0.5%; being able to withstand
washing/cleaning and regeneration procedures; and guarantees for mercury oxidation [37].
Catalyst formulations include single component, multi-component, or active phase with a
support structure. Most catalyst formulations contain additional compounds or supports to give
thermal and structural stability or to increase surface area [42]. Catalyst configurations are
generally ceramic honeycomb and pleated metal plate (monolith) designs in a fixed-bed reactor,
which provide high surface area to volume ratio. Pellet catalysts in fluidized beds are also
available. Pellets have greater surface area than honeycombs or pleated plates but are more
susceptible to plugging. This limits the use of pellets to clean-burning fuels such as natural gas.
Catalyst elements placed in a frame form a catalyst module. The modules stack together
in multiple layers to create a reactor bed of the total required catalyst volume. A typical module
is 3.3 ft 6.6 ft in area (1 m 2 m) and 3.3 ft (1 m) in height. A crane hoists the large catalyst
modules into the reactor from either the interior or exterior of the reactor, depending on the
reactor design.
Catalysts greatly accelerate the NOx reduction reaction rate, but some catalysts have more
favorable properties for a given application. Performance requirements that drive the choice of
catalyst include reaction temperature range, flue gas flow rate, fuel source, catalyst activity and
selectivity, SO2 oxidation, and catalyst operating life. In addition, the design must consider the
cost of the catalyst, including disposal costs [33]. In the past, the initial charge of catalyst costs
accounted for 20% or more of the capital costs for an SCR system [33], however, as catalyst unit
cost has declined over time, this catalyst cost is a smaller percentage of the capital costs [7].
The catalyst layers may be washed/cleaned, rejuvenated, or regenerated to extend the
catalyst life as catalyst activity declines, or they may be replaced. Generally, less than one layer
of catalyst is replaced per year for fixed bed designs. Most SCR manufacturers offer a disposal
service, in which either the catalyst is reactivated (i.e., rejuvenated or regenerated) for reuse or
its components are recycled for other uses [42]. If the catalyst cannot be recycled or reused, the
facility operator must dispose of the spent catalyst in an approved landfill. In the United States,
most catalyst formulations are not considered hazardous waste [42].
2-11
Catalyst cleaning typically means the removal of physical restrictions to the catalyst (i.e.,
blinding layers and large particle ash [LPA]), rejuvenation means the removal of poisons without
replenishing catalytically active compounds in the catalyst, and regeneration typically means the
removal of poisons and the restoration of catalytic activity by restoring catalyst active
ingredients [43]. These activities may occur online/in-situ or offline, and may occur onsite or
offsite [43]. The catalyst layers may be removed and transported to the cleaning, rejuvenation, or
regeneration site. Online catalyst cleaning with soot blowers or sonic horns is conducted on a
regular basis to remove ash or particles (soot blowers and sonic horns are discussed below) [44].
Water-based cleaning can also be conducted to remove physical materials that plug or blind the
catalyst [45].
Use of rejuvenated and regenerated catalyst has increased since the late 1990s, and for
some applications, can be considered equivalent to new catalyst [46]. For rejuvenation processes,
the focus is on removal of blinding materials and catalyst poisons [43, 47]. Rejuvenation
processes may cause the catalyst to lose structural integrity and mechanical strength [43]. Today,
regeneration processes focus on increasing the longevity of the catalyst by maintaining its
mechanical strength (both compressive and bonding) and improving its activity or performance
[43, 47]. The catalyst layer may be washed in a series of baths that remove ash and particulate,
remove poisons, and add chemicals or various metals used in the original catalyst manufacturing
[45, 47]. Moisture must also be removed from the catalyst because it reduces the strength of the
catalyst [47]. Because regeneration may cause catalysts to lose strength, recalcination may also
be conducted to ensure catalyst impregnation and that catalyst mechanical strength is regained
[43, 45, 47]. Improvements to the catalyst activity relative to certain reactions can be made using
a regeneration process (e.g., impregnating other chemicals in the catalyst to reduce the
conversion of SO2 to SO3 or to increase the oxidation of Hg over the conversion rate of the
original catalyst while maintaining the same catalyst activity for NOx) [47]. Damage to the
catalyst can occur during operation of the SCR or during transport of the catalyst for rework, so a
thorough inspection of the modules is conducted along with replacement or repair of any
damaged elements [44].
Use of regenerated catalysts reduces catalyst replacement cost and minimizes the need to
dispose of spent catalyst [48]. It is estimated that a typical 500-MW coal-fired power plant will
spend approximately $2,000,0005 on a single layer of new catalyst [48]. The cost for regenerated
catalyst for this same facility would be approximately $1,000,000 for a single layer of catalyst
[48]. Disposal costs when replacing a spent catalyst could be $50,000$200,000 per layer, and
these costs are avoided with regenerated catalysts [48]. Regenerated catalyst typically costs 40
percent less than new catalyst [48-50].
2.2.2 SCR Performance Parameters
The rate of the reduction reaction determines the amount of NOx removed from the flue
gas. The major design and operational factors that affect the NOx removal performance of SCR
are similar to those presented in Chapter 1, SNCR. The factors discussed previously for SNCR
include the following:
5 Cost year not available; data are from 2008 article [Reference 49].
2-12
Reaction temperature range;

Residence time available in the optimum temperature range;
Degree of mixing between the injected reagent and the combustion gases;
Molar ratio of injected reagent to inlet NOx;
Inlet NOx concentration level; and
Ammonia slip.
The majority of the discussion regarding SNCR design and operational factors is valid for
the SCR process, except for small variations due to the use of a catalyst and the reaction chamber
being separate from the combustion unit. Additional design and operational factors to consider
that are specific to the SCR process include the following:
Catalyst activity;
Catalyst selectivity;
Pressure drop across the catalyst;
Ash management (i.e., mitigating large particle ash (LPA) impacts on the catalyst);
Catalyst pitch;
Catalyst deactivation; and
Catalyst management.
The major differences between SNCR and SCR are discussed below.
Temperature
The NOx reduction reaction is effective only within a given temperature range. The use of
a catalyst in the SCR process lowers the temperature range required to maximize the NOx
reduction reaction. At temperatures below the specified range, the reaction kinetics decrease and
ammonia passes through the boiler (ammonia slip), but there is little effect on nitrous oxide
(N2O) formation. At temperatures above the specified range, N2O formation increases and
catalyst sintering and deactivation occurs, but little ammonia slip occurs.
In an SCR system, the optimum temperature depends on both the type of catalyst used in
the process and the flue gas composition. For the majority of commercial catalysts (metal
oxides), the optimum temperatures for the SCR process range from 480F to 800F (250430C)
[46]. Figure 2.2 is a graph of the NOx removal efficiency as a function of temperature for a
typical metal oxide catalyst [46]. The figure shows that the rate of NOx removal increases with
temperature up to a maximum between 700F and 750F (370400C). As the temperature
increases above 750F (400C), the reaction rate and resulting NOx removal efficiency begin to
decrease.
2-13
Figure 2.2: NOx Removal versus Temperature [46]
As flue gas temperature approaches the optimum, the reaction rate increases and less
catalyst volume achieves the same NOx removal efficiency. Figure 2.3 shows the change in the
required catalyst volume versus temperature [51]. There is approximately a 40% decrease in the
required catalyst volume as flue gas temperature increases from 600F (320C) to the optimum
range, 700750F (370400C). This decrease in catalyst volume also results in a significant
decrease in capital cost for the SCR system. Less catalyst also results in a decrease in annual
operation and maintenance costs. For example, the system pressure drop would be lower, which
would reduce the additional electricity needed to run the ID fan. The net effect on catalyst
replacement costs is uncertain; although the volume of catalyst replaced would be smaller,
deactivation may occur more frequently since the quantity of materials in the emission stream
responsible for plugging and poisoning would not be reduced.
The relationships between flue gas temperature, catalyst volume, and NOx removal are
complicated functions of the catalyst formulation and configuration. The physical and chemical
properties of each catalyst are optimized for different operating conditions. For a given catalyst
formulation, the required catalyst volume or temperature range can even change from one
manufacturer of the catalyst to another. Therefore, the selection of the catalyst is critical to the
operation and performance of the SCR system.
2-14
Figure 2.3: Change in Catalyst Volume vs. Temperature [51]
Because the optimum temperature window of the SCR process is lower than that of
SNCR, the reagent injection into a reactor chamber occurs downstream of the combustion unit,
rather than inside the combustion unit. As discussed previously, there are several options for the
location of the SCR reactor. The flue gas temperature at each of these locations is different. Most
designs install the reactor downstream of the economizer and prior to the air preheater, where the
flue gas is at the appropriate temperature for metal oxidebased catalysts. Reheating of the flue
gas may be required for reactors located downstream of the air preheater. Reheating significantly
increases SCR operational costs. This continues to be true despite natural gas prices that are
relatively low on an historical basis.6
Boiler operation at reduced loads decreases the gas flow rate. At reduced gas flow rates,
the economizer outlet gas temperature decreases because boiler heat transfer surfaces absorb
more heat from the flue gas. Typical SCR systems tolerate temperature fluctuations of 200F
(93C) [33]. At low boiler loads, however, the temperature can decrease below the optimum
range. For example, a coal-fired utility boiler has an economizer exit flue gas temperature of
690F (370C) at 100% load, but only 570F (300C) at 50% load [33]. For low-load operations,
an economizer bypass can be used to raise the flue gas temperature. An economizer bypass
diverts part of the hot flue gas from within the economizer through a bypass duct and mixes it
6 A case study of tail-end SCR indicated that the cost of natural gas for flue gas reheating was about 60% of the
variable annual operation and maintenance costs (i.e., sum of natural gas, electricity, and reagent costs) when the
unit cost of natural gas was $8/1,000 sft3 [52]. If the natural gas unit cost were $5/1,000 sft3, then the natural gas
cost for flue gas reheating would have been more than 40% of the variable annual operation and maintenance
costs.
2-15
with the relatively cooler flue gas exiting the economizer. An economizer feedwater bypass also
raises the flue gas temperature. The use of an economizer bypass results in less energy transfer to
the feedwater for steam generation; consequently, there is a small reduction in boiler efficiency.
Lower boiler efficiencies require more fuel to be burned to meet the required boiler steam output.
Residence Time and Space Velocity
Residence time is the time the reactants are within the reactor. Higher residence times
generally result in higher NOx removal rates. Temperature also affects the required residence
time. The required residence time decreases as the temperature approaches the optimum
temperature for the reduction reaction. Residence time is often expressed as space velocity, the
inverse of residence time. The space velocity of a reactor is experimentally determined from the
measured flue gas flow rate divided by the superficial volume of the catalytic reactor. The NOx
removal efficiency increases with decreasing space velocity (i.e., increasing catalyst volume) for
a given flue gas flow rate.
The optimal residence time for an SCR system is a function of the number of active
catalyst sites available for the reduction reaction and the gas flow rates within those active sites
(interstitial flow rate). The area velocity is a parameter used by SCR vendors that relates the
number of sites and the interstitial flow rate to residence time. The area velocity is defined as the
space velocity divided by the catalyst pore surface area (specific surface area). For coal-fired
boilers, typical specific surface areas range from 90 to 3,800 square feet per cubic feet (ft2/ft3)
(3001,200 square meters per cubic meters [m2/m3]) [33]. Increasing the catalyst specific surface
area increases the NOx removal for a given flue gas flow rate. This can be accomplished by
either increasing the catalyst volume, which increases the reactor size, or increasing the pore
space of the catalyst, which generally increases the catalyst cost.
Degree of Mixing
The reagent must be dispersed and mixed throughout the flue gas to ensure sufficient
contact between the reactants. Mixing is performed by an injection system that injects
pressurized gas-phase ammonia into the flue gas. The injection system controls the spray angle,
velocity, and direction of the injected reagent. Some systems inject the ammonia with a carrier
fluid, such as steam or air, to increase penetration into the flue gas. Injection systems are
application specific. Numeric modeling of the flue gas and reagent flow optimizes the design of
the injection system (see Section 2.2.6).
Mixing of the flue gas and ammonia occurs before entering the SCR reactor. If mixing is
not adequate, the NOx reduction is inefficient. SCR designs must incorporate adequate duct
length between the ammonia injection and the reactor inlet to allow for mixing. Mixing patterns
can be improved by
Installation of static mixers upstream of the reactor;
Increasing the energy imparted to the injected fluids;
Increasing the number of injectors and/or injection zones; and
Modifying the nozzle design to improve the reagent distribution, spray angle, and
direction.
2-16
Actual Stoichiometric Ratio

The actual stoichiometric ratio (the moles of reagent injected per mole of inlet NOx)
defines the quantity of reagent needed to achieve the targeted NOx reduction. According to
Equation 2.1, the theoretical stoichiometric ratio for the reduction reaction with ammonia is
equal to one. This assumption of a one-to-one linear relationship between the quantity of reagent
and the NOx removed is good up to about 85% NOx reduction [46]. Above 85%, the removal
efficiency begins to level off with the quantity of reagent, and more than the theoretical amount
of ammonia is required for additional NOx removal. This is because part of the NOx is in the
form of NO2 rather than NO and because of reaction rate limitations. SCR systems typically
employ a stoichiometric ratio of 1.05 moles of ammonia per mole of NOx [33]. Because capital
and operating costs depend on the quantity of reagent consumed, the actual stoichiometric ratio
is an important design parameter that is determined by the SCR designer.
Inlet NOx Concentration
The concentration of the reactants also affects the reaction rate of the NOx reduction
process. In general, higher inlet NOx inlet concentrations result in higher NOx removal
efficiencies due to reaction kinetics [33]. However, NOx concentrations higher than
approximately 150 parts per million (ppm) generally do not result in increased performance. Low
NOx inlet levels result in decreased NOx removal efficiencies because the reaction rates are
slower, particularly in the last layer of catalyst [33]. The percent removal efficiency achieved is
dependent on the inlet NOx concentration, so that SCR that follow other NOx controls such as
LNB or FGR may achieve an efficiency less than 90%. In general, though, SCR achieves greater
removal efficiencies than SNCR on sources with low inlet NOx levels, such as natural gasfired
boilers.
For a given NOx removal efficiency, higher NOx levels at the SCR inlet require more
catalyst volume. For example, to achieve 90% NOx removal requires 10% more catalyst at an
inlet NOx level of 1.7 lb/MMBtu versus an inlet NOx level of 0.8 lb/MMBtu [53].
Ammonia Slip
Ammonia slip refers to the excess reagent passing through the reactor. Ammonia in the
flue gas causes a number of problems, which were discussed in Chapter 1, SNCR, including
health effects, visibility of the stack effluent, salability of the fly ash, and formation of
ammonium sulfates. Limits on acceptable ammonia slip, imposed by either regulatory limits or
design requirements, place constraints on SCR performance.
Ammonia slip does not remain constant as the SCR system operates but increases as the
catalyst activity decreases. Properly designed SCR systems, which operate close to the
theoretical stoichiometry and supply adequate catalyst volume, maintain low ammonia slip
levels, approximately less than 2 ppm [1]. While ammonia slip levels in operating permits are
typically in the range of 2 to 10 ppm, in actual practice lower slip levels are achieved, and the
slip levels approach permitted levels only when the catalyst is near the end of its service life [1].
Ammonia slip increases with the NSR ratio.7 Ammonia slip monitoring instruments are
commercially available and are in place and operating at a number of coal-fired units. Facilities
7 Lewandowski, D. Design of Thermal Oxidation Systems for Volatiles Organic Compounds.
2-17
typically install ammonia slip monitors between the SCR and the air heater and may measure at
one or several points. These systems monitor ammonia slip and help the unit maintain slip levels
of 23 ppmv or less. The capital cost for one ammonia slip monitoring instrument is estimated to
be $40,000 for a single measurement point and up to $70,000 in capital cost for three
measurement points [54]. Another method for quantifying ammonia slip is to determine the
ammonia concentration in collected fly ash [55].
Catalyst Activity
Catalyst activity is a measure of how much the catalyst accelerates the NOx reduction
reaction rate. A higher catalyst activity results in a faster reaction rate and more NOx removal.
Catalyst activity is a function of many variables, including catalyst composition and structure,
diffusion rates, mass transfer rates, gas temperature, and gas composition [56]. As the catalyst
activity decreases, the NOx reduction reaction rate also decreases. This results in lower NOx
removal and higher ammonia slip levels.
The following equation describes the deactivation of the catalyst activity, K, with
time, t [57]:
K K o e (t / ) (2.2)
where Ko is the original catalyst activity and is the catalyst operating life time constant.
Figure 2.4 shows a typical catalyst deactivation curve based on Equation 2.2. As the catalyst
activity decreases, the NOx removal efficiency is usually kept constant by injecting more
ammonia, thereby increasing the ammonia slip. When the ammonia slip reaches the maximum
design or permitted level, the catalyst or a catalyst layer must be cleaned, rejuvenated, or
regenerated, or new catalyst must be installed.
Catalyst Reaction Selectivity
SCR favors the NOx reduction reaction over competing reactions if the reactants are at
the appropriate temperature and oxygen is present. However, competing reactions still occur, and
the catalyst accelerates these reactions as well. Each catalyst has different chemical reaction
selectivity properties. In general, catalysts promote the formation of two undesirable compounds,
sulfur trioxide (SO3) and nitrous oxide (N2O). SO3 is formed by the oxidation of SO2 to SO3,
which occurs both during combustion of sulfur-containing fuel and over the catalyst. Sulfur
oxides (SOx) are regulated under the 1990 Clean Air Act. SO3 reacts with ammonia in the flue
gas to form ammonia sulfates. Ammonium sulfur salts deposit on the catalyst and on
downstream equipment such as the air preheaters. SO3 and ammonium sulfate formation is
primarily a concern for higher sulfur coals. Additional costs for air preheater modifications are
included in the cost analysis when the sulfur content of fuel is greater than 2 percent or the SO2
content of the fuel is greater than or equal to 3 lb/mmBtu. Increasing the number of catalyst
layers, while increasing NOx removal efficiency, can also lead to an increase in the conversion of
SO2 to SO3.8 In addition, SO3 emissions cause blue plume from the unit and have become an
8 U.S. EPA. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) proposal for the Four Corners Power Plant. 77 FR 51620 (August
24, 2012). Correspondence between U.S. EPA and Hitachi Power Systems America.
2-18
emissions concern. Newer catalysts, however, have been developed that limit the formation of
SO3 [37], and these catalysts are now commonly used in SCR installations in the U.S. N2O is
both an ozone depleter and a greenhouse gas. N2O has a global warming potential (GWP) of 298
as compared to carbon dioxide (CO2).9
Figure 2.4: Typical Catalyst Deactivation per Equation 2.2 with KO = 24.12; = 55,000
Pressure Loss
The flue gas pressure decreases as the flue gas flows across the catalyst. The decrease in
pressure is a function of the length of the catalyst and the catalyst configuration. Deposition of
fly ash and other particulates on the catalyst over time increases this pressure drop across the
catalyst. The flue gas pressure can be increased by installing new draft fans or by upgrading
existing fans. To minimize the pressure loss across the catalyst, the SCR reactor ductwork can be
expanded and flow rectifiers and turning vanes can be installed. Pressure loss is of greater
concern in turbine applications, which rely on air flow rather than heat transfer to generate
power.
9 It should be noted that EPA issued a final rule on November 29, 2013 that changed the GWP of N 2O to 298 (from
310) as part of a notice of data availability concerning the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Rule. The November 29,
2013 notice can be found in the Federal Register at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-29/pdf/2013-
27996.pdf .
2-19
Catalyst Pitch
Catalyst pitch is a term used with honeycomb and metal plate catalyst, and it affects the
flue gas velocity in interstitial spaces [33]. As shown in Figure 2.5, pitch (represented as p) is the
width of the catalyst cell plus the cell wall thickness, a. For a given flow rate, wider pitch will
result in lower interstitial gas velocities. Appropriate catalyst pitch is important to ensure that ash
will not deposit and bridge over catalyst cells and pores. Plugging of the catalyst reduces the
effective surface area by decreasing the number of active sites available for the NOx reduction
reaction.
Figure 2.5: Pitch for a Honeycomb Catalyst Configuration
Catalyst Deactivation
Catalysts lose their activity over time for various reasons. The primary mechanisms for
catalyst deactivation and surface area loss are discussed below.
Poisoning Certain fuel constituents that are released during combustion act as catalyst
poisons. Catalyst poisons include calcium oxide, magnesium oxide, potassium, sodium, arsenic,
chlorine, fluorine, and lead. These constituents deactivate the catalyst by diffusing into active
pore sites and occupying them. Catalyst poisoning represents the main cause of catalyst
deactivation. The activity of poisoned catalysts may be restored by rejuvenation or regeneration.
Thermal Sintering High flue gas temperatures within the SCR reactor cause sintering,
a permanent loss of catalyst activity due to a change in the pore structure of the catalyst. Thermal
sintering can occur at temperatures as low as 450F (230C). The amount of thermal sintering
depends on the composition and structure of the catalyst. Newer catalyst materials are less
susceptible to thermal sintering, which increases their operating life.
Blinding, Plugging, and Fouling Ammonia-sulfur salts, fly ash, and other particulate
matter in the flue gas cause blinding, plugging, or fouling of the catalyst. The particulate matter
deposits on the surface and in the active pore sites of the catalyst. This results in a decrease of the
number of sites available for NOx reduction and an increase in flue gas pressure loss across the
catalyst.
Erosion Impingement of particulate matter and high interstitial gas velocities erode the
catalyst material. Catalysts with hardened leading edges or increased structural strength are less
2-20
susceptible to erosion. However, increasing catalyst strength through hardening reduces the
number of active pore sites.
Aging Catalyst aging is a change in the physical and chemical properties of the catalyst
pores that occurs over time.
A number of measures can be taken to decrease the rate of deactivation and deterioration
of the catalyst. These measures are discussed below.
Catalyst Formulation Each catalyst formulation has different physical and chemical
properties. Catalyst formulations with the following properties will have decreased deactivation:
Increased activity per unit volume;
Greater thermal resistance;
Chemical and physical resistance to poisons;
Wider thermal operating range;
Greater structural strength and hardened leading edges; and
Lower interstitial velocities (i.e., wider catalyst pitch).
To obtain the optimal catalyst formulation and SCR design for an application, the catalyst
supplier and SCR vendor should be informed of the fuel constituents, such as sulfur, chlorine,
fluorine, alkali, and trace metals. These fuel and ash constituents can be determined by chemical
analyses. The associated analytical data can then be used to modify the catalyst composition to
determine catalyst volume and design the SCR reactor components.
Soot Blowers and Sonic Horns Deposits on the surface of the catalyst can be
dislodged by soot blowers, which are generally installed between each catalyst layer and
operated on a periodic basis, such as once a week. A sonic horn is another option that prevents
accumulation of ash deposits on the catalyst surface. A sonic horn may operate at a typical
frequency of 10 seconds every 10 minutes [37].
Turning Vanes and Rectifier Grids Particulate matter can be removed from the flue
gas by gas-flow turning vanes and flow rectifier grids near the front of the catalyst layer.
Particles impact the surface of the vanes or grid and fall out of the flue gas stream. In addition to
removing particles, turning vanes and flow rectifier grids decrease the linear velocity of the flue
gas and align its vector with the flow path of the catalyst.
Catalyst Management Plan
Catalyst deactivation is an inherent part of the SCR process. As the catalyst activity
decreases with time, the NOx reduction reaction rate decreases and ammonia slip increases.
When the ammonia slip level reaches the design limit, the catalyst must be replaced with
regenerated catalyst or new catalyst must be added. The catalyst life is the time the catalyst
activity for a given catalyst volume (layer volume) maintains ammonia slip below the design
limit. Currently, vendor-guaranteed life for a catalyst layer in coal-fired applications is typically
three years [51], and actual catalyst layer lifetimes in such applications are often in the 5 to 7
year range, depending on the condition of untreated flue gas [33]. Gas- and oil-fired applications
experience even longer catalyst layer lifetimes.
2-21
A catalyst management plan (CMP), as described in a saw-toothed graphic shown in

Figure 2.6, schedules periodic replacement of catalyst to maintain ammonia slip limits (this CMP
has a maximum ammonia slip design value of 2 ppm [58]). In the past, CMP descriptions
focused mainly on the catalyst replacement schedules; however, today, a CMP is a
comprehensive catalyst management strategy that incorporates both SCR equipment
management and catalyst management, along with attention to changes in regulatory
requirements. This more comprehensive approach is needed with the move to year-round
operation of SCRs. While operation of SCR for compliance with the NOx SIP Call (1998)
requirements typically called for ozone season operation only, year round operation is necessary
to comply with more recent regulations (e.g., The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 1999
Regional Haze Rule, an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) initiative, and state rules such as
the North Carolina (NC) Clean Smokestacks Rule that took effect in 2009 and the Texas
requirements for the Houston area), to generate NOx credits, or to comply with settlement
agreements with the U.S. EPA and Department of Justice. Continuous, ongoing collection and
documentation of data on plant loading and cycling, fuel demands and variation, and ongoing
NOx performance and SO2 conversion, which can then be compared to catalyst activity data, is
conducted to create the plant operating history. Some companies have developed computer
software that collects these data and optimizes the costs for catalyst replacement options. In
general, an annual SCR system inspection is conducted on the catalyst, the reactor, and the
complete NH3 storage and injection system. Inspection of the catalyst includes a physical
inspection along with catalyst sampling and analysis on a bench-scale reactor for activity, SO2 to
SO3 conversion rate, and pressure drop for each catalyst layer. Annual ammonia injection grid
(AIG) tuning and optimization is also conducted to ensure uniform flow rate/velocity and
uniform NH3/NOx molar distribution. Poor distribution of the NH3/NOx decreases the NOx
reduction and increases the NH3 slip [59]. In situ measurements of the catalyst activity have been
developed, where NO analyzers installed before and after the catalyst layer and a small
supplemental ammonia controller allow increases in the NH3/NOx ratio and measurement of inlet
and outlet NOx samples, contained to a small area of the catalyst. In situ catalyst activity
measurements may be important for year-round operation of SCR units [60].
2-22
Figure 2.6: Typical Catalyst Management Plan [61]
Most CMPs call for the SCR reactor design to provide two or more layers filled with
catalyst and one or more empty or spare catalyst layers (often called 2:1 design). When the
initial catalyst layers deactivate to the point where ammonia slip reaches the maximum design
value, the facility typically adds catalyst to the empty layer. Catalyst addition is managed so that
the total catalyst activity of all the layers (the two or three older catalyst layers plus the new
catalyst layers) is sufficient to meet the ammonia slip requirement for a relatively long period of
time. As the catalyst continues to deactivate, ammonia slip begins to rise again. When ammonia
slip again reaches the maximum design value, one of the older catalyst layers is removed and
replaced. The catalyst analysis data identifies which layer should be replaced. With advances in
catalyst regeneration, part of a comprehensive CMP is determining whether the catalyst can be
regenerated or whether new catalyst must be used. Before a regeneration process is planned, the
process should be prequalified on a catalyst sample. If additional catalyst capabilities are needed,
review of recent catalyst technology advances for newer catalysts that achieve mercury
reductions, lower SO2 conversion rates, and lower load and temperature operation is advised,
although some regeneration processes may offer improvements with these catalyst capabilities as
well. Typically, the addition and replacement of catalyst layers is coordinated with plant outage
periods if at all possible, and outage frequency should be considered in conjunction with the risk
considerations for replacing sooner rather than later [59]. There would likely be additional costs
(e.g., due to lost generation) if a facility is unable to coordinate with planned unit outages.
2-23
In the past, catalyst cost was a significant portion of the annual cost of operating an SCR
system. Under the latest operating approaches that involve using a CMP, only a fraction of the
total catalyst inventory, rather than the entire volume, is replaced at any one time. This
distributes the catalyst replacement costs more evenly over the lifetime of the system, and use of
regenerated catalyst may also reduce the overall annual costs [59].
2.2.3 SCR System Configurations
Electric utility and large industrial boiler applications implement several different SCR
system configurations, including high-dust, low-dust, and tail-end arrangements. In a 1997
report, the SCR configurations were reported as 88% high-dust SCR, 6% low-dust, and 6% tail-
end [62].10 More recently for the U.S, it was reported that most SCR configurations are high
dust, only one facility has a low-dust SCR, and no tail-end SCR operate in the U.S. [52]. High-
dust is generally considered the most economical and straightforward design provided sufficient
space is available to construct the SCR close to the economizer and air pre-heater. Boiler units
with space constraints must consider low-dust and tail-end SCR designs. SCR configurations for
gas turbine applications depend on the type of engine cycle, such as combined-cycle or simple
cycle. The various configurations for boilers and gas-fired turbines are discussed below. In
addition, there are two different SCR reactor designs, full SCR and in-duct SCR, which are also
discussed.
High-Dust SCR
Figure 2.7 shows a high-dust SCR system for coal-fired boiler applications. The SCR
reactor location is downstream of the economizer and upstream of the air heater and particulate
control devices. The flue gas temperature in this location is usually within the optimal
temperature window for NOx reduction reactions using metal oxide catalysts. In this
configuration, however, the flue gas contains particulates when it enters the SCR reactor.
Coal-fired boilers generally use a vertical SCR reactor, where the flue gas flows
downward through the catalyst. The reactor generally contains multiple layers of catalyst. The
volume of catalyst required varies with each installation, as discussed previously. Soot blowers
or sonic horns are installed to remove particulates from the catalyst surfaces. For designs that use
a honeycomb catalyst, the catalyst pitch is typically about 79 mm (compared with 34 mm for
gas-fired boilers) to allow easy passage of ash particles without deposition and ease of cleaning
with soot blowers or sonic horns. To obtain uniform gas flow and remove particulates, high-dust
SCR designs usually include turning vanes and a flow-rectifying grid in the ductwork prior to the
reactor. High-dust SCR typically require 3 or 4 layers of catalyst [52].
A hopper at the bottom of the SCR reactor collects ash and particulates separated from
the flue gas stream. The hopper outlet connects to the plant fly ash handling system for periodic
removal of the accumulated ash. Flue gas exits the reactor via an opening at the top of the hopper
and is directed to the air heater inlet. Some designs eliminate the need for hoppers by keeping
flue gas velocities high enough in these areas that fly ash remains entrained in the flue gas.
10 In a 2006 report, one utility/vendor reported that of their 24 SCRs, 71% were high-dust, 4% were low-dust, and
25% were tail-end [63]. These data are from a single vendor; the data above in the text represent multiple vendors.
2-24
Natural gasand distillate oilfired boilers generate flue gas that is relatively free of dust
and SO2 (for low-sulfur oil). Consequently, SCR systems for these boilers place the reactor
upstream of the air heater, in the high-dust SCR configuration.
Figure 2.7: High-Dust SCR Arrangement [42]
Low-Dust SCR
Coal-fired units with an ESP located upstream of the air heater (hot-side ESP) typically
use a low-dust SCR configuration. Figure 2.8 shows a low dust configuration, which locates the
SCR reactor downstream of the ESP. In this location, the flue gas is relatively dust free. The ash
removed by the ESP typically contains arsenic, alkali metals, and other constituents that are
detrimental to catalyst performance and life.
A low-dust SCR system increases catalyst life by mitigating concentrations of
particulates and catalyst poisons in the SCR reactor. In addition, low-dust SCR configurations do
not need ash hoppers. For designs employing honeycomb catalyst, the catalyst pitch can be
reduced to approximately 47 mm, resulting in lower catalyst volume. Low-dust SCR typically
requires only 2 layers of catalyst [52]. Longer catalyst life, lower catalyst volume, and the
elimination of the ash hopper mean lower costs for low-dust SCR compared to high-dust
configurations. The only disadvantage of low-dust SCR is the temperature drop of the flue gas as
it flows through the ESP. Flue gas temperatures generally do not decrease to the point where
2-25
reheating is required. However, an increase in the size of the existing economizer bypass duct
may be required to maintain the flue gas temperature within the optimal range.
Figure 2.8: Low-Dust SCR Arrangement [42]
Tail-End SCR
Early installations of coal-fired boilers in Europe and Japan employ tail-end SCR
configurations. This configuration places the SCR reactor downstream of all air pollution control
equipment installed on a unit. Figure 2.9 depicts a tail-end system for a plant with a particulate
control device and a wet FGD system. The air pollution control equipment removes most flue
gas constituents detrimental to SCR catalyst before the flue gas enters the SCR reactor. However,
because the flue gas temperature at the tail end is below the range required for the NH3/NOx
reaction, the flue gas needs to be reheated. Tail-end SCR systems use oil- or natural gasfired
duct burners or steam coil gas heaters for reheating. Some of the energy used to reheat the gas is
recovered in a recuperating gas-to-gas heater.
A tail-end system may cost the most of the three SCR systems from a capital and annual
standpoint because of the additional equipment and operational costs required for flue gas
reheating and heat recovery. However, in some situations where boiler units have space
constraints, the capital cost for high-dust SCR may be higher than for tail-end SCR [52]. Tail-
end units tend to require less catalyst, provide a longer life for the catalyst, which reduces both
capital and annual operating costs. Tail-end SCR typically require only 2 layers of catalyst [52].
In addition, because there is less fly ash, catalyst poisons, and SO2 in the flue gas for tail-end
units, less expensive catalyst may be used [52]. Operating experience and the availability of
improved catalysts for the high-dust SCR system makes the tail-end SCR system the least
2-26
attractive of the three options. New low temperature catalysts are currently being developed and
may make tail-end systems a more cost-effective option in the future [64].
Figure 2.9: Tail-end SCR Arrangement [42]
Gas Turbines
Natural gasfired turbine applications frequently use SCR technology for post-
combustion NOx control. There are two basic gas turbine configurations: combined cycle
(cogeneration cycle) and simple cycle. The majority of SCR systems are installed as combined
cycle applications. A typical combined-cycle SCR design places the reactor chamber after the
superheater within a cavity of the heat recovery steam generator system, as shown in Figure 2.10.
The flue gas temperature in this area is within the operating range for base metal catalysts. Some
combined-cycle gas turbine designs locate the SCR reactor downstream of the heat recovery
steam generator system and prior to the economizer, at temperatures ranging from 350F to
400F (180200C). Simple-cycle applications of SCR place the reactor chamber directly at the
turbine exhaust, where the flue gas temperature is in the range of 850F to 1000F (450540C).
This requires the use of a high-temperature catalyst such as zeolite [42].
2-27
Figure 2.10: SCR Arrangement for a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine [42]
SCR Reactor Designs

The reactor design affects the capital and operating costs of the SCR system and the
CMP. There are two different types of SCR reactors: full SCR and in-duct SCR. Full SCR
designs house the catalyst in a separate reactor chamber. The boiler flue gas must be ducted from
the economizer outlet to the SCR reactor, then to the air heater inlet. A separate reactor allows a
large volume of catalyst to be installed in layers, which increases NOx reduction and catalyst
lifetime. It also increases the duct length available for the mixing of reactants before entering the
reactor chamber. However, a separate reactor requires a large amount of space adjacent the boiler
to install the reactor and ductwork. The additional ductwork often necessitates upgrades to the
draft fan system.
In-duct (inline) SCR systems house the reactor within the plants existing ductwork rather
than in a separate reactor chamber. The ductwork is generally enlarged to provide sufficient
room for the catalyst. In-duct systems save on costs for the ductwork, reactor chamber, and
induced draft (ID) fan. In-duct designs limit catalyst volume and mixing length; therefore, they
are commonly used in conjunction with other NOx control technologies [41]. Catalyst erosion is
generally higher for in-duct systems. Installation and maintenance of in-duct systems typically
require more boiler outages. Natural gasfired boilers, which have low catalyst volumes,
frequently employ in-duct systems. Coal-fired boilers frequently employ full SCR reactors but
may apply in-duct SCR reactors where space limitations restrict the installation of a full reactor
[41].
2-28
2.2.4 SCR System Primary Equipment

The majority of SCR designs use Thermal DeNOx, an ammonia-based NOx reduction
system developed and patented by Exxon Research and Engineering Company in 1975. An SCR
system consists of five basic steps:
Receive and store the ammonia (or the urea reactant, followed by onsite ammonia
production);
Vaporize the ammonia and mix it with air;
Inject the ammonia/air mixture at appropriate locations;
Mix the ammonia/air with flue gas; and
Diffuse the reactants into the catalyst and reduce the NOx.
Although the basic steps in an SCR system are similar for all configurations, the system
design and equipment specifications are somewhat different. A discussion of the SCR system
design and equipment is given below for an ammonia reagent, high-dust, full reactor SCR for a
120 MW (approximately 1,200 MMBtu/hr) coal-burning utility boiler. The SCR process steps,
related auxiliary equipment, and the potential impacts of SCR operation on existing plant
equipment are also discussed. Simplified system flow schematics are presented in Figure 2.1 and
Figure 2.7, and a list of equipment is presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: Major Equipment List for an SCR Application
Item Description/Size
SCR reactors (12) Vertical flow type, 805,000 acfm capacity, 44 ft 44 ft 31 ft. high
(excluding outlet duct and hoppers), equipped with 9,604 ft3 of ceramic
honeycomb catalyst, insulated casing, soot blowers or sonic horns,
hoppers, and hoisting mechanism for catalyst replacement
Anhydrous ammonia tank (1 or more) Horizontal tank, 250 psig design pressure, storage tanks 15,000 gal, 34-
ton storage capacity
Air compressor (2) Centrifugal type, rated at 3,200 acfm and 30 hp motor
Vaporizers (2) Electrical type, rated at 80 kW
Mixing chamber Carbon steel vessel for mixing or air and ammonia
Ammonia injection grid Stainless steel construction, piping, valves and nozzles
Ammonia supply piping Piping for ammonia unloading and supply, carbon steel pipe: 1.0-inch
diameter, with valves and fittings
Soot blowing steam Steam supply piping for the reactor soot-piping blowers, 2-inch diameter
pipe with an on-off control valve and drain and vent valved connections
Air ductwork Ductwork between air blowers, mixing chamber, and ammonia injection
grid, carbon steel, 14-inch diameter, with two isolation butterfly dampers
and expansion joints
Flue gas ductwork Ductwork modifications to install the SCR modifications reactors,
consisting of insulated duct, static mixers, turning vanes, and expansion
joints
Economizer bypass Ductwork addition to increase flue gas temperature during low loads
consisting of insulated duct, flow control dampers, static mixers, turning
vanes, expansion joints, and an opening in the boiler casing
Ash handling Extension of the existing fly ash handling modifications system:
modifications consisting of twelve slide gate valves, twelve material
handling valves, one segregating valve, and ash conveyor piping
2-29
Item Description/Size
Induced draft fans Centrifugal type, 650,000 acfm at 34 inches water gauge (in. w.g.) and
4,000 hp motor
Controls and instrumentation Stand-alone, microprocessor-based controls for the SCR system with
feedback from the plant controls for the unit load, NOx emissions, etc.,
including NOx analyzers, air and ammonia flow monitoring devices,
ammonia sensing and alarming devices at the tank area, and other
miscellaneous instrumentation
Electrical supply Electrical wiring, raceway, and conduit to connect the new equipment and
controls to the existing plant supply systems
Electrical equipment System service transformer OA/FA/-60 Hz, 1,000/1,250 kVA (65C)
Foundations Foundations for the equipment and ductwork/piping, as required
Structural steel Steel for access to and support of the SCR reactors and other equipment,
ductwork, and piping
Reagent Production, Storage, and Vaporization

As discussed previously, one of several reagents may be used in an SCR system,
including anhydrous ammonia, aqueous ammonia, or urea. In the past, reagents have typically
been purchased and stored before vaporization and use in the SCR. Ammonia (both anhydrous
and aqueous) is the type of reagent most often used in SCR systems. Of about 230 utility boilers
for which reagent type was reported in response to a survey in 2009, about 80 percent used
ammonia, and 20 percent used urea [4]. Urea reagent is mostly used in SNCR systems [65].
Another option that some facilities have recently adopted is to produce ammonia onsite from
urea feedstock. The onsite ammonia production system may reduce or eliminate ammonia
shipping, handling, and onsite storage. Load following by the onsite ammonia production system
is extremely important for the proper operation of the SCR.
Several of the pros and cons of each ammonia system are shown in Table 2.4. In general,
anhydrous ammonia is the least costly reagent; however, plant personnel and community safety,
permitting, and other hazard planning concerns associated with its use may make this option less
attractive and add to its cost. Aqueous ammonia is typically higher cost, given the energy
required to vaporize or decompose the reagent, although some facilities have chosen this option
over anhydrous ammonia to avoid some of the safety and planning concerns for anhydrous
ammonia [37]. In general, as ammonia consumption increases, onsite urea-derived ammonia
production is the most economical, while for lower consumption rates, aqueous ammonia may be
the preferred economic option. For year-round operation, onsite urea-derived ammonia systems
become economically competitive with 29% aqueous ammonia for plants around 800 MW and
larger. For ozone season operation, onsite urea-derived ammonia systems become competitive
with 29% aqueous ammonia at a plant size of 1,300 MW and larger [65]. The total cost of an
SCR system with an onsite urea-derived ammonia system is approximately 2 to 5% more than an
SCR system based on anhydrous NH3 [10]. Another source reported a capital cost of $24 million
for its onsite urea-derived ammonia system for a 1,300 MW unit delivering approximately 7,000
lb/hr NH3, with a total capital investment of $175 million for the SCR system (not including the
ammonia system) [66].
2-30
Table 2.4: Comparison of Ammonia Delivery Systems [65]

Measure Anhydrous NH3 Aqueous 19% NH3 Aqueous 29% NH3 Urea-derived NH3
Risk level Highest safety, Lower safety, Lower safety, Lowest safety,
hazard, permitting, hazard, permitting, hazard, permitting, hazard, permitting,
and regulatory and regulatory and regulatory regulatory issues
issues issues issues
Energy Lowest energy use High energy use Medium energy use Not known
Product deliveries Fewest product Large number of Medium number of Not applicable
deliveries product deliveries product deliveries
Capital cost Low capital cost Low capital cost Low capital cost Highest capital cost
Annual cost Lowest annual cost High annual cost Medium annual cost Medium annual cost
Aqueous ammonia is typically available as a 1929.4% solution in water. Anhydrous

ammonia is nearly 100% pure ammonia and stored as a liquid under pressure. Table 2.2 presents
the properties of aqueous (29%) and anhydrous ammonia.
If facilities receive anhydrous or aqueous ammonia from offsite, it is received via a tank-
truck or rail car and pumped into one or more storage tanks. Ammonia is typically stored as a
liquid in horizontal cylindrical tanks. An aqueous ammonia tank is an enclosed tank rated for
only slightly elevated pressure, while an anhydrous ammonia tank is a pressure vessel rated for at
least 250 pounds per square inch gauge (psig). An anhydrous ammonia tank can be filled to only
about 85% of its total volume to allow for a vapor space above the liquid level. The tanks are
equipped with level and temperature indicators; a manway, vent, and access ladder; and other
appurtenances. The applicability of heat tracing, insulation, and seismic design criteria are
determined based on site-specific conditions. The tank should be mounted on a concrete pad and
surrounded by a spill containment structure such as a dike.
SCR applications on large boilers generally require one to five tanks with volumes
ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 gallons per tank to maintain sufficient volume for 13 weeks of
SCR operations. The ammonia storage tank may be sized for 330 days of storage. The high end
of the range would be used in conservative design practice. Alternatively, if ammonia
distributors are located nearby and considered reliable, the plant owner might opt for a smaller
tank, sized for fewer days of ammonia storage.
Aqueous ammonia is vaporized by pumping it to a vessel where it mixes with hot air. The
air from the dilution air fan is heated in an electric heater or other heat exchanger (e.g., steam). In
most aqueous ammonia applications, the ammonia-air mixture leaves the vaporizer vessel at
about 300F (150C). The vaporization energy required for aqueous ammonia is much greater
than that required for anhydrous ammonia because the water in the aqueous ammonia solution
also must be vaporized.
If anhydrous ammonia is used, it is fed to the electrical vaporizer by gravity, and the
vaporized gas is returned to the storage tank vapor space. Vapor is drawn from the vapor space
and piped to the ammonia/air mixer. Alternatively, liquid anhydrous ammonia may be pumped to
a vaporizer and piped to the ammonia/air mixer.
2-31
Ammonia (aqueous or anhydrous), diluted with air at a ratio of about 20:1 (air:NH3), is
transported to the ammonia injection grid. The high proportion of air helps ensure good mixing
of air and ammonia and keeps the mixture below the flammable limit.
Onsite Urea-Derived Ammonia Production
Use of onsite ammonia production systems for feed into SCR reactors has increased,
mostly as a result of safety concerns [37]. Several process types can produce ammonia from
urea, including (1) systems that hydrolyze an aqueous urea solution to form ammonia and carbon
dioxide (and water); (2) systems that melt solid urea and mix the liquor with steam, where it
reacts the melted urea across a catalyst to form ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water vapor; and
(3) systems that atomize an aqueous urea solution in a decomposition chamber containing a hot
air stream or flue gas stream at 8001200F (430650C) to form ammonia and isocyanic acid
(NHCO) [37]. The capital costs of these systems vary with design [37]. Urea feedstock is
available in solid form or as urea solution in deionized water [65]. Almost all urea-to-ammonia
systems use solid urea [65]. Urea-to-ammonia systems typically include dry urea unloading
equipment, storage silo, dissolving tank using deionized water, feed tanks, feed pumps, a
solution heater, and a hydrolyzing reactor or decomposition chamber, depending on the type of
process used [65]. Descriptions of two types of these systems are provided.
One of the urea-derived ammonia production systems converts urea by thermal
hydrolysis to ammonia, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. As shown in Figure 2.11, the system
consists of urea storage, handling, and dissolvers; a reactor feed tank; circulation; feed pump;
condensate skids; a hydrolysis reactor; and ammonia flow control units. In the urea solution
preparation, dry urea is fed batch-wise from delivery trucks directly to the dissolver along with
deionized water, and the urea solution is stored. In the solution feed and control system, urea
solution is transferred to the reactor feed tank, and the feed pump meters the urea solution to the
reactor, which is heated using steam. The hydrolysis reactor is a kettle-reboiler type heat
exchanger that operates at 80 psig and at a temperature in the range of 280 to 310F (140
150C). The urea-to-ammonia reaction occurs in two steps: the first reaction produces
ammonium carbamate (NH4COONH2) from urea and water, and the ammonium carbamate
breaks down into carbon dioxide and ammonia in the presence of heat. The temperature of the
reactor drives the rate of ammonia production. Trace amounts of formaldehyde are present when
formaldehyde-conditioned urea is used as feedstock; operating the hydrolysis reactor at a pH of 9
or higher limits formation of urea formaldehyde polymeric resins that can deposit on the reactor
[67].
One of the urea-derived ammonia production systems decomposes urea to generate
ammonia that is fed to the AIG, as shown in Figure 2.12. The system consists of a blower,
decomposition chamber, urea storage, chemical pumping system, and process controls. In the
urea storage and pumping system, dry urea from the storage tank is mixed in a solution tank with
water and transferred to an aqueous urea solution storage tank. Filtered ambient air is fed into the
decomposition chamber through the use of a blower with automatic dampers to control discharge
flow and pressure. In the chamber, a burner is fired downstream of the dampers, and an aqueous
urea solution that is supplied by the storage and pumping system is sprayed into the
postcombustion gases by injectors. The decomposition occurs under a specific temperature and
residence time, with the decomposition temperature ranging from 600 to 1000F (320540C),
2-32
and the urea is decomposed to ammonia and isocyanic acid. The outlet ammonia stream from the
decomposition chamber feeds into the AIG system for the SCR [68].
Figure 2-11: Urea-Derived Ammonia Production System Using U2A system [65]
Used by permission of R. Salib of URS Washington Division (formerly Washington Group International).
Figure 2.12: Urea-Derived Ammonia Production System Using NOx ULTRA System [68]
Used by permission of K.R. Dougherty of Fuel Tech, Inc.
2-33
Ammonia Injection
For aqueous, anhydrous, or urea-derived ammonia, the ammonia-air mixture is directed
through a flow-balancing skid to the AIG, where it is injected under pressure. The flow-
balancing skid consists of flow meters and manual valves to adjust the flow to each part of the
AIG.
The AIG consists of a network of pipes or lances connected in parallel and perforated
with several holes or nozzles. The lances are placed in a grid formation across the width and
height of the ductwork. The lances and holes are sized to distribute the ammonia uniformly into
the flue gas. The spray angle and velocity of the injection control the trajectory of the ammonia.
Injectors are subject to high temperatures and flue gas impingement, which cause erosion,
corrosion, and degradation of structural integrity. Therefore, injectors are generally constructed
of stainless steel and designed to be replaceable. Multiple injection zones may be used to
increase the distribution of ammonia.
The ammonia can be injected with a low- or high-energy system. A low-energy system
uses little or no pressurized air while a high-energy system uses large amounts of compressed air
or steam to inject and vigorously mix the solution with the flue gas. AIG systems in large boilers
typically use high-energy systems. High-energy systems are more expensive to build and operate
because they require a larger compressor and a more robust injection system, and consume more
electric power.
Uniform distribution and mixing with flue gas is critical to maintain desired low levels of
ammonia slip. Cold gas flow modeling and numerical flow modeling are generally performed for
the AIG and SCR system to ensure uniform mixing and dispersion before the gases enter the
SCR reactor. If duct length is inadequate to ensure thorough mixing or results from the model
study indicate poor gas mixing characteristics, devices such as turning vanes or static gas mixers
may be added.
An essential part of an AIG system is the controller used to regulate ammonia injection.
Boiler load, inlet NOx, and inlet gas temperatures set the feed-forward signal to establish the base
ammonia injection rate. A feedback signal measuring the SCR outlet NOx concentration is used
to trim the base ammonia injection rate.
Although not necessarily required to achieve high NOx removal efficiencies and low
ammonia slip, most SCR installations today employ some type of static mixer to achieve good
NH3/NO mixing [37]. Static mixers provide a more uniform flux of NOx and more uniform
temperature and mixing of NH3 and NO [37]. For example, achieving 90% NOx removal and a 2-
ppm ammonia slip typically requires NH3/NO uniformity less than 5% and perhaps as low as
3%, as measured on a root mean square basis, and static mixers enable the SCR to achieve these
levels [37]. The costs for static mixers vary (e.g., a 500 MW unit may have an installed cost of
$750,000 and an additional 1 in. w.g. of flue gas pressure drop) [37]. One specific type of static
mixer is the Delta WingTM mixer, which consists of an obstruction in the duct, usually a
stationary disk or triangular plate, oriented at a slant to the flow direction. The Delta Wing mixer
creates large vortices downstream of the device, which promotes mixing to a more homogenous
gas. The ammonia injection nozzles are located in the vortex zone immediately downstream of
the mixer [69]. The Delta Wing mixer costs for installing a new SCR typically are less than
2-34
$500,000 and include the capital costs for the mixer and the modeling necessary to determine the
location for maximum mixing effects. For an existing SCR that was installed without a static
mixer, the costs to install the Delta Wing mixer, including capital, modeling, and other retrofit
costs, could be up to $1,000,000 [70].
Another approach that may help retain good NH3/NO uniformity is to conduct an annual
tuning of the AIG, which can improve the NH3/NO mixing (reduces NH3/NO unmixedness by
25% on a root mean square basis) [37]. Data have shown that the ability of the AIG to achieve
good mixing can decline over time and that annual tuning can return the AIG to startup or near-
startup mixing uniformity [37]. Annual AIG tuning can cost from $30,000 to $50,000 depending
on the unit size [37]. Depending on the type of mixer used, annual tuning may not be necessary,
because some static mixers combine gas mixing and reagent injection in one application, with no
moving parts in the gas stream; this type of mixer avoids much tuning during startup and
commissioning and for annual maintenance [71].
Use of static mixers and annual tuning can either increase the NOx efficiency at the same
ammonia slip level or extend the catalyst life at the same NOx removal efficiency [37].
Extending the catalyst life can significantly reduce operating costs, even after accounting for the
outsourced tuning costs [37].
Catalytic Reduction of NOx
The catalytic reduction of NOx in the SCR reactor occurs when the NOx and ammonia in
the flue gas contact the catalyst layers. The catalyst itself is the key component of the SCR
system. The catalyst composition, type (honeycomb, corrugated, or plate), and physical
properties affect performance, reliability, catalyst quantity required, and cost. However, because
the SCR system supplier and catalyst supplier must guarantee catalyst life and performance, most
catalyst characteristics are selected by the SCR system supplier.
2.2.5 SCR System Auxiliary Equipment
SCR Inlet and Outlet Ductwork

In retrofit installations, new ductwork is required to integrate the SCR system with the
existing equipment. In high-dust SCR systems, the reactor is located between the economizer
outlet and the air heater inlet. In low-dust SCR systems, the SCR reactor is located between the
outlet duct of the particulate control device and the air heater inlet duct. In tail-end SCR systems,
the ductwork tie-ins are downstream of the FGD system and also require the integration of the
flue gas reheating equipment. See Section 2, Generic Equipment and Devices and Chapter 1,
Hoods, Ductwork, and Stacks, for more details.
SCR Bypass Duct
Low-load boiler operations can decrease the temperature at the SCR reactor inlet below
the SCR operating range. In addition, startup and shutdown of the boiler causes drastic
temperature fluctuations. For these operating conditions, an SCR bypass may (but not
necessarily) be required to route the flue gas around the reactor chamber. The bypass prevents
catalyst poisoning and fouling during periods when flue gas stream conditions do not meet
design specifications for proper SCR operation. The bypass system also must include zero-
2-35
leakage dampers to prevent flue gas leakage from poisoning and fouling the catalyst while the
SCR is not operating. A bypass system may also be considered for seasonal operation of the SCR
system, such as for boilers that would require NOx control during the ozone season (typically
May to September), but not at other times of the year.
It should be noted that operational routines can be applied during SCR startup and
shutdown that could preclude the need for a bypass, however, particularly for SCRs that operate
year round [56]. Also, a Haldor Topsoe paper indicates that a bypass is not recommended for
reasons including: complicated flue gas duct work, increased risk of dust depositing in
horizontal parts, dust precipitation around dampers, and erosion of louver-type dampers that may
result.11 In fact, many of the SCRs being built in the late 2000s for compliance with the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) do not include bypasses.12 Recently built coal fired power plants in
Germany are designed without any SCR bypasses, according to a report by a major engineering
services firm.13
Soot Blower or Sonic Horn
In coal-fired boilers, soot blowers are usually installed in the SCR reactor to remove
particulates that may mask or block active catalyst surfaces and gas passages. Soot blowing helps
maintain acceptable flue gas pressure drop in the SCR reactor by keeping the catalyst gas
passages free of particulate. Soot blowers also keep the air heater gas passages open and thereby
reduce system pressure drop. This is especially true for SCR retrofits where the air heater plate
spacing is generally narrow, making it more susceptible to fouling or clogging by ammonia-
sulfur salts.
Retractable rake-type soot blowers that use steam or air for blowing are used in SCR
designs. The soot blowers are typically located above each catalyst layer. Soot blowing is usually
performed on one catalyst layer or part of one catalyst layer at a time. Soot blowing of all the
catalyst layers takes 30 minutes to 2 hours, but is usually done infrequently. In European SCR
installations, soot blowing is done approximately once or twice a week [72]. Traveling-rake
steam soot blowers can have installed costs of $120,000$160,000 [37].
Use of sonic horns has risen as an alternative to soot blowers [37]. Sonic horns require
less preventive maintenance than soot blowers, but they are susceptible to moisture and fly ash,
which cause plugging of the horn [37]. Sonic horns also cannot damage catalyst through either
high-pressure operation or steam leaks, as can occur with soot blowers [37]. The capital cost for
sonic horns can be $40,000$100,000 for each catalyst layer, depending on the size of the unit
[37]. Sonic horn operating costs have been reported from $1/day to <$4/day for each catalyst
layer, compared with approximately $41/day for conventional soot blowers [37]. Although sonic
horns may have some advantages over soot blowers, the demand for high NOx removal
11 Jenson-Holm, Hans, Lindenhoff, Peter, and Safronov, Sergey. SCR Design Issues in Reduction of NO x
Emissions from Thermal Power Plants. Haldor Topsoe A/S, Russia Power, 2007.
12 Rutherford, Scott. Cormetech, Inc. Coal-Fired Applications in the U.S. Challenges and Strategies for Successful
Operation and Emissions Compliance. VGB Workshop, Flue Gas Cleaning 2007. May 22-23, 2007, Vienna,
Austria. Available on the Internet at http://www.cormetech.com/brochures/2007_VGB_Conference_Paper.pdf .
13 Nielsen, Flemming Skovgaard, Danesi, Paolo, and Radhakrishnan, M.V. Modern Boiler Design, BWE. January
2012.
2-36
efficiency requires extremely clean catalyst and thus the best cleaning system (regardless of
cost); therefore, higher costs for soot blowers are justified for many applications [37].
Large Particle Ash (LPA) Equipment
A significant concern for SCR operation that was not evident in early applications is the
role of the accumulation of LPA, also referred to as popcorn ash, on catalyst surfaces of high-
dust SCR applications. LPA is defined as particles that are 47 mm in characteristic dimension
and large enough to lodge in the openings of grid- or plate-type catalysts [37]. It is estimated that
up to half of SCR units on coal-fired utility boilers are affected by LPA [8]. LPA is not an issue
for natural gas-fired applications.
The cause or mechanism by which LPA is formed is unknown. A survey of 32 utility
boiler operators found 23 had experienced significant plugging of catalyst modules, but there
was no clear correlation of design or operating characteristics (e.g., coal type, boiler or reactor
design, SCR cleaning method, or catalyst geometry) with either significant LPA problems or the
lack of problems. Without knowledge of how LPA is generated, many facilities mitigate its
impacts by removing some of the LPA from the flue gas before it reaches the catalyst. The most
common mitigation method is the use of screens and/or baffles between the economizer exit and
the SCR reactor that provide a barrier to the LPA and divert it to an ash hopper. This approach
was used by operators of 21 of the 23 surveyed boilers that experienced LPA problems, and the
other 2 were considering adding such equipment. Some of the 9 boilers that were not equipped
with screens also had flow or deflector baffles. The frequency of economizer ash hopper
evacuation has been suggested as a key variable affecting catalyst blockage. Increasing this
frequency would be a low-cost operating change, but the survey of utility boiler operators did not
show a correlation between evacuation frequency and catalyst blockage levels [73].
The survey report also identified the following recommendations for effective use of
screens: (1) orient the screen at an angle to the flue gas flow, or use pleats; (2) maintain at least
50% to 60% open flow area; (3) conduct CFD or physical flow modeling and design the duct and
screen to keep flue gas velocity below 50 actual ft/s (or preferably <45 actual ft/s) and eliminate
peaks in velocity; and (4) use active cleaning systems. The open flow area and velocity
recommendations are intended to minimize erosion of the screen material by fly ash, which was
found to be significant regardless of the screen material used at the surveyed facilities [73]. The
low velocity may also encourage LPA to drop out of the flue gas [37]. LPA screens can be
modular to allow replacement, coated or uncoated depending on velocity, and rigid or flexible
[37].
Capital costs for a simple rigid screen can be $200,000$500,000 for an erosion-tolerant
design for high flue-gas velocity and exotic construction material [37]. The installed cost of
screens for two SCRs on twin boilers that collectively generate 745 MW was $600,000 in 2004
[74]. A redesign and replacement of this screen along with CFD flow modeling in 2009 cost
$806,000 [75, 76]. Operating costs can be a 1-in. w.g. pressure drop and require an additional
$150,000 every 2 years to replace eroded screen panels. The costs associated with LPA
mitigation methods can be recovered by avoiding an outage, by not accelerating an outage, and
by maintaining clean catalyst [37].
2-37
Another option for LPA mitigation involves the use of targeted in-furnace injection,
which models injections strategies to reduce SO3 formation, and also minimizes slag and fouling.
This slag and fouling control also reduces LPA formation. A suspended slurry of magnesium
hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) is used to change the slag formation by traveling into a furnace, becoming
superheated and subsequently forming very small particles of magnesium oxide (MgO). The
performance of targeted injection, and associated reduction of LPA, has been established in a
case study on a 600 MW opposed wall-fired unit, where successful control of LPA has been
demonstrated for more than six years. After successfully implementing the targeted in-furnace
injection, the facility was able to remove their pre-existing LPA screens [77].
Economizer Bypass Duct
Although the SCR reaction occurs within a temperature window of 600750F (320
400C), the catalyst for a given application is designed for a somewhat narrower range: the
economizer outlet temperature at normal boiler operating load. Maintaining the flue gas
temperature within the required window is essential for optimizing the NOx reduction reaction.
When the economizer outlet flue gas temperature decreases because the plant is operating at
reduced loads, the temperature can be raised using an economizer bypass.
The economizer bypass duct generally has a modulating damper to regulate the amount
of hot bypass gas flow to be mixed with the cooler economizer outlet flue gas. The lower the
boiler load, the more this damper opens, thus admitting more hot gas. The economizer outlet duct
also needs a modulating damper to provide enough backpressure to allow the required volume of
gas to flow through the bypass. The main design considerations for an economizer bypass
involve maintaining the optimum gas temperature and ensuring uniform mixing of the two gas
streams prior to entering the SCR reactor.
Upgraded or New Induced Draft (ID) Fan
The new ductwork and the SCR reactors catalyst layers decrease the flue gas pressure.
To maintain the same flow rate through the duct work, additional energy is required. The
existing ID fan may be unable to provide the required increase in static pressure. In such cases,
an upgraded or new ID fan is installed. The existing fan and motor foundation may also need
modification. Replacement involves installation of a new fan or booster fan. In all cases,
additional electric power for the ID fan is needed to overcome the additional pressure drop
through the SCR system. Based on typical values for the pressure drop through the additional
duct work and the catalyst layers, the additional electric power needed (i.e., the heat rate penalty)
is equivalent to approximately 0.3% of the plants electric output for SCR on a utility boiler.
Refer to Equations 2.57 and 2.58 for estimates of the total additional electric power needs for the
ID fan as well as other equipment in the SCR system.
2.2.6 Other Considerations
Fuel Source
Utility and industrial boilers use coal, distillate oil, residual oil, natural gas, and a variety
of other fuels such as biomass (e.g., wood, bark). The fuel type and grade affects the SCR
design, and therefore, the capital costs of the SCR system. Fuels with high heating value have
higher gas flow rates, which in turn increase the required SCR reactor size and catalyst volume.
2-38
Coal-fueled applications are more costly than oil- and natural gasfired boilers, due to their
higher flue gas flow rates [53].
The quantity of nitrogen, fly ash, and pollutants in the flue gas stream varies according to
the type and grade of the fuel. This affects the volume of catalyst required, as well as the catalyst
design, composition, and rate of deactivation. Coal flue gas contains a greater amount of fly ash,
SO2, SO3, arsenic, and other trace pollutants than does flue gas from burning oil or natural gas.
Natural gas is the cleanest fuel and contains the least nitrogen; therefore, burning natural gas
results in the least NOx and pollutants in the flue gas stream. The amount of nitrogen and
pollutants in oil-based fuels sources varies with the grade and type of oil, either refined or
residual.
Formation of SOx
Sulfur trioxide (SO3) forms during the combustion of fuels that contain sulfur, and
additional SO3 is formed over the SCR catalyst. It reacts with ammonia in the flue gas
downstream of the reactor (ammonia slip) to form ammonium bisulfate (NH4HSO4) and
ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4]. The amount formed depends on the sulfur content of the fuel,
the amount of ammonia slip, and the SCR temperature. Ammonium bisulfate condenses as the
flue gas stream temperature lowers. It then deposits on the SCR catalyst and downstream
equipment such as the air heater, ducts, and fans. Ammonia slip limits are generally imposed as
part of the SCR design requirements to avoid impacts on downstream equipment.
There are several methods for limiting the impact of ammonia-sulfur salt deposition. Soot
blowers can be installed between catalyst layers to remove surface deposits by blowing air or
steam across the catalyst. Increased acid washing of the air preheater and other equipment may
be required to remove deposits. However, more frequent acid washing generates additional
wastewater, which must be disposed of or treated by the plant. The sulfur content of the flue gas
can be decreased by coal desulfurization processes or fuel switching. Lastly, the flue gas
temperature may be raised to prevent condensation.
Elevated SO3 concentrations raise the acid dew point of the flue gas. This phenomenon
potentially leads to more corrosion on the air heaters cold-end surfaces if the flue gas
temperature is below the acid dew point. To protect against this possibility, the cold-end baskets
of the air heater can be replaced with enamel-coated baskets.
Ammonia sulfates also deposit on the fly ash. Ammonia content in the fly ash greater
than 5 ppm can result in off-gassing, which would impact the salability of the ash as a byproduct
and the storage and disposal of the ash by landfill [51].
Oxidation of SO2 in the flue gas stream to SO3 over the catalyst bed creates even more
SO3 (a PM2.5 precursor compound) and is an emission concern for SCR control devices only if
the sulfur content of coal is sufficiently high. This can be a concern with SCR applied to boilers
that use coal containing greater than 2% sulfur content or higher.14 In some areas of the country,
limits for SO3 of 5 ppm or less have been implemented to control SO3 plumes emitted from SCRs
(i.e., blue plumes) [37]. Mitigation of SO3 formation from oxidation of SO2 on the catalyst has
14 U.S. EPA. Regional Haze FIP for New Mexico (San Juan NOx BART), Final Rule. 76 FR 52388 (August 22,
2011).
2-39
evolved to be of equal importance to NOx control in SCR design [37]. Catalysts designed for low
SO2 oxidation have been developed, but depending on the catalyst supplier, their use may
increase the catalyst volume needed to meet the same NOx removal and ammonia slip
performance and may also alter the catalyst management strategy [37]. Another approach to
mitigating SO3 formation that has been analyzed is use of reagents such as sodium, magnesium,
or calcium-based sorbents [37]. However, the use of reagents alone to lower SO3 concentration
can rival the costs for annual SCR ammonia or urea reagent support and can exceed catalyst
replacement charges, although other sources cite significant plant operation and maintenance
cost savings due to eliminating corrosion and fouling of ductwork, ESPs, and the blade housings
of ID fans; eliminating modification or coatings for the air heater; and reducing the heat rate and
fuel costs [37, 78]. Use of low-SO2-oxidation catalyst can be used in combination with reagent-
based SO3 mitigation to lower costs of reagent-only approaches to reducing SO3 [37].
Formation of Arsenic Oxide
Arsenic oxides (As2O3) formed during combustion of fuel containing arsenic cause
catalyst deactivation by occupying active pore sites. Formation of arsenic oxides is a concern
primarily for SCR units on coal-fired boilers because coal is the only fuel that may contain
arsenic. Gaseous arsenic oxide can physically block active sites by condensing in the pores, and
As2O3 can react with oxygen on the vanadium compounds in the catalyst to form As2O5, which
chemically bonds to the site [79]. Catalyst manufacturers have developed arsenic-resistant
catalysts that include control on porosity to minimize pore condensation and addition of
compounds such as molybdenum or other materials to mitigate deactivation of active sites [79].
Deactivation of arsenic-resistant catalysts occurs at a slower rate, but these catalysts are not
arsenic proof [79]. Arsenic-resistant catalyst will maintain adequate activity for approximately
14,000 hours of operation versus approximately 5,500 hours for a nonresistant catalyst [79].
The addition of small amounts of calcium to the fuel has been shown to be an effective
method of controlling arsenic poisoning [80]. Limestone (CaCO3) can be injected into the flue
gas to generate the solid Ca3 (AsO4)2, which does not deposit on the catalyst and can be removed
from the flue gas with a precipitator. Burning coal with higher calcium oxide (CaO)
concentration can have the same effect as injecting limestone [79]. It should also be noted that
CaO can be a catalyst poison via formation of CaSO4 in the catalyst pores, effectively blocking
catalyst reactive sites [80].
Mercury Oxidation
SCR catalysts have been found to oxidize a significant portion of elemental mercury to
oxidized mercury (e.g., elemental mercury oxidized to mercuric chloride [HgCl2]). The oxidized
mercury is water soluble and easier to remove in downstream wet FGD units or SO2 scrubbers.
Studies have suggested that the oxidation of elemental mercury by SCR may be affected by
catalyst space velocity, reaction temperature, ammonia concentration, catalyst age, and
concentration of chlorine in the gas stream. The type of coal burned and its associated chlorine
content is another factor [81].
Studies on simulated flue gas streams and slip streams from actual electric generating
units for multiple catalyst types have shown that mercury oxidation is in the range of 8090% for
fresh catalyst and space velocities of approximately 1,000 hr-1, but that the oxidation rate
2-40
declines to 3080% with increasing space velocity, in the range 4,000 hr-1, with other factors
such as temperature, ammonia concentration, and so on more prominently influencing the rate
when the space velocity increases. These studies also showed that lower temperatures increase
the mercury oxidation rate. The oxidation of mercury was higher at temperatures of
approximately 700F (370C) and were relatively lower at approximately 800F (430C), which
is consistent with the fact that mercury oxidation to HgCl2 is greater at lower temperatures [81].
In earlier simulated flue gas and slip stream studies, it was noted that the ammonia
reagent may suppress or interfere with the oxidation of elemental mercury, especially as the
catalyst ages, although ammonia showed little or no effect on oxidation rates in studies on full-
scale utility boiler SCR systems [81]. In recent studies, where the NH3 to NOx ratio was varied
between 0 and 0.95, the suppressive nature of ammonia on mercury oxidation has been
demonstrated [82]. In the reaction process on the catalyst sites, ammonia adsorption takes
precedence over the site chlorination, therefore the NOx reduction reaction has precedence over
the mercury oxidation [47]. Because the favored ammonia adsorption on the catalyst sites
minimizes the chlorinated sites, the NOx reduction reaction may actually inhibit mercury
oxidation [47]. In several studies, it has been observed that with NOx reduction efficiencies up to
90%, the mercury oxidation readily occurs [47]. However, at NOx reduction efficiencies beyond
90%, mercury oxidation is greatly reduced [47].
A higher chlorine concentration enhances mercury oxidation; bench-scale testing
suggests that hydrochloric acid (HCl) is an important exhaust gas constituent that provides the
chlorine for oxidation of mercury to HgCl2 across the SCR catalyst [81]. Coal types, such as
subbituminous coal, that tend to have lower chlorine levels will have lower HCl concentrations
in the exhaust gas than bituminous coal, which has higher chlorine levels [81]. Significant
mercury oxidation by SCR catalysts occurs with bituminous coal, and the oxidation rate is less
certain with other types of coals [81]. In recent studies, HCl gas was injected directly into the
flue gas and was varied from 0 to 150 ppmv Cl; the data demonstrated increased mercury
oxidation across the SCR as chlorine was increased [82]. Chlorine appears to have the greatest
effect on mercury oxidation in the range of 050 ppm [47]. The chlorine content does not appear
to affect the NOx reduction performance of the SCR [47].
There is a close correlation between mercury oxidation on the catalyst and the SO2 to SO3
conversion mechanism on the catalyst [47]. The mercury reaction with HCl and oxygen is
considered to be a diffusion-controlled reaction that takes place in the gas phase [47]. The
mercury oxidation rate is faster than the diffusion velocity of mercury through the SCR catalyst
due to its molecular weight, while the reaction rate of SO2 to SO3 conversion is slower than the
diffusion velocity of SO2 through the catalyst [47]. As mentioned above in Section 2.2.1 (see
Catalyst heading), by altering the catalyst to favor mercury oxidation based on this reaction
mechanism, the active sites oxidize mercury instead of converting SO2 to SO3 [47]. Higher
mercury oxidation rates of greater than 90% can be achieved while maintaining low SO2 to SO3
conversion rates in the range of less than 0.5% [47].
The age of the catalyst has also been shown to be a factor in mercury oxidation. One
study compared the mercury oxidation rate for new, aged, and regenerated catalyst [82]. It was
determined that there is little to no difference in the mercury oxidation capability of the new and
regenerated catalysts [82]. While the operating conditions during testing of the aged catalyst
were different from the new and regenerated catalysts (i.e., slightly higher temperature, which
2-41
would decrease mercury oxidation; slightly higher chlorine content, which would increase
mercury oxidation; and lower space velocity), the data showed lower mercury oxidation for the
aged catalyst [82].
Retrofit Versus New Design and Balance of Plant
Retrofit of SCR on an existing boiler has higher capital costs than SCR installed on a new
boiler system. There is a wide range of SCR retrofit costs due to site-specific factors, scope
differences, and site congestion [10]. Specific factors that impact the retrofit costs include the
following: [10]
The amount of available space between and around the economizer and air heater;
Congestion downstream of the air heater (i.e., buildings, conveyors, existing ESPs, FGD
system, ID fan, or stack);
The age/vintage and manufacturer of the boiler;
The design margin of the existing ID fan (i.e., the need to upgrade or replace fan
impellers, replace ID fans, or add booster fans);
The capacity, condition, and design margins of the electrical distribution system;
The design margins of the existing structural steel support systems;
The positive and negative design pressure of the furnace and existing ESP; and
The number, nature, and type of existing items that must be relocated to accommodate
the SCR and associated systems.
The primary balance of plant impacts include new ID fans and fan foundations or less
expensive new booster fans, a new air preheater plus foundations or modifications to the existing
air preheater, duct reinforcements, economizer duct bypass or modifications, elevated SCR, ESP
reinforcement, and relocating the existing ESP flue gas conditioning system [10]. Retrofit costs
for cyclone or wet bottom wall-fired boilers are somewhat higher than retrofit costs for dry
bottom wall- or tangentially-fired boilers [42]. Differential retrofit costs for an SCR in Germany
is approximately $200 per MMBtu/hr ($20/kW) [42]. However, a large part of the capital costs
are not affected by a retrofit, including those for ammonia storage, vaporization, and injection
equipment. The capital costs estimated by the equations in section 2.4 Cost Analysis are for
retrofit of an existing SCR. The cost examples in section 2.5 represent an average retrofit
difficulty.
Combustion Unit Design and Configuration
Boiler size is one of the primary factors that determines the SCR system capital costs. In
addition, boiler configuration influences SCR costs. Boiler configurations that split the flue gas
flow for two or more air preheaters or particulate removal systems require more than one SCR
reactor. Additional reactors substantially increase capital costs. Boiler operations that have
varying operating load, frequent startups/shutdowns, or seasonal operations require an SCR
bypass. Additional ductwork, dampers, and control systems increase the SCR system capital
costs. The SCR system may require modifications to draft fans and/or installation of additional
fans. This increases both capital and operating costs of the SCR system. In addition, boiler and
duct modifications may be required for implosion protection to accommodate increased draft
requirements [53].
2-42
Modeling of the SCR System

Computational fluid dynamics and chemical kinetic modeling are performed as part of
the design process for SCR. In addition to computational fluid dynamics and chemical kinetic
modeling, three-dimensional physical flow modeling, also referred to as cold flow modeling, is
generally required. Cold flow modeling ensures that the flow through the SCR reactor provides
adequate residence time, achieves uniform mixing of flue gas and ammonia, minimizes linear
velocities to prevent catalyst erosion, and minimizes pressure drop across the catalyst layers. It
involves constructing a model of the ammonia injection system, mixing area, and reactor
chamber. In a high-dust configuration, this involves modeling from the economizer outlet to the
inlet of the air heater. Typical model scales range from a 1:10 ratio to a 1:12 ratio for large
electric utility boilers.
2.3 Design Parameters

SCR system design is a proprietary technology. Extensive details of the theory and
correlations that can be used to estimate design parameters such as the required catalyst volume
are not published in the technical literature [42]. Furthermore, the design is highly site-specific.
In light of these complexities, SCR system design is generally undertaken by providing all of the
plant- and boiler-specific data to the SCR system supplier, who specifies the required catalyst
volume and other design parameters based on prior experience and computational fluid dynamics
and chemical kinetic modeling [33].
This section presents an approach to estimating design parameters that are elements in the
costing equations used in EPAs Integrated Planning Model (IPM) [8]. This section also presents
an approach to estimating other design parameters that characterize an SCR system but that are
not used directly in the costing procedure [33]. Although this approach is based on SCR data for
utility boilers, it provides sufficient accuracy and detail to be of aid in developing capital and
annual costs estimates for SCR as applied to industrial boilers and potentially other industrial
sources.
2.3.1 Boiler Heat Input
The primary cost estimation parameter in the methodology presented in Reference [33] is
the maximum potential heat released by the boiler or heat input rate, QB, expressed as
MMBtu/hr. It is obtained from the higher heating value, HHV, of the fuel in Btu per pound
(Btu/lb) and the maximum fuel consumption rate in pounds per hour (lb/hr), m fuel :
1
QB HHV m
fuel (2.3)
10 6
Where:
QB, = maximum heat rate input to the boiler, MMBtu/hr
HHV = higher heating value of the fuel, Btu/lb
fuel = maximum fuel consumption rate of the boiler, lb/hr
1/106 = conversion factor of 1 MMBtu/106 Btu
2-43
Table 2.5 provides the HHV for various coals that may be used if the HHV for the specific coal
used in the project is not available.15
Table 2.5: Higher Heating Values for Various Coals
Type of Coal Energy Content (Btu/lb)
Lignite 5,0007,500
Subbituminous 8,00010,000
Bituminous 11,00015,000
Anthracite 14,000
If the boiler produces electricity, its maximum heat input can be estimated using the boiler net
plant heat rate (NPHR), in MMBtu per Megawatt-hour (MMBtu/MWh):
QB BMW NPHR (2.4)
Where:
BMW = boiler MW rating at full load capacity.
NPRH = net plant heat rate, MMBtu/MWh
Note that if NPHR is not known (e.g., a cogeneration unit), a conversion value for coal of 10,000
Btu/kWh (or 10 MMBtu/MWh) can be used as a reasonable estimate; a conversion value for
petroleum of 11,000 Btu/kWh (11 MMBtu/MWh) and for natural gas of 8,200 Btu/kWh (8.2
MMBtu/MWh) can be used [83].16 Using this value, the heat input rate, QB, for a coal-fired unit
is:
QB BMW 10 (2.5)
Where:
10 = estimated NPHR for coal, MMBtu/MWh.
2.3.2 Heat Rate Factor

The heat rate factor (HRF) is the ratio of actual heat rate of the boiler, in terms of the
boiler NPHR in MMBtu/MWh, compared to a typical heat rate of 10 MMBtu/MWh. The
developers of the costing methodology presented in section 2.4.1 determined that using this ratio
in the equation for capital costs helped account for observed differences in actual costs for
different coal-fired boilers. To maintain consistency with that approach, the same ratio (i.e., with
10 in the denominator) also has been used in the equations for oil and gas fired boilers in section
2.4.1. The NPHR is simply the amount of fuel energy that a boiler consumes to generate 1 MWh
of electricity, and is determined based on measurements of the electricity generation and fuel
15 Another source of EGU fuels data is http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

16 In recent years (2003 to 2011), the average NPHR for coal has increased slightly (likely due to aging of
equipment), and the average NPHR for natural gas has decreased slightly (likely due to the increased use of
natural gas fuel and the installation of new equipment).
2-44
consumption over the same period of time. As noted above, if it is not known for a particular
boiler, use 10 MMBtu/MWh.
NPHR
HRF (2.6)
10
Where:
HRF = Heat rate factor

NPHR = net plant heat rate of the system to be costed, MMBtu/MWh
10 = the NPHR that is the basis of the SCR base cost module capital cost,
MMBtu/MWh.
2.3.3 System Capacity Factor

The total system capacity factor, CFtotal, is a measure of the average annual use of the
boiler in conjunction with the SCR system. CFtotal is given by:
CFtotal = CFplant CFSCR (2.7)
Where:
CFtotal = total system capacity factor
CFplant = boiler capacity, which is the ratio of the actual quantity of fuel burned annually
to the potential maximum quantity of fuel burned annually
CFSCR = SCR system capacity factor, which is the ratio of the actual days of SCR
operation annually to the total number of plant operating days per year.
For industrial and utility boilers, the capacity factor of the boiler, CFplant, is the ratio of
actual quantity of fuel burned annually to the potential maximum quantity of fuel burned annually in
pounds, i.e., m fuel in lb/hr 8,760 hr/yr. CFplant is given by:
fuel
actual annual m
CFplant (2.8)
fuel
maximum annual m
Where:
actual fuel = annual actual fuel consumption rate of the boiler, lb
maximum fuel = annual maximum fuel consumption rate of the boiler, lb
SCR systems can be operated year-round or only during the specified ozone season
(commonly, May 1 to September 30). The capacity factor for the SCR system, CFSCR, is the ratio
of the actual number of SCR operating days, tSCR, to the total number of plant operating days per
year:
t SCR
CFSCR (2.9)
t plant
2-45
Where:
tSCR, = actual days of SCR operation annually, days

tplant = actual days of plant (or boiler) operation in a year, days.
2.3.4 Inlet NOx and Stack NOx

Inlet NOx, represented as NOXin, is the NOx emission level in the flue gas exit stream
from a boiler prior to the SCR system. Note that NOXin also accounts for combustion controls if
the boiler is equipped with such controls. The inlet NOx emissions level, obtained from
analyzing the boiler flue gas stream, is generally given in lb/MMBtu of NO2 [33].
The stack NOx, represented as NOXout is the required NOx emission limit at the stack
outlet. It is generally set by the plant or regulatory limits and also given in lb/MMBtu of NO2
[33].
2.3.5 NOx Removal Efficiency
The NOx removal efficiency, represented as NOx, is determined from the inlet or
uncontrolled NOx level of the boiler at maximum heat input rate, CFplant =1.0, and the required
stack emission limit. The equation for the NOx removal efficiency is given by:
NOx in NOx out
NO x (2.10)
NOx in
Where:
NOx = NOx removal efficiency, fraction

NOxin = inlet NOx level from the boiler, i.e., inlet NOx rate to the SCR, lb/MMBtu (at
maximum heat input rate, CFplant = 1.0)
NOxout = outlet NOx rate from the SCR, lb/MMBtu
The required NOx removal efficiency is one of the most influential parameters on the overall
SCR system cost [53]. Typically, the annual average outlet NOx should not be less than 0.04
lb/MMBtu, or at a level that results in a removal efficiency greater than 90%, unless a guarantee
has been obtained from a vendor. Additionally, if a facility is subject to an outlet limit over a
time period shorter than annually (e.g., a 30-day rolling average), then that value should be used
in the calculation of the NOx removal efficiency. If a facility is subject to both an annual limit
and a short-term limit, then the annual limit should be used in the calculation of the removal
efficiency. It is noted that 0.05 lb/MMBtu outlet NOx based on a 30 day (boiler operating)
average should be obtainable by a power plant boiler with an SCR system.
2.3.6 NOx Removal Rates
The tons of NOx removed annually (ton/yr) are:
NOx Removed/yr = NOxin NOx QB top/ 2,000 (2.11)
Where:
2-46
NOx Removed/yr = annual mass of NOx removed by the SCR, tons/yr

QB = maximum heat input rate to the boiler, MMBtu/hr
top = operating time per year (CFtotal x 8760), hr/yr
2000 = conversion factor for lb/ton.
The pounds of NOx removed per hour (lb/hr) are:

NOx Removed/hr = NOxin NOx QB (2.12)
Where:
NOx Removed/hr = hourly mass of NOx removed by the SCR, lb/hr
NOxin = inlet NOx of the boiler, lb/MMBtu (at maximum heat input rate,
CFplant = 1.0)
NOx = NOx removal efficiency of the SCR, expressed as a fraction
QB = maximum heat input rate to the boiler, MMBtu/hr.
2.3.7 Actual Stoichiometric Ratios

The actual stoichiometric ratio (ASR) indicates the actual amount of reagent needed to
achieve the targeted NOx reduction. Typical ASR values are higher than theoretical values due to
the complexity of the reactions involving the catalyst and limited mixing. Higher ASR values
generally result in increased NOx reduction. The ASR is an important parameter in SCR system
design because it establishes the reagent use of the SCR system. For the most part, the discussion
in this section focuses on the use of NH3 as the reagent. The ASR is defined as:
moles of equivalent NH 3 injected

ASR (2.13)
moles of uncontroll ed NOx
For estimating purposes, the moles of NOx are equivalent to the moles of NO2. Note that the
moles of equivalent NH3 in Equation 2.13 are the moles of NH3 that will be released from the
reagent. When using ammonia as the reagent, the equivalent moles of NH3 injected is equal to
the moles of ammonia injected.
In a design developed by a system supplier, the ASR would be adjusted to account for
temperature, residence time, degree of mixing, catalyst activity, and allowable ammonia slip for
a specific boiler. No equation for estimating ASR was available for SCR. The value for ASR in a
typical SCR system, using ammonia as reagent, is approximately 1.05. This value incorporates
design margins for ammonia slip and the small amount of NO2 in the boiler flue gas, which
requires two moles of NH3 per mole of NO2 instead of one mole of NH3 per mole of NO as
shown in Equation 2.1. For an SCR system using urea as the reagent, 0.525 is a typical value for
ASR [8].
2.3.8 Flue Gas Flow Rate
The full-load flue gas flow rate, including the typical design margin of 5 to 15%, is used
to size the SCR reactors and associated catalyst inventory. This flow rate should be obtained
from test data or a combustion calculation.
2-47
If flow rate data are not available, an approximation of the flue gas flow rate to each of
the SCR reactors, qfluegas, can be calculated using Equation 2.14.
q fuel QB (460 T )
q fluegas (2.14)
(460 700) nSCR
Where:
qfluegas = volumetric flue gas flow rate through the SCR, actual cubic feet per minute
(acfm)
qfuel = base case flue gas volumetric flow rate factor, ft3/min-MMBtu/hr
T = operating gas temperature at the inlet to the SCR, F
nSCR = number of SCR reactor chambers
700 = temperature at which the base case flow rate factor was determined, F
460 = conversion from degrees Fahrenheit to Rankine.
Base case flue gas flow rate factors per unit of heat input for three types of coals are listed in
Table 2.6. These factors were calculated using procedures in Reference [84] for typical coals,
typical boiler excess air levels (i.e., 20 %), and typical SCR flue gas conditions (10 inches w.g.
and 700 F). Note that similar flow rates are obtained using the oxygen-based F-factors, wet
basis in Table 19-1 of EPA Method 19 in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A-7.
Table 2.6: Estimated Flue Gas Volumetric Flow Rate Factors for Various Coals
Estimated value of qfuel

Coal Type (ft3/min-MMBtu/hr)
Eastern Bituminous 484
Powder River Basin 516
Lignite 547
Note that in general, the number of reactors, nSCR, is site specific. One SCR reactor per
boiler unit is typically required in small high-dust system designs. However, two SCR reactors
may be needed to treat flue gas from a larger boiler or a boiler equipped with two air preheaters.
The system designs developed for the base and sensitivity cases of this report use one reactor.
Study-level costs of a two-reactor system are expected to be similar to the cost of a
corresponding one-reactor system because the catalyst, ammonia, economizer bypass, and ID fan
costs are essentially identical.
2.3.9 Space Velocity and Area Velocity
The space velocity, Vspace, is defined as the inverse of the residence time and is given by:
1
Vspace (2.15)
ResidenceT ime
Where:
Vspace = the volumetric flow rate divided by the catalyst bed volume, hr-1
2-48
ResidenceTime = the time necessary for a volume of flue gas equal to the catalyst bed
volume to pass through the catalyst bed, hr
Space velocity is calculated from the experimentally measured flue gas volumetric flow rate at
the reactor inlet, represented as qfluegas, and the reactor/catalyst volume, represented as Volcatalyst,
given by:
q flue gas
Vspace (2.16)
Vol catalyst
Where:
Volcatalyst = volume of the reactor or catalyst layers, ft3
SCR system designers and vendors use the concept of area velocity, Varea, to account for
the reaction being limited to active catalyst sites. The area velocity is calculated from the specific
surface area of the catalyst per catalyst volume, Aspecific, as follows:
Vspace
Varea (2.17)
Aspecific
Where:
Varea = the space velocity divided by the catalyst pore surface area, ft3/ft2hr
Aspecific = the specific surface area of the catalyst divided by the catalyst volume, ft2/ft3
Aspecific is given in units of length2/length3, is sometimes referred to as the contact surface area of
the catalyst, and must be provided by the catalyst manufacturer.
2.3.10 Theoretical NOx Removal Efficiency, for NH3 Slip Determination
Equation 2.10 defines the NOx removal efficiency. However, in SCR, NOx removal efficiency
changes with catalyst activation. The following theoretical equation allows for estimation of
removal efficiency, NOx, based on the catalyst activity constant, Kcatalyst, at a specified
time, t [33]. The theoretical NOx removal efficiency is:
NOx = ASR (1-ea) (2.18)
where
K catalyst Aspecific
a
Vspace (2.19)

Where:
Kcatalyst = constant for catalyst activity, changes over time (t)
2-49
Both Kcatalyst and Aspecific are typically provided by the catalyst manufacturer.
According to this equation, the NOx removal efficiency increases with increasing
NH3/NOx ratio and decreasing space velocity (i.e., increasing catalyst volume for a given gas
flow rate). In addition, the equation shows that as the activity of the catalyst decreases over time,
the NOx removal also decreases.
The theoretical ammonia slip in ppm by volume can be calculated from the value of NOx,
as follows [36]:
Slip = (ASR-NOx) (2.20)
Where:
Slip = theoretical ammonia slip, ppmv
2.3.11 Catalyst Volume

The theoretical catalyst volume required for the SCR system is based on the factors
discussed in Section 2.2, Process Description. Equations 2.16, 2.18, and 2.19 can be combined
and rearranged to determine the theoretical catalyst volume [56]. Substituting the definition of
space velocity (Equation 2.16) into the definition of a (Equation 2.19), and then substituting that
into Equation 2.18 and solving for the volume of the catalyst gives:

q fluegas ln 1 NO x

ASR
Vol catalyst (2.21)
K catalyst Aspecific
An empirical equation was developed in Reference [33] as a function of several sensitivity

variables. The sensitivity variables were determined from catalyst volume estimates obtained
from catalyst suppliers for base and sensitivity cases. Adjustment factors for these variables were
then developed using regression techniques.
The empirical equation for catalyst volume is given below:
Tadj
Vol catalyst 2.81 QB adj Slip adj NO x adj S adj (2.22)
N SCR
where NSCR is the number of SCR reactors and the adjustment factors include:
NOx efficiency adjustment factor, adj:
adj 0.2869 (1.058 NOx ) (2.23)
Ammonia slip adjustment factor, Slipadj, for ammonia slips between 2 and 5 ppm:
Slip adj 1.2835 (0.0567 Slip ) (2.24)
2-50
NOx adjustment factor for inlet NOx, NOxadj:

NOx adj 0.8524 0.3208 NOxin (2.25)
Sulfur in coal adjustment factor, Sadj:

S adj 0.9636 (0.0455 S ) (2.26)
where S is the sulfur content of the fuel by dry weight fraction.

The temperature adjustment factor, Tadj, for gas temperatures other than 700F (370C):
Tadj 15.16 0.03937 T 2.74 10 5 T 2 (2.27)
where T is the temperature of the flue gas at the reactor inlet in degrees Fahrenheit (F).
2.3.12 SCR Reactor Dimensions
The cross sectional area of the SCR reactor is sized for the flow rate of the flue gas, in
acfm, and the superficial velocity. A typical value for the superficial velocity is 16 ft/sec
(960 ft/min). Using this value for velocity, the equation for the catalyst cross-sectional area,
Acatalyst, is given by:
q fluegas
Acatalyst (2.28)
16 ft 60 sec

sec min
Where:
Acatalyst = cross-sectional area of the catalyst, ft2
The SCR reactor cross-sectional area, ASCR, is approximately 15% greater than the
catalyst cross-sectional area to account to the module geometry and hardware:
ASCR = 1.15 x Acatalyst (2.29)
Where:
ASCR = cross-sectional area of the SCR reactor, ft2
The actual dimensions of the SCR depend on the module arrangement in the catalyst
layer. The typical cross-sectional dimensions of a module are 3.3 feet wide by 6.6 feet long (1 m
2 m). Therefore, the SCR plan dimensions are approximately multiples of these dimensions.
Depending on the number of modules in width and in length, the SCR reactor may be square or
rectangular. For the purposes of this report, the SCR reactor can be treated as a square. The
screening costs are valid for rectangular SCR reactors as long as the aspect ratio (length divided
by width) is not too large. Industry standard aspect ratios are between 1.0 and 1.5. For a square
reactor, the length, l, and width, w, are estimated by:
2-51
l w ASCR 1 / 2 (2.30)
Where:
w = width of the SCR reactor, ft

l = length of the SCR reactor, ft
An initial value for the number of catalyst layers is estimated first. This estimate is then
checked by calculating the catalyst height for each layer. The initial estimate for the number of
catalyst layers can be determined from the total catalyst volume, the cross-sectional area of the
catalyst, and the estimated height of the catalyst element. A nominal height for the catalyst, hlayer,
is 3.1 feet [33].17 A first estimate for the number of catalyst layers, nlayer, is:
Volcatalyst
nlayer (2.31)
h'layer Acatalyst
Where:
nlayer = number of catalyst layers

hlayer = nominal height of each catalyst layer, ft
This value of nlayer is then rounded to the nearest integer. In addition, there must be at
least two catalyst layers.
The height of each catalyst layer is calculated using the estimated number of layers. This
must result in the height of a catalyst layer, hlayer, to be within the standard industry range of 2.5
5.0 feet. The height of a catalyst layer is calculated from the following equation:
Volcatalyst
hlayer 1 (2.32)
nlayer Acatalyst
where 1 foot is added to account for space required above and below the catalyst material for
module assembly.
The number of catalyst layers calculated above does not include any empty catalyst
layers for the future installation of catalyst. An empty catalyst layer is recommended for use with
17 The specified nominal value is one value within a range of values for hlayer that will give the same values for nlayer
in Equation 2.31 and hlayer in Equation 2.32 for a particular system. The optimum range of values for hlayer differs
depending on the inlet NOx rate. For example, for a relatively high inlet NOx rate of 0.86 lb/MMBtu, the optimum
range of hlayer is 3.1 feet to 4.2 feet. The optimum range shifts to smaller values when the inlet NOx rate is lower,
but the range is expected to include 3.1 feet for all inlet NO x rates greater than 0.1 lb/MMBtu. Higher values of
hlayer than those in the optimum range result in a layer height greater than 5.0 feet, which is outside the standard
industry range. Lower values of hlayer result in a lower, but still acceptable, value of hlayer. Low values of hlayer
also slightly decrease the amount and cost of catalyst but increase the electricity costs for the ID fan because the
number of layers and pressure drop both increase. Thus, a nominal value of 3.1 feet is expected to provide
optimum results for most SCR analyses.
2-52
a CMP. The total number of catalyst layers, ntotal, includes all empty catalyst layers that will be
installed:
ntotal = nlayer + nempty (2.33)
Where:
ntotal = total number of catalyst layers

nempty = number of empty catalyst layers, included for future catalyst installation
The height of the SCR reactor, hSCR, including the initial and future catalyst layers, the flow-
rectifying layer, space for soot blowers and catalyst loading, but excluding the inlet and outlet
ductwork and hoppers, is determined from the equation:
hSCR = ntotal (c1 + hlayer) + c2 (2.34)
Where:
hSCR = height of the SCR reactor, ft

c1 = constant based on common industry practice, i.e., 7 ft, ft
c2 = constant based on common industry practice, i.e., 9 ft, ft
where the constants are based on common industry practice of c1 = 7 ft and c2 = 9 ft.
2.3.13 Estimating Reagent Consumption and Tank Size
The rate of reagent consumption or mass flow rate of the reagent, m reagent, generally
expressed as pounds per hour (lb/hr), can be calculated using the inlet NOx in lb/MMBtu and
heat input rate, QB, in MMBtu/hr.
NOx in QB NO x ASR M reagent

m reagent (2.35)
M NOx
Where:
reagent = mass flow rate, or consumption rate, of the reagent, lb/hr
Mreagent = the molecular weight of the reagent (60.06 pounds per mole [lb/mole] for urea,
17.03 lb/mole for ammonia)
MNOx = the molecular weight of NO2 (46.01 lb/mole).
The molecular weight of NO2 is used because the NOx emissions, NOxin, are given in lb/MMBtu
of NO2.
For ammonia, the mass flow rate of the aqueous reagent solution, sol ,
m is given by:
m reagent
m sol (2.36)
Csol
2-53
Where:
sol = mass flow rate of the aqueous reagent solution, lb/hr
Csol = the concentration of the aqueous reagent solution, by weight fraction.
The solution volume flow rate, qsol, generally expressed as gallons per hour (gph), is:
m sol
q sol 7.4805 (2.37)
sol
Where:
qsol = solution volume flow rate, gph
sol
= the density of the aqueous reagent solution, lb/ft3
7.4805 = conversion factor of 7.4805 gal/1 ft3 .
The sol is 56.0 lb/ft3 for a 29% solution ammonia and 71.0 lb/ft3 for a 50% urea solution at 60F.
The total volume stored in the tank, or tanks, is based on the volume that the SCR system
requires for operating a specified number of days. The volume stored onsite for the number of
operating days, tstorage, is:
Voltank = qsol tstorage 24 (2.38)
Where:
Voltank = total volume of aqueous solution stored in the tank(s), gallons (gal)
tstorage = number of operating days the SCR is required to operate between solution
delivery, days
24 = conversion factor of 24 hr/1 day.
Note that the tank volume is typically based on full-load operation, so the capacity factor is not
included in Equation 2.38. A common onsite storage requirement is for 14 days of SCR
operation.
2.4 Cost Analysis
The cost-estimating methodology presented here provides a tool to estimate study-level
costs. Actual selection of the most cost-effective option should be based on a detailed
engineering study and cost quotations from the system suppliers. The costs presented here are
expressed in 2012 dollars (2012$).18
18 For cost escalation or de-escalation, one suggested index is the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).
More information on CEPCI values and the indexing procedure can be found at
http://www.chemengonline.com/pci-home. Other indexes are also available. For more information on cost
escalation or de-escalation, please refer to the cost methodology chapter in the Cost Manual (Section 1, Chapter
2).
2-54
The cost equations are based on the EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) IPM [8].
In the costing method for SCR from the IPM, the purchased equipment cost, the direct
installation cost, and the indirect installation cost are estimated together. This methodology is
different from the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual methodology, which estimates
equipment costs and installation costs separately. Due to the limited availability of equipment
cost data and installation cost data, the IPM equations for SCR capital costs were not
reformulated for this analysis.19 One difference between the IPM methodology and the
methodology presented here is that the IPM methodology includes owners costs (for owner
activities related to engineering, management, and procurement) and financing mechanisms (i.e.,
allowance for funds used during construction [AFUDC]). As stated in the cost methodology in
this Manual (Section 1, Chapter 2), owners costs and AFUDC costs are capital cost items that
are not included in the EPA Control Cost Manual methodology, and thus are not included in the
TCI estimates in this section.
Capital cost equations are provided for both coal-fired and oil- or gas-fired units. The
capital cost equations are applicable to coal-fired utility boilers and to oil- or gas-fired utility
boilers at facilities with generating capacity greater than or equal to () 25 MW. Equations are
also provided for coal-fired and oil- or gas-fired industrial boilers with a heat input capacity
greater than approximately 250 MMBtu/hr. The capital costs estimated by the equation represent
average retrofit costs; thus, the equations may overestimate costs for some SCR systems that are
incorporated into new plants and for some simple retrofits of existing plants. For retrofits that are
more complicated than average, a retrofit factor of greater than one should be included in the
capital cost equations.
The SCR system design shown in the discussion below is a high-dust configuration with
one SCR reactor per combustion unit. It uses aqueous ammonia as the reagent with an allowed
ammonia slip in the range of 2 to 5 ppm.20 The catalyst is a ceramic honeycomb with an
operating life of 3 years at full load operations [33]. The cost equations are sufficient for NOXout
emission levels as low as 0.07 lb/MMBtu for bituminous coal and 0.05 lb/MMBtu for both PRB
and lignite coal [8]. In general, there are differences in capital cost, operating cost, and process
risk for high-dust and tail-end SCR units [52]. High-dust units tend to have higher capital costs
when there are space constraints while tail-end units tend to have higher operating costs [52].
Differences in the cost elements related to tail-end units are pointed out in the discussions for
total capital investment and total annual costs in the sections that follow.
The cost information presented in this report is based on using ceramic honeycomb
catalyst for the base case. In general, more catalyst volume is required for an SCR system using
19 The EPA CAMD IPM methodology for estimating capital costs is based on an engineering and design firms in-
house databases of actual SCR projects. The documentation indicates that the current industry trend is to retrofit
high-dust hot-side SCR, and cold-side tail-end SCRs encompass a small minority of units and were not considered
in the evaluation. Thus, the SCR cost equations are likely most representative of high-dust SCR, and qualitative
differences in equipment and costs are noted in the text for tail-end units.
20 While the EPA CAMD IPM cost method is based on use of urea-derived ammonia injection, the system design
and example problems here are based on use of aqueous ammonia because the majority of SCR use ammonia as
the reagent. This approach may slightly overestimate the capital costs for an ammonia-based system, as discussed
in the Reagent Production, Storage, and Vaporization subsection of section 2.2.4.
2-55
plate catalyst, although the unit cost of plate catalyst is lower than honeycomb. Thus, any
difference in cost is expected to be within the accuracy of a study-level cost estimate.
The annual cost procedures in the IPM categorize annual cost elements as either fixed
O&M costs or variable O&M costs. These elements are reclassified in this report as variable
direct annual costs, semivariable direct annual costs, or indirect annual costs to be consistent
with EPA Control Cost Methodology. The procedures in this report also include capital recovery,
which is not included in the IPM procedures.
2.4.1 Total Capital Investment
Total capital investment (TCI) includes direct and indirect costs associated with
purchasing and installing SCR equipment. Costs include the equipment cost for the SCR system
itself, the cost of auxiliary equipment, direct and indirect installation costs, additional costs due
to installation such as asbestos removal, costs for buildings and site preparation, offsite facilities,
land, and working capital. In general, SCR does not require buildings, site preparation, offsite
facilities, land, and working capital. A more detailed discussion of capital costs can be found in
Section 1, Chapter 2 of this Manual. The total project cost or TCI for the SCR is based on the
approach used by EPA CAMD in the Integrated Planning Model [8], and this approach includes
both the direct capital costs and the indirect capital costs. The methods presented in sections
2.4.1.1 and 2.4.1.2 for utility boilers are identical to the methods in v5.13 of the IPM, except that
two elements have been excluded, as noted above. The IPM does not include methods for
estimating impacts to industrial boilers. Thus, the methods presented in sections 2.4.1.3 and
2.4.1.4 for industrial boilers are based on modified IPM equations; the equations were modified
by replacing electricity production ratings with the corresponding typical boiler heat input
capacities, as calculated using typical NPHRs, and assuming that SCR costs for industrial boilers
and utility boilers that have the same heat input capacity would be the same.
The SCR costs and the balance of plant costs are impacted by the units elevation with
respect to sea level. These cost calculations have been developed for SCR systems located within
500 feet of sea level. For SCR systems located at higher elevations, the base SCR unit cost and
balance of plant cost should be increased based on the ratio of the atmospheric pressure between
sea level and the location of the system, i.e., atmospheric pressure at sea level divided by
atmospheric pressure at the elevation of the unit [8]. The elevation factor is calculated as follows:
P0
ELEVF (2.39)
PELEV
Where:
ELEVF = elevation factor
P0 = atmospheric pressure at sea level, 14.7 pounds per square inch absolute (psia)
PELEV = atmospheric pressure at elevation of the unit, psia (see Table 2.7 for
atmospheric pressures for various elevations).
Table 2.7 presents atmospheric pressures for elevations up to 6000 feet above sea level.
2-56
Table 2.7. Atmospheric Pressure at Different Elevations.

Elevation above sea Atmospheric pressure,
level, ft psia
0 14.7
500 14.4
1000 14.2
1500 13.9
2000 13.7
2500 13.4
3000 13.2
3500 12.9
4000 12.7
4500 12.5
5000 12.2
6000 11.8
2.4.1.1 Utility Boilers (Coal-fired)

Utility, coal-fired units. The capital cost equation for coal-fired units (applicable for 25
MW) is:
TCI 1.3 SCRCost RPC APHC BPC (2.40)
Where:
TCI = total capital investment for a SCR on a coal-fired boiler, $
SCRCost = cost of the SCR, $
RPC = reagent preparation cost, $
APHC = air pre-heater cost, $
BPC = balance of plant costs, $
This TCI calculation includes a factor of 1.3 to estimate engineering and construction
management costs, labor adjustment for installation (e.g., per diem and premium for work shifts
of 10 hr), and contractor profit and fees. (For retrofits that are more complicated than average,
the terms SCR, APHC, and BPC would be adjusted with a retrofit factor of greater than one.)
2-57
SCR costs, utility, coal-fired units 25 MW. The capital costs for the SCR base unit
includes costs for the inlet ductwork, the reactor, and the bypass equipment [8]. The SCR costs
are calculated as follows:
SCRCost 270,000 NRF BMW HRF CoalF ELEVF

0.2 0.92
(2.41)
Where:
SCRCost = SCR unit costs, $
270,000 = constant in the equation
NRF = NOx removal factor (NOx/80)
BMW = electric generating capacity of the unit supplied by the boiler, MW
HRF = heat rate factor
CoalF = coal factor (CoalF=1 if bituminous; CoalF=1.05 if PRB; CoalF=1.07 if Lignite)
ELEVF = elevation factor.
The NOx Removal Factor, NRF, is an adjustment factor that helps the equations more accurately
reflect the actual costs in the database; it is expressed as the NOx removal efficiency (NOx)
divided by 80. The CoalF is 1 for bituminous coal, is 1.05 for Powder River Basin (PRB) coal,
and is 1.07 for lignite coal.
Reagent Preparation costs, utility, coal-fired units 25 MW. The costs for equipment to
prepare reagents for injection into the SCR are based on the NOx removal rate. As noted in
previous sections, ammonia (either aqueous or anhydrous) is typically used as the reagent for
SCR. The RPC equation is applicable for all types of reagent systems because it reflects the
actual mix of types of reagent systems in the underlying database. As a result it likely slightly
overstates costs for anhydrous ammonia systems, and slightly understates costs for urea to
ammonia systems. The reagent preparation costs are calculated as follows:
RPC 490,000 NOxin BMW NPHR NOx

0.25
(2.42)
Where:
RPC = Reagent preparation cost, $
NOxin = inlet NOx level from the boiler, i.e., inlet NOx rate to the SCR,
lb/MMBtu
NPRH = net plant heat rate, MMBtu/MWh
Air Pre-Heater Modification costs, utility, coal-fired units 25 MW. Air pre-heater
modification costs are included only where SO3 control is necessary. An air pre-heater
modification is necessary for the control of SO3 for boilers that burn bituminous coal where the
SO2 content of the coal is 3 lb/MMBtu or greater. Such modifications can include the use of
steels resistant to corrosion, sootblowers and nozzles specifically designed to minimize SO3
formation. If lower sulfur content coal types are used, then no air pre-heater modification is
needed. The air pre-heater modification costs are calculated as follows:
2-58
APHC 69,000 BMW HRF CoalF AHF

0.78
(2.43)
Where:
APHC = Air pre-heater cost, $
AHF = air heater factor (AHF=1 if bituminous coal and SO2 3 lb/MMBtu; if not true,
AHF=0).
The AHF is 1 for bituminous coal and where the SO2 content of the coal is 3 lb/MMBtu or
greater. If the boiler burns other coal types, then the AHF is 0 and the air pre-heater term drops
out of the overall TCI equation for the SCR system.
Balance of plant costs, utility, coal-fired units 25 MW. The BPC include cost items such
as ID and booster fans, piping, and auxiliary power modifications necessary for the SCR unit [8].
The BPC are calculated as follows:
BPC 460,000 BMW HRF CoalF ELEVF

0.42
(2.44)
Where:
BPC = Balance of plant cost, $
2.4.1.2 Utility Boilers (Oil- and Gas-fired)

Utility, oil- and gas-fired units (25 MW to 500 MW). The capital cost equation for oil-
and gas-fired units, applicable to 25 MW to 500 MW, is:
0.35
200
TCI 80 BMW ELEVF 1000 (2.45)
MW
B
Where:
TCI = total capital investment for an SCR unit on an oil-fired or gas-fired boiler, $
80 = installed cost of an SCR system in 2012$ for a 200 MW oil- or gas-fired boiler,
$/kW
BMW = electric generating capacity of the unit supplied by the boiler, MW
1000 = conversion factor of 1,000 kW/MW
The ELEVF was applied to the TCI equation for oil- and gas-fired units, however, because the
ELEVF would apply only to the base SCR cost and the BPC but not to the RP costs, or to the
APHC if applicable, including the factor may somewhat overestimate the TCI. For utility oil-
and gas-fired units, unlike the utility coal-fired units, the TCI equation is a single equation for all
capital costs that does not allow discrimination in applying the factor.
2-59
Utility, oil- and gas-fired units (>500 MW). For oil- and gas-fired units >500 MW, the
normalized costs in $/kW are assumed to be equivalent to the costs for a 500 MW boiler unit.
Thus, the equation for units >500 MW reduces to:
TCI 60.67 BMW ELEVF 1000 (2.46)
With respect to high-dust and tail-end SCR units, high-dust units typically require larger catalyst
volume that increases capital costs. Tail-end units require less catalyst volume and therefore
lower capital costs, due to minimal ash and catalyst poisons in the flue gas following the ESP
and wet scrubber. A rule of thumb for SCR catalyst volume is high-dust units (on cyclone-fired
boilers) require approximately 1.5 m3/MW, and tail-end units require less than half the catalyst
volume of a high dust unit (or less than 0.75 m3/MW) [85]. The lower catalyst volume for tail-
end units helps reduce initial catalyst capital cost (and catalyst replacement operating costs) [62].
The capital costs for tail-end SCR units must include the equipment cost for reheating the flue
gas. Reheating may be conducted using steam coils or natural gas firing. Capital costs for these
reheating options are similar, however steam supply piping, supports, and valves may increase
the steam coil reheating capital costs [62]. In a case study for a tail-end SCR on a 600 MW
burning bituminous coal, one source cites SCR capital costs of $205 million for an SCR with
steam coil reheating and $205 million for an SCR with a natural gas burner (2008$) [62].
As noted earlier, applying the ELEVF to the TCI equation for utility oil- and gas-fired units may
overestimate the costs.
2.4.1.3 Industrial Boilers (Coal-fired)
Industrial, coal-fired units. The capital cost equation for coal-fired units (applicable for
250 MMBtu/hr) uses the utility equations to estimate the industrial boiler SCR costs. Use of the
utility equations may overestimate the costs for industrial boilers since current retrofits of utility
boilers are likely more complex than for industrial boilers. The capital cost equation is:
TCI 1.3 SCRCost RPC APHC BPC (2.47)
Where:
TCI = total capital investment for a SCR on a coal-fired boiler, $
SCRCost = cost of the SCR, $
RPC = reagent preparation cost, $
APHC = air pre-heater cost, $
BPC = balance of plant costs, $.
This TCI calculation includes a factor of 1.3 to estimate engineering and construction
management costs, labor adjustment for installation (e.g., per diem and premium for work shifts
of 10 hr), and contractor profit and fees.
SCR costs, industrial, coal-fired units 250 MMBtu/hr. The capital costs for the SCR
base unit includes costs for the inlet ductwork, the reactor, and the bypass equipment [8]. The
SCR costs are calculated as follows:
SCRCost 270,000 NRF 0.1 QB CoalF ELEVF

0.2 0.92
(2.48)
2-60
Where:
SCRCost = SCR unit costs, $
NRF = NOx removal factor (NOx/80)
QB = maximum heat rate input to the boiler, MMBtu/hr
The NOx Removal Factor, NRF, is an adjustment factor that helps the equations more accurately
reflect the actual costs in the database; it is expressed as the NOx removal efficiency (NOx)
divided by 80. The CoalF is 1 for bituminous coal, is 1.05 for Powder River Basin (PRB) coal,
and is 1.07 for lignite coal.
Reagent Preparation costs, industrial, coal-fired units 250 MMBtu/hr. The costs for
equipment to prepare reagents for injection into the SCR are based on the NOx removal rate. As
noted in previous sections, ammonia (either aqueous or anhydrous) is typically used as the
reagent for SCR. The RPC equation is applicable for all types of reagent systems because it
reflects the actual mix of types of reagent systems in the underlying database. As a result it likely
slightly overstates costs for anhydrous ammonia systems, and slightly understates costs for urea
to ammonia systems. The reagent preparation costs are calculated as follows:
RPC 490,000 NOxin QB nNOx

0.25
(2.49)
Where:
RPC = Reagent preparation cost, $
NOxin = inlet NOx level from the boiler, i.e., inlet NOx rate to the SCR, lb/MMBtu
Air Pre-Heater Modification costs, industrial, coal-fired units 250 MMBtu/hr. Air pre-
heater modification costs are included only where SO3 control is necessary. An air pre-heater
modification is necessary for the control of SO3 for boilers that burn bituminous coal where the
SO2 content of the coal is 3 lb/MMBtu or greater. If other coal types are used, then no air pre-
heater modification is needed. The air pre-heater modification costs are calculated as follows:
APHC 69,000 0.1 QB CoalF AHF

0.78
(2.50)
Where:
APHC = Air pre-heater cost, $
AHF = air heater factor (AHF=1 if bituminous coal and SO2 3 lb/MMBtu; if not true,
AHF=0).
2-61
The AHF is 1 for bituminous coal and where the SO2 content of the coal is 3 lb/MMBtu or
greater. If the boiler burns other coal types, then the AHF is 0 and this term drops out of the
overall TCI equation for the SCR system.
Balance of plant costs, industrial, coal-fired units 250 MMBtu/hr. The BPC include cost
items such as ID and booster fans, piping, and auxiliary power modifications necessary for the
SCR unit [8]. The BPC are calculated as follows:
BPC 460,000 0.1 QB CoalF ELEVF

0.42
(2.51)
Where:
BPC = Balance of plant cost, $
2.4.1.3 Industrial Boilers (Oil- and Gas-fired)

Industrial, oil-fired units (275 to 5,500 MMBtu/hr). The capital cost equation for oil-
fired industrial boilers was developed by modifying equation 2.45. The 200 MW rating of the
generating unit for the base utility boiler in equation 2.45 was converted to a heat input capacity
of 2,200 Btu/hr for an oil-fired boiler by using equation 2.4 with a NPHR of 11,000 Btu/kwh.
Similarly, dividing the base cost of $80/kW in equation 2.45 by the NPHR of 11,000 Btu/kwh
gives an estimated cost of 7.27x10-3 $/MMBtu/hr. The resulting equation, applicable to oil-fired
industrial boilers with a heat input capacity of 275 to 5,500 MMBtu/hr, is:
0.35
2,200
TCI 7.27 10
3
QB ELEVF 1,000,000 (2.52)
B
Q
Where:
TCI = total capital investment for SCR on an oil-fired boiler, $
7.2710-3 = estimated installed cost of an SCR unit in 2012$ for an oil-fired boiler that has a
2,200 MMBtu/hr rating at full load capacity, $/MMBtu/hr
1,000,000 = conversion factor for 1,000,000 Btu/MMBtu
As noted earlier, applying the ELEVF to the TCI equation for industrial oil-fired units may
Industrial, gas-fired units (205 to 4,100 MMBtu/hr). The capital cost equation for gas-
fired industrial boilers was developed by modifying equation 2.44 in a manner similar to that
described above for oil-fired boilers, except that the NPHR used in the conversions was 8,200
Btu/kwh. The resulting equation, applicable to gas-fired industrial boilers with a heat input
capacity of 205 to 4,100 MMBtu/hr, is:
2-62
0.35
1,640
TCI 9.76 10
3
QB ELEVF 1,000,000 (2.53)
B
Q
Where:
TCI = total capital investment for SCR on a gas-fired boiler, $
9.7610-3 = estimated installed cost of an SCR unit in 2012$ for a gas-fired boiler that has a
1,640 MMBtu/hr rating at full load capacity, $/MMBtu/hr
1,000,000 = conversion factor for 1,000,000 Btu/MMBtu
As noted earlier, applying the ELEVF to the TCI equation for industrial gas-fired units may
Industrial, oil-fired units (>5,500 MMBtu/hr). For oil-fired industrial boilers >5,500
MMBtu/hr, the normalized costs in $/MMBtu/hr are assumed to be equivalent to the costs for a
5,500 MMBtu/hr boiler unit. Thus, the equation for units >5,500 MMBtu/hr reduces to:
TCI 5,275 QB ELEVF (2.54)
As noted earlier, applying the ELEVF to the TCI equation for industrial oil-fired units may
Industrial, gas-fired units (>4,100 MMBtu/hr). For gas-fired industrial boilers >4,100
MMBtu/hr, the normalized costs in $/MMBtu/hr are assumed to be equivalent to the costs for a
4,100 MMBtu/hr boiler unit. Thus, the equation for units >4,100 MMBtu/hr reduces to:
TCI 7,082 QB ELEVF (2.55)
As noted earlier, applying the ELEVF to the TCI equation for industrial gas-fired units may
2.4.2 Total Annual Costs

Total annual costs (TAC) consist of direct costs, indirect costs, and recovery credits.
Direct annual costs are those proportional to the quantity of waste gas processed by the control
system. Indirect (fixed) annual costs are independent of the operation of the control system and
would be incurred even if it were shut down. No byproduct recovery credits are included because
there are no salvageable byproducts generated from the SCR [86]. Each of these costs is
discussed in the sections below. A more detailed discussion of annual costs can be found in
Section 1, Chapter 2 of this Cost Manual.
Design parameters are estimated using the maximum annual heat input rate of the boiler
to ensure adequate sizing of the SCR system. Annual costs are calculated using the annual heat
input rate of the boiler and SCR system using CFtotal.. This ensures that annual costs are based on
2-63
the actual operating conditions rather than the design case. No escalation of annual costs is
included in this procedure in order to be consistent with the cost methodology followed in this
Cost Manual as described in Section 1, Chapter 2.
Direct Annual Costs
Direct annual costs, DAC, include variable and semivariable costs. Variable direct annual
costs account for purchase of reagent and electrical power. Semivariable direct annual costs
include operating and supervisory labor cost, maintenance cost, and catalyst replacement cost.
These costs are discussed individually below. Equations for these variable cost items were
derived in Reference [8].
Operating costs also result from small decreases in boiler efficiency due to operation of
the economizer bypass. The economizer bypass operation depends on the flow rate of gas
bypassed at full and partial loads and the boilers capacity factor. Another operating cost is
incurred for the steam or electric power used for compressed air, as required for the relatively
infrequent operation of soot blowers. These operating costs are generally small and site-specific.
Therefore, they are not discussed in this report.
Annual Annual Annual Annual

DAC Maintenanc e Reagent Electricit y Catalyst (2.56)
Cost Cost Cost
Cost
Operating and Supervisory Labor

The procedures in Reference [8] estimate operating labor time as 4 hours per day.
However, the SCR reactor is a stationary device with no moving parts. Further, the SCR system
incorporates only a few pieces of rotating equipment (e.g., pumps, motors). Therefore, the
procedures in this report assume the existing plant staff can operate the SCR from an existing
control room. In general, operation of an SCR system requires no additional, or only minimal,
operating or supervisory labor.
Maintenance
The annual maintenance labor and material cost in dollars per year ($/yr), including
nozzle tip replacement for the injectors, is assumed to be 0.5% of the TCI in dollars [7a, 8]21:
Annual Maintenance Cost = 0.005 x TCI (2.57)
21 Reference [8] applies the 0.5% factor for units smaller than 300 MW and applies 0.3% for larger units, and the
factor is applied to the Base Module cost rather than the TCI (i.e., the equipment and installation cost before
adding 30% for engineering and construction management, labor adjustment, and contractor profit and fees).
Since the capital cost estimating procedure for oil- and gas-fired units does not include estimation of a Base
Module cost, the procedures in this report use the more conventional approach of scaling the annual maintenance
cost from the TCI.
2-64
Reagent Consumption
The annual cost of reagent purchase in $/yr is estimated using the reagent volume flow
rate, qsol, the operating time per year, top, and the cost of reagent in dollars per gallon, Costreag:
Annual Reagent Cost = qsol x Costreag x top (2.58)
where qsol is in gallons per hour (gph). The example here is for use of an aqueous ammonia
solution, i.e., qsol, however, if the cost of the ammonia is available in $/lb of ammonia, then the
equation to estimate reagent costs would be based on mreagent from Equation 2.35 instead of qsol.
The operating time per year, top, is estimated using the capacity factor, CFtotal:
t op CFtotal 8760 (2.59)
Utilities
Power consumption for utility boilers. The electrical power consumption, P, in kW is
estimated for SCR equipment, ammonia vaporization, water vaporization, and additional ID fan
power [33]. The total additional auxiliary power required is estimated using Equation 2.60 [8] :
P BMW (1,000) (0.0056) (CoalF HRF ) 0.43 (2.60)
Where:
P = electrical power consumption of the SCR system, kW

1,000 = conversion factor for 1,000 kW/MW
0.0056 = adjustment or scaling factor, dimensionless
For oil- and gas-fired boilers, replace the coal factor with 1.
Power consumption for industrial boilers. The electrical power consumption, P, in kW is
estimated for SCR equipment, ammonia vaporization, water vaporization, and additional ID fan
power [33]. It is estimated by converting Equation 2.60 to use the heat input to the boiler instead
of the electric output as shown in Equation 2.61:
P (0.1 QB ) (1,000) (0.56 / 100) (CoalF HRF ) 0.43 (2.61)
The annual cost of electricity is estimated from the equation:

Annual Electricity Cost = P x Costelect x top (2.62)
Where:
Costelect = cost of electricity, dollars per kWh ($/kWh).
In general, the power consumption for operating a high-dust SCR is lower than for low-dust SCR
(data are not available for a tail-end unit). A relative comparison of power consumption for high-
dust and low-dust SCR is shown in Table 2.8. As an example, one source cites a total power
2-65
consumption of 3,500 kW for a high-dust SCR and 7,000 kW for a low-dust SCR on a 440 MW
coal-fired boiler, showing that the power consumption for a low-dust unit is twice that of the
high-dust unit [85].
Depending on the site configuration and space constraints, application of high-dust SCR to a
boiler where there is significantly large retrofit costs may actually favor use of a tail-end unit
with lower capital costs and more simple retrofit even though operating costs are higher [85].
Table 2.8: Comparison of Power Consumption for High-Dust and Low-Dust SCR [85]
Power component High-dust SCR Low-dust SCR

Induced draft fans, kW (accounts for Lower Higher (approximately 2x
largest portion of power needs, at 80 to higher)
90% of total power)
Ammonia system power, kW Higher (approximately 20% higher) Lower
Dilution air blower, kW (second largest Higher (approximately 20% higher) Lower
portion)
Dilution air heaters, kW Higher (approximately 25% higher) Lower
Ammonia pump, kW Higher Lower
Seal Air fans, kW Same Same
Electrical and control power Lower Higher (approximately 2x
consumption, kW higher)
Total power consumption, kW Lower Higher
Catalyst Replacement
The catalyst life is a function of the catalyst activity and ammonia slip. As the catalyst
activity decreases with time, the ammonia slip increases until it reaches the design limit and new
catalyst must be added. Catalyst life is usually specified when purchasing the catalyst. For the
most common SCR design for coal-fired boilers, the high-dust SCR, a catalyst layer is typically
guaranteed for 16,000 24,000 operating hours based on information from catalyst vendors.
Two possible methodologies for estimating the annual catalyst replacement cost are
presented in this chapter. Both of these methodologies are focused on estimating this cost for
coal-fired boilers, but could be used as appropriate for oil- and gas-fired boilers. One
methodology is based on estimating the total volume of catalyst, the total number of catalyst
layers, the number of layers replaced annually, and the future worth of the catalyst. This cost
methodology assumes a guaranteed catalyst life of 24,000 hours or approximately 3 years for
close to full time operation, and is the methodology for estimating annual catalyst replacement
cost in the current the current Control Cost Manual version. The second methodology is an
empirical equation that is part of the S&L cost methodology employed for power plants in the
IPM [8] and is incorporated into this SCR Control Cost Manual chapter. The Agency lays out
both methods in this chapter as possible ways to estimate annual catalyst replacement cost.
Under the first catalyst replacement cost methodology , if the SCR does not have an
empty catalyst layer, one approach is to replace all of the catalyst layers at the end of 24,000
2-66
operating hours. This very conservative assumption (i.e., likely overestimates the control cost)
has been used in the SCR costs developed in the References [86] and [87]. If the SCR includes a
spare catalyst layer, then only one catalyst layer is replaced at the end of 24,000 hours. Most
SCR designs include a spare catalyst layer. The cost for catalyst replacement in all the SCR
reactors for a given boiler is given by:

= (2.63)

Where:
Catalyst Replacement
Cost = cost to replace the SCR catalyst, either replacing all catalyst or
replacing 1 layer at a time, $
Volcatalyst = volume of the reactor or catalyst layers, ft3
nSCR = number of SCR reactor chambers
CCreplace = cost of catalyst, dollars per cubic foot ($/ft3)
Rlayer = catalyst replacement factor (Rlayer = 1 for full replacement and Rlayer =
nlayer for replacing 1 layer at a time)
Because the catalyst is replaced every few years, the annual catalyst cost for all reactors
is a function of the future worth of the catalyst, FWF, and is given by:
Catalyst

Annual Catalyst Replacemen t Cost Replacemen t FWF (2.64)

Cost
where FWF is the future worth factor. Future worth is used because the annual catalyst
replacement cost is accrued starting in the first year of operation, while catalyst replacement
purchases occur every few years. To account for the time value of money, the FWF amortizes the
catalyst cost over the years preceding the actual catalyst purchase [88]. Because the money is
allocated in advance of the purchase, the sum of the annual catalyst replacement costs is less than
the purchase price of the catalyst. The future worth factor, FWF is given by:
1
FWF i (2.65)
1 i 1
Y
Where:
i = interest rate, fraction
Y = term, years.
The term, Y, is given by the equation:
2-67
hcatalyst
Y (2.66)
hyear
Where:
hcatalyst = operating life of the catalyst, hours
hyear = number of hours per year the SCR is operated, hr/yr
The value of Y estimated from the equation is then rounded to the nearest integer.
Under the second catalyst replacement cost methodology , the cost for catalyst
replacement and disposal for a given boiler is part of the &L cost methodology employed for
power plants in this chapter given by [8]:
Annual Catalyst
( BMW ) (0.4) (CoalF )2.9 ( NRF )0.71 (CCreplace) (2.67)
Re placement Cost
Where:
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost = cost to replace the SCR catalyst, $/yr
CCreplace = cost of catalyst, dollars per cubic meter ($/m3)
Because high-dust units typically require larger catalyst volume, the replacement costs
for the catalyst are also higher. Tail-end units require not only less catalyst volume but also less
frequent catalyst replacement, due to minimal ash and catalyst poisons in the flue gas at this
point in the equipment train. Lower levels of fly ash and catalyst poisons in the flue gas increase
the catalyst life and decrease operating costs related to replacement [52]. In addition,
concentrations of SO2 in the flue gas are low following the wet scrubber and there are fewer
concerns related to SO3 formation and ammonium salt deposition [52].
While catalyst vendors typically provide a 24,000 hour (or 3 year) guarantee for catalysts,
catalysts in tail-end units may last for extended periods. One source cites tail-end SCR units in
Europe that continue to operate using the initial catalyst that was installed in the 1980s and have
up to 130,000 operating hours [89], and another source reports tail-end catalysts that lasted for
100,000 operating hours [52].
Because tail-end units follow the ESP and wet scrubber, the flue gas has cooled and must
be reheated to an appropriate temperature for the NOx reaction to occur in the SCR. For tail-end
units, the flue gas is typically sent through a gas-gas heat exchanger and then to either a natural
gas-fired duct burner or steam coil to heat to the appropriate SCR operating temperature. Most
tail-end SCR in Europe use steam coil reheating, which has advantages over a duct burner such
as lower operating cost, no increase in flue gas flow rate from combustion byproducts, and no
moisture condensation on the SCR catalyst. A case study for a tail-end SCR achieving 84% NOx
removal efficiency on a 600 MW boiler burning bituminous coal indicated annual reheating cost
2-68
for steam coil of $2.5 million/yr and for natural gas burner of $12 million/yr (2008$) (assuming
approximately $4/1000 lb steam and $8/1000 sft3 natural gas) [52].22
Indirect Annual Costs
In general, as mentioned in the Cost Manual Methodology chapter in Section 1 of the
Control Cost Manual, indirect annual costs (fixed costs) include the capital recovery cost,
property taxes, insurance, administrative charges, and overhead. Capital recovery cost is based
on the anticipated equipment lifetime23 and the annual interest rate employed.24 The equipment
lifetime of the SCR system is assumed to be 30 years for the purposes of this cost example. This
is an assumption based on several sources, including estimates by six petroleum refiners that
SCR for fluidized catalytic cracking units and other process units would be between 20 and 30
years [22]; results from a survey conducted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
that shows equipment life for SCRs at refineries to be 20 to 25 years,25 an expert report in the NC
lawsuit against TVA coal-fired electric generation units indicated expected useful life of an SCR
is 30 years [90]; a 2002 study of the economic risks from SCR operation at the Detroit Edison
Monroe power plant used 30 years as the anticipated lifetime [91]; and a design lifetime of 40
years was used for an SCR at the San Juan Generating Station [92]. Thus, broadly speaking, a
representative value of the equipment life for SCR at power plants can be considered as 30 years.
For other sources, the equipment life can be between 20 and 30 years. The remaining life of the
boiler may also be a determining factor for the system lifetime.
In many cases, property taxes do not apply to capital improvements such as air pollution
control equipment; therefore, for this analysis, taxes are assumed to be zero [41]. The cost of
overhead for an SCR system is also considered to be zero. An SCR system is not viewed as risk-
increasing hardware (e.g., a high-energy device such as a boiler or a turbine). Consequently,
insurance on an SCR system is on the order of a few cents per thousand dollars annually [41].
Finally, there are two categories of overhead, payroll and plant. Payroll overhead includes
expenses related to labor employed in operation and maintenance of hardware, whereas plant
overhead accounts for items such as plant protection, control laboratories, and parking areas.
Because this procedure assumes that no additional labor is needed in operation of an SCR
system, payroll overhead is zero and plant overhead is considered to be negligible.
Using these assumptions, indirect annual costs, IDAC, in $/yr, consist of both
administrative charges and capital recovery, which can be expressed as:
22 For comparison the annual reheating cost for natural gas burner would be $7.8 million/yr (assuming
approximately $5/1000 sft3 natural gas).
23 The term equipment life as used here in this chapter and through the Control Cost Manual refers to operational
or design life. See Section 1, Chapter 2 for more explanation.
24 The OMB specifies an interest rate of 7% in Circular A-4. Regulatory Analysis. Office of Management and
Budget. September 17, 2003. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf
25 Presentation to NOx RECLAIM Working Group, South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 29, 2015.
Presentation is available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/regxx/nox-
reclaim_wgm_042915b.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
2-69
Administrative Capital
Indirect Annual Cost (2.68)
Charges Re cov ery
Administrative Charges
Administrative charges may be calculated as:

= 0.03 (( ) + 0.4 ( )) (2.69)

In general, the operating labor cost factor in this equation will be zero because operation
of an SCR system requires no additional, or only minimal, operating or supervisory labor.
Capital Recovery
Capital recovery is estimated as:
CR = CRF TCI (2.70)
where TCI is the total investment, and CRF is the capital recovery factor and defined by:
i1 i
n
CRF (2.71)
1 i n 1
where i is the interest rate, and n is the equipment life of the SCR system.
Total Annual Cost
The total annual cost (TAC) for owning and operating an SCR system is the sum of direct
and indirect annual costs as given in the following equation:
Direct Indirect

Total Annual Cost Annual Annual (2.72)
Cost Cost

Cost Effectiveness
The cost in dollars per ton of NOx removed per year is:
TAC
Cost Effectivene ss (2.73)
NOx Removed/yr
Where:
Cost Effectiveness = the cost effectiveness, $/ton

NOx Removed/yr = annual mass of NOx removed in the SCR, ton/yr
2-70
2.5 Example Problem #1 Utility Boiler

An example problem that calculates both the design parameters and capital and annual
costs for an SCR system applied to a 120 MW utility boiler firing bituminous coal is presented
below. The following assumptions are made to perform the calculations:
Fuel High Heating Value, HHV 12,000 Btu/lb
Net Plant Heat Rate, NPHR 10 MMBtu/MWh
fuel
Maximum Fuel Consumption Rate, m 1.0 x 105 lb/hr
Total Annual Fuel Consumption, actual mfuel 7.45 x 108 lb
Number of plant (boiler) operating days, tPlant 365 days
Number of SCR operating days, tSCR 365 days
Inlet NO Level, NOXin 0.35 lb/MMBtu
Required Annual Average Controlled NOx Emission Level, NOXout 0.05 lb/MMBtu
Acceptable Ammonia Slip, Slip 2.0 ppm
Base Case Flue Gas Flow Rate Factor, Eastern Bituminous, qfuel 484 ft3/min per MMBtu/hr
Fuel Sulfur Content, S 1.0% by weight
Actual Stoichiometric Ratio for Ammonia, ASR 1.05
Stored Ammonia Concentration, Csol 29%
Number of Days of Storage for Ammonia, t 14 days
Pressure Drop for SCR Ductwork, Pduct 3 inches w.g.
Pressure Drop for each Catalyst Layer, Pcatalyst 1 inch w.g.
Temperature at SCR Inlet, T 650F
Plant elevation, PELEV 1,500 ft
In addition to these assumptions, the estimated economic factors for the cost equations are:
Cost year 2012$
Equipment Life 30 years
Annual Interest Rate 7%
Catalyst Cost 5,500 $/m3 ($160/ft3) [7b]
Electrical Power Cost26 0.067 $/kWh [93]
29% Ammonia Solution Cost 0.475 $/lb of ammonia [average of vendor quotes
for 2011 and 2013]
Operating Life of Catalyst 24,000 hours
26 The electric power cost is also known as the busbar cost.
2-71
2.5.1 Design Parameter Example #127
Boiler Calculations
The boiler annual heat input rate, QB, is calculated from the High Heating Value for
bituminous coal (see Table 2.5 for typical values if the actual value is unknown) and the
maximum fuel consumption rate, m fuel :
Btu lb
12,000 100,000
QB lb hr 1,200 MMBtu
Btu hr
10 6
MMBtu
The plant capacity factor is calculated from the maximum and annual average fuel
consumption using Equation 2.8:
lb
7.45 10 8
yr
CF plant 0.85 85%
lb hr
1 10 8,760
5
hr yr
The SCR system capacity factor is calculated from the months of SCR operation,
12 months, using Equation 2.9:
365 days
CFSCR 1.0 100%
365 days
The total capacity factor including both plant and SCR capacity factors is given by:
CFtotal = 0.85 x 1.0 = 0.85 = 85%
The flue gas flow rate using Equation 2.14 is:
484 ft 3 MMBtu
1,200 (460 650 F )
MMBtu hr
min ( )
q flue gas hr 555,766acfm
(460 700 F ) 1
The NOx removal efficiency, NOx, is calculated from the inlet NOx level and the required
controlled NOx emission level using Equation 2.10:
27 Note: Results of all parameter calculations are shown rounded to an acceptable number of significant figures.
However, the full, unrounded value is used in subsequent parameter and cost calculations that use the parameter
as an input. Thus, the results shown for subsequent calculations often differ from what would be calculated using
the shown rounded inputs. The use of extra significant figures in the subsequent calculations does not imply
greater accuracy of the numbers.
2-72
lb lb
0.35 0.05
NO x MMBtu MMBtu 0.857 85.7%
lb
0.35
MMBtu
SCR Reactor Calculations

The catalyst volume using Equation 2.22 and the equations for each adjustment factor is:
Volcatalyst = 2.81 x 1,200 MMBtu/hr
[0.2869 + (1.058 x 0.86)] (adjx)
[0.8524 + (0.3208 x 0.35)] (NOxadj)
[1.2835 (0.0567 x 2.0)] (Slipadj)

[0.9636 + (0.0455 x 1.0)] (Sulfuradj)
[15.16 (0.03937 x 650) + (0.0000274 x 6502)] (Temperatureadj)
= 5,300 ft3
The catalyst and SCR cross-sectional areas using Equations 2.28 and 2.29 are:
555,766 acfm
Acatalyst 579 ft 2
ft 60 s
16
s min
ASCR 1.15 579 ft 2 666 ft 2
The length and width of the reactor using Equation 2.30 is:
l w 666 25.8 ft
12
The first estimate of the number of catalyst layers using Equation 2.31 is:
5,300
nlayer 2.95
3.1 579
Rounding this value gives, nlayer = 3.

Checking the actual catalyst height using Equation 2.32:
5,300 ft 3
hlayer 1 4.0
3 579 ft 2
This value is within the design height limits of 2.55 feet.
2-73
The total number of catalyst layers is determined by Equation 2.33 with one empty
catalyst layer:
ntotal = 3 + 1 = 4
The SCR height, excluding the outlet duct and hoppers using Equation 2.34 is:
hSCR = 4 (7 + 4.0) + 9 = 53 ft
Reagent Calculations
The mass flow rate of the reagent is calculated using the molecular weight of the reagent,
17.03 g/mole and NO2, 46.01g/mole. For an ASR of 1.05, the reagent mass flow rate is given by
Equation 2.35:
lb NOx MMBtu lb
0.35 1,200 0.857 1.05 17.03
reagent
m MMBtu hr mole 139.9 lb
lb hr
46.01
mole
The mass flow rate of 29% aqueous ammonia solution is given by Equation 2.36:
lb
139.9
m sol hr 482 lb
0.29 hr
The solution volume flow rate can then be calculated from Equation 2.37 where sol is the
density of the 29% aqueous ammonia solution, 56.0 lb/ft3 at 60oF, and the conversion factor is
7.481 gal/ft3:
lb gal
482 7.481 3
hr ft
q sol 64.4 gph
lb
56.0 3
ft
The total volume stored in the tank(s) is based on the volume that the SCR system
requires for 14 days of operation. The onsite storage requirement is given by Equation 2.38:
24hr
Vol tank 64.4 gph 14 days 21,652 gal
day
The onsite storage requirement for ammonia solution is 53,000 gallons per 14 days of operation.
2-74
Capital Cost Elevation Factor Calculation

The elevation factor for use in calculating the SCR base unit cost and the balance of plant
costs is given by Equation 2.39 with the atmospheric pressure at 1500 ft above sea level (13.9
psia):
14.7 psia
ELEVF 1.06
13.9 psia
2.5.2 Cost Estimation Example

Once the SCR system is sized, the capital and annual costs for the SCR system can be
estimated. The TCI is estimated using Equation 2.40. The SCRcost, RPC, APHC and BPC must
be calculated individually using equations 2.41, 2.42, 2.43, and 2.44, respectively. These
calculations are shown below.
0.2 0.92
85.7% 10MMBtu / MWh
SCRCost 1.06 270,000 120 MW 1.00 $23,652,228
80 10
0.25
lb MMBtu
RPC 490,000 0.35 120MW 10 0.857 $2,134,380
MMBtu MWh
APHC 69,000 120MW 1 1 0 $0

0.78
BPC 1.06 460,000 120MW 11 $3,628,130

0.42
TCI 1.3 $23,652,228 $2,134,380 $0 $3,628,130 $38,239,160
Annual costs are based on the economic factors listed above. In addition, the SCR system
in this example is assumed to operate the entire year with a boiler loading of 85%, resulting in a
total capacity factor of 85%. As discussed in section 2.5.1, the direct annual costs consist of the
variable direct annual costs (reagent and electricity) and semivariable direct annual costs
(maintenance and annual catalyst cost).
The annual maintenance costs are estimated using Equation 2.57:

Annual Maintenanc e Cost 0.005 $38,239,160 $191,196 / yr
An estimate for power consumption is given by Equation 2.60:
2-75
P (120 MW ) (1,000 kW / MW ) (0.56 / 100) (1 1) 0.43 672 kW
Electricity cost can then be estimated from Equation 2.62:
8,760hr $0.067 $336,250

Annual Electricit y Cost 672kW 0.85
yr kWh yr
Reagent cost is estimated using Equation 2.58:
lb hr $ $494,494
Annual Reagent Cost 139.9 8,760 0.857 0.475
hr yr lb yr
A portion of the catalyst is replaced every few years as discussed earlier in this chapter.
The annual catalyst replacement cost can be estimated using Equations 2.63 through 2.66 for the
first catalyst replacement cost methodology or using Equation 2.67 for the second catalyst
replacement cost methodology:
Using the first catalyst replacement cost methodology, the actual price at the time of
purchase is estimated using Equation 2.63. This example assumes that one layer is replaced at a
time, and based on the calculation in section 2.5.1, there are 3 catalyst layers. Thus, Rlayer = 3,
and the total catalyst replacement cost is given by:
$160
5,300 ft 3
ft 3
Catalyst Replacement Cost $282,667
3
To account for the time value of money, these periodic costs are amortized over the years
preceding the actual catalyst purchase using the future worth factor as calculated using Equation
2.62. The term, Y, in Equation 2.65 is estimated using Equation 2.66. Assuming the boiler
operates continuously all year means hyear is 8,760 hr/yr, and Y is given by:
24,000 hours
Y 2.7 3
8,760 hours
And the future worth factor for the catalyst replacement is given by:
1
FWF 0.07 0.3111
1 0.073 1
The annual catalyst replacement cost can then be estimated using Equation 2.64:
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost 0.3111 $282,667

$87,938
yr
Alternatively, using the second catalyst replacement cost methodology, the annual
catalyst replacement cost can be estimated using Equation 2.67:
2-76
Annual Catalyst
0.71
85.7 $5,500 $277,221
(120 MW ) (0.4) (1) 2.9
80 m
3
Re placement Cost yr
The total direct annual cost is given by the sum of the variable direct annual costs and
semivariable direct annual costs. If using the first methodology for calculating the annual catalyst
replacement cost, the total direct annual cost is:
$191,196 $336,250 $494,494 $87,938 $1,106,878
Total Direct Annual Cost
yr yr yr yr yr
Alternatively, if using the second methodology for calculating the catalyst replacement
cost, the total direct annual cost is:
$191,196 $336,250 $494,494 $277,221 $1,296,161
yr yr yr yr yr
As discussed in section 2.4.2, property taxes and overhead are both assumed to be zero,
and insurance costs are assumed to be negligible. Thus, administrative charges and capital
recovery are the only components of indirect annual costs estimated in this analysis.
Administrative charges are calculated using equation 2.69 as:
Administrative Charges 0.03 0 0.4 $191,196 $2,294 / yr
The capital recovery factor, CRF, is defined by Equation 2.71 as:
0.07 1 0.07
30
CRF 0.0806
1 0.0730 1
and the capital recovery is calculated from Equation 2.70:
$38,239,160 $3,082,076
= 0.0806 =

The total indirect annual costs (IDAC) are calculated in Equation 2.68:
$2,294 $3,082,076 $3,084,370

IDAC
yr yr yr
The total annual cost is the sum of the direct annual and indirect annual costs given by
Equation 2.72. If using the first methodology for calculating the catalyst replacement cost, the
total annual cost is:
$1,106,878 $3,084,370 $4,191,248

Total Annual Cost
yr yr yr
Alternatively, if using the second methodology for calculating the catalyst replacement
cost, the total annual cost is:
2-77
$1,296,161 $3,084,370 $4,380,531

Total Annual Cost
yr yr yr
The annual cost in terms of NOx removed can be calculated using the total annual cost
and the tons of NOx removed annually. The annual reduction in NOx emissions is given by
Equation 2.11:
0.35 lb MMBtu hr
0.857 1,200 0.85 8,760
MMBtu / hr hr yr
NOx Removed / yr 1,340 tons / yr
lb
2,000
ton
and the cost effectiveness is estimated using Equation 2.73. If using the first calculation
methodology for the catalyst replacement cost, the cost effectiveness is:
$4,191,248
yr $3,128
Cost of NO x Removal
1,340 tons ton
Alternatively, if using the second calculation methodology for the catalyst replacement
cost, then the cost effectiveness is:
$4,380,531
yr $3,269
Cost of NOx Removal .
1,340 tons ton
2.6 Example Problem #2 Industrial Boiler

An example problem that calculates both the design parameters and capital and annual
costs for an SCR system applied to a 550 MMBtu/hr industrial boiler firing bituminous coal is
presented below. The following assumptions are made to perform the calculations:
Fuel High Heating Value, HHV 12,000 Btu/lb
fuel
Maximum Fuel Consumption Rate, m 4.58 x 104 lb/hr
Total Annual Fuel Consumption, actual mfuel 3.30 x 108 lb
Number of plant boiler operating days 333 days
Number of SCR operating days, tSCR 333 days
Inlet NO Level, NOXin 0.35 lb/MMBtu
Required Annual Average Controlled NOx Emission Level, NOXout 0.05 lb/MMBtu
Acceptable Ammonia Slip, Slip 2.0 ppm
Base Case Flue Gas Flow Rate Factor, Eastern Bituminous, qfuel 484 ft3/min per MMBtu/hr
Fuel Sulfur Content, S 1.0% by weight
Actual Stoichiometric Ratio for Ammonia, ASR 1.05
Stored Ammonia Concentration, Csol 29%
Number of Days of Storage for Ammonia, t 14 days
2-78
Pressure Drop for SCR Ductwork, Pduct 3 inches w.g.

Pressure Drop for each Catalyst Layer, Pcatalyst 1 inch w.g.
Temperature at SCR Inlet, T 650F
Plant elevation, PELEV <500 ft above sea level
In addition to these assumptions, the estimated economic factors for the cost equations are:
Cost year 2012$
Equipment Life 30 years
Annual Interest Rate 7%
Catalyst Cost 5,500 $/m3 ($160/ft3) [7b]
Electrical Power Cost 0.067 $/kWh [93]
29% Ammonia Solution Cost 0.475 $/lb of ammonia [average of vendor quotes
for 2011 and 2013]
Operating Life of Catalyst 24,000 hours
2.6.1 Design Parameter Example #228
Boiler Calculations
The boiler annual heat input rate, QB, is calculated from the High Heating Value for
bituminous coal (see Table 2.5 for typical values if the actual value is unknown) and the
maximum fuel consumption rate, m fuel :
Btu lb
12,000 45,800
QB lb hr 550 MMBtu
Btu hr
10 6
MMBtu
The plant capacity factor is calculated from the maximum and annual average fuel
consumption:
lb
3.30 10 8
yr
CF plant 0.82 82%
lb hr
4.58 10 8,760
4
hr yr
The SCR system capacity factor is calculated from the fraction of boiler operating time
during which the SCR also operates:
28 Note: Results of all parameter calculations are shown rounded to an acceptable number of significant figures.
However, the full, unrounded value is used in subsequent parameter and cost calculations that use the parameter
as an input. Thus, the results shown for subsequent calculations often differ from what would be calculated using
the shown rounded inputs. The use of extra significant figures in the subsequent calculations does not imply
greater accuracy of the numbers.
2-79
333 days
CFSCR 1.0 100%
333 days
The total capacity factor including both plant and SCR capacity factors is given by:
CFtotal = 0.82 x 1.0 = 0.82 = 82%
The flue gas flow rate using Equation 2.14 is:
484 ft 3 MMBtu
550 (460 650 F )
MMBtu hr
min ( )
q flue gas hr 254,726acfm
(460 700 F ) 1
The NOx removal efficiency, NOx, is calculated from the inlet NOx level and the required
controlled NOx emission level using Equation 2.10:
lb lb
0.35 0.05
NO x MMBtu MMBtu 0.857 85.7%
lb
0.35
MMBtu
SCR Reactor Calculations

The catalyst volume using Equation 2.22 and the equations for each adjustment factor is:
Volcatalyst = 2.81 x 550 MMBtu/hr
[0.2869 + (1.058 x 0.86)] (adjx)
[0.8524 + (0.3208 x 0.35)] (NOxadj)
[1.2835 (0.0567 x 2.0)] (Slipadj)

[0.9636 + (0.0455 x 1.0)] (Sulfuradj)
[15.16 (0.03937 x 650) + (0.0000274 x 6502)] (Temperatureadj)
= 2,400 ft3
The catalyst and SCR cross-sectional areas using Equations 2.28 and 2.29 are:
255,000 acfm
Acatalyst 265.6 ft 2
ft 60 s
16
s min
ASCR 1.15 265.6 ft 2 305.5 ft 2
2-80
The length and width of the reactor using Equation 2.30 is:
l w 305.5 17.5 ft
12
The first estimate of the number of catalyst layers using Equation 2.31 is:
2,400
nlayer 3.01
3.1 265
Rounding this value gives, nlayer = 3.

Checking the actual catalyst height using Equation 2.32:
2,400 ft 3
hlayer 1 4.01
3 265.6 ft 2
This value is within the design height limits of 2.55 feet.

The total number of catalyst layers is determined by Equation 2.33 with one empty
catalyst layer:
ntotal = 3 + 1 = 4
The SCR height, excluding the outlet duct and hoppers using Equation 2.34 is:
hSCR = 4 (7 + 4.0) + 9 = 53 ft
Reagent Calculations
The mass flow rate of the reagent is calculated using the molecular weight of the reagent,
17.03 g/mole and NO2, 46.01g/mole. For an ASR of 1.05, the reagent mass flow rate is given by
Equation 2.35:
lb NOx MMBtu lb
0.35 550 0.857 1.05 17.03
reagent
m MMBtu hr mole 64.1 lb
lb hr
46.01
mole
The mass flow rate of 29% aqueous ammonia solution is given by Equation 2.36:
lb
64.1
m sol hr 221 lb
0.29 hr
The solution volume flow rate can then be calculated from Equation 2.37 where sol is the
density of the 29% aqueous ammonia solution, 56.0 lb/ft3 at 60oF, and the conversion factor is
7.481 gal/ft3:
2-81
lb gal
221 7.481 3
hr ft
q sol 29.5 gph
lb
56.0 3
ft
The total volume stored in the tank(s) is based on the volume that the SCR system
requires for 14 days of operation. The onsite storage requirement is given by Equation 2.38:
24hr
Vol tank 29.5 gph 14 days 9,922 gal
day
The onsite storage requirement for ammonia solution is 24,000 gallons per 14 days of operation.
Capital Cost Elevation Factor Calculation

The elevation factor for use in calculating the SCR base unit cost and the balance of plant
costs is given by Equation 2.39 with the atmospheric pressure at <500 ft above sea level (14.7
psia):
14.7 psia
ELEVF 1.0
14.7 psia
2.6.2 Cost Estimation Example #2

Once the SCR system is sized, the capital and annual costs for the SCR system can be
estimated. The TCI is estimated using Equation 2.47. The SCRcost, RPC, APHC and BPC must
be calculated individually using equations 2.48, 2.49, 2.50 and 2.51, respectively. These
calculations are shown below.
0.2 0.92
85.7% 550MMBtu
SCRCost 1.0 270,000 0.1 1.00 $10,926,350
80 hr
0.25
lb MMBtu
RPC 490,000 0.35 550 0.857 $1,756,099
MMBtu hr
APHC 69,000 0.1 550MMBtu / hr 1 0 $0

0.78
BPC 1.0 460,000 0.1 550MBtu / hr 1 $2,475,769

0.42
TCI 1.3 $10,926,350 $1,756,099 $0 $2,475,769 $19,705,684
2-82
Annual costs are based on the economic factors listed above. In addition, the SCR system
in this example is assumed to operate all 333 days that the boiler operates, and the boiler loading
is 82%, resulting in a total capacity factor of 82%. As discussed in section 2.6.1, the direct
annual costs consist of the variable direct annual costs (reagent and electricity) and semivariable
direct annual costs (maintenance and annual catalyst cost).
The annual maintenance costs are estimated using Equation 2.57:

Annual Maintenanc e Cost 0.005 $19,705,684 $98,528 / yr
An estimate for power consumption is given by Equation 2.61:
0.1MWh 550MMBtu 1,000kW 0.56

P (1 1)
0.43
308 kW
MMBtu hr MW 100
Electricity cost can then be estimated from Equation 2.62:

8,760hr $0.067 $148,233
AnnualElec tricity Cost 308kW 0.82
yr kWh yr
Reagent cost is estimated using Equation 2.58:

lb hr $ $218,710
Annual Reagent Cost 64.1 8,760 0.82 0.475
hr yr lb yr
A portion of the catalyst is replaced every few years as discussed earlier in this chapter.
The annual catalyst replacement cost can be estimated using Equations 2.63 through 2.66 for the
first catalyst replacement cost methodology or using Equation 2.67 for the second catalyst
replacement cost methodology:
Using the first catalyst replacement cost methodology, the actual price at the time of
purchase is estimated using Equation 2.63. This example assumes that one layer is replaced at a
time, and based on the calculation in section 2.5.1, there are 3 catalyst layers. Thus, Rlayer = 3,
and the total catalyst replacement cost is given by:
$160
2,400 ft 3
ft 3
Catalyst Replacement Cost $128,000
3
To account for the time value of money, these periodic costs are amortized over the years
preceding the actual catalyst purchase using the future worth factor as calculated using Equation
2.62. The term, Y, in Equation 2.65 is estimated using Equation 2.66. Assuming the boiler
operates continuously all year means hyear is 8,760 hr/yr, and Y is given by:
24,000 hours
Y 2.7 3
8,760 hours
And the future worth factor for the catalyst replacement is given by:
2-83
1
FWF 0.07 0.3111
1 0.073 1
The annual catalyst replacement cost can then be estimated using Equation 2.64:
Annual Catalyst Replacement Cost 0.3111 $128,000

$39,821
yr
Alternatively, using the second catalyst replacement cost methodology, the annual
catalyst replacement cost can be estimated using Equation 2.67:
Annual Catalyst
0.71
550MMBtu 85.7 $5,500 $127,060
(0.1 ) (0.4) (1) 2.9
80 m
3
Re placement Cost hr yr
The total direct annual cost is given by the sum of the variable direct annual costs and
semivariable direct annual costs. If using the first catalyst replacement cost methodology, the
total direct annual cost is:
$98,528 $148,233 $218,710 $39,821 $505,292
yr yr yr yr yr
Alternatively, if using the second catalyst replacement cost methodology, the total direct
annual cost is:
$98,528 $148,233 $218,710 $127,060 $592,531
yr yr yr yr yr
As discussed in section 2.4.2, property taxes and overhead are both assumed to be zero,
and insurance costs are assumed to be negligible. Thus, administrative charges and capital
recovery are the only components of indirect annual costs estimated in this analysis.
Administrative charges are calculated using equation 2.69 as:
Administrative Charges 0.03 0 0.4 $98,528 $1,182 / yr
The capital recovery factor, CRF, is defined by Equation 2.71 as:
0.07 1 0.07
30
CRF 0.0806
1 0.0730 1
and the capital recovery is calculated from Equation 2.70:
$19,705,684 $1,588,278
Capital Recovery 0.0806
yr yr
The total indirect annual costs (IDAC) are calculated in Equation 2.68:
2-84
$1,182 $1,588,278 $1,589,460

IDAC
yr yr yr
The total annual cost is the sum of the direct annual and indirect annual costs given by
Equation 2.72. If using the first catalyst replacement cost methodology, the total annual cost is:
$505,292 $1,589,460 $2,094,752
Total Annual Cost
yr yr yr
Alternatively, if using the second catalyst replacement cost methodology, the total annual
cost is:
$592,531 $1,589,460 $2,181,991
Total Annual Cost
yr yr yr
The annual cost in terms of NOx removed can be calculated using the total annual cost
and the tons of NOx removed annually. The annual reduction in NOx emissions is given by
Equation 2.11:
0.35 lb MMBtu hr
0.857 550 0.82 8,760
MMBtu / hr hr yr
NO x Removed / yr 592.5 tons / yr
lb
2,000
ton
and the cost effectiveness is estimated using Equation 2.73. If using the first catalyst replacement
cost methodology, the cost effectiveness is:
$2,094,752
yr $3,535
592.5 tons ton
Alternatively, if using the second catalyst replacement cost methodology, the cost
effectiveness is:
$2,181,991
yr $3,683
592.5 tons ton
2-85
References
[1] Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC). White Paper. Selective Catalytic Reduction
(SCR) Control of NOx Emissions From Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Power Plants. May
2009. Available at https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/icac.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/Standards_WhitePapers/SCR_WhitePaper_final_2009.pdf.
[2] Foerter, D., and C. Whiteman. Typical Installation Timelines for NOx Emissions Control
Technologies on Industrial Sources. Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC). December
2006. Available at https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/icac.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/ICAC_NOx_Control_Installatio.pdf.
[3] Salbilla, D. (Haldor Topsoe Inc.) and R. Lack (Emission Credit Brokers). Technology,
Allowances, and Credits: Components of a Sound NOx Reduction Strategy. Undated.
Available at
http://www.klmtechgroup.com/PDF/Articles/articles/Allowances_credits.pdf.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Electric Generating Unit Database.

EGU_ICR_PartI_and_PartII. Based on EGU information Collection Request. December
16, 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/utilitypg.html.
[5] Whiteman, C. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction Technology Costs for Industrial

Sources. Memo from Chad Whiteman, Deputy Director, Institute of Clean Air
Companies. March 18, 2009.
[6] Integer Research. Reagent Consumption Into US Coal-Fired Power Plants to Hit 920,000
Tonnes Ammonia Equivalent in 2015. August 24, 2011. Available at: http://www.integer-
research.com/2011/environment-emissions/news/ammonia-consumption-coalfired-
power-plants-hit/.
[7a] Cichanowicz, J. Current Capital Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Power Plant Emissions
Control Technologies. Prepared for UARG. January 2010. Available at
http://www.publicpower.org/files/PDFs/UARGSCR_FGDFinal.pdf.
2-86
[7b] Cichanowicz, J. Current Capital Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Power Plant Emissions
Control Technologies. Prepared for UARG. July 2013.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Documentation for EPA Base Case
(v.5.13) Using the Integrated Planning Model. Office of Air and Radiation. EPA
Publication No. #450R13002. November 2013. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling/BaseCasev513.html .
[9] Schimmoller, B. SCR Dominates NOx Compliance Plans. Power Engineering. July 2000.
Available at http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/3425945/scr-dominates-nox-
compliance-plans.
[10] Hoskins, B. Uniqueness of SCR Retrofits Translates into Broad Cost Variations.
Washington Group International. Power Engineering. May 2003. Available at:
http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/176832/6/ARTCL/none/none/1/Uniqueness-of-
SCR-Retrofits-Translates-into-Broad-Cost-Variations/.
[11] Khan, S., and R. Srivastava. Updating Performance and Cost of NOx Control
Technologies in the Integrated Planning Model. U.S. EPA. Mega Symposium. 2004.
Available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_Report.cfm?dirEntryID=87706.
[12] Marano, M., and G. Sharp. Estimating SCR Installation Costs. Power Magazine. May
2006. Available at http://www.powermag.com/estimating-scr-installation-costs/.
[13] Cichanowicz, J. Why are SCR Costs Still Rising? Power. Vol. 148 Issue 3. April 2004.
Available at
https://online.platts.com/PPS/P=m&s=1029337384756.1478827&e=1085094467353.773
8525365012108770/?artnum=200H404K2B010q55Q37JTc_1.
[14] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the North
Carolina Utilities Commission. Implementation of the Clean Smokestacks Act. A
Report to the Environmental Review Commission and the Joint Legislative Utility
Review Committee. Report No. VIII. June 1, 2010. Available at:
http://daq.state.nc.us/News/leg/2010_Clean_Smokestacks_Act_Report_Final.pdf.
2-87
[15] Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM). Status Report on
NOx Controls for Gas Turbines, Cement Kilns, Industrial Boilers, Internal Combustion
Engines, Technologies and Cost Effectiveness. December 2000. Available at
www.nescaum.org/documents/nox-2000.pdf/.
[16] Khan, S. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Methodology, Assumptions, and

References: Preliminary NOx Controls Cost Estimates for Industrial Boilers. October-
November 2003.
[17] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Control Technology Fact Sheet for
SCR. EPA-452/F-03-032. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fscr.pdf.
[18] NESCAUM. Applicability and Feasibility of NOx, SO2, and PM Emissions Control
Technologies for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers. November 2008.
Available at: http://www.nescaum.org/documents/ici-boilers-20081118-final.pdf.
[19] The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). Midwest Regional Planning
Organization (RPO): Petroleum Refinery Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Engineering Analysis. March 2005. Available at:
http://www.ladco.org/reports/control/bart/petroleum_refineries.pdf.
[20] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Petroleum Refinery Tier 2 BACT
Analysis Report Final Report. January 16, 2001. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/bactrpt.pdf.
[21] Price, D. Navajo Refining Company, LLC, to L. Gribovicz, Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) and Western Governors Association (WGA). Comments on May 5,
2009 Revised Draft Report Supplementary Information for Four-Factor Analyses for
Selected Individual Facilities in New Mexico. June 22, 2009. Available at
http://www.wrapair.org/forums/iwg/documents/4FactorComments/2009-
06_4F_Comments_NM_Navajo_Refining_comment_letter.pdf.
[22] U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Petroleum Refinery Database, Based on

Refinery Information Collection Request (ICR) for Calendar Year 2010. March 31, 2011.
2-88
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682. [The portion of information referenced is

contained in EPAs Clean Air Act (CAA) Confidential Business Information (CBI)
office.]
[23] Sunoco. Comments on NJDEP White Paper: SCS004C-Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit
(FCCU) Fluidized Coking Unit (FCU) in a Petroleum Refinery. July 17, 2006. Available
at: http://www.nj.gov/dep/airworkgroups/docs/9sunococomment3.pdf.
[24] ERG, Inc. Assessment of NOx Emissions Reduction Strategies for Cement KilnsEllis
County. Final Report. Prepared for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. July
14, 2006. Available at:
http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/rules/cement_final_report.pdf
[25] Earthjustice and Environmental Integrity Project. Cementing a Toxic Legacy? July 2008.
Available at: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/reports/ej_eip_kilns_web.pdf
[26] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Technical Evaluation Preliminary

Determination Draft BACT Determinations. Cemex Cement Company, Brooksville,
Hernando County. July 17, 2007. Available at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/cemex/TEPD384A.pdf
[27] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Technical Evaluation & Preliminary

Determination. Suwannee American Cement, L.L.C. Branford Cement Plant. November
8, 2005. Available at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/Suwannee/TEPD-PSD-FL-352.pdf
[28] Horton, J., Volorantim Cimentos North America, to J. Koerner, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. PSD Re-ApplicationPhase I. Sumter Cement Company,
LLCCenter Hill Plant, Sumter County. January 24, 2012. Available at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/air/emission/construction/sumter_center_hill/application_p1.pd
f
2-89
[29] TXI Form 10-K Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31, 2012 to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission. Available at:
http://investorrelations.txi.com/AR2012/TXI_2012_10K.pdf
[30] Sargent & Lundy. Salt River Project, Navajo Generating Station Units 1, 2, 3: SCR and
Baghouse Capital Cost Estimate Report. Report ID No. SL-010214, Revision D. August
17, 2010. Available at: : http://www.ngspower.com/pdfx/Jan2013/Sgt-
Lundy_Cost_Study.pdf.
[31] Rummenhohl, V., H. Weiler, and W. Ellison. Experience Sheds Light on SCR O&M
Issues. Power Magazine. September 1992.
[32] Tonn, D.P. and T. A. Uysal. 2200 MW SCR Installation on New Coal-Fired Project.
Presented at the Institute of Clean Air Companies ICAC Forum 98, Durham, North
Carolina, March 18-20, 1998. Available at
http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/br-1654.pdf.
[33] The Cadmus Group, Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, and Science Applications
International Corporation. Selective Catalytic Reduction for NOx Control on Coal-fired
Boilers, Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
1998.
[34] Fisher, J. Wahlco. Comparison of Urea-Based Ammonia to Liquid Ammonia Systems for
NOx Reduction Application. Electric Energy Online.com. Undated. Available at:
http://www.electricenergyonline.com/?page=show_article&mag=10&article=70
[35] Wheeler, B. Safe Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia. Power Engineering. June 2010.
Available at http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-114/issue-6/Features/safe-
handling-of-anhydrous-ammonia.html.
[36] Wahlco, Inc. Wahlco U2A Urea to Ammonia System Product Brochure. Undated.
Available at: http://www.wahlco.com/datas/u2a.pdf
2-90
[37] Cichanowicz, J., L. Muzio, and M. Hein. The First 100 GW of SCR in the U.S. What
Have We Learned? Fossil Energy Research Corporation. 2006 Mega Symposium. 2006.
Available at http://www.ferco.com/Files/Paper129.pdf.
[38] Tanner Industries, Inc. Storage and Handling of Anhydrous Ammonia. Philadelphia, PA,
October 2, 2013. . Available at
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Air/Documents/tdc/Tanner%20Ammonium_Hydroxide.p
df.
[39] ANSI K-61.1-1989. Safety Requirements for the Storage and Handling of Anhydrous
Ammonia. Compressed Gas Association, Arlington, VA, March 1989.
[40] Slaughter, C., ICAC, to S. Johnson, U.S. EPA. Letter to EPA Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0877, regarding New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants. September 30, 2008. Available at https://lyle.smu.edu/~aja/ICAC-SCR-
Cement-2008.pdf.
[41] Staudt, J.E, Andover Technology Partners and Amar, Praveen, NESCAUM Status Report
on NOx: Post-RACT Control Technologies and Cost Effectiveness for Utility Boilers.
Published by Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), DOE
Conference on Selective Catalytic and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction for NOx
Control, Pittsburgh, PA. May 21-22 1998.
http://plainsjustice.org/files/ElkRun/Elk_Run_References/NESCAUM%27s%20Status%
20Report%20on%20NOx.pdf.
[42] Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC). Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Control
of NOx Emissions. Prepared by the ICAC SCR Committee. November 1997.
[43] Hartenstein, H. German Experience with Catalyst Regeneration. STEAG, LLC. Slide
presentation from 2007 NOx Round Table and Expo. February 2007.
2-91
[44] Wicker, K. and J. Staudt. SCR Maintenance Fundamentals. Andover Technology

Partners. Power. June 2004. Available at
http://www.andovertechnology.com/documents/power_jun04_emissions.pdf.
[45] STEAG LLC. SCR Catalyst Management and Catalyst Regeneration. 7th Sino-American
Technology and Engineering Conference. October 2006.
[46] Rosenberg, H.S., and J. H. Oxley. Selective Catalytic Reduction for NOx Control at Coal-
fired Power Plants. ICAC Forum 93, Controlling Air Toxics and NOx Emissions,
Baltimore, MD, February 2426, 1993.
[47] Ehrnschwender, M. (Evonik Energy Services) and A. Sibley (Southern Company

Generation). SCR Catalyst Regeneration10 years of R&D Development and
Commercial Application. Mega Symposium, Power Plant Air Pollution Control
Symposium. August 2008.
[48] Tate, A., J. Skipper, and F. Wenz. Environmentally Sound Handling of Deactivated SCR
Catalyst. Coal Power Magazine. July 31, 2008. Available at:
http://www.coalpowermag.com/environmental/136.html.
[49] Bunyak, J., National Park Service, to G. Donaldson, U.S. EPA Region 6. Comment letter
on the proposed BART determination for the San Juan Generating Station. EPA Docket
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846. March 31, 2011. Available
athttp://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Regs/sipLetters/pdf/NewMexico_EPA_SanJuan_2011-
03-31.pdf.
[50] CoaLogix wins first order for SCR catalyst used to reduce NOx in coal-fired plants. June
2011. Available at: http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2011/06/coalogix-
wins-first.html.
[51] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Technical Feasibility and Cost of Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) NOx Control. EPRI GS-7266, Final Report, May 1991.
Available at http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=GS-
7266.
2-92
[52] Salib, R., T. Tsui, D. Durment, and V. Rummenhohl. Cool SCRs Come to America, Next
Generation SCR Choices---High-Dust, Low-Fust and Tail-End. 2008. Available at:
http://www.mcilvainecompany.com/Universal_Power/SubscriberFree/cirmkey.asp?cir1=
NOx&cir2=Equipment.
[53] Cochran, J.R., M.G. Gregory, and V. Rummenhohl. The Effect of Various Parameters on
SCR System Cost. Presented at Power-Gen 93, the Fourth International Power
Generation Exhibition & Conference, ASME, Dallas, Texas, November 1993.
[54] Teleconference from K. Schaffner, RTI International, with W. Dean, Siemens.

Discussion of Siemens TDL for ammonia slip monitoring. June 8, 2009.
[55] Sigling, R., and R. Johnson. Current Practices for Monitoring Ammonia Slip from SCR
Processes. Presented at the 1998 Conference on Selective Catalytic and Non-catalytic
Reduction for NOx Control, U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology
Center, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2122, 1998. Available at
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/98/98scr/JOHNSON.PDF.
[56] Cho, S.M., and S. Z. Dubow. Design of a Selective Catalytic Reduction System for NOx
Abatement in a Coal-Fired Cogeneration Plant. Proceedings of the American Power
Conference, Chicago, IL, pp. 717722, April 1992.
[57] Harmgart, S., M. Meierer, and J. Fahlke. In-Service Assessment of DeNOx Catalysts.
Presented at the International Joint Power Generation Conference and Exposition 98,
ASME, Baltimore, MD, 1998. Available at http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/20015038.
[58] Pritchard, S., C. DiFrancesco, and T.R. von Alten. SCR Catalyst Performance Under
Severe Operation Conditions. Presented at Power-Gen International 96 Conference and
Exhibition, ASME, Orlando, FL. December 1996. Available at
http://www.cormetech.com/brochures/Under%20Severe%20Operating%20Conditions.pd
f.
2-93
[59] Pritchard, S. Comprehensive Catalyst Management. Cormetech. Power Engineering. May

2007. Available at: http://pepei.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
ARCHI&ARTICLE_ID=293558&VERSION_NUM=2&p=6
[60] Smith, R., and L. Muzio (Fossil Energy Research Corporation) and A. Siblely and K.
Harrison (Southern Company Services, Inc.). Determining SCR Reactor Potential In Situ.
Mega Symposium. August 2008. Available at http://www.ferco.com/Files/MP252a.pdf.
[61] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Analyzing Electric Power Generation
Under the CAAA. EPA Office of Air and Radiation, March 1998.
[62] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Performance of Selective Catalytic

Reduction on Coal-Fired Steam Generating Units, Final Report. June 1997. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/documents/arp/scrfinal.pdf.
[63] Martin, M., H. Hartenstein, H. Sobolewski, and H. Rhein. STEAGs Long-Term Catalyst
Operating Experience and Cost. Mega Symposium, Power Plant Air Pollution Control
Symposium. August 2006. Available at
http://204.154.137.14/publications/proceedings/06/ecc/pdfs/Hans%20Sobolewski.pdf.
[64] Stenger, H. G., et al. Low Temperature Selective Catalytic Reduction of NO. Presented at
the Institute of Clean Air Companies ICAC Forum 2000, Washington D.C., March 23
24, 2000.
[65] Salib, R., and R. Keeth. Optimization of Ammonia Source for SCR Applications.
Washington Group International. Mega Symposium. May 2003. Available at
http://ecctech.com/pdfs/CostAnalyWashGrp.pdf.
[66] Scheckermann, P. Annual Project Report, Gavin Plant AOD System Demonstration
Project. AEP Pro Serv. December 2001. Available at
http://www.ohioairquality.org/ocdo/pdf/2001AnnualReportD-00-13.pdf.
[67] Bhattacharya, S., and H. Peters (Hamon Research-Cottrell, Inc.), J. Fisher (Wahlco, Inc.),
and H. Spencer (EC&C Technologies, Inc.). Urea to Ammonia (U2ATM) Systems:
Operation and Chemistry. Mega Symposium. May 2003. Available at
2-94
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237389909_Urea_to_Ammonia_%28U2A_%29
_systems_Operation_and_Process_Chemistry.
[68] FuelTech. NOx OUT ULTRA, NOx Reduction Process brochure. 2005. Available at
http://www.ftek.com/images/ftek/media/en-US/pdfs/FT-109200_ULTRA.pdf.
[69] Glaser, R. (PPL Generation, LLC), A. Licata and T. Robinson (Babcock Borsig Power,
Inc.). The SCR Retrofit at the Montour Steam Electric Station. Electric Power Generation
Association, The Future of Power Generation Conference. October 2000. Available at
http://www.babcockpower.com/pdf/RPI-TP-0169.pdf.
[70] Teleconference. K. Schaffner, RTI International, with C. Erickson, Babcock Power.

Discussion of Delta Wing mixer capital costs for coal-fired utility boilers up to 900 MW.
June 9, 2009.
[71] Beedie. M. SCR Cleans Up Coal Power. January 2009. Available at: http://www.power-
technology.com/features/feature47400/.
[72] Broske, D., G. Offen, and E. Cichanowicz. An Assessment of European Experience with
Selective Catalytic Reduction for NOx Control. Presented at the NOx Controls for Utility
Boilers Workshop, Baltimore, MD, August 1998. (Proceedings: 1998 NO x Control
Workshop, EPRI report number TR-1113561998).
[73] EPRI. Large Particle Ash Mitigation Methods. January 2007. Available at:
http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=00000000000101
2660&Mode=download.
[74] Catalyst Regeneration Cheaper Than Replacement. Argus Air Daily. Undated. Available
at: http://www.renegy.com/news/AirDailyArticle052104.pdf.
[75] Boone, M. and R. Mudry, SCR Catalyst Pluggage Reduction at Progress Energys
Roxboro Station. Paper #173 at Power Plant Air Pollutant Control Mega Symposium.
August 30 September 2, 2010. Available at
http://www.airflowsciences.com/sites/default/files/docs/2010_MEGA_Symposium_Roxb
oro_U3.pdf.
2-95
[76] Boone, M. and R.Mudry. Catalyst Pluggage Reduction for Roxboro U3. Presentation at
EPRI SCR Workshop. November 17, 2009. Available at
http://www.airflowsciences.com/sites/default/files/docs/2009_EPRI_SCR_Workshop_Pr
esentation.pdf.
[77] Davis, M., Cooper, S., Rummenhohl, V., Benisvy, H., Schulz, K.. (Fuel
Tech).Optimizing Catalyst Performance Lowers O&M Costs. Power Magazine. July 1,
2012. Available at: http://www.powermag.com/coal/Optimizing-Catalyst-Performance-
Lowers-O-and-M-Costs_4747.html.
[78] Moser, R. Special Report: Coal Plant O&M: SO3s Impact on Plant O&M: Part II.
Codan Development LLC. Power. February 2007. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5392/is_200702/ai_n21284009/.
[79] Staudt, J. (Andover Technology Partners), T. Engelmeyer (Orlando Utilities

Commission), W. Weston (Alabama Power Company), and R. Sigling (Siemens
Westinghouse Power Corporation). The Impact of Arsenic on Coal Fired Power Plants
Equipped with SCR. Institute of Clean Air Companies (ICAC) Forum 2002. February
2002. Available at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/02/scr-
sncr/staudtarsenicsummary.pdf.
[80] Ake, T., C. Erickson, W. Medeiros (Riley Power Inc.), L. Hutcheson (Duke Energy), and
M. Barger and S. Rutherford (Cormetech, Inc.). Limestone Injection for Protection of
SCR Catalyst. Mega Symposium. May 2003. Available at: http://www.cormetech.com/
china/brochures/Limestone%20Injection%20for%20Protection%20of%20SCR%20Catal
yst%20Paper.pdf.
[81] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Performance and Cost of Mercury and
Multi Pollutant Emission Control Technology Applications on Electric Utility Boilers.
EPA Publication No. EPA-600/R-03-110. October 2003. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/appcdwww/aptb/EPA600R03110.pdf.
[82] Sibley, A. (Southern Company Services, Inc.), W. Hinton (W.S. Hinton & Associates),
and A. Jimenez and C. Dene (Electric Power Research Institute). Pilot Scale Studies of
2-96
Mercury Oxidation by SCR Catalysts. Mega Symposium. August 2008. Available at

http://www.linknovate.com/publication/pilot-scale-studies-of-mercury-oxidation-by-scr-
catalysts-2335525/.
[83] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Annual 2011. Table 8.1. January
2013. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html.
[84] Stultz, S.C., and J. B. Kitto, eds. Steam, Its Generation and Use. 41th edition, Babcock &
Wilcox, Inc., Barberton, Ohio, 2005.
[85] Fox, P. Revised BART Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Tail-End Selective Catalytic
Reduction at the Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Leland Olds Station Unit 2: Final
Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8. March 2011.
Available at https://www.rti.org/pubs/fox_report.pdf.
[86] The Cadmus Group, Inc., Bechtel Power Corporation, and Science Applications
International Corporation. Investigation of Performance and Cost of NOx Controls as
Applied to Group 2 Boilers. Revised Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. August 1996.
[87] North Dakota Department of Health. North Dakota State Implementation Plan for
Regional Haze, Appendix B: SCR Vendor Query Correspondence. H. Hartenstein,
Evonik-Energy Services, electronic mail correspondence with C. Erickson, Babcock
Power. Included in Feasibility of SCR Technology for NOx Control Technology for the
Milton R. Young Station, Expert Report of Hans Hartenstein on behalf of the U.S.
Department of Justice, July 2008. Available at
http://www.ndhealth.gov/AQ/RegionalHaze/Regional%20Haze%20Link%20Documents/
Appendix%20C/M.R.%20Young/Hartenstein%20Report%200708.pdf.
[88] The Cadmus Group, Inc., and Bechtel Power Corporation. Cost Estimates for Selected
Applications of NOx Control Technologies on Stationary Combustion Boilers, Draft
Report and Responses to Comments on the Draft Report. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-R-96-023. June 1997. Available at
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/91008Y9S.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=E
2-97
PA&Index=1995%20Thru%201999&Docs=&Query=Cost%20Estimates%20Selected%2
0Applications%20NOx%20Control%20Technologies%20Stationary%20Combustion%20
Boilers%20Draft%20Report%20&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=2&TocRestrict=n
&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField
=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CIND
EX%20DATA%5C95THRU99%5CTXT%5C00000025%5C91008Y9S.txt&User=ANO
NYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=f%3Atitle&MaximumDocuments=15
&FuzzyDegree=-
1&ImageQuality=r85g16/r85g16/x150y150g16/i500&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&S
earchBack=ZyActionE&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPage
s=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x.
[89] Green, D.W., and R.H. Perry, eds. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook. 8th edition,
McGraw Hill, Inc., 2014. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/ROSSIFAM/perrys-
chemical-engineers-handbook-8th-edition.
[90] United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville
Division, State of North Carolina, ex rel., Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Plaintiff v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Defendant. Expert Report. October 13, 2006. Available at
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/50d3d163-8a9b-413f-b4f5-2eb6bed62e17/Staudt-Expert-
Report.aspx.
[91] S.D. Unwin and others. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) System Design and
Operations: Quantitative Risk Analysis of Options, Presented at CCPS 17th Annual
International Conference: Risk, Reliability, and Security, p.3. Available at
http://www.unwin-co.com/files%5CSCR-Risk-Paper,CCPS-RRS2002.pdf.
[92] U.S. EPA. San Juan Generating Station FIP. E-mail from O'Brien to Van Helvoirt Re:
Cost Impact, WPS-011904 at WPS-011905. September 28, 2004.
[93] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Monthly. Table 5.3. February
2013. Available at:
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_year/february2013.pdf
2-98
2-99

SCRCostManualchapter Draftforpubliccomment6!5!2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCRCostManualchapter Draftforpubliccomment6!5!2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/5/2015 Draft for Public Comment

David D. Randall, Karen S. Schaffner, Carrie Richardson Fry

2. Selective Catalytic Reduction ..................................................................................................... 1

2. SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION

Table 2.1a: Summary of SCR Cost Data for Utility Boilers

2.2 Process Description

Figure 2.1: SCR Process Flow Diagram [31, 32]

2.2.1 Reduction Chemistry, Reagents, and Catalyst

Reaction temperature range;

Figure 2.2: NOx Removal versus Temperature [46]

Figure 2.3: Change in Catalyst Volume vs. Temperature [51]

Actual Stoichiometric Ratio

7 Lewandowski, D. Design of Thermal Oxidation Systems for Volatiles Organic Compounds.

Figure 2.5: Pitch for a Honeycomb Catalyst Configuration

A catalyst management plan (CMP), as described in a saw-toothed graphic shown in

Figure 2.6: Typical Catalyst Management Plan [61]

Figure 2.7: High-Dust SCR Arrangement [42]

Figure 2.8: Low-Dust SCR Arrangement [42]

Figure 2.9: Tail-end SCR Arrangement [42]

Figure 2.10: SCR Arrangement for a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine [42]

SCR Reactor Designs

2.2.4 SCR System Primary Equipment

Reagent Production, Storage, and Vaporization

Table 2.4: Comparison of Ammonia Delivery Systems [65]

Aqueous ammonia is typically available as a 1929.4% solution in water. Anhydrous

SCR Inlet and Outlet Ductwork

Modeling of the SCR System

2.3 Design Parameters

QB BMW NPHR (2.4)

10 = estimated NPHR for coal, MMBtu/MWh.

2.3.2 Heat Rate Factor

15 Another source of EGU fuels data is http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

HRF = Heat rate factor

2.3.3 System Capacity Factor

tSCR, = actual days of SCR operation annually, days

2.3.4 Inlet NOx and Stack NOx

NOx = NOx removal efficiency, fraction

NOx Removed/yr = annual mass of NOx removed by the SCR, tons/yr

The pounds of NOx removed per hour (lb/hr) are:

2.3.7 Actual Stoichiometric Ratios

moles of equivalent NH 3 injected

Estimated value of qfuel

Volcatalyst = volume of the reactor or catalyst layers, ft3

Kcatalyst = constant for catalyst activity, changes over time (t)

Slip = theoretical ammonia slip, ppmv

2.3.11 Catalyst Volume

An empirical equation was developed in Reference [33] as a function of several sensitivity

NOx adjustment factor for inlet NOx, NOxadj:

Sulfur in coal adjustment factor, Sadj:

where S is the sulfur content of the fuel by dry weight fraction.

Acatalyst = cross-sectional area of the catalyst, ft2

ASCR = cross-sectional area of the SCR reactor, ft2

w = width of the SCR reactor, ft

nlayer = number of catalyst layers

ntotal = total number of catalyst layers

hSCR = height of the SCR reactor, ft

NOx in QB NO x ASR M reagent

Table 2.7. Atmospheric Pressure at Different Elevations.

2.4.1.1 Utility Boilers (Coal-fired)

SCRCost 270,000 NRF BMW HRF CoalF ELEVF

RPC 490,000 NOxin BMW NPHR NOx

APHC 69,000 BMW HRF CoalF AHF

BPC 460,000 BMW HRF CoalF ELEVF

2.4.1.2 Utility Boilers (Oil- and Gas-fired)