EPA-650/2-74-071-Q
IMPROVED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR A KRAFT RECOVERY BOILER:
MODIFIED RECOVERY BOILER NO. 3
by
Kurt Henning, Wayne Andreson, and James Ryan
Hoerner Waldorf Corporation
Department of Mill Engineering
2250 Wabash Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
Contract No. 68-02-0247
ROAP No. 21ADC-061
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: Myron Gottlieb
Control Systems Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
August 1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this contract was to document the cost of and the
emission control capability associated with the conversion of a
conventional kraft recovery boiler, which utilized direct contact
evaporation, to a new "controlled odor" design that eliminates the
use of direct contact evaporation.
The evaluation of this modification, the first known conversion of
this type in the United States, was accomplished by means of an
intensive emission testing program to verify the anticipated reduc-
tion in air pollutants, both gaseous and particulate.
The testing program also investigated major process variables that
affect the operation of a kraft recovery boiler and the emissions
resulting therefrom in order to establish the proper conditions of
boiler operation required to minimize emissions. Variables investi-
gated included boiler loading, liquor sulfidity, air flow, air distri-
bution, and liquor solids concentration.
The analysis of test data collected was accomplished statistically
with the aid of an IBM 370 computer using the multiple regression
analysis technique. Particulate emissions were found to be primarily
affected by and directly proportional to the amount of black liquor
solids burned in the recovery furnace (boiler loading). The emissions
of S02 were primarily dependent on the sulfidity level of the cooking
liquor being recovered, Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions were
primarily affected by excess oxygen levels, with an increase in
oxygen resulting in a decrease in TRS.
The modification of the recovery boiler was successful in that the
emissions of both TRS and particulates were sufficiently reduced to
enable the unit to meet Montana State emission standards.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Demonstration Grant
Contract No. 68-02-0247 by the Hoerner Haldorf Corporation under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed
as of February, 1974.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The initial support and encouragement of Mr. Robert V. Hendriks,
the first EPA Project Officer for the testing program, is gratefully
acknowledged.
Mr. Larry Weeks, Technical Director of the Hoerner Waldorf mill in
Missoula, Montana, coordinated the entire effort of emission testing
and data collection at the plant site. Mr. Walter T. Shriner, Power
and Recovery Superintendent at the Missoula plant, was most helpful
in providing the necessary support and cooperation throughout the
entire program.
Special thanks is due to Mr. Sheldon D. Sorensen, Manager of Manage-
ment Science for Hoerner Waldorf, for his invaluable assistance in
the statistical analysis of the test data collected.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction (Scope of Work) 4
IV Description of Kraft Process 6
V Problem Definition 8
VI Emission Studies at Missoula Before System Modification 10
a) NCASI Studies of TRS Emissions (1968) 10
b) Hoerner Waldorf TRS Data (1969-1970) 10
c) Investigation of S02 Emissions (1970) 10
d) Montana State University Studies (1970) 13
e) Hoerner Waldorf Particulate Data (1967-1970) 13
VII Preliminary Engineering Studies 19
VIII Proposed Solution 23
IX Plan Implementation 27
X System Shake-Down 30
XI General Evaluation of the Modified Recovery System 38
a) Black Liquor Feed System 38
b) Salt Cake Feed System 38
c) Steam Production 38
d) Induced Draft Fan 39
e) Operating Costs 40
XII Evaluation of Reduced Emissions from the Modified System 43
a) Parti culates 43
b) TRS and SO? 43
Stack Gas temperature and Moisture Content 44
r Infiltration Investigation 44
c) St
d) Ai
XIII EPA Testing Program (investigation of Boiler Operation 51
for Minimum Emissions)
a) Introduction 51
b) Identification and Range of Operating Variables 51
to be Investigated
c) Measurements and Tests Included in Study 52
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
XIII - Continued
d) Testing Procedures Employed 52
e) Plan of Investigation 60
f) Implementation of Program 61
g) Operating Experiences and Observations at Different 63
Conditions Established for the Testing Program
XIV Data Analysis and Discussion of Results 73
a) Correlation Matrix Development and Stepwise 73
Multiple Regression Analysis
b) Polynomial Regression Analysis 77
c) Analysis of Sub-Relationships (interaction of 87
Operating Variables)
XV Expanded Test Program 93
a) Introduction 93
b) Plan of Investigation 93
c) Test Results 94
XVI Miscellaneous Testing Studies 98
a) Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Studies 98
b) Comparison of Particulate Test Results Obtained 104
at Stack with EPA Train and Alundum Thimble Method
XVII References 106
XVIII Appendices 107
-------
TABLES
Page
1. NCASI Data for Sulfur Emissions From No. 3 Recovery 11
Boiler (October, 1968)
2. Daily Average TRS Emissions From No. 3 Recovery 12
System Before Conversion (1969-1970)
3. Summary of Daily Average TRS and S02 Data Obtained 14
at No. 3 Recovery Boiler Exit (April-May, 1970)
4. Summary of Gas Chromatography Data Compiled 15
by Montana State University (1970)
5. Particulate Data for No. 3 Recovery System 16
Before Conversion (1967-1970)
6. Summary of Emission Data Before System Modifications 18
7. Summary of Costs for Seven Modification Plans 21
Considered in 1969
8. Capital Cost Summary for No. 3 Recovery Modifications 29
9. No. 3 Recovery Furnace Data for Shake-Down Period (1971) 33
10. Particulate Emissions From No. 3 Precipitator 34
After Conversion (1971- 1973)
11. Solids Throughput and Steam Production 39
for No. 3 Recovery Boiler
12. Maintenance Costs for No. 3 Recovery System (1969-1973) 42
13. Summary of Increased Operating Costs Resulting
From System Modifications 42
14. Weekly Summary of Daily Average TRS and S02 Data 43
(1971-1973)
15. Analysis of Daily Average Values for TRS (1973) 47
16. Analysis of Daily Average Values for S02 (1973) 48
17. Flue Gas Temperature and Moisture Content 49
Before and After Conversion
18. Measurements and Tests Included in EPA Test Program 54
19. Chemical Analyses of Black Liquor and Particulate Samples 62
20. Summary of Black Liquor Solids for Each Testing Period 63
-------
TABLES
Page
21. Summary of Low Boiler Load Condition Data 66
22. Summary of Normal Boiler Load Condition Data 68
23. Summary of High Boiler Load Condition Data 70
24. Investigation of Effects of Low and High Black Liquor 94
Solids on Recovery Boiler Emissions
25. Nozzle Size and Pressure vs. Emissions 96
26. TRS and SO? Emissions at No. 3 Recovery Stack (1973) 99
(Comparison of Hoerner Waldorf and Environmental
Engineering Data)
27. H2S and S0£ Interference Tests 101
28. Particulate Emissions at No. 3 Recovery Boiler Exit 103
(Comparison of Hoerner Waldorf and Environmental
Engineering Data)
29. Particulate Stack Emissions 105
(Comparison of Alundum Thimble vs. EPA Train)
vm
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. Recovery and Causticizing Flow Sheet 7
2. Flow Diagram for No. 3 Recovery System 24
3. Conversion of No. 3 Recovery System 25
4. CPM Diagram for No. 3 Recovery System Modification 28
5. Schematic of No. 2 Economizer Showing Location 31
of IK Sootblowers
6. Precipitator Modifications 35
7. Analysis of TRS Emission Levels (Cumulative 45
Percentage) for Various Sulfidity Ranges
8. Analysis of SC^ Emission Levels (Cumulative 46
Percentage) for Various Sulfidity Ranges
9. Instrumentation and Sample Points for No. 3 Recovery 53
System
10. Barton Titrator Setup 56
11. Error Introduction From Anisokinetic Sampling 59
12. Boiler Exit Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading (Overall 80
Analysis)
13. Precioitator Outlet Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading 81
(Overall Analysis)
14. TRS Emissions vs. Excess Oxygen (Overall Analysis) 83
15. S02 Emissions vs. Sulfidity (Overall Analysis) 84
16. Total Air Flow vs. Boiler Loading (Overall Analysis) 85
17. Steam Production vs. Boiler Loading (Overall Analysis) 86
18. Precipitator Collection Efficiency vs. Precipitator 88
Inlet Gas Volume (Overall Analysis)
19. TRS Emissions vs. Excess Oxygen 89
(Analysis of Sub-Relationship for Sulfidity)
20. S0£ Emissions vs. Sulfidity 91
(Analysis of Sub-Relationships for Excess Oxygen)
21. Total Air Flow vs. Boiler Loading 92
(Analysis of Sub-Relationships for Air Distribution)
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Phase I of the air pollution abatement plan for the Hoerner Waldorf
pulp mill in Missoula, Montana,involved the conversion of a conven-
tional kraft recovery boiler with a nominal capacity of 470 tons per
day to a "controlled odor" design unit by the elimination of the direct
contact evaporator.
To successfully accomplish this conversion,a 20 month project was
undertaken at a capital cost of $2,600,000. A black liquor evaporator
concentrator, a second boiler economizer, and a dry bottom, high
efficiency (99.125%) electrostatic precipitator were installed as
part of the overall program.
This project demonstrated that, under practical operating conditions,
a modified recovery boiler can maintain sufficiently low emissions of
both TRS and particulates to meet the Montana State Emission Standards
of 17.5 ppm TRS (daily average) and 45.3 Ib/hr. of particulate matter.
Previous daily TRS emissions averaged over 400 ppm, ranging from 100
to 700 ppm. Daily TRS emissions from the new system average less than
10 ppm and range from essentially zero to 25 ppm. Particulate emissions
have been reduced from 6000 Ib/day to 1000 Ib/day, a reduction of 83%.
The moisture content of the flue gas has been reduced more than 40%,
which has practically eliminated the visible plume from the recovery
stack.
A review of operating costs before and after system modifications re-
veals increased total annual costs for the modified system amounting to
$169,000. This is particularly true in the case of chemical makeup
where the increased usage of caustic soda has resulted in an annual
cost increase of $86,000. A slight reduction in horsepower resulted
from the system modifications but these cost savings were overshadowed
by the increased cost for boiler feedwater. Maintenance costs for the
No. 3 modified recovery system increased by $70,000 per year to insure
that emissions remain at a minimum level.
An intensive testing program was carried out on No. 3 recovery boiler
to investigate the cause and effect relationships between process
variables and resultant emissions, both gaseous and particulate. A
total of 126 sets of data were collected in order to thoroughly investi-
gate the effect of boiler loading, liquor sulfidity, air distribution,
and excess oxygen on TRS, S02, and stack particulate. The analysis of
data was accomplished statiscally with the aid of an IBM system 370
computer using Multiple Regression Analysis.
Both boiler exit dust load and stack particulate were found to be
almost entirely dependent on boiler loading, the amount of black
liquor solids burned in the recovery furnace . At design loading,
boiler exit dust load averaged 4270 Ib/hr. Stack particulate averaged
44 Ib/hr. at 100% boiler loading.
-------
Both TRS and S02 emissions were affected by the sulfidity level of
the liquor being burned. TRS emissions were found to be primarily
affected by the excess oxygen level maintained at the boiler exit.
The test data indicated that at least 1.5% excess oxygen must be main-
tained to insure that daily average TRS emissions do not exceed
17.5 ppm.
S02 emissions were primarily effected by the sulfidity level maintained
in the liquor. The regression analysis of all test data indicated
that average daily S02 emissions can be maintained below 100 ppm if
the sulfidity level does not exceed 31%.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The results obtained from this EPA-supported investigation of
recovery boiler operation, and the cause and effect relationships
between operating variables and the resultant particulate and gaseous
emissions, suggest that additional planned studies would be helpful
to shed further light on the complex relationships that exist in
recovery boiler operation. This is supported by the fact that
emission variability was not adequately correlated by the process
variables included in this study. Additional process variables
remaining to be investigated when reliable monitoring instruments are
developed in the future include smelt bed height and bed temperature
in the recovery furnace itself.
All of the test data resulting from this EPA contract could be
utilized to confirm the theoretical models that have been constructed
by others. In this manner, a better understanding of actual kraft
recovery furnace operation would result.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
(SCOPE OF WORK)
An integral part of the Kraft process is the chemical recovery system
which chemically converts the spent cooking liquor, known in the
industry as black liquor, into reusable chemicals for the cooking or
digesting process. The chemical recovery furnace is the heart of the
recovery system and is a potential major source of air pollution. The
work described in this paper concerns the first known conversion in
the United States of a conventional recovery system, having a direct
contact evaporator, to a controlled odor or low emission system in
which the major source of malodorous emissions is eliminated.
The purpose of this contract was to document the cost and emission
control capability associated with the conversion of a conventional
kraft recovery boiler, which utilized direct contact evaporation,
to a new "controlled odor" design that eliminates the use of direct
contact evaporation. The evaluation of this modification in reducing
the emission of air pollutants has been accomplished by means of a
detailed emission testing program and the reporting of operational
experience. Also, the testing program undertaken has established the
necessary conditions of boiler operation required to minimize the
emission of reduced sulfur compounds (known as TRS), sulfur dioxide,
and particulates in both new and converted furnaces of this type. The
program has also defined the capabilities of the new furnace system
des i gn.
This program, conducted by the Hoerner Waldorf Corporation and partially
funded by an EPA Demonstration Grant, documents the successful modifica-
tions made to a kraft recovery system to improve emission control at
the company's pulp mill located in Missoula, Montana. The three basic,
inter-related areas investigated in the overall testing program, carried
out on the No. 3 recovery boiler were:
1. Process control and monitoring of recovery boiler operation.
2. Monitoring of boiler and stack emissions.
3. Summary of operating experience and documentation of costs, both
capital and operational.
PROCESS CONTROL AND MONITORING
The contractor investigated the anticipated major process variables
that affect the operation of the kraft recovery boiler and the emissions
resulting therefrom in order to develop the proper control of recovery
boiler operation needed to minimize stack emissions. The variables
investigated included the following:
Boiler Loading (Liquor Feed)
Sulfidity of Product Liquor
Air Flows
-------
Air Distribution
Black Liquor Solids Concentration
Black Liquor Temperature
Feed Nozzle Pressure
Boiler Windbox Pressure
Salt Cake Addition Rates
PROCESS EMISSION SOURCE MONITORING
Recovery boiler and stack testing was carried out to establish the
level of various emissions from the furnace. Measurements were made
of sulfur dioxide (S02), reduced sulfur compounds (TRS), and parti-
culates,as well as the physical properties needed to characterize the
gas stream such as flow volume, temperature, moisture content, etc.
The testing program consisted of three parts carried out sequentially
in time.
Part I - The contractor (Hoerner Waldorf Corporation) first established
the base-line emissions from the No. 3 recovery boiler before the unit
was physically modified to reduce these emissions. All test data
available regarding the degree of air pollution in existence prior to
system modification was made available to this study.
Part II - An extensive emissions testing program was conducted on the
No. 3 recovery boiler at Missoula following conversion of the system.
Relationships were developed between air pollutant emissions and process
variables such as sulfidity, boiler loading, excess air in the furnace
and the ratios of primary, secondary, and tertiary air. Various boiler
loadings were investigated (75%, 100%, and 110%) to demonstrate how
emissions vary with furnace loading. Optimization of operating condi-
tions to minimize stack emissions was attempted for each boiler load
condition and demonstrated for a sufficient duration of time (12 to 24
hours) to insure stable operations.
Part III - No. 3 recovery boiler accounts for only about 40% of the total
black liquor being processed at the Missoula mill. The overall emission
control program also included the construction of a new No. 4 recovery
boiler which was to be operational by the Fall of 1972. Once stable
operation of this boiler has been attained, an emissions testing program
similar to that conducted on No. 3 recovery boiler is planned. It will
then be possible to rebalance the entire recovery system to optimize
the overall recovery operation and thus minimize air emissions from the
whole mill.
DOCUMENTATION OF COST AND OPERATING EXPERIENCE
The contractor agreed to report design detail and complete capital and
operating costs associated with both No. 3 and No. 4 recovery boilers,
and also to document operating experience with the new systems up to
the time of contract completion.
This report presents information relative to Parts I and II of the
overall program. A second report covering Part III will be prepared
upon the completion of the testing program for No. 4 recovery boiler.
It is anticipated this work will be completed by July 1, 1974.
-------
SECTION IV
DESCRIPTION OF KRAFT PROCESS
The Kraft pulping process utilizes a cooking liquor consisting of
caustic soda and sodium sulfide to deligm'fy wood chips and sawdust
and thereby produce a high strength pulp fiber at a relatively high
yield from wood. Recovery of the cooking chemicals from kraft spent
(black) liquor is essential for this process to be economically
attractive and acceptable from a pollution standpoint. This is
accomplished by spraying concentrated black liquor (60-65% solids
content) into a recovery furnace where the organic material is burned
and an inorganic smelt of sodium carbonate and sodium sulfide forms and
is recovered.
The liquor sprayed into the furnace collects on the walls, dries, burns,
and falls onto the bed at the bottom of the furnace. The organic
material in the liquor burns off in the bed under reducing conditions
maintained with limited oxygen from the admission of primary air into
the furnace. Sulfur compounds in the smelt bed,including fresh makeup
salt cake (Na2S04),are reduced to sodium sulfide. The balance of the
sodium compounds are converted to sodium carbonate. Molten smelt, a
mixture of sodium sulfide and sodium carbonate, is discharged contin-
uously from the bottom of the furnace through two water-cooled spouts
into the dissolving tank where it reacts with water (weak wash) to
form green liquor. This liquor is then reacted with slaked lime
(calcium hydroxide), converting the green liquor to white (cooking)
liquor. The latter is a mixture of sodium sulfide and sodium hydrox-
ide used in the cooking process.
The calcium carbonate reaction by-product (known as lime mud) is
settled out, dewatered and burned in a lime kiln to recover lime
in the form of calcium oxide which is then returned to the process to
take part in the reaction with green liquor. The flow sheet for this
chemical process is illustrated in Figure 1.
To replenish the chemicals lost in the pulping process, salt cake
(sodium sulfate) is added to the concentrated black liquor before it
is sprayed into the furnace. In addition, some caustic soda is added
to white liquor to balance the makeup requirements of both sodium and
sulfur.
-------
c
-------
SECTION V
PROBLEM DEFINITION
The Hoerner Waldorf pulp mill located in Missoula, Montana is fairly
representative of a typical kraft pulp mill. The plant, built in 1957,
has undergone major expansions in 1960 and 1966. The Kraft process is
used to produce the pulp for 1000 tons/day of linerboard and 150 tons/day
of baled bleached pulp. The mill operates primarily on purchased wood
waste obtained from some forty-five wood product operations (lumber and
plywood plants) located in Montana and Idaho. Sawmill waste chips,
sawdust and hogged fuel (primarily bark waste) are utilized at the
Missoula mill, the latter as a fuel to generate steam and power.
The mill is located 15 miles west of Missoula in a large mountain
valley where temperature inversions are a common occurrence. Unfor-
tunately, the local topography and climatic conditions result in warm
high air holding down the colder valley air, trapping air-polluting
substances emitted from both home and industry.
The oredominant wood species utilized at Missoula are ponderosa
pine, Douglas fir and western larch, with lesser amounts of Engelinann
spruce, lodgepole pine, and white fir. Most of the pulp is produced
in a 900 ton/day Kamyr chip digester installed in 1966. A 150 ton/day
Kamyr sawdust digester was also installed at that time. Batch digesters
are used to produce the pulp processed through.the bleach plant. The
cooking liquor used for kraft pulping in the digesters contain sulfur
compounds which give rise to objectionable gaseous and particulate
emissions which must be controlled to avoid degrading the quality of
air.
The major potential contributor to objectionable Kraft mill emissions
is the kraft recovery boiler. At Missoula, three such recovery units
were operating in the late 1960's. It was recognized that in order to
solve the air pollution problem at the mill, major modifications to
the kraft recovery boilers, or their eventual replacement with "low
emission" units, would be necessary to reduce both TRS and particulate
emissions.
In 1968, a technological breakthrough of major proportions relating
to the control of emissions from a kraft recovery boiler was made in
the United States. In February of that year, a technical paper was
given at the New York TAPPI meeting by Thoen, DeHaas, Tallent, and
Davis (1) which revealed that the major source of odorous emissions
(TRS) from a kraft recovery furnace was the direct contact evaporator.
At that time, every kraft mill recovery furnace in the United States
was equipped with a direct contact evaporator. However, both major
boiler manufacturers (Babcock & Wilcox Company and Combustion Engineer-
ing) had been examining the feasibility of eliminating the conventional
direct contact evaporator from their systems. Prototype units were
finally developed and installed at certain mills in 1969.
-------
In order to meet the Montana Air Emission Standards issued in late
1968, Hoerner Waldorf had to modify the recovery system at the Missoula
mill in such a way that TRS emissions from the recovery boilers would
not exceed 17.5 ppm (24-hour average) and particulate emissions would
not exceed the guidelines developed by means of a process weight table.
In the case of No. 3 recovery boiler,this table called for a maximum
particulate emission level of 45.3 Ib/hr. at design solids loading
(100% boiler loading). Typical emissions from this boiler prior to
system modifications were approximately 400 ppm of TRS and 250 Ib/hr.
of particulates. In essence, the best available technology was required
at Missoula to meet the stringent emission standards promulgated by
the State of Montana.
-------
SECTION VI
EMISSION STUDIES AT MISSOULA BEFORE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
NCASI SURVEY OF TRS EMISSIONS
One of the earlier emission studies made at the Missoula mill was
carried out under the direction of the West Coast Region Center of
the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improve-
ment, Inc. (NCASI) during October, 1968. Some of the interasting data
developed from this study pertaining to the No. 3 Recovery Boiler is
tabulated in Table 1. Sulfur emission data was obtained both before
(inlet) and after (outlet) the direct contact evaporator where flue
gases contacted black liquor in the cyclone evaporator scrubber.
Whereas the TRS level before the scrubber was below 5 ppm in all
cases, the TRS level after the scrubber was in the 100-200 ppm range.
This data bears out some of the earlier work reported by others in
the industry (1). The detailed analysis carried out to identify
specific reduced sulfur compounds indicated that at least 97% of
the TRS leaving the recovery boiler was hydrogen sulfide (I-US).
HOERNER WALDORF TRS DATA
The first Barton titrator for TRS monitoring at Missoula was pur-
chased in 1969 and was used to check for TRS emissions from various
sources in the mill. A summary of data obtained at No. 3 recovery
stack during 1969-1970 is given in Table 2. The average value of
this data is 391 ppm, with a range of 133-646.
INVESTIGATION OF S02 EMISSIONS
(Babcock and Wilcox Co. and NCASI Joint Effort)
It was recognized that the elimination of the direct contact evapora-
tor could lead to a potential problem with the emission of sulfur
dioxide (S02) which previously had been scrubbed out by intimate
contact witn alkaline black liquor in the direct contact evaporator
existing in the conventional system. The first mills that started up
new recovery boilers without a direct contact evaporator experienced
relatively high levels of SOp at the stack, approaching 500-600 ppm.
In order to better understand the variables affecting S02 emissions,
a comprehensive 6-week flue gas sampling program for No. 3 recovery
boiler prior to its modification was undertaken by Hoerner-Waldorf
with the assistance of Babcock and Wilcox and the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI).
The testing program began the week of April 6, 1970 and involved
continuous monitoring of TRS and S02 emissions from the recovery
boiler ahead of the direct contact evaporator. Several changes were
made in the operation of the boiler during this period to establish
a cause and effect relationship between operating conditions and
10
-------
Table 1
*NCASI DATA FOR SULFUR EMISSIONS FROM NO. 3 RECOVERY BOILER (October, 1968)
Nozzle Size/Pressure
Liquor Load (% of Rating)
Excess Oxygen (%)
Dry Solids (DS) Firing
Total DS Feed(lb/hr.)
Air DemandOb/lb DS)
Steam Generation
Total (Ib/hr.)
Total (Ib/lb DS)
Sulfur Emissions (ppm)
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
38/32
100
2.2
63,500
4.92
165,000
2.61
Before DC Evaporator 0.3
After -DC Evaporator 98.0
Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH)
Before DC Evaporator
After DC Evaporator
Dimethyl Sulfide (CH3SCH3)
Before DC Evaporator
After DC Evaporator
Dimethyl Disulfide (CH3SSCH3)
Before DC Evaporator
After DC Evaporator
0.0
3.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
38/32
100
4.0
64,000
5.43
155,000
2.41
2.0
108.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
40/32
110
2.5
68,500
5.07
170,000
2.50
4.5
178.0
0.0
2.0
0.2
3.5
0.0
1.0
Wet chemistry analytical methods used.
11
-------
Table 2
*DAILY AVERAGE TRS EMISSIONS FROM NO. 3 RECOVERY SYSTEM BEFORE CONVERSION
Date
117
117
117
117
117
117
IV
IV
117
1/69
2/69
3/69
4/69
5/69
6/69
7/69
8/69
9/69
11/10/69
11/11/69
11/12/69
11/13/69
11/14/69
11/15/69
11/16/69
11/17/69
11/18/69
11/19/69
11/20/69
11/21/69
11/22/69
11/25/69
11/26/69
11/27/69
11/28/69
11/29/69
11/30/69
5/22/70
5/23/70
5/24/70
5/25/70
5/26/70
5/27/70
5/28/70
5/29/70
5/30/70
5/31/70
6/ 1/70
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
6/
2/70
3/70
4/70
5/70
6/70
7/70
Average
*TRS(ppm)
369
436
621
628
317
300
472
436
411
543
436
332
279
338
575
614
436
448
304
226
133
184
198
120
230
284
290
246
423
462
465
346
407
533
266
312
407
471
646
414
510
445
355
402
516
391
Range 133-646
*Data obtained by Hoerner Waldorf personnel at Missoula using a Barton Titrator
-------
gaseous emissions. Operating variables studied were liquor sulfidity,
liquor nozzle orientation, air distribution and excess oxygen.
Table 3 summarizes the data obtained from this investigation. The
summary of data indicates that a major shift in $63 emissions occurred
when the sulfidity level rose to 28%. In the 25-28% sulfidity range
S02 values did not exceed 14 ppm. Above 28%, the average S02 emissions
exceeded 300 ppm. This intensive study permitted Hoerner Waldorf
to obtain rather tight guarantees from Babcock and Wilcox on the S02
emissions anticipated both from the modified No. 3 recovery boiler
and the new No. 4 recovery boiler to be built in future under Phase II.
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY STUDIES
The No. 3 recovery boiler was used for several field trials of gaseous
sulfur monitoring equipment designed in a graduate chemical engineering
program at Montana State University during 1970. Table 4 is a summary
of data obtained by one of the graduate students as part of his doc-
toral thesis. This data is supportive of emission data obtained from
the other studies cited.
HOERNER WALDORF PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
The expansion program that took place at the mill in 1966 included
the installation of No. 3 recovery boiler followed by a two-stage
Venturi scrubber. The first Venturi was operated on black liquor,
the second on a weak caustic solution (known as "brine"). This
equipment was installed by Hoerner Waldorf Corporation at a cost of
$350,000 to reduce the emission of particulate matter from the mill.
This system was plagued with operating problems from the outset, and
only after several modifications and improvements was a collection
efficiency of 96-98% obtained. The operation of such a two-stage
Venturi system has been described in a technical paper by Shah and
Mason (2).
Table 5 is a summary of the particulate tests run before the conver-
sion of No. 3 recovery. These tests were all made with the boiler
at or near design load for liquor solids. During 1967 and 1968
(Period 1 in Table 5) Babcock and Wilcox ran dust load tests for
equipment shake-down and acceptance. Stack dust concentrations
ranged from 0.19 to 0.69 grains per dry standard cubic foot (32°F,
29.92" hg) and the overall collection efficiency of the system
averaged 95.6%.
Hoerner Waldorf began testing No. 3 recovery boiler in early 1969
(Period 2 in Table 5). Dust concentrations at that time ranged from
0.33 to 0.58 gr/SDCF with the collection efficiency averaging 93.6%.
13
-------
Table 3
*SUMMARY OF DAILY AVERAGE TRS AND SO? DATA
OBTAINED AT NO. 3 RECOVERY BOILER EXIT
(Ahead of Black Liquor Venturi)
Date Excess 02(%) Sulfidity(%) TRS (ppm) SO (ppm)
625
615
372
236
273
441
288
354
14
4
4
4
2
105
230
496
419
212
420
380
502
446
334
194
56
509
374
4/12/70
4/13/70
4/14/70
4/15/70
4/16/70
4/17/70
4/18/70
4/20/70
4/24/70
4/25/70
4/26/70
4/27/70
4/29/70
4/30/70
5/ 1/70
5/ 4/70
5/ 5/70
5/ 8/70
5/ 9/70
5/10/70
5/11/70
5/12/70
5/13/70
5/14/70
5/15/70
5/16/70
5/17/70
5/18/70
5/19/70
0.7
2.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.8
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.3
3.5
3.0
3.8
3.3
-
2.0
3.0
-
-
Summary
TRS
Average
0.03
0.9 0.
4.1
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
32
28
27
26
26
25
27
25
29
29
30
29
32
32
31
31
32
32
32
32
31
31
of Above
Range
0- 0.1
2- 2.3
0-18.5
10.8
18.5
11.7
0.6
1.9
2.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
-------
Table 4
SUMMARY OF GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY DATA COMPILED BY MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Before Venturi After Venturi
Date
7/16/70
7/17/70
7/18/70
7/19/70
7/20/70
7/23/70
7/24/70
8/ 5/70
8/ 6/70
8/ 7/70
8/ 8/70
8/10/70
8/11/70
8/12/70
8/13/70
8/17/70
8/18/70
8/19/70
Sulfidi
33.3
32.5
34.8
32.8
32.8
34.2
35.4
35.2
35.5
35.2
35.7
35.8
36.9
35.5
35.4
36.2
36.0
36.5
tv (%} H0S(ppm)
X £,_J__I
49
39
46
30
51
31
65
41
13
13
21
30
13
28
_0
Averages 31
Range 0-65
SOo(ppm) HoS(ppm)
£ — •— ' — «-
248
372 584
225
253
210
294
232
449
654
479
636
578
616
648
653
118
144
228
423 318
118-654 210-584
*S02iPJ
0
0
0
0
0
-
*Detection limit estimated at 50 ppm
15
-------
Table 5
PARTICULATE DATA FOR NO. 3 RECOVERY SYSTEM BEFORE CONVERSION
Period
Dust Load9 (gr/SDCF) Scrubber Gas Volume
**
a
Date Boi
M 3/67
1/24/67
1/25/67
1/26/67
1/27/67
8/ 2/67
8/ 3/67
8/ 4/67
5/14/68
5/15/68
Averages
3/31/69
4/18/69
8/ 7/69
Averages
10/15/69
10/24/69
12/ 3/69
12/22/69
8/18/70
Averages
ler Exit
5.0
10.3
8.9
10.8
7.4
9.9
6.1
6.6
11.4
11.4
11.4
11.4
7.8
7.5
9.4
8.5
9.0
6.76
8.64
7,19
7.34
6.32
7.25*
7.25*
7.25
7.18
6.71
6.95**
6.95**
6.95**
6795"
Stack
.401
.233
.579
.690
.192
.520
.273
.533
.365
.514
.463
.610
.300
.239
.185
.209
.394
.425
.522
.517
.439
.330
.488
.583
.466
.248
.264
.286
.208
.228
.234
.237
.238
.241
.264
.246
.245"
Efficiency^) Flow(SDCFM)
92.0
,7
,5
97.
93.
93.6
97.4
94.7
95.6
91
96.
95.
95.
94.
96,
97.0
98.0
97.6
95.6
,9
,7
,4
,9
.6
,2
93.3
94.0
95.4
93.3
92.0
93.6
96.4
96.3
97.0
96.7
96.6
96.6
96.
96,
96.
,6
.5
.2
96.5
96.5
69,500
78,800
77,200
77,100
76,100
74,200
75,500
85,000
99,300
99,000
96,900
90,600
90,600
105,100
99,100
99,100
124,400
131,800
* Average from tests of March 31, 1969 used in calculations
Dust Loss c
StackMh/hr
316
316
316
290
215
310
376
306
180
220
220
173
176
179
214
203
204
281
278
212
Average from tests of October 15 and 24, 1969 used in calculations.
Dust load at boiler exit determined by wet scrubbing train method;
dust load at stack determined by alundum thimble method.
16
-------
Total participate emissions averaged 306 Ibs/hr. At this time it was
concluded that the predicted design efficiency of 98% could not be
attained at the recommended pressure drop of 10 inches of water across
each Venturi scrubber. In an effort to reduce particulate emissions,
the black liquor Venturi AP was held near 10 inches and the "brine"
Venturi ^ P raised to 20 inches. Tests in October, December, 1969, and
August, 1970 (Period 3 in Table 5) indicated that the dust loss had
been reduced to 212 Ibs/hr. even though boiler loading had been in-
creased somewhat.
The test method used at that time for particulate determination at
the boiler exit was essentially the same wet scrubbing train method
used during 1972 and 1973 for the EPA testing program which is
described in Appendix C. The alundum thimble method was used for
particulate sampling at the stack prior to 1972.
A summary of the various emission data collected before system
modifications is given in Table 6. This is a compilation of the
data presented in Tables 1 - 5 inclusive for TRS, S02, and particulate.
17
-------
1.
Table 6
SUMMARY OF EMISSION DATA BEFORE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
Summary of TRS Emission Data
Range(Average)
Before Venturi After Ventur
a) NCASI Survey
Hydrogen Sulfide(ppm)
Methyl Mercaptan(ppm)
Dimethyl Sulfide(ppm)
Dimethyl Disulfide(ppm)
b) Montana State University Data
Hydrogen Sulfide(ppm)for 33-37% Sulfidity Range 0-65(31)
c) Babcock & Wilcox Investigation
0.3-4.5
0
0-0.2
0
98-178
2.0-6.2
0.3-3.6
0-1.0
0
0.2
0
TRS(ppm)for 25-28% Sulfidity Range
TRS(ppm)for 29-30% Sulfidity Range
TRS(ppm)for 31-34% Sulfidity Range
d) Hoerner Waldorf Daily Average Data
TRS(ppm)
Summary of SO^ Emission Data
a) Babcock & Wilcox Investigation
S02 Emissions(ppm)for 25-28% Sulfidity Range 0-
S02 Emissions(Dpm)for 29-30% Sulfidity Range 105-
S02 Emissions(ppm)for 31-34% Sulfidity Range 56-
-0.1(0.03)
-2.3(0.9)
-18.5(4,1)
14(4)
•496(313)
625(368)
b) Montana State University Data
S02 Emissions(ppm)for 32-37% Sulfidity Range 118-654(423)
Summary of Particulate Emission Data
a) Hoerner Waldorf Stack Emission Data(lb/hr.)
210-584(318
133-646(391)
<50
173-281(212)
18
-------
SECTION VII
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDIES
The issuance of Montana Air Emission Standards late in 1968 provided
Hoerner Waldorf with firm guidelines for the successful completion
of ongoing engineering studies required to arrive at a satisfactory
solution to the air pollution problem at Missoula. The state stan-
dards applied to both particulate emissions and total reduced sulfur
gas emissions (TRS) from kraft recovery boilers. The standard for
TRS emissions went into effect on November 30, 1972 and specified
a maximum allowable emission limit of 17.5 ppm based on a 24-hour
average. The particulate emission standard for existing boiler
units went into effect on June 1, 1970. It was based on a process
weight table that called for a maximum particulate emission from
No. 3 recovery boiler of 45.3 Ib/hr. at design solids loading
(100% boiler loading).
Since it was impossible to bring the mill into full compliance with
the promulgated emission standards by the effective dates specified,
a variance was requested by the mill which was granted. This enabled
the mill to continue to operate until corrective measures could be
implemented.
On December 9, 1968,a $4,000 contract was entered into by Hoerner
Waldorf and Babcock and Wilcox which called for the latter to under-
take certain engineering studies to evaluate, propose, and design
systems for the effective control of odorous gases, particulate
matter and water vapor from the recovery units at Missoula.
Exhaustive engineering and economic studies were undertaken to deter-
mine the best overall solution to the air pollution problem, taking
into consideration results anticipated (reduction in emissions),
capital investment, and operating cost. Two basic concepts were
considered and studied in detail by developing seven possible
alternate plans that would result in mill compliance with the Montana
State regulations. The basic concepts considered were:
1. Modify existing equipment only.
2. A combination of modifying some or all of the existing equipment
and the addition of new recovery capacity.
The seven options considered were the following:
1. Add electrostatic precipitators to the three existing recovery
boilers to effectively reduce particulate emissions. The pre-
cipitators would be installed after the direct contact evapora-
tors and no reduction in TRS would result.
2. Install a "hot" precipitator between the recovery boiler economizer
outlet and the direct contact evaporator. Odor control would be
accomplished by providing adequate black liquor oxidation facilities.
19
-------
3. Similar to Option 2, except that the precipitator would be in-
stalled after the direct contact evaporator. Some removal of
economizer surface would be necessary to raise the temperature
of flue gas entering precipitators to protect them against
corrosion.
4. Conversion of existing system to the new "controlled odor"
concept. This would involve the installation of a precipitator;
the elimination of direct contact evaporators; the installation of
additional economizer surfaces to all three recovery units to
absorb the additional heat available in the flue gases; the
installation of a heavy black liquor concentrator.
5. Similar to Option 4 except no economizer changes would be made
to the two smaller recovery units (No. 1 and No. 2). A higher
flue gas temperature leaving the boilers would result.
6. Conversion of No. 3 recovery to a "controlled odor" unit.
Replacement of No. 1 and No. 2 recoveries with a new and larger
recovery having adequate capacity to insure full mill production.
7. Conversion of all three existing recovery boilers to the
"controlled odor" mode. Installation of a fourth, relatively
small new recovery boiler to provide the necessary burning
capacity to balance total recovery capacity with full mill
production caoacity.
To insure minimum TRS emissions from a recovery boiler it is necessary
to operate the unit at rated capacity with adequate air and turbulence
in the upper oxidation zone of the furnace. This means that the
recovery furnace then becomes a capacity-sensitive unit and determines
to a large extent the production capacity of the entire mill. This
capacity is the pulp tonnage that generates the total quantity of
black liquor solids (B.L.S.) that the recovery units can burn under
design load conditions (100% rated loading).
In the last two options considered for recovery system modifications,
additional capacity was provided to insure full mill production.
Table 7 is a summary of all pertinent cost data developed in 1969 by
the initial engineering studies made in 1969. The "one time" capital
investments or outage expenses were converted to an equivalent
annual cost based on a 15% capital recovery factor (before taxes).
Taking all factors into consideration, it was determined that options
six and seven were the only acceptable solutions that would control
both TRS and particulate emissions at the most reasonable cost.
20
-------
o
o
o
«s
o
CN
o
CO
C
o
f,
o
cs
o
co
o
o
vO
o
o
o
»t
CO
vO
CN
o
o
o
•t
o
r-
o
o
o
*t
CO
CTi
o
o
CM
in !
w
55
o
o
o
o
o
m
co
CTi
•co-
•CO-
•co-
CD
o
o
A
O
m
ro
»>
CT.
•CO-
O
O
o
*l
en
r-l
m
•CO-
•CO-
o
•co-
o
o
o
•CO-
o
o
o
•t
m
vO
o
o
o
M
co
4^
CO
o
o
o
m
CO
•CO-
55
o
CTl
c,
UJ
Q
i — i
oo
o
o
op
vO
VO
m
CO
O
o
M
VO
o
CO
m
•co-
o
o
o
vO
oo
•CO-
O
O
o
o
m
o\
CO
o
o
CN
CO
•CO-
CO
o
o
A
o
VD
CN
•co-
CD
o
o
A
o
vO
CN
•CO-
CO
o
o
«\
CO
CN
CN
•CO-
o
o
o
CN
o
o
o
A
CO
CO
o
o
o
A
m
•co-
o
o
o
A
o
r~
m
. o
•U C
^ cd
01 l-l
0. 3
O CO
u
cu
CO
g
a,
co
3 /-x
C O
O
H W
-O
CU
co
cd
cu
^
o
C
M
CO
3 O
§~
•< co
CU
co
o
CJ
cO C
H IH
M 4J
cu cu
•u ee!
-------
It was finally decided to replace the two smaller recoveries (No. 1
and No. 2) with a larger, new unit to be designated as No. 4 recovery
boiler. The No. 3 recovery unit would be modified according to the
"controlled odor" design system proposed by Babcock and Wilcox.
The conversion of the two smaller recoveries was not attractive
because of the lengthly outage time required for their conversion,
resulting in unacceptable lost production in the mill. The implemen-
tation of major modification work to them would have been more
difficult, also, due to their relative inaccessibility.
The final plan, agreed to on July 23, 1969 at a meeting with Babcock
and Wilcox, consisted of two parts: Phase I would be the conversion
of No. 3 recovery boiler to a low-emission unit; Phase II would be the
construction of a large, new low-emission recovery boiler to replace
the two older, smaller recoveries.
22
-------
SECTION VIII
PROPOSED SOLUTION
The final pollution abatement plan submitted to the Montana State
Board of Health designated as Phase I for the conversion of No. 3
recovery boiler was intended to correct the total emission problem -
particulate emissions, odorous gases, and water vapor. The results
anticipated were: particulate emissions not to exceed 45.3 Ib/hr. at
design boiler load; TRS emissions not to exceed 17.5 ppm (24 hour
average); approximately a 40% reduction in water vapor to essentially
eliminate plume visibility.
Phase I consisted primarily of converting the No. 3 recovery boiler
from a conventional kraft unit to a "controlled odor" design unit by
the elimination of the direct contact evaporator, the major source of
reduced sulfur gas (TRS) emissions. The solids content of black
liquor would be raised from 40% to 63% by means of a heavy liquor
concentrator (forced circulation evaporator) before being fed to the
recovery furnace. A high efficiency electrostatic precipitator
(99.125%) with a dry bottom would collect the particulate from the
flue gases and return it to process. An additional vertical steel
tube water economizer would increase the feedwater temperature to
the boiler by recovering flue gas heat previously used for direct
contact evaporation. At the same time, the temperature of boiler
exit gases would be reduced prior to their entry into the precipita-
tor, thereby reducing the total volume of gases discharged. A new
induced draft (I.D.) fan would also be installed on the discharge
side of the precipitator thereby making it a "clean" unit.
The total conversion job under Phase I was to cost approximately
$2,600,000 and take 18 months to complete. The State of Montana
issued Construction Permit No. 100-0311-70 on December 15, 1969 for
the conversion of the No. 3 recovery system.
Figure 2 is a flow diagram showing the new modified system, complete
with concentrator, precipitator, and economizer addition. Figure 3
indicates the before and after arrangement of ductwork and scrubbers.
With the elimination of the direct contact evaporator additional
supplemental evaporation had to be provided to raise the black liquor
concentration above the 60 percent solids level necessary for good
combustion. The Unitech concentrator selected for this purpose had
an evaporation capacity of 49,000 Ib of water per hour provided by
10,000 square feet of heating surface. This concentrator is a long
tube, forced-circulation evaporator with preheat, falling film and
rising film sections. Steam (50#) is used on the shell side to pro-
vide the necessary heat for evaporation.
The No. 3 recovery boiler was installed by Babcock and Wilcox in 1966.
It has a design load rating of 1,400,000 Ib/day of dry solids based
on 6600 BTU/lb dry solids (D.S.). This is equivalent to a nominal
23
-------
CJ
-M
CO
.5?
§1
O
O
co
i.
o
E
to
Cn
ro
OJ
-------
s-
o
o
Oi
00
r
~"L
-^
B rE
s_
v
w
^/
/
H-
o
c
o
•1—
l/l
O)
>
c
o
a-
25
-------
capacity of 470 tons per day of pulp processing capacity (based on
3000 Ib D.S./pulp ton). Steam capacity of the boiler is 235,000 Ib/hr.
at 750°F and 600 psi. Although no basic physical changes were made
to the boiler, proper operation of the unit is essential to insure
that the overall system functions properly to insure minimum emissions.
Under design load conditions the dust concentration (particulates) in
the boiler exit gases should not exceed 8.0 grains/SDCF (equivalent to
5520 lbs/hr.).
The hot gases leaving the boiler pass through the new duct work
leading to the inlet of the No. 2 economizer. Additional heat is
reclaimed by the boiler feedwater passing through the economizer
tubes where the flue gas temperature is reduced from 600-650°F to
400°F.
The dust-laden gas then enters the electrostatic precipitator. The
precipitator has two parallel chambers with three electrical sections
(fields) in each. The cross section of each chamber is divided into
27 gas passages by the collecting electrode plates. The dust
particles, electrically charged in the corona of the discharge wires,
are attracted to the ground plates, and adhere to the plates as they
lose their charge. Periodically the plates and wire frames are
vibrated or "rapped" to dislodge the adhering salt cake. Tne dislodged
dust falls to the bottom of the precipitator and is dragged to the
front where it falls into a screw conveyor and is finally discharged
into the sluice tank. Heavy duty drag chains, two per chamber and
parallel to gas flow, are used in the dust removal system.
The design gas flow specified for the unit is 207,000 ACFM at a
temperature of 400°F. The precipitator has a guaranteed collection
efficiency of 99.125% (by weight) based on a dust load of 8.0
grains/SDCF in the entering gas stream for 100% boiler loading. Dust
load at the precipitator outlet would then be 0.07 grains/SDCF,
equivalent to 45 Ib/hr.
The design details for the major components of the modified recovery
system described above are given in Appendix A.
26
-------
SECTION IX
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The original timetable for engineering and construction of Phase I
is indicated in Figure 4 by means of a CPM diagram. Once the decision
was made to split out the No. 3 recovery conversion project and pro-
ceed with it independently, the rest of the planning proceeded quite
rapidly. The Grover Dimond Engineering Company of St. Paul, Minnesota
was hired to coordinate the overall project. This involved working
directly with the Engineering Department of Hoerner Waldorf, the
personnel at the Missoula mill and the various contractors hired to
do the actual construction work. Bids were let and contracts awarded
during March, 1970 according to schedule. Steel fabrication proceeded
on schedule and steel erection took place during the period August
through November, 1970.
The first major component of the new system to be completed was the
concentrator which had its shakedown in March, 1971. The erection of
the precipitator was completed in mid-April. No. 3 recovery was then
shut down April 19 to the 27 to permit installation of the transition
piece of duct work between the existing boiler and the new economizer.
The modified recovery system started up on April 28, 1971.
Additional accomplishments within the scope of Phase I were: the
conversion of one of the former cyclone separators to a storage tank
for 63% solids black liquor; the installation of a dry salt cake
handling system to take the place of the former water slurry system;
the installation of a new I.D. fan at the precipitator outlet.
The capital cost breakdown for the modifications made to the No. 3
recovery system is given in Table 8.
27
-------
c:
O
o
ql
•r—
-o
o
c
O)
O1
>
o
co
CO
S-
c
fO
s_
C'.
_
CJ
2!
en
LU
2B
-------
Table 8
*CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR NO. 3 RECOVERY MODIFICATIONS
(Hoerner Waldorf Project 70-701)
Building $ 851,767
No. 2 Economizer 365,739
Concentrator 140,688
Electrostatic Precipitator 389,490
Auxiliary Equipment 90,226
I.D.Fan $27,226
I.D.Fan Turbine 29,457
Salt Cake Feed System 24,674
Sluice Tank & Agitator 8,869
Miscellaneous 102,128
Duct Work Cutover From $59,444
Boiler to No.2 Economizer
Conversion of Cyclone 6,050
Evaporator to Liquor
Storage Tank
Other 36,634
Piping and Valves 250,718
Electrical Work 183,641
Instrumentation Work 67,850
Overhead 47,121
Architecture and Engineering Service 109,734
Total $2,599,102
* Detailed Design and Engineering Data are given in APPENDIX A
29
-------
SECTION X
SYSTEM SHAKE-DOWN
The modified No. 3 recovery system began operation on April 28, 1971.
Participate collection and removal was the one area of operation that
did not function properly initially and required considerable modifica-
tion over a period of many months before collection efficiencies
approaching 99% were reached.
The early operation of the electrostatic precipitator was hampered
by the inability of the screw conveyor to carry away the salt cake
from the hoppers located beneath the precipitator. The trough in
which the screw conveyor was located would bridge over on one or
both sides. If just one side plugged, the precipitator compartment
was isolated with dampers and gates, and the salt cake washed out.
If both sides plugged, an outage was required. Early attempts at
preventing this plugging included the installation of chains over the
screw conveyor, mounting of vibrators on the outside of the trough,
and speeding up the screw conveyor. None of these changes alleviated
the problem. The conveying problem was finally solved by changing
the angle at which the salt cake discharged into the trough and by
installing a new set of screws with larger flights (9" flights at
9" pitch replaced with 12" flights at 12" pitch).
Essentially all of the problems with the particulate handling system
resulted from improper engineering of the system based on an assumed
bulk density figure for particulate considerably higher than that
later experienced.
After solving the conveying problem at the precipitator, the oper-
ability of the rest of the equipment was investigated. The Unitech
concentrator performed well from the very start. Product solids have
been as high as 66%, but normal operation calls for 63% solids. The
concentrator is boiled out once per day with weak black liquor (20%
solids) to prevent solids buildup or tube plug up.
Gradual pluggage in the No. 2 economizer by dust carryover in the
flue gases resulted in operating problems. This pluggage increased
the pressure drop across the unit to the point where the induced
draft (I.D.) fan did not have adequate capacity to maintain satisfactory
excess oxygen (2-3%) at the boiler exit required to minimize TRS
emissions. To correct the problem, it was necessary to shut the
boiler down twice each month in order to water wash or hand lance
with steam the internals of the economizer. Finally, in February
1972 two additional sootblowers were installed, one at the inlet and
the other near the outlet to minimize the pluggage problem (see
Figure 5). Tlris modification was successful. During the next 15
months, the No. 2 economizer required cleaning on only five occasions.
In May, 1973 three stationary sootblowers were installed on the outlet
of the No. 2 economizer. Since then plugging problems have been
virtually eliminated. There has been only one cleaning since that time.
30
-------
Figure 5 Schematic of No. 2 economizer showing location of I K sootblowers
31
-------
Repeated tube leakage at the weld points was a second troublesome
problem encountered with the No. 2 economizer. This occurred despite
an x-ray program for inspection of field welding carried on at the
time of construction. Over a 2-year period, some 35 leaks were
discovered and repaired at a total cost of $16,000.
Following the completion of modifications made to the No. 3 recovery
system, extensive testing of exit gases from both the recovery boiler
and the precipitator was carried out to establish the dust collection
efficiency of the latter. Boiler operation and emission test data
were taken on almost a daily basis.
The first two months following the April 28, 1971 startup were de-
voted almost entirely to balancing furnace conditions in order to
reduce dust concentration in the boiler exit gases from 9.40 to 8.0
grains/SDCF. The latter figure was the anticipated or vendor-
predicated boiler emission at design load and was one of the basic
design parameters for the new precipitator. Burner nozzle size,
nozzle pressure, and air distribution to the furnace were all varied
in an effort to reduce this boiler exit dust load.
Table 9 summarizes the results obtained from this effort. It was
finally possible in July, 1971 to establish an acceptable dust load
(8.0 grains/SDCF) leaving the boiler under full (design) load condi-
tions.
The collection efficiency of the precipitator remained at 94%-95%
even after the above adjustments in boiler operation had been made.
This data is summarized in Table 10 under Period 1. The precipitator
manufacturer felt that poor gas distribution was the problem and
recommended that the inlet turning vanes be modified by installing
vertical extensions on the first four steps of the ladder. This was
done during the July 4 shutdown period, but no measureable improve-
ment in operations resulted.
Research-Cottrell continued to suspect poor gas distribution and ran a
hot-wire anemometer test during the Labor Day shutdown. This test
indicated that some of the untreated gases were sweeping across the
bottom of the precipitator. For the next several months, several
electrical as well as physical modifications were made to the precipita-
tor, first to the north side for initial evaluation and then to the
south side if they proved to have merit. These changes included the
following, some of which are illustrated in Figure 6.
1. Vertical extensions were added to the inlet turning vanes of the
north compartment, four on July 4, 1971 , and an additional 15 on
November 10, 1971. This modification made little or no difference
in the precipitator operation and was not repeated in the south
compartment. These were later removed from the north chamber in
February, 1972.
32
-------
£ O
o>~
O
6 x
o
o
o
o
OJ
o
o
CTi
O1
O
O
CD
O!
ns
r— -a
1 —
Q--I-
X
^UJ
O S-
Q a>
i i —
LU-.-
^ 0
o
U_ (/)
- • Q.
00
o
UJ S-
C£- (1)
PO
1T J *^-
• o
O CQ
^y X. ^
•+J CJ
•r- Q
X T3 CO
LlJ (D ^
O VI
S_ lc
CD -i-
,— a_J /r(
^^ T—1 nj
•i- CO i-
O 3 CD
CQ C — -
O i— O
^a- co i—
• • •
CTi CTi CO
O)
r—
N
N
0
~Z.
OJ
i-
3 --.
2
o
r*—
u_
s-
<
J—
0
(—
1^ CO OJ
V£5 1 — f--.
CO CO CO
>,
s_
fO
•^~
-(->
S-
01
h-
X X * ^ ' X
r-» ^s o s-s o S3
LO LO VD U3 V£} kO
i — i — i —
•«. ' *~ * ^—r
>>
S-
fO
T3
C
O
o
QJ
OO
tO 6-S O1 53 r— 5-?
r— oj co r^. co LT>
r— CO i— CO r— CO
•*^** •• — " ^ — ^
>!
s-
ea
E
•1 —
s-
Q-
x—, x->. ^-^
tf 53 <=1- S3 i— c?5
co co r~~ t-» co cr>
i— UO i — tj" i— •*
-a
o
QJ
Q-
OJ
i
CO
LO
CO
O
OJ
33
-------
Table 10
*PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM NO. 3 PRECIPITATOR AFTER CONVERSION
Period 1234
Date
Lb/Hr. Date
6/15/71
6/19/71
6/21/71
6/22/71
6/24/71
6/25/71
6/28/71
7/10/71
7/12/71
7/13/71
7/14/71
7/15/71
7/20/71
7/21/71
7/22/71
7/23/71
7/26/71
7/27/71
7/29/71
7/39/71
8/ 1/71
8/ 4/71
9/ 8/71
9/14/71
9/15/71
9/16/71
9/20/71
9/28/71
11/18/71
11/22/71
12/18/71
1/19/72
Averages
ficiency(%)
225
263
243
231
226
251
268
221
226
258
298
206
236
259
255
253
286
267
268
262
264
279
166
213
195
207
224
224
376
372
279
240
251
95.5
Lb/Hr. Date
Lb/Hr. Date
115
97.9
73.5
98.7
Lb/Hr.
1/28/72
1/29/72
2/ 1/72
2/ 2/72
2/ 8/72
2/ 9/72
2/11/72
2/16/72
2/28/72
3/ 1/72
3/ 3/72
3/13/72
3/16/72
4/27/72
6/ 2/72
160
197
108
,128
118
83
137
113
80
84
116
142
53
107
99
6/14/72
6/16/72
6/17/72
6/17/72
6/22/72
6/22/72
6/27/72
7/13/72
7/14/72
7/14/72
7/19/72
8/ 2/72
8/10/72
8/11/72
8/11/72
8/17/72
10/ 4/72
10/ 9/72
10/12/72
10/13/72
71
59
59
60
69
59
85
92
90
86
84
75
63
74
66
59
113
76
57
73
I/ 8/73
1/11/73
1/11/73
1/15/73
1/17/73
1/18/73
1/19/73
1/31/73
2/ 5/73
2/ 7/73
2/12/73
2/13/73
3/ 1/73
3/ 1/73
3/ 2/73
8/22/73
8/30/73
8/31/73
12/12/73
12/13/73
12/14/73
38
55
45
45
46
38
56
65
29
25
61
58
58
52
41
44
37
24
29
21
22
*Hoerner Waldorf Test data based on Alundum Thimble Method of collection
**Based on incoming design dust load of 8 grains/SDCF (5520 Ib/hr.)
42.3
99.2
34
-------
Flow
Collector
Plates
^
w
Collector
Plates
e>
3> I
(Gas Flow]
9" Screw
Conveyors
uU v V 'I
^t-Xgas by pads)
|t3
Collector
Plates
Cdnvey r
I
(gas bypassV
ID
T
BEFORE
Flow
Closure
Plate
Sweep Nozzles
(Steam)
•irrtr'Tnr • y
Collector)
Plates 1
(Gas Flow)
! II ,"
^ II ;' f 1 1! '' I''
Collector
"Plates
il
Q
12" Screw
Conveyors
JQ Bar Co^veyOT
r\/F^
-Vertical
Wall Hopper
ir—r
AFTER
"T"
Closure
Plate
Figure 6 Preci pita tor modifications
-------
2. A horizontal closure plate was installed at the bottom of the
turning vanes at the precipitator inlet to prevent the flow of
gases around the drag conveyor, thus bypassing the inlet
collecting plates. This was done on November 10, 1971.
3. Replacement of the P-150 Eriez rappers (rated at HOG) on all
high tension wire frames and on the inlet section plate rappers
with P-16Q Eriez rappers (rated at 300G). Some were changed out
on November 10, 1971 and the remainder on January 7, 1972.
4. On January 11, 1972 a closure plate was installed on the north
side outlet to reduce the possibility of gases bypassing the
outlet plates. Also at this time, skirting was replaced again
in the center section baffle above the drag conveyor.
Precipitator efficiency tests run on the north side the week after
these last physical changes were made in January, indicated a signifi-
cant improvement in efficiency (from 93.5% to better than 98.5%). As
a result, similar changes were made to the south compartment later in
the month. Also, the unbalanced gas flow between the two compartments
was corrected by the installation of a gas splitter in the "pants legs"
of the inlet ducting on February 16, 1972. By balancing the gas flows
an overall collection efficiency of 97.5 - 98-0% was obtained as
indicated by the particulate data tabulated in Table 10 for Period 2.
Additional electrical modifications were made to the precipitator
in June, 1972 in an effort to reach the guaranteed efficiency of
99.125%. This involved sectionalization of electric input to obtain
better and more positive control of each electrical section. A
1500ma transformer-rectifier set was installed to power the center
field. The existing lOOOma center field set was reconnected to the
outlet field, providing it with two transformer-rectifier sets of
equal power. Another modification made was the installation of
horizontal rappers to keep the gas inlet distribution plates clean.
These modifications raised the collection efficiency to a level of
98.5-99.0% as indicated for Period 3 in Table 10.
During the 1972 Christmas shutdown, a number of additional mechanical
modifications were made to the precipitator upon the recommendation
of Research-Cottrell in an effort to further reduce any bypassing of
flue gases through the chambers, to minimize unwanted draft effects,
and to improve the cleanliness of the high tension wires. The
corrective measures carried out were the following:
1. Vertical seal strips were installed between the end collecting
plates and the tile walls, (first and last fields).
2. Seal plates were installed between the top plate perimeter and
the tile walls.
3. Baffle plates were installed between the bottom plate perimeter
and the tile walls.
36
-------
4. Baffle plates were installed in the top outlet field to the
structural cross beam.
5. The outlet flue baffle plate was sealed to tile wall.
6. The stiff electrodes were removed from high tension frames
and replaced with wire hangers.
7. Teflon stabilizer bars were installed at the bottom of the high
tension frames.
Additional final "tuning" carried out under the direction of Research-
Cottrell enabled the precipitator to finally reach its design collec-
tion efficiency of 99,125%, some 22 months after the unit was first
put into operation. This final data is summarized under Period 4 in
Table 10.
Particulate emissions from No. 3 recovery boiler were then able
to meet the requirements called for in the process weight table
incorporated in the Montana Air Emission Standards. This was a
maximum emission of 45.3 lb/hr., equivalent to a discharge grain
loading of 0.07 grains/SDCF. The precipitator successfully met its
acceptance test on March 2, 1973. The intensive EPA test program for
No. 3 recovery boiler began on March 5.
37
-------
SECTION XI
GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE MODIFIED RECOVERY SYSTEM
BLACK LIQUOR FEED SYSTEM
Fluctuations in black liquor solids have decreased significantly
since the conversion of the system to a "controlled odor1' design.
The major design change was the elimination of all direct contact
between the black liquor and flue gas. Solids are now concentrated in
a seoarate indirect contact evaporator known as a concentrator.
From the concentrator, liquor of 63% solids is pumped to an intermediate
storage tank converted from the cyclone evaporator used in the earlier
system. From here, the liquor is pumped to the sluice tank located
beneath the precipitator where particulate dust is reclaimed. The
liquor is pumped from the sluice tank to the mix tank where fresh
salt cake is added to the liquor to make up chemical losses incurred
in the pulping operation. The fresh salt cake addition raises the
solids level in the black liquor approximately one percent. The
raixed liquor is finally pumped to the single oscillating spray nozzle
located at the front of No. 3 recovery furnace.
SALT CAKE FEED SYSTEM
In the old system, salt cake was made UP as a water slurry before
being fed to the recovery system. This common feed system, feeding
all three recovery boilers, was plagued by periodic plugging and
frequent mechanical breakdown. The newly installed system handles
only that quantity of salt cake reauired for makeup in the Mo. 3
recovery systerr. A calibrated screw conveyor provides relatively
good control of the feed rate for the dry makeup chemical.
STEAM PRODUCTION
Prior to the conversion, solids in the liquor feed to the burner
nozzle averaged 1.59 million pounds per day and steam production
averaged 4.42 million pounds per day, equivalent to 2.78 pounds of
steam per pound of solids. After the conversion, the solids feed at
the nozzle averaged 1.48 million pounds per day at a somewhat lower
boiler loading and steam production averaged 5.37 million pounds
per day, equivalent to 3.62 pounds steam per pound of solids. The
greater steam produced is the result of extracting additional heat
from the flue gas as it passes through the second economizer. This
heat previously had been used for direct contact evaporation in the
venturies. However, in the new system, additional steam is required
to raise the black liquor solids from 40 percent to 63 percent in
the concentrator. The net available steam for other mill processes
is 2.83 pounds per pound of solids or essentially the same quantity
as that available from the previous system. Table 11 summarizes
this steam data.
38
-------
Table 11
SOLIDS THROUGHPUT AND STEAM PRODUCTION FOR NO. 3 RECOVERY BOILER
(All Figures Expressed in 1000 Ibs/day)
Solids Feed Steam Steam to Useable Stean
Period Year at_Jio_zz 1 e Production Concentrator To Process
1-Before Modification
1068 1530 4215 0 4215
1969 1602 4435 0 4435
1970 1636 4616 0 4616
Average 1589 4422 0 4422
Steam/Sol ids Ratio -2.78- -2.78-
2-After Modifications
1971 1516 5295 1111 4184
1972 1452 5454 1246 4208
Average 1484 5374 1178 4196
Steam/Solids Ratio -3.62- -2.83-
IiMDUCED DRAFT (I. D. ) FAN
In the previous system, stack gases were under a positive pressure
between the induced draft fan and the stack. Between the fan and the
brine venturi the pressure was about 22 inches of water. All system
leaks made conditions uncomfortable for the operators working in the
area since flue gases were being discharged into the building. Because
the new fan is on the discharge side of the precipitator, the entire
system is now under a slight negative pressure and all leaks are from
the room into the gas stream.
The I.D. fan in service prior to the conversion was known as a "dirty"
fan. It was sized to handle a large gas volume containing a high per-
centage of water evaporated in the black liquor venturi. The fan
required sufficient head to overcome the pressure drop across both
venturies as well as the boiler. This fan was rated for 394,000 ACFM
39
-------
at 33 inches of water static pressure at 1085 RPM and required a 1200
horsepower driver. Rather than being located between the boiler and
black liquor venturi, it was located after the venturi and wall
washes.
The two major problems with this system were:
1. A 25 inch water differential maintained across the venturi and
cyclone exerted constant strain on the fan causing numerous
mechanical difficulties.
2. Black liquor carry-over from the cyclone necessitated water
washing the fan each shift, resulting in a serious corrosion
problem for the fan.
These problems have been eliminated in the new system.
The new induced draft fan is located on the discharge side of the
precipitator. This fan is rated at 279,000 ACFM at 18 inches of
water pressure at 970 RPM and requires only a 780 horsepower driver.
Because of the new system configuration, the new fan has less gas
volume to handle than the one it replaced and benefits also from the
relatively small pressure drop of only a few inches of water developed
across the new components of the system (No. 2 economizer and
precipitator).
OPERATING COSTS
Chemicals
The reduction in particulate emissions that resulted from the installa-
tion of the electrostatic precipitator amounted to approximately
5000 Ib/day. This amounted to a total cost savings of $25,000 during
fiscal 1973 (based on a unit cost of $29/ton for salt cake).
With the new system it is necessary to maintain a relatively low
liquor sulfidity (26-28%) to minimize the emissions of S02 which
formerly had been scrubbed out in the direct contact evaporator. To
keep the sulfidity low, considerable caustic soda is required for
chemixal makeup in the liquor system. The average monthly usage of
caustic for the 1972-1973 fiscal period was 651 tons as compared to
an average monthly usage of 365 tons for the 1969-1970 fiscal period.
The average annual increase in cost for caustic soda amounted to
$288,000 (based on a unit cost of $84/ton). On the other hand, this
increased caustic usage did result in a molar-equivalent (on a sodium
basis) reduction in salt cake amounting to 508 tons of the latter
having a value of $177,000.
Taking both salt cake and caustic soda usages into account, the
overall annual increase in chemical cost for liquor makeup is $86,000.
40
-------
Utilities
Fuel: No change after modification
Steam:
Process steam remained basically the same, but distribu-
tion changed
Before modification: 212,000 Ibs steam/hr oroduced
- 20,000 Ibs steam/hr sootblowing
192,000 Ibs steam/hr to process
After modification:
272,000 Ibs steam/hr produced
- 40,000 Ibs steam/hr sootblowing
232,000 Ibs
- 38,000 Ibs
194,000 Ibs
steam/hr
steam/hr concentrator
steam/hr to process
Power Requi rements:
Before modification 3412 HP
After modification 3166 HP
Decrease of " 246 HP
$148,400
137,700
$ 10,700
Feedwater:
Before modification
After modification
192M Ibs/hr process steam(50°o returned)
20M Ibs/hr boiler IK steam(none returned)
212M Ibs/hr produced
194M Ibs/hr process steam(50% returned)
40M Ibs/hr boiler IK steam(none returned)
_38M Ibs/hr concentrator usage(all returned)
272M Ibs/hr produced
Additional IK steam required for sootblowing is equiva-
lent to an additional 20,000 Ibs feedwater/hr. for an
annual cost of $23,500.
Labor Costs
No change in operating labor resulted from the modifications made
to No. 3 recovery system.
Maintenance Costs
Maintenance charges incurred by No. 3 recovery boiler, precipitator,
and concentrator for the past three years are given in Table 12.
The higher repair costs incurred by No. 3 recovery since the 1971
conversion indicates the increasing age of the unit as well as the
need for more complete maintenance to insure reliable and low-
emission operation.
41
-------
Table 12
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR NO. 3 RECOVERY SYSTEM
No. 3 Recovery
Before modification:
Fiscal 1969
Fiscal 1970
November 1970-April 1971
After modification:
May 1971-October 1971
Fiscal 1972
Fiscal 1973
Precipitator
Fiscal 1971
Fiscal 1972
Fiscal 1973
Concentrator
Fiscal 1971
Fiscal 1972
Fiscal 1973
Avq.
Total Cost
$ 69,266 :
87,638
43,640
$ 81,395(69-71)
Cost/Month
$ 5,77(T~
7,300
7,275
Avg.
Avg.
$ 43,640
111,157
109,241
$110,199(72-73)
$ 28,710
19,761
16,606
$ 21,692
7,275
9,260
9,103
Avg.
$ 18,065(1
17,991(1
23,053(3
$.19,703
effect operation)
effect operation)
effect operation)*
* Upon completion and startup of No. 4 recovery boiler and auxilliary
equipment in the overall system.
A summary of all changes in annual operating costs resulting from the
modifications made to the No. 3 recovery system is given below.
Table 13
SUMMARY OF INCREASED OPERATING COSTS RESULTING FROM SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
Category
Labor
Chemicals
Auxilliary Fuel
Power
Feedwater
Maintenance
Annual Change in Cost($)
Boiler + 28,805
Precipitator + 21,692
Concentrator + 19,703
Total $169,000
Unchanged
+ 86,000
Unchanged
- 10,700
+ 23,500
+ 70,200
42
-------
SECTION XII
EVALUATION OF REDUCED EMISSIONS FROM MODIFIED SYSTEM
The justification for the major modifications made to the No. 3 recovery
system was the anticipated reduction in emissions, both gaseous and
particulate, necessary to meet the State of Montana regulations. These
specified a maximum daily average emission of 17.5 ppm for total reduced
sulfur gases (TRS) and a maximum particulate emission of 45.3 Ib/hr.
(at design solids loading) for No. 3 recovery boiler.
PARTICULATES
Initial particulate tests made on the precipitator following the startup
in late April (1971) indicated a relatively low collection efficiency of
95.5%. These tests were summarized earlier in Table 10 (Period 1 summary).
The first effective modifications made in January (1972) raised the
efficiency to a level of 97.5-98.0% (Period 2 summary). Further modifica-
tions made in June (1972) increased the efficiency to 98.5-99.0% (Period
3 summary). The several small mechanical modifications made in December
(1972) finally permitted the precipitator to attain its guaranteed
collection efficiency of 99.125% based on an incoming design dust loading
of 8.0 grains/SDCF.
The modified "controlled odor" No. 3 recovery boiler will meet the
stringent emission standards established by the State when operated at
design loading (100%). Average particulate emissions have been reduced
from 6000 Ib/day to 1000 Ib/day (41.7 Ib/hr.) for a better than 80%
reduction overall.
TRS AND S02
A weekly summary of TRS and S02 data compiled for the post-conversion
period (June 1971 through December 1973) is given in Table 6 of Appendix E.
This comprehensive data, averaged for three different sulfidity levels,
is tabulated below.
Table 14
WEEKLY SUMMARY OF DAILY AVERAGE TRS AND S02 DATA (1971-1973)
Sulfidity
Range (%)
26.1 - 28.0
28.1 - 31.0
31.1 - 33.0
No. of Data
Points(Weeks)
20
92
8
TRS(ppm)
Average Range
7.1
9.1
16.9
0-16
1-25
6-27
S02(ppm)
Average Range
32
71
198
0-138
5-279
43-353
An upward trend in both TRS and S02 are evident with an increase in
sulfidity levels.
43
-------
A more detailed analysis of TRS and S02 levels at various sulfidity
ranges is presented in Tables 15 and 16. Over 300 sets of data repre-
senting all of the daily average data for the period December 1972-
November 1973 (inclusive) were collected in order to develop this data
presentation for three sulfidity ranges. The cumulative percentage
(C.P.) data points are plotted on semi log paper in Figures 7 and 8.
This graphic presentation indicates the increasing percentage of high
levels of both TRS and S02 that results as the sulfidity level of
liquor increases.
The TRS plot (Figure 7) indicates that over the sulfidity range of
26-31%, approximately 89% of the daily average data falls at or below
17.5 ppm, the Montana Air Emission Standard for TRS., In the higher
sulfidity range of 31-33% only 65% of the data conforms to this State
standard. This record includes all operating days for a 12-month
period and is fairly representative of what can be expected from a
well-controlled recovery boiler.
The S02 plot (Figure 8) indicates that in the lower sulfidity range
of 26-28%, 82% of the daily average data falls at or below 100 ppm,
96% of the data falls below 200 ppm, and 98% below 300 ppm. For the
normal sulfidity range of 28-31%, 67% falls below 100 ppm, 92% below
200 ppm, and 96% below 300 ppm. A major upward shift in S02 occurs
at the higher sulfidity range of 31-33% as was noted in the case of
TRS. At this sulfidity level, only 22% of the data falls at or below
100 ppm, 47% below 200 ppm, and 72% below 300 ppm. Even at 400 ppm,
10% of the data is not accounted for.
STACK GAS TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT
Table 17 summarizes the average temperature and moisture content of
flue gases measured during the EPA testing program for the various
phases of the program. The boiler exit and stack temperatures vary
directly with the load. The exact variation cannot be predicted be-
cause of the unknown influence of other parameters such as liquor
composition, air to liquor ratio, air distribution, and probably
most important of all, the degree of boiler plugging and deposit build-
up on the furnace tubes. Before the conversion, the stack temperature
averaged 170°F for normal boiler loading and sulfidity (28-31%) condi-
tions and the moisture was 43.4 percent. This represented saturated
exit gas conditions at mill altitude (3000 ft.) and resulted in a dense
plume at all times. Since the conversion, the increased temperature
and decreased moisture content give rise to only an occasional visible
plume when adverse weather conditions exist.
The reduction in flue gas moisture due to elimination of the direct
contact evaporator is greater than the anticipated reduction of 40%
calculated at the time preliminary engineering studies were made in
1969.
AIR INFILTRATION INVESTIGATION
The decrease in flue gas moisture from the boiler exit (31.8%) to the
44
-------
-t"!-^. . ro t - .-.-T-rri-Tzi£_i.-irrirj;
7T\.i* /-\~—; — --!>t
Al ^ol .»V-. . - '-»—3^
c:
fO
5-
l/l
n
o
i.
fO
C'
Oi
a-
o
a'
CL
ro
^
rs
tr,
'oJ
QJ
O
CO
I—
l+-
o
(/I
t/1
CD
QOIdHd R1NOW Zl HOd Q31IdWOD VitfQ SMI 39Vb3Atf A1IVQ dO 39VlN33«3d 3AIltfinwnO
45
-------
_ .
aoib3d
2L bOJ a31Idl':03 VitfQ 2OS
ou o
A1IVQ JO 39VlN33a3d 3AIltfinwnD
46
-------
Table 15
*ANALYSIS OF DAILY AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRS
(for Period of December 1972-November 1973)
1
2
3
4
5
24
16
16
23
27
5
3
2
6
7
7
4
3
8
10
7
11
14
22
32
16
13
11
14
18
8
6
5
7
9
.5
.5
8
14.5
20
27
36
3
0
3
3
2
5.5
0
5.5
5.5
4
5.5
5.5
11
16.5
20.5
6
7
8
9
10
23
15
22
16
16
9
5
4
4
4
12.5
7
5.5
5.5
5.5
44.5
51.5
57
62.5
68
12
9
14
9
11
6
4.5
7
4.5
5.5
42
46.5
53.5
58
63.5
2
1
4
3
1
4
2
7
5.5
2
24.5
26.5
33.5
39
41
TRS
Level
(ppm)
1
2
3
4
5
( 1-5)
6
7
8
9
10
( 6-10)
11
12
13
14
15
(11-15)
16
17
18
19
20
(16-20)
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
Total
No. Of
Data
Points
24
16
16
23
27
(106)
23
15
22
16
16
(92)
16
6
7
9
19
(57)
q
6
6
6
3
(30)
20
8
2
5
1
2
1
1
26.1-28.0%
Sulfidity Range
No.
5
3
2
6
7
(23)
9
5
4
4
4
(26)
3
1
3
2
1
(10)
4
0
2
1
0
(7)
2
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
o/
to
7
4
3
8
10
12.5
7
5.5
5.5
5.5
4
1.5
4
3
1.5
5.5
0
3
15
0
3
3
0
1.5
0
1.5
C.P.
7
11
14
22
32
44.5
51.5
57
62.5
68
72
73.5
77.5
80.5
82
87.5
87.5
90.5
92
92
95
98
98
99
99
100
28.1-31.0%
Sulfidity Range
No.
16
13
11
14
18
(72)
12
9
14
9
11
(55)
10
4
4
6
14
(38)
1
3
4
3
3
(14)
13
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
%
8
6.5
5.5
7
9
6
4.5
7
4.5
5.5
5
2
2
3
7
0.5
1.5
2
1.5
1.5
6.5
2
0.5
1
C.P.
8
14.5
20
71
36
42
46.5
53.5
58
63.5
68.5
70.5
72.5
75.5
82.5
83
84.5
86.5
88
89.5
96
98
99
100
31.1-33.0%
Sulfidity Range
"37 ^*-
(11)
(11)
11
12
13
14
15
16
6
7
9
19
3
1
3
2
1
4
1.5
4
3
1.5
72
73.5
77.5
80.5
82
10
4
4
6
14
5
2
2
3
7
68.5
70.5
72.5
75.5
82.5
3
1
0
1
4
5.5
2
0
2
7
46.5
48.5
48.5
50.5
57.5
(9)
4
3
0
2
0
(9)
5.5
0
5.5
5.5
4
4
2
7
5.5
2
5.5
2
0
2
7
7
5.5
0
4
0
5.5
5.5
11
16.5
20.5
24.5
26.5
33.5
39
41
46.5
48.5
48.5
50.5
57.5
64.5
70
70
74
74
5
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
83
87
89
93
95
97
98
100
Totals 325
72
199
54
*Barton Titrator Data
47
-------
Table 16
*ANALYSIS OF DAILY AVERAGE VALUES FOR SC>2
(for Period of December 1972-November 1973)
S02
Level
(ppm)
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
( 1-100)
101-120
121-140
141-160
161-180
181-200
(100-200)
201-220
221-240
241-260
261-280
281-300
(201-300)
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-700
Total
No. Of
Data
Points
44
51
42
39
27
(203)
16
19
9
10
14
(68)
7
5
6
5
1
(24)
16
5
1
1
26.1-28.0%
Sulfidity Range
No.
16
18
13
6
6
(59)
2
1
1
0
3
(17)
2
1
0
0
0
(3)
1
0
0
0
%
23
26
18.5
8.5
8.5
3
1.5
1.5
0
4
3
1
0
0
0
1
C.P.
23
49
67.5
76
84.5
87.5
89
90.5
90.5
94.5
97.5
98.5
98.5
98.5
98.5
100
28.1-31.0%
Sulfidity Range
No. % C.P.
31.1-33.0%
_$u1fidity Range
27
31
25
30
20
(133)
10
15
6
8
8
(47)
14
16
13
15
10
5
8
3
4
4
14
30
43
58
68
73
81
84
88
92
201-220
221-240
241-260
261-280
281-300
7
5
6
5
1
2
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
97.5
98.5
98.5
98.5
98.5
3
3
2
3
0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
0
93.
95
96
97.
97.
5
5
5
2
1
4
2
1
4
2
7.5
4
2
52.4
54.4
61.9
65.9
67.9
Totals
318
70
(11)
3
1
1
0
196
1.5 99
.5 99.5
.5 100
No.
1
2
4
3
1
(11)
4
3
2
2
3
(14)
2
1
4
2
1
(10)
12
4
0
1
%
2
4
7.5
5.8
2
7.5
5.8
4
4
5.8
4
2
7.5
4
2
22.6
7.5
0
2
C.P.
2
6
13.5
19.3
21.3
28.8
34.6
38.6
42.6
48.4
52.4
54.4
61.9
65.9
67.9
90.5
98
98
100
52
*Barton Titrator Data
48
-------
Table 17
FLUE GAS TEMPERATURE AND MOISTURE CONTENT BEFORE AND AFTER CONVERSION
Boiler Exit Stack
Temp. H20 Content Temp. H?0 Content
(°F.) (Vol.%) (°F.) (Vol.%)
Before Conversion 604 30.7 170 43.4
(Normal Load and Sulfidity)
After Conversion
Low Sulfidity (26-28%)
High Load (110%) 671 32.4 404 30.3
Normal Load (100%) 616 32.1 388 30.5
Low Load ( 75%) 547 33.7 350 32.6
Normal Sulfidity (28-31%)
High Load (110%) 665 31.1 415 29.4
Normal Load (100%) 653 30.7 405 30.6
Load Load ( 75%) 569 31.5 373 31.4
High Sulfidity (31-33%)
High Load (110%) 631 31.5 389 30.1
Normal Load (100%) 633 31.7 363 28.7
Low Load ( 75%) 566 31.4 323 30.6
Averages 617 31.8 379 30.5
Calculation of Moisture Reduction
Original Moisture Content of Stack Gas
("vol. of water "I = 0.434 = 0.767
[vol. of dry gas j (1-.434)
Final Moisture Content of Stack Gas
("vol. of water 1 = 0.305 = 0.439
L vol. of dry gasj (1-.305)
Reductionin Moisture Volume (%)
0.767-0.4391 100 = 42.8
~ 0.767 j
49
-------
Hack (30.5%) for the post-conversion data presented in Table 17 is
due to dilution of flue gases with tramp air leaking into the precipi-
"ator and connecting duct work. The gas volume measured at the stack
'?id.s about 12,000 SDCFM higher than the volume at the boiler exit. The
oxygen content of flue gases determined at the stack was 1.0-1.5% higher
than that measured at the boiler exit. Sonic tests carried out at the
|3recipitator indicated the presence of leaks around the rapper shafts,
high voltage insulators and also at the inlet damper.
The precipitator was pressurized and smoke bombs set off inside. The
issuing smoke indicated the major leak to be around the inlet guillo-
tine dampers. A metal ring was sealed to the precipitator outer wall
and a large plastic bag attached. The time required for the bag to
collapse was measured and the total air infiltration through the tile
wall computed as 1,000 CFM. Other minor leaks exist at door gaskets,
fittings, flanges, shaft seals, etc. These tend to vary as maintenance
is performed on the system.
Because of the greater gas flow at the stack than at the boiler exit,
precipitator collection efficiency was determined on the basis of
total dust discharged (Ib/hr.) rather than grain loading (grains/SDCF).
50
-------
SECTION XIII
EPA TESTING PROGRAM
(OPTIMIZATION OF BOILER OPERATION FOR MINIMUM EMISSIONS)
INTRODUCTION
The testing program carried out at Missoula on the No. 3 recovery
system was intended to establish cause and effect relationship be-
tween process and operating variables and the resultant emissions,
both particulate and gaseous sulfur compounds. With simultaneous
measurement of process variables, relationships were developed be-
tween pollutant emissions and the following process variables:
sulfidity, boiler loading, excess oxygen in the furnace and various
ratios of primary, secondary and tertiary air. Optimization of these
operating conditions to minimize stack emissions was attempted for
three different boiler load conditions and demonstrated for a
sufficient duration of time to demonstrate stable operations (anywhere
from 12 to 24 hours).
IDENTIFICATION AND RANGE OF OPERATING VARIABLES TO BE INVESTIGATED
Boiler Loading
The design loading on the No. 3 recovery boiler is 1,400,000 Ibs of
black liquor solids per day at a heating value of 6,600 BTU/lb D.S.
(excluding any recirculated or makeup salt cake addition). The three
target levels established for boiler loading in the program were 75%,
100%, and 110%, with the actual range of load investigated varying from
73% to 118%.
Excess Oxygen
Excess oxygen was included in the study because it was recognized as
an important variable in controlling the TRS emissions from the furnace.
The normal operating range is 1.5 to 2.5%. There is considerable
variation in the Q£ reading itself and any attempt to maintain the
level at any one specific value was considered unrealistic. Therefore,
three different ranges of excess 02 were selected for investigation:
0.5 to 1.5%, 2.0 to 3.0%, and 3.5 to 4.5%.
Liquor Sulfidity
It was felt that average S0£ emissions were related to the level of
liquor sulfidity. Therefore, three levels of sulfidity were selected
which resulted in a range of S02 emissions from zero to several hundred
ppm. The sulfidity target ranges selected were 26 to 28%, 28 to 30%,
and 31 to 33%. The gap of 1% between normal and high sulfidity ranges
was purposely left to insure a sufficiently large difference in sulfidity
level for investigation and analysis.
51
-------
Air Distribution
Air distribution was thought to affect the emission of all three
pollutants being studied. On the No. 3 recovery boiler, combustion
air is added at three different levels: primary, secondary, and
tertiary. The primary level is at the bottom of the furnace whereas
the secondary and tertiary are added at progressively higher levels.
The normal percentage ratio of air distribution is 45/40/15 for
primary, secondary,and tertiary air respectively. For the purpose of
this study, it was proposed to look at two other air distributions as
well. The three distributions investigated were:
Location Low Primary Normal High Primary
Primary 35% 45% 55%
Secondary 50% 40% 30%
Tertiary 15% 15% 15%
The tertiary air was maintained at 15% of total air in all cases.
MEASUREMENTS AND TESTS INCLUDED IN STUDY
Figure 9 shows the location of the various instruments used to indi-
cate and record the pertinent information required for process control
and data collection. Also shown are the locations of the sampling
ports required for particulate collection.
Two particulate sampling points were necessary to determine the
concentration of dust in the flue gases both before and after the
precipitator. The boiler exit sample ports were located on the
rectangular duct work installed between the first and second (new)
economizer where the straight run of duct available was conducive to
meaningful flow measurements. The precipitator outlet sample ports
were located on the main stack at a relatively high elevation but
inside the recovery building.
Table 18 summarizes the measurements and tests in the EPA test program.
TESTING PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
TRS and S02 Testing
Total reduced sulfur gases (TRS) and sulfur dioxide (SC>2) were contin-
uously measured by means of two Model 400 Barton electrolytic titrators.
TRS is expressed as equivalent hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Both TRS and
S02 results were reported as parts per million (ppm) by volume on a
dry gas basis (SDCF).
Titration is the addition of a measured amount of reagent to a sample
until the reactive compounds in the sample have been satisfied (some
identifiable end point has been reached). In the Barton titrator, the
reagent is free bromine, generated by passing an electric current through
52
-------
a;
4->
to
>>
CO
0)
O
u
O)
S-
o
to
4->
c
•r—
O
Q-
O)
Q-
-a
c:
fC
01
3
CTi
O)
3
CT>
53
-------
Table 18
MEASUREMENTS AND TESTS INCLUDED IN EPA TEST PROGRAM
Item
Black liquor flow to sluice tank
Black liquor flow to nozzle
Black liquor density
Solids content of liquor
Salt cake makeup
BTU analysis of black liquor
Temperature of liquor at nozzle
Nozzle pressure
Primary, Secondary and
Tertiary air flows
Temperature of incoming air
Excess oxygen
Boiler exit flue gas temperature
(outlet #1 economizer)
Precipitator inlet flue gas
temp., (outlet #2 economizer)
Steam flow
Green liquor total alkai,
active alkali and sulfide
White liquor total alkali
active alkali, and sulfide
Green 1 iquor flow
Weak wash flow
so2
TRS
Particulate
Means of Data Collections
Existing magnetic flow meter,
continuously recorded
Existing magnetic flow meter,
continuously recorded
Measured twice per day
Refractometer (included in project)
also check manually twice oer day
Existing screw conveyor
feed determined by rprri
Determined for each sulfidity level
by Babcock and Wilcox laboratory
Existing thermometer, manual readout
Existing pressure gauge, manual readout
Existing pressure taps, continuously recorded
Existing thermocouple, continuously recorded
Existing analyzer, continuously recorded
Existing thermocouple, continuously recorded
Existing thermocouple, continuously recorded
Existing orifice, continuously recorded
Wet chemistry analysis
Wet chemistry analysis
Magnetic flowmeter (included in project)
Magnetic flowmeter (included in project)
Barton titrator (included in project)
Barton titrator (included in project)
Sampled twice per day both at boiler exit
and stack
54
-------
the hydrobromic acid cell solution. A constant flow of sample gas
passes through the cell and the sulfur compounds in the sample react
with the bromine. The amount of current supplied to the cell is auto-
matically adjusted by the circuit in the control module to produce
just enough bromine to continuously maintain end-point conditions. The
current flow is thus proportional to the reactive (sulfur) compounds
in the sample. A calibration factor converts current flow to parts
per million of the measured compounds.
The gas flowing through the reaction cell sweeps out a small amount
of bromine. The current required to replace this bromine is the base
line reading. The base line can be adjusted and represents the
equilibrium concentration of free bromine. The exact value is not
critical as long as it is known.
A small sample of flue gas is continuously drawn off at the sample
port on the stack and is split into two sample lines going to two
separate Barton titrators. One measures the total sulfur gases
present in the stack sample. The second measures TRS after a
potassium acid phthalate scrubber has removed the S02- The S02 is
calculated by difference. The phthalate solution is purged continuously
through a specially designed scrubber to prevent SO? carryover. The
gas stream then passes through the titration cell where the remaining
sulfur compounds are oxidized by bromine. The current flow required
to regenerate the consumed bromine from the hydrobromic acid electrolyte
is proportional to the amount of sulfur gases present. The rest of
the testing apparatus includes a rotometer, micrometering valve, and
vacuum pump or water aspirator.
Figure 10 is a schematic flow diagram of the Barton titrator setup
used for testing at No. 3 recovery boiler stack.
Probe - A 1/2 inch stainless steel probe is used to extract the gas
sample from the stack just under the roof line. The sample stream
is split to measure total sulfur compounds and reduced sulfur com-
pounds (TRS).
Scrubber - To measure the reduced sulfur compounds, a scrubber is
provided to remove S02- The scrubber is an acrylic block, drilled
with an "H" shaped chamber. Sample gas is bubbled through 5%
potassium biphthalate solution in one leg, and the overflow solution
and scrubbed gas are separated in the other leg. Liquid is removed
through a seal drop-leg. Scrub solution is metered into the scrubber
at 1/2 to 1 cc per minute from a head bottle, using a piece of ther-
mometer tube as a limiting orifice.
Surge Chamber - Each system contains a surge chamber to help level out
the short term peaks and valleys. Condensed moisture is also removed
at this point.
Cell - The cells are white plastic reaction chambers with an integral
FuWler and electrode fitting.
55
-------
a>
S-
o
ro
O
(O
CQ
-------
Dryers - Gas washer bottles are filled with activated silica gel to
dry the gas leaving the cell. The wet gas is very corrosive from the
bromine swept out of the cell. The dryers protect the control valves.
Flgwmeter - This is an indicator of the flow rate through the reaction
cell. Ball float purge rotometers are used.
Control Valves - Stainless steel needle valves are used to control the
flow.
Aspirator - A water aspirator is used to provide vacuum to draw the
sample" through the system.
The following items are located on the Operator's panel:
Control Module - This is the electronics package that controls the
bromine level in the cell and provides a signal to the recorder. On
the face of the module is a function switch, which turns the unit on
and off, a recorder check button, and a range switch. The range switch
selects the cell current, which will give full scale deflection on the
recorder. Ranges are from 0.1 to 100 milliamps.
Recorder - A two-pen recorder with a 0-100 scale strip chart is used.
This provides a continuous record of TRS and total sulfur emissions.
Integrators - Each pen trace is integrated with time and the total
continuously displayed on a six wheel counter.
With increased operating experience, several changes were made to the
Barton titrator system.
1. A vacuum pump was replaced with a water aspirator for reduced
maintenance and downtime.
2. The cell unit was moved from about 60 feet from the sample point
to within six feet. This reduced the response time and eliminated
a long length of plastic tubing subject to mechanical damage and
leakage. There was also some concern that this long tubing may
have been absorbing and desorbing sulfurous gases during rapid
concentration changes. This was later found to be untrue.
3. A spinning syringe was originally used for calibrating the Barton
titrators. Although this was a satisfactory method, the equip-
ment is delicate, awkward to transport, and requires a source of
compressed air. This method was replaced with a motorized syringe,
which is more compact and easier to use.
Particulate Testing
Particulate tests were run simultaneously on the boiler exit and the
stack with the help of two 2-man testing teams. The majority of tests
lasted 77 minutes, corresponding to one complete "sootblowing cycle."
57
-------
The few exceptions extended over a 2-cycle period (154 minutes). The
boiler itself is equipped with eleven IK sootblowers, the No.l economizer
with another three and the No.2 economizer with six sootblowers. These are
long rectractable tubes with orifices at the sides of the tip. As the
sootblowers spiral in and out of the boiler, high pressure steam blasts
salt cake from the outside of the furnace tubes. The IK's are blown on
a timed sequence, which repeats every 77 minutes.
Isokinetic sampling could not be easily achieved. The flow is channeled
somewhat in the duct and in the high velocity region, maximum flow
through the sampling train was below that required for isokinetic
sampling. A smaller nozzle could not be used because of plugging.
Figure 11 is a graph prepared by NCASI showing the error resulting from
non-isokinetic sampling for different size particles. Each curve
represents a different average particle size. When most of the dust
is smaller than 4.0 microns in size, the error from non-isokinetic
sampling is less than 3.0%. Sizing tests conducted on No. 3 recovery
boiler by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. under another
EPA contract (3) showed that at the boiler exit, all of the particulate
is between 0.1 and 2.0 microns, introducing an error of no more than 1%.
Because of the high dust loading ahead of the precipitator, dry sampling
methods could not be used at this point. A ceramic thimble was tried
for particulate testing at the time of precipitator startup but the
thimble and nozzle plugged rapidly and not a single test could be
completed. The precipitator manufacturer tried the dry thimble method
by using several probes and holders preassembled before the test. When
one filter plugged, it was removed and replaced with a clean one. For
the three tests attempted, 5, 7, and 10 thimbles were used respectively.
There was a great deal of time lost while changing probes and because
some of the thimbles were removed from the holders in the field, there
was a good chance for contamination or loss of dust during the sampling
operation. EPA tried a modified EPA train with an extra large filter.
This also plugged within 15 minutes and the method was abandoned.
Environmental Engineering also attempted to develop a test procedure
for particulate determinations ahead of the precipitator using a modi-
fied EPA train. A wet scrubbing train illustrated in Figure 4, Appendix C
was finally selected for the EPA testing program. This is the same
sampling unit Hoerner Waldorf has successfully employed at Missoula for
particulate testing since 1969.
Particulate emissions at the stack were measured with an EPA train
manufactured by Research Appliance Company. A stainless steel lined
"pitobe" was used. The EPA train is illustrated in Figure 6, Appendix C.
Only the catch from the front half of the EPA train is used to measure
particulate. The impinger train is used only as a condenser so that
the moisture content of the gases sampled can be collected and measured.
Spot checks of scrubber water showed no detectable sodium using a flame
photometer. The justification for using only the front half catch of
the EPA train is documented in Section C, pages 24-30 of NCASI Techni-
cal Bulletin No. 67, "Comparison of Source Particulate Emission
Measurement Methods at Kraft Pvecovery Furnace Stacks."
58
-------
UJ
I—
cc
o
I—,
UJ
cr
oo
UJ
o
C£
LiJ
Q.
CD
CL
to
u
O)
c:
o
l/l
(O
E:
c
c
o
3
"O
o
S-
o
s_
cu
3
cn
•i—
u_
QJ
4-1
cr:
u
4J
O)
o
to
o
s-s
ro
-a
cu
to
to
cu
Q.
X
O
un
o
c\j
o
o
o
O
CO
NOIiVaiN30N03
JO
59
-------
The details of the above two testing procedures for the collection of
particulate matter from the flue gases and the calculations involved
in developing the data are given in Appendix C. Miscellaneous facts
of interest related to the particulate testing program are the following:
1, Plugging of the boiler exit probe sometimes occurred at the first
bend above the nozzle. This was easily cleared by carefully clean-
ing the outside of the probe and tapping the probe at the suspected
plug. The loosened dust is caught and added to the sample before
making up the final volume. Other plugs were washed into the nearest
scrubber with water reserved from the original measured 1000 ml.
2. Testers could judge the difference between high and low particulate
tests by the buildup of particulate on the outside of the probe.
3. For a normal 77 minute test (equivalent to one complete soot-
blowing cycle) about 300 ml of condensate is collected at the stack
and 450 ml at the boiler exit. Volumes significantly different
than this are an immediate flag that abnormal conditions exist in
the boiler or that it is a bad test. Leaks, which occassionally
developed in the train during a test run, resulted in a low water
catch. Such difficulties were encountered only three or four times
during the entire testing program period.
4. When dust was just discernible as a haze when looking across the
stack at the sample ports, the precipitator collection efficiency
was about 99%.
Black Liquor Solids Determination
Samples of liquor were taken during each particulate sampling period.
"Sluice liquor" was taken at the discharge of the pump transferring
liquor from the 63% storage tank to the precipitator sluice tank. The
solids content was determined in the laboratory using a technique
requiring in excess of 24 hours to complete. The details of the method
and the calculations involved are given in Appendix D.
PLAN OF INVESTIGATION
The testing program for No. 3 recovery boiler was initially scheduled
over a three-month period. During each month one of three selected
sulfidity ranges was to be maintained: 26 to 28%, 28 to 30%, and 31 to
33%. Once the proper sulfidity level was established three different
boiler loads were investigated. At each boiler load, three different
air distribution conditions were investigated. Only for normal air
distribution conditions (45/40/15) was total air varied to observe the
effects of excess oxygen (%) on emissions, particularly TRS. This last
investigation was carried out for all sulfidity-boiler load combinations
(nine in all). A grand total of 45 different combinations of process
variables was programmed in the overall testing program.
60
-------
At least two sets of data were desired for each condition. There was
some difficulty at times establishing the proper set of conditions
desired. Excess oxygen (%) and boiler loading were the most difficult
variables to control, particularly the latter since the true boiler
load could not be accurately calculated until the following day due to
the lengthy test procedure required for the determination of black
liquor solids. However, of the 45 conditions desired, 42 were actually
established during the lengthy study and 126 sets of meaningful data
were collected.
In addition to the on-site testing program, composite liquor samples
representative of each sulfidity level were collected and forwarded to
Babcock and Wilcox for complete analysis, including BTU determinations.
Composite samples of particulate matter were also collected and sent
off to a commercial testing laboratory for analysis. A summary of
these analyses is given in Table 19.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM
All testing was carried out during the day shift (8-4). On most days
one test was carried out in the morning and one in the afternoon.
The rather lengthy and involved procedure for particulate sampling
required three to four hours to complete each investigation. Minor
changes in operating conditions were made three to four hours before
resumption of testing to allow conditions to stabilize.
Sulfidity changes required anywhere from seven to fourteen days to
stabilize and reach an equilibrium due to the large total volume of
liquors (black, green, and white) in process through the recovery and
causticizing systems.
Low Sulfidity Range (26-28%)
The first part of the testing program for No. 3 recovery boiler began
on March 5,1973 and was completed on April 4,1973. This was a period of low
sulfidity liquor (26-28%) maintained for one month during which time
boiler load, total air (% excess Q£) and air distribution were
varied to record their effect on particulate emissions, TRS, S02» and
steam flow.
In general, reliable data was obtained without seriously affecting
the operation of No. 3 recovery furnace. The only set of conditions
that did not lend themselves to stable operation was the combination
of low boiler load, air distribution of 55/30/15, and low excess 02(%).
A blackout of the smelt bed curtailed this furnace condition and it
was not repeated.
Table 9 in Appendix G is a detailed tabulation of all the data (39
sets) taken during this low sulfidity period.
61
-------
Table 19
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF BLACK LIQUOR AND PARTICIPATE SAMPLES
Sample Period January'73 March-Apri1'73
Sulfidity Average(%) 29.1 27.3
Black Liquor Solids(%) 57.7 60.2
Gross Heating Value of
Black Liquor(BTU/lb DS)
6520
6510
May-June'73 October173
29.4 31.1
61.4 61.4
6560
6560
Elemental Analysis of Black
Liquor(% on dry basis)
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulfur
Sodium (Na)
Chlorine (Cl)
Inerts
Oxygen(by diff.)
Total Mineral Oxides
Total Sodium as Na?0
Particulate Analysis (%)
Sodium Oxide, Na/,0
Sulfur
Carbon Dioxide
Sodium Sulfate
Sodium Carbonate
Sodium (Na2) not accounted
for stoichiometrically
37.4
4.2
4.2
19.
0.
1
3
,3
.2
33.4
27.1
25.9
43.75
19.01
1.90
94.10
4.57
0.0
37.4
4.2
4.6
18.
0.
0.8
34.0
,7
3
26.0
25.2
42.87
20.97
0.86
92.86
2.07
0.84
37.0
3.9
4.
19.
0.
0.5
34.5
,7
,1
.3
25.7
43.01
21.63
0.64
95.72
1.53
0.25
62
-------
Normal Sulfidity Range (28-30%)
The second part of the testing program for No. 3 recovery boiler began
on April 11, 1973. This was to be a period of normal sulfidity liquor
(28-30%) maintained for one month during which time boiler load, total
air (% excess 02) and air distribution were varied in order to deter-
mine their effect on particulate emissions, TRS, SOg, and steam flow.
This phase of the testing program was completed on July 17, 1973
following a temporary interruption in testing during June.
Table 10 in Appendix G is a detailed tabulation of all the data (48
sets) taken during the normal sulfidity period.
High Sulfidity Range (31-33%)
The third part of the testing program for high sulfidity (31-33%)
liquor began on July 25, 1973. The program was temporarily interrupted
during August and September and resumed in October. This portion of
the testing program was completed on November 10, 1973. Table 11 in
Appendix G is a detailed tabulation of all data (39 sets) taken during
the high sulfidity period.
OPERATING EXPERIENCES AND OBSERVATIONS AT DIFFERENT CONDITIONS
ESTABLISHED FOR THE TESTING PROGRAM
Black Liquor Solids
The original objective was to hold the true black liquor solids
constant at 61 percent during the EPA testing. However, during the
course of the project, operations found that higher black liquor solids
improved the furnace operation and took steps to raise the percent
solids. Table 20 summarizes the increasing trend of black liquor
solids during the three testing periods.
Table 20
SUMMARY OF BLACK LIQUOR SOLIDS FOR EACH TESTING PERIOD
Testing Period % Solids % Solids Range
Low Sulfidity (26-28) 59.9 58.7 - 61.0
Normal Sulfidity (28-30) 61.6 59.1 - 64.5
High Sulfidity (31-33) 62.9 59.4 - 65.9
The reasons for the increased emphasis on achieving a higher level of
black liquor solids are based on the fact that the net BTU's per pound
of liquor increases with higher solids. This in turn results in a
hotter furnace and in particular, a hotter bed. The operational benefits
in maintaining a hotter bed are the following:
63
-------
1. For a given sulfidity level, SCL emissions will be lower. It has
been theorized by Borg et al (4; that a hotter bed will vaporize
or sublime greater quantities of sodium which will combine with
S02 to form Na^SC^. Thus, S02 emissions will decrease with a
corresponding increase in particulate emissions. It was generally
felt, however, than an increase in particulate would be easier to
control (in the high efficiency precipitator) than high S02
emissions. The latter cannot easily be contained in a "controlled
odor" recovery system that does not have a direct contact evaporator.
2. With a hotter bed, smelt spout pluggage is less of a problem. The
unplugging of spouts in an active furnace is a potentially dangerous
activity. Explosions can occur when a high smelt run off contacts
the weak wash in the dissolving tank.
3. The risk of black outs (loss of fire in the bed) is reduced with
a hot bed.
4. Greater steam production is realized with a hotter bed. There is
a net BTU increase per pound of liquor entering the boiler and
less water to be evaporated with higher liquor solids. This net
increase in available heat is utilized for steam production.
Air Distribution
Three different air distributions were studied in this project. They
were: 55/30/15%; 45/40/15%; and 35/50/15%. The three figures in each
group represent the percentage of primary, secondary and tertiary air,
respectively, used to fire the boiler. All three of these air dis-
tributions were evaluated for all combinations of boiler loading and
sulfidity level established.
Prior to this study, operations had been using a 45/40/15% air distri-
bution as the norm. It was felt this air distribution resulted in a
relatively low volume of total combustion air as well as a relatively
low and fairly constant boiler exit dust load, both of which tend to
improve precipitator efficiency. Boiler testing carried out in the past
using a 35/50/15% air distribution indicated erratic and frequent
above-design boiler exit grain loadings. (Design boiler exit grain
loading is 8.0 gr/SDCF). Operations had some difficulty with the
55/30/15 air distribution and in some instances could not fire the
boiler using this air distribution at low boiler loadings (75%). The
difficulty centered around the inability to build a smelt bed with a
high percentage of primary air. At higher boiler loadings, no diffi-
culties were encountered, nor were the earlier experiences with blackouts
and spout plugging repeated.
Boiler Loading
Three different boiler loadings were studied in this project. They
were 75%, 100%, and 110% of design solids loading. Three different
sulfidity levels and three different air distribution conditions were
then investigated at each of the three target boiler loadings.
64
-------
All 126 sets of data collected during the course of the baste EPA
test program have been grouped by boiler loading, sulfidity level, and
air distribution and summarized in Tables 21, 22, 23. It is seen that
with increasing boiler loading, a higher steam production results. The
tabulated data also bears out the fact that as boiler loading increases
so does the dust load to the precipitator.
Operations did not have any great difficulties firing the boiler at
any of the three boiler loadings. However, boiler pluggage due to
salt cake buildup on the economizer tubes was a significant problem at
overload conditions. Under these conditions, the boiler would have to
be taken off liquor approximately every ten days for cleaning and
sometimes the economizer internals would have to be water washed.
Precipitator inlet gas temperatures also increased at overload condi-
tions. This resulted from poor heat transfer at No. 2 economizer
because the tubes would become covered with salt cake. The maximum
design precipitator inlet temperature is 450°F. This temperature
cannot be exceeded due to temperature limitations of the precipitator
tile used in precipitator construction. Normal precipitator inlet
temperatures are around 400°F. However, during one series of over-
load testing, the boiler had to be shut down and cleaned because higher
temperatures were developing.
High boiler loads also required more frequent air port cleanings to
avoid pluggage. If the air ports at the primary air level would plug
over, the bed would black out as well as plug the spouts. This extreme
was not reached, but closer supervision was required.
Precipi tator Ef f i ciency
During the second testing period with normal sulfidity liquor (28-30%)
in late April and early May, there was a marked decrease noted in
precipitator efficiencies. Operating personnel at first attributed this
decrease to the corresponding increase in sulfidity. However, an
inspection of the precipitator revealed the need for realignment of
the weight frame. After this realignment, the precipitator efficiencies
still did not regain the high levels of 99% obtained in March. A second
inspection revealed an access door located on the outlet closure plate
had been left open during the weight frame realignment. With the
closure of this door, subsequent precipitator efficiencies reached
earlier high levels. Apparently, the open access door allowed suffi-
cient quantities of salt cake to bypass the plates and wires, resulting
in a drop in precipitator collection efficiency. During the remainder
of the test program, no efficiency decreased resulted from precipitator
malfunctioning. Higher sulfidity did not appear to contribute to result in
lower efficiencies during the last portion of the test program.
The particulate data obtained during the above abnormal periods of
operation, resulting in precipitator collection efficiencies below 98.5%,
were excluded from the final analysis of data described in SECTION XIV
of this report.
65
-------
Table 21a
SUMMARY OF LOW BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading (%)
Target
Actual
Sulf1d1ty(%)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution(%)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume (M ft3/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Precipitator(lbs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
75
73-77
26-28
27-28
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.2-2.5
3/28,29
3
260-262
143-146
2745-
3212
8.9-9.4
99.7
1.9-4.0
16-21
170-180
75
74
26-28
27
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.2
3/27
2
272
143
3190
12.5
99.6
2.7
20
170
>
75
74-80
28-30
30-31
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.8-3.0
5/29,30
4
298-307
144-167
3120-
3950
14-36
99.1-99.6
0.8-2.4
1-51
175-190
66
75
86-88
28-30
28
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.4
6/26
2
340
191-195
3466-
4192
28-30
99.1*993
9.8
191
205-207
75
82-86
28-30
28
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
1.0-1.5
6/20,25
3
277-302
145-172
2521-
3241
22-34
987-99J3
5.4-16
206-329
190-207
75
84-85
31-33
32
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.2-2.4
10/23,24
4
279-290
153-172
2061-
3119
16-47
97.7-995
13-17
464-480
180-190
75
81
31-33
33
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.0
11/10
1
305
154
3302
16
99.5
4.7
124
210
75
89-91
31-33
33
45/40/1
0.5-1.5
0.7
10/25
2
273-277
148-164
3094-
3300
17-28
99,1-99.5
45
352
190-200
-------
Table 21b
SUMMARY OF LOW BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading(%)
Target
Actual
Sulfidity(%)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution(%)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume(M ft^/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Precipitator(lbs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
75
76-78
26-28
22-28
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.0-2.7
4/2,3
2
280-288
145
2857-
3548
7.2-8.6
99.7^99.?
6.6-7.8
42-52
180-185
75
75-76
26-28
25-27
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.2
3/30
4/4
2
252-258
145-151
3277-
3627
3.3-7.9
99.7-99.9
1.3-16
4-120
180-185
75
86-87
28-30
28-30
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
1.9-2.0
6/27,28
3
312-317
153-170
2145-
3568
19-25
99. 0-99. E
19
223-242
190-201
67
75
83-89
28-30
28
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.1-3.0
7/11,12
3
302-312
158-167
3184-
3956
36-41
98. 8-99. C
0-0.2
36-51
190-212
75
77-85
31-33
32-33
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.3-3.0
11/2,9
3
295-315
145-157
2811-
3142
15-33
99.. 0-99.
3.0-21.6
47-260
190-210
75
79-88
31-33
31
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.3-3.0
11/6,7
3
254-267
139-164
2363-
3212
16-18
99.3-99.
14.2-14.
117-335
177-200
-------
Table 22a
SUMMARY OF NORMAL BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading(%)
Target
Actual
Sulfid1ty(%)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution^)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume (M ft^/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Precipitator(lbs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
100
99-102
26-28
27
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.0-2.4
3/15,26
4
343-366
189-209
2756-
4297
26-34
989-99,4
4.6-4.9
13-34
230-235
100
100-101
26-28
28
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.6
3/19
2
384
200-216
3619-
4679
37-40
989-99.2
0.9
46
230
100
101
26-28
26
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
1.0
3/16
2
325-327
182-183
3691-
4350
32-34
99.1-993
15.9
13.4
232-235
68
TOO
97-103
28-30
31
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.2-2.8
4/30
5/1
4
375-383
213-227
3976-
5001
57-81
980-989
1.5-1.7
28-128
230-250
100
106
28-30
31
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.6
5/2
1
419
211
4694
137
97.5
4.1
17
240
1
100
100-102
28-30
30
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
1.2
5/4
2
346-357
190
4565-
4821
27-39
99.1-99.4
58
96
235-240
100
98
31-33
32
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1.8-2.2
10/18,19
3
331-342
172-187
3523-
3720
24-42
98B-99.4
17-74
295-433
225-230
100
105-10
31-33
33
45/40/
3.5-4.!
3.6
10/29
2
385-40'
197-19?
4031-
4073
50r57
98£-98£
6.6
151
225-230
i
-------
Table 22b
SUMMARY OF NORMAL BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading(%)
Target
Actual
SulfidityU)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution(%)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume(M ft^/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Precipitator(lbs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
i
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
100
105-107
31-33
33
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
2.0
10/30
2
338-349
157-175
3828-
4102
32-35
99.1-902
18.1
77
225-230
100
96-100
26-28
27-28
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.2-2.4
3/20,21
4
370-373
193-209
3001-
3881
28-32
99.1-99.3
7.3-7.5
44-55
223-225
.
100
101-103
26-28
27-28
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.5-3.5
3/22,23
4
340-371
191-218
3531-
4248
31-43
99D-992
9.5-13.9
63-77
225-232
69
100
105-106
28-30
29-30
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.0-2.4
5/7,8
4
397-419
203-217
5200-
6794
61-102
98.1-989
2.6-4.5
24-42
235-245
100
95-105
28-30
29-31
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.4-2.8
4/24,26
5/9,11
8
343-382
189-214
3761-
5070
32-52
987-99.4
1.0-3.7
11-122
225-240
100
95-104
31-33-
32-33
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.6
11/1,2
3
350-366
182-195
3639-
4002
26-29
99.3
16-24
215-256
220-235
100
92-99
31-33
31-33
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.4-3.0
8/6
11/5,6
5
328-342
186-194
2640-
5163
41-88
97.8-9a6
6.3
291
218-225
-------
Table 23a
SUMMARY OF HIGH BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading(%)
Target
Actual
Sulfidity(%)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution(%)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume(M ft^/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Preci pi tator( Ibs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
no
108-111
26-28
27-28
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2.0
3/5,6
4
391-395
217-231
4303-
5408
53-69
98J5-9aO
0.1-2.0
9-13
245-255
no
108-110
26-28
27
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
0.7
3/7
2
367-377
209-214
5236-
5370
74
98.6
25.5
18.5
250-255
i
no
106-114
28-30
28-29
45/40/1E
2.0-3.0
2.4-2.5
4/11,12,
4/16
5
405-424
218-234
3692-
5671
97-119
97.3-908
0.9-10.1
39-148
240-260
70
no
no-m
28-30
27-28
45/40/1 £
3.5-4.5
3.3
4/17
2
428-429
231-237
4384-
5100
81-106
97.6-984
1.8
16-5
250-255
no
no
28-30
28
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
1.0
4/13
2
388-392
216-217
4440-
5107
51-64
98.8
26.5
196
255-260
no
110-117
31-33
32
45/40/1 £
2.0-3.0
2.0-2.2
7/25,26
5
370-398
201-216
4181-
6195
50-77
986-939
7.6-21
215-353
235-245
no
109-113
31-33
32
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3.2
7/30
2
403-409
206-215
4382-
4954
65-72
985-9^6
11.4
40
235
no
105-1
31-33
33
45/40,
0.5-1
0.8
8/2
2
356-3]
189-22
4864
72
98.5
6.8
280
240
i
-------
Table 23b
SUMMARY OF HIGH BOILER LOAD CONDITION DATA
Boiler Loading(%)
Target
Actual
Sulfidity(%)
Target
Actual
Air Distribution(%)
Target
Excess 02 (%)
Target
Actual
Test Dates
Number of Data
Sets Collected
Total Air(M Ibs/hr)
Precipitator Inlet
Volume (M ft3/min)
Parti cul ate Load to
Precipitator(lbs/hr)
Parti cul ate Load
at Stack(lbs/hr)
Precipitator
Efficiency(%)
TRS (ppm)
S02 (ppm)
Steam Flow(M Ibs/hr)
110
106-108
26-28
27-28
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
1.5-1.7
3/8,9
4
415-416
220-231
5373-
6295
48-66
99.0-99.2
3.5-4.0
15.5-17.5
255-260
no
116-118
26-28
28
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.4-2.7
3/12,13
4
386-401
235-248
4019-
6400
84-98
97.6-987
2.5-2.6
51-78
245-260
no
107-116
28-30
28-29
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.0
4/18,23
3
415-416
215-224
4882-
5848
49-110
980-99.2
4.8-8.4
27-36
250-255
71
no
110
28-30
30
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
2.0
4/27
2
>
376 •
219-225
4888-
5104
58-64
988-989
1.9
52
240-245
no
105-106
31-33
31
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
2.1
7/31
2
376-393
200-202
4039-
4600
51-52
987-989
18
455
220-225
-------
Whenever the precipitator was down for cleaning or to permit boiler
cleaning, it took at least 24 hours for the electrical readings to
settle down. This can only be explained by cold moist air entering
the precipitator when inspection doors are open, causing the salt
cake to set up on the wires. Because of the affinity of salt cake for
water, the salt cake will actually grow on the wires, eventually
building up to the point of causing sparking. During the first 24
hours of operation, the precipitator is actually "drying out." When
it is dry, most of the salt cake can be rapped from the wires and
normal operation will return.
72
-------
SECTION XIV
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
At the completion of the EPA testing program it was possible to
analyze all the data (126 sets) and establish the relationships
between recovery boiler emissions (TRS, S02, and particulate) and
the various operating parameters monitored such as boiler loading,
liquor sulfidity, total air flow, air distribution, and excess
oxygen maintained at the boiler exit. This analysis was accom-
plished statistically with the aid of an IBM System 370 (Model 135)
computer using Multiple Regression Analysis.
The method of least squares was used to derive the several equations
which best express the relationships developed from the extensive
data available for analysis. This method of analysis minimizes the
weighted sum of squares of deviations of the data from the function
being fit.
CORRELATION MATRIX DEVELOPMENT AND STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
All the data were processed by the computer program in order initially
to establish a matrix of the correlation coefficients for each
variable with all other variables. This matrix contained 36 different
correlation coefficients which indicated the degree of association
existing between the variables. The eighteen coefficients listed in
the table on page 75 show the relationships between the independent
variables (operating parameters) and the dependent variables (emissions).
Once the correlation matrix was established, a stepwise multiple
regression analysis was performed on each dependent variable. The
result was an overall linear equation that expressed the cumulative
relationships of the various independent variables on each dependent
variable.
A "coefficient of multiple determination" was also computed. It is
commonly noted as "R^" and indicates the proportion of the variance
in the dependent variable which is accounted for by the relationship
with each independent variable. R-squared values can only fall be-
tween zero and one. A low coefficient would usually indicate that
the dependent variable was not being adequately represented by the
independent variables selected in the equation.
Although the total air flow might be considered an independent
variable, it was actually pre-determined to a large extent by the
boiler loading condition established and the desired excess oxygen
target. The very high coefficient of 0.906 obtained between total
air flow and boiler loading bears this out. The presence of total
air flow as an independent variable when first carrying out the
73
-------
stepwise multiple regression analysis on participate emissions
resulted in its predominance over and exclusion of boiler loading
in the overall analysis. By excluding total air flow from this
part of the analysis, this problem was resolved.
The results of the statistical analyses can be more easily under-
stood by examining the summaries on the next two pages.
For example, in the analysis of Boiler Exit Dust Load, the most
significant independent variable affecting this emission was found
to be boiler loading. The R-SQ (R2) value of 0.673 is a measure of
the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (boiler exit
dust load) that is accounted for by the linear association of the
independent variable (boiler loading) included in the equation.
The second most significant (contributory) independent variable is
sulfidity which brings the cumulative R-SQ value up to 0.700 (70%).
Introducing additional independent variables into the overall
linear equation relationship does not improve the R-SQ value.
The remaining 30% of variation in the dependent variable is attri-
buted to the influence of other variables not monitored,as well as
the random fluctuations in the data resulting from test procedures
or instrumentation variability. Other variables not measured that
are recognized as affecting emissions are smelt bed height, bed
temperature, and the degree of air turbulence in the boiler.
The "F" Value is a measure of the statistical significance of the
relationships being developed, the higher the "F" Value the greater
the significance.
The results of this stepwise analysis are the following:
Boiler Exit Dust Load
Boiler exit dust load was found to be primarily affected by boiler
loading and to a much lesser extent by sulfidity. Of the 70% of
total variation in emissions accounted for by these two independent
variables, 97% of that portion was attributable to boiler loading
and oniy 3% to sulfidity. No further improvement (increase) was
obtained in the "coefficient of multiple determination ($R^)" when
the other two independent variables, excess oxygen and air distri-
bution, were taken into account.
Precipitator Outlet Dust Load
The particulate emission from the precipitator (sampled at the stack)
was found to be primarily dependent on boiler loading and to a very
minor degree on sulfidity in the linear equation developed for these
two independent variables. Of the 71.7% of total variation in emissions
accounted for by these two variables, 99% of that portion was attri-
butable to boiler loading. Taking the other two independent variables
into account, 72.1% of the total variation in commissions was accounted
for.
74
-------
The Correlation Matrix Using Daily Average Data Points
Independent Variables Examined: Air Distribution, Boiler Loading,
Sulfidity, Excess Oxygen, Total Air Flow
Dependent Variables Analyzed: TRS Emissions, S02 Emissions, Boiler
Exit Dust Load, and Precipitator
Outlet Dust Load
1. Summary of Correlation Coefficients for Dependent
Variables
Independent Variables(IV)
Air Distribution
Boiler Loading
Sulfidity
Total Air Flow
Excess Oxygen
2. Boiler Exit Dust Load
and Independent
Dependent Variables
Boiler Exit
Dust Load
-0.008
0.821
-0.129
*
-0.235
Analysis
Precipitator
Outlet Dust
0.049
0.844
0.106
*
-0.175
TRS
Load
-0.094
0.051
0.256
-0.104
-0.413
S02
-0.088
0.064
0.574
-0.204
-0.217
Significant Variable "F" Value **^R2
1. Boiler Loading 119.57 0.673
2. Sulfidity 66.42 0.700
3. Excess Oxygen 43.60 0.700
4. Air Distribution 32.13 0.700
Multiple Linear Equation for Two Independent Variables
Boiler Exit Dust Load . 59.5 (Boiler Loading %) - 70.2 (Sulfidity %) + 398
Relative Contribution of IV: 97% 3%
* Excluded from analysis due to complications in stepwise multiple
regression analysis resulting from high correlation (0.906) of
Total Air Flow and Boiler Loading.
** Coefficient of Multiple Determination (Percentage of total
variability accounted for by relationship between dependent and
independent variables).
75
-------
3. Precipitator Outlet Dust Load Analysis
Significant Variable "F" Value £ R2
1. Boiler Loading 143.59 0.712
2. Sulfidity 72.37 0.717
3. Air Distribution 48.30 0.721
4. Excess Oxygen 35.58 0.721
Multiple Linear Equation for Two Independent Variables
Precipitator Outlet Dust Load -
1.36 (Boiler Loading %) -0.7 (Sulfidity %} -112
Relative Contribution of IV: 99% 1%
4. TRS Emission Analysis
Significant Variable "F" Value $ R2
1. Excess Oxygen 11.90 0.170
2. Sulfidity 10.28 0.265
3. Total Air Flow 7.28 0.281
4. Boiler Loading 5.87 0.299
5. Air Distribution 4.97 0.315
Multiple Linear Equation for Two Independent Variables
TRS Emissions = 1.97 (Sulfidity %) -8.68 (Excess 02%) -27.6
Relative Contribution of IV: 30% 70%
5. S02 Emission Analysis
Significant Variable "F" Value ^R2
1. Sulfidity 28.47 0.329
2. Excess Oxygen 19.98 0.412
3. Total Air Flow 15.97 0.461
4. Boiler Loading 12.58 0.478
5. Air Distribution 10.79 0.500
Multiple Linear Equation for Two Independent Variables
S02 Emissions = 37.6 (Sulfidity %) -54.6 (Excess 02%) -857
Relative Contribution of IV: 85% 15%
76
-------
TRS Emissions
The total reduced sulfur (TRS) gas emissions were found to be
primarily dependent on excess oxygen levels and sulfidity. It is
quite revealing and disappointing that only 26.5% of the variations
in TRS were accounted for by these two variables. Of this total,
70% of that portion was attributable to excess oxygen and 30% to
sulfidity. Taking into account all five of the independent variables,
only 31.5% of the variation in TRS was accounted for.
SO? Emissions
The sulfur dioxide (S02) emissions were found to be primarily
dependent on sulfidity and excess oxygen. Of the 41.2% of total
variation in S02 emissions accounted for by these two variables,
85% of that portion was attributable to sulfidity and 15% to excess
oxygen. Taking the other three independent variables into account,
50% of the variation in S02 was accounted for.
POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Once having established the primary relationships existing between
the four dependent variables and the independent variables, straight
line equations could be established for further analysis. A
regression line was fit to the data by the method of least squares,
the most significant independent variable being selected in each
case to give the most meaningful relationship. These results are
summarized on the next page.
77
-------
POLYNOMIAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
1. Boiler Exit Dust Load (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X) - Figure 12
a. All data combined (n = 125) Y = 62.IX - 1940
2. Precipitator Outlet Dust Load (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X) - Figure 13
a. All data combined (n = 108) Y = 1.33X - 89
3. TRS Emission (Y) vs. Excess 02 (X) - Figures 14 and 19
a. All data combined (n = 67) Y = 29.7 - 8.3X
b. Separation of data by sulfidity level
low sulfidity (n = 22) Y = 16.0 - 4.2X
normal sulfidity (n = 27) Y = 30.9 - 9.8X
high sulfidity (n = 18) Y = 56.7 - 15.6X
4. Log S02 Emissions (Y) vs. Sulfidity (X) - Figures 15 and 20
a. All data included (n =69) Y = .13X - 2.0
b. Data separation by excess 02 level
low excess 02(0-1.95%) (n = 15) Y = .16X - 2.7
normal excess 02(2.00-3.001) (n =45) Y = .13X - 1.9
high excess 02(3.10-4.001)(n = 9) Analysis not significant
5. Total Air Flow 00 vs. Excess 02 (X) for only 45/40/15 Air Distribution
a. separation oT data by boiler load
low loading (n = 21) Analysis not significant
normal loading (n = 22) Y = 310.5 + 22.88X
high loading (n = 25) Y = 358.5 + 18.48X
6. Total Air Flow (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X) - Figures 16 and 21
(TAP "corrected" to 2.0% excess oxygen prior to analysis)
a. All data combined (n = 126) Y = 27.3 + 3.37X
b. Separation of data by air distribution
35/50/15 (n = 28) Y = 19.2 + 3.59X
45/40/15 (n =67) Y = 33.7 + 3.28X
55/30/15 (n = 31) Y = 16.9 + 3.41X
7. Steam Production (Yjvs. Boiler Loading (X) - Figure 17
a. All data combined (n = 125) Y = 37.8 + 1.9X
8. Precipitator Collection Efficiency (Y_) vs. inlet Gas Volume (X.) - Figure 18
a. All data combined (n=107) Y - 100.78 - .009X
70
-------
Some discretion was used in data input for this analysis. In the
case of Precipitator Outlet Dust Load data, several sets of data
resulted in calculated precipitator efficiencies below 98.5%. As
previously indicated in SECTION XIII, investigation into precipitator
operation revealed abnormal conditions that resulted in high particulate
emissions at the stack and consequent low collection efficiencies.
For this reason these questionable sets of data (14 in all) were not
included in the statistical analysis carried out on precipitator
outlet dust load, the results of which are shown in Figure 13.
In the case of TRS and S0£ emissions, average data taken over a period
of approximately eight hours corresponding to the overall period of
particulate testing on a particular day was utilized in the program to
improve somewhat the variability of the data and also to make the
analysis more relevant to daily average data routinely compiled by
the mill. Further, in the case of S02 a log transformation of data
was used to eliminate the large spread of S02 data encountered.
Figures 12 - 21 inclusive illustrate the major relationships estab-
lished from the data analysis. Confidence limits of 95% were also
calculated for the emissions of the TRS, S02,and particulate in
order to predict the range of the individual values for the dependent
variable in each case. These confidence limits are indicated by the
dotted lines in Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 and indicate the spread
anticipated for 95% of all possible data points.
For the Boiler Exit Dust Load relationship shown in Figure 12, the
average dust load at 100% boiler loading is 4270 Ib/hr. However, the
probable range of data at this boiler loading would be 3000 to 5550 Ib/hr.
It is interesting to note that the maximum dust load emission from
the No. 3 recovery boiler at design load indicated by Babcock and
Wilcox is 5520 Ib/hr. (8.0 gr/SDCF). This value agrees very well
with the upper statistical limit established from the actual test data.
Figure 13 gives the relationship between Precipitator Outlet Dust
Load and boiler loading. At design boiler loading (100%), the average
particulate emissions from the precipitator are 44 Ib/hr. This value
is within the Montana State Emission Standard for No. 3 recovery,
calculated to be 45.3 Ib/hr. Figure 13 indicates a probable range of
21 to 66 Ib/hr. for particulate emissions at 100% boiler loading.
This range of values, as well as the general average, is well supported
by Period 4 data found in Table 10.
The recent installation of a Lear Siegler Transmissometer on No. 3
recovery stack to monitor particulate emissions on a continuous basis
and the more stable operation of the recovery boiler under relatively
fixed conditions of air distribution, excess oxygen, and liquor sulfidity
tend to reduce the variability or range of particulate emissions at
any given boiler loading.
79
-------
-------
-------
Figure 14 gives the relationship between TRS emissions and excess
oxygen. The regression analysis of all EPA test data collected over
wide range of operating conditions indicates that an excess oxygen
level of at least 1.5% must be maintained so that the daily average
TRS emissions from the boiler do not exceed the Montana State Emission
Standard of 17.5 ppm. The 95% confidence limits indicate a probable
range of zero to 33 ppm for TRS emissions at a "normal" excess oxygen
level of 2.5%. However, under normal conditions of boiler operations
with more stable conditions of liquor sulfidity, air distribution,
and excess oxygen, the 95% confidence limits would be considerably
reduced.
Figure 15 gives the relationship between S0£ emissions and liquor
sulfidity. The regression analysis indicates that average S02
emissions can be maintained below 100 ppm if the sulfidity level does
not exceed 31%. The 95% confidence limits indicate a probable range of
S02 emissions from 12 ppm to 870 ppm at the 31% sulfidity level. At
a sulfidity level of 26% the range is 2.6 to 204 ppm.
Figure 16 gives the relationship between Total Air Flow and boiler
loading, fhis is a basic relationship that does not require a statis-
tical analysis for confirmation. The application of statistics to
define a meaningful regression analysis in this case was somewhat
more complex than the other relationships examined. Total air flow
requirements are primarily determined by the amount of black liquor
solids fed to the boiler that require complete combustion. It was
recognized that total air was affected by the excess oxygen level
maintained at the boiler exit and possibly also by the air distri-
bution between primary, secondary, and tertiary air flows. In order
to establish a meaningful relationship between total air flow and
boiler loading, the effects of both air distribution and excess oxygen
variations had to be minimized or eliminated entirely from the data.
This was accomplished by taking only the normal air distribution
(45/40/15) data and establishing the regression analysis for total
air flow vs. excess oxygen. Once this was done, total air flow data
was "corrected" to 2.0% excess oxygen in order to get all data points
on the same basis for further analysis. It was found that approximately
20,000 Ib/hr. of air was necessary to increase the excess oxygen level
by 1% (from 1.5% to 2.5%). "Corrected" total air flow data was then
used for the regression analysis with boiler loading and a meaningful
relationship was established. Figure 16 indicates that at 100% boiler
loading the average total air flow required to maintain 2.0% excess
oxygen is 365,000 Ib/hr. The 95% confidence limits indicate a probable
range of 305,000 to 425,000 Ib/hr. at 100% load.
Figure 17 gives the relationship between steam production and boiler
loading. The regression analysis indicates that for 100% boiler
loading the average steam generated by the No. 3 recovery boiler is
228,000 Ib/hr. This is fairly close to the 235,000 Ib/hr. rating for
the boiler at design load. At 75% boiler loading the steam availability
is 181,000 Ib/hr. and at 110% boiler loading the steam availability
is 247,000 Ib/hr.
82
-------
m
TTT
m
•m-
I
WJs
77V
\
\
Eia'iss
IU
*-- *- - ^+
3 s:
T\—
rt^-
-------
-~
^-?-;Q t ' "-^^-~^--^-^^=t=--^
r--t-t — - t~.-—~ '~~'''' " ~~~~~'^~'"
~.-—~ ',~t~'''' " 7~r:r~~~~r'^~r'"
4^44-H^H-j^J-Lp-i
-u- -i_i -1 -Li_L_L_i—L-1 , ij__j
29 30
'Sulfldity (%}
Figure 15 S02 Emissions vs. Sulfidity
with 95% Confidence Limits for Individual Data Points
-------
-------
-------
Figure 18 gives the relationship between precipitator collection
efficiency and precipitator inlet gas volume developed from an analysis
of all sets of data collected. This regression analysis resembles
very closely the expected performance curve developed by the manufac-
turer for the No. 3 electrostatic precipitator. The design data for
this unit indicates a 99.125% collection efficiency at a gas volume of
207,000 ACFM. The result obtained from the statistical analysis of
all data is 98.92%, which agrees quite well with the design figure
considering the wide range of operating conditions investigated.
ANALYSIS OF SUB-RELATIONSHIPS (INTERACTION OF OPERATING VARIABLES)
The stepwise analysis of the cumulative significance of the various
independent variables on each dependent variable indicated that in the
case of both TRS and S02 emissions, the second most significant
variable was sufficiently important to warrant a regression analysis of
subsets.
In order to determine the sub-relationships of the variables being
examined, the regression coefficient (slope) of the regression line
for each subset of data was compared with the slope of the overall
regression line. If there is a significant difference (at a 95%
confidence level) between the slopes, it was concluded that the slope
of the subset data is not the same as the slope of the universe
regression line for all data as estimated by the sample line and its
confidence limits. If the difference in slopes was not significant,
the value of the dependent variable (Y) in the subset of the mean point
(X) of the independent variable was compared with the confidence
limits for the Y intercept of the overall regression line computed at
the mean (T). If that difference is statistically significant, it was
concluded that the Y intercepts are not the same and a family of curves
exist.
For the TRS Emission vs. Excess Oxygen relationship, subsets of data for
three target sulfidity levels were analyzed. The results are indicated
in Figure 19 and summarized in Appendix F. Only the analysis of
normal sulfidity data compared favorably with the slope and intercept
limits for the overall regression line. Both the low and high sul-
fidity data sets showed markedly different slopes and intercepts.
This suggests different relationships for all three subsets of
sulfidity data. It is interesting to note that although the slopes
of the three sulfidity regression lines in Figure 19 are very different,
the low and normal sulfidity lines converge in the normal excess oxygen
range of 2.0 to 3.0%. This bears out experience and observations at
the mill that very little difference in TRS emissions is noted until
higher sulfidity liquor is being processed. At an excess oxygen level
of 2.5%, low sulfidity TRS emissions average 6 ppm; those for normal
sulfidity average 7 ppm; those for high sulfidity shift appreciably
up to 18 ppm. This difference in TRS levels was also revealed in the
cumulative percentage plot of daily average TRS data (Figure 7)
discussed in Section XII of this report. There we found that the data
curves for low and normal sulfidity values were essentially the same,
this plot indicating a TRS average of 7 ppm at the 50% cumulative data
87
-------
-------
-------
level. The average TRS value obtained from the high sulfidity curve
was 13 ppm at the same 50% data level.
For the S02 Emission vs. Sulfidity relationship, subsets of data for
three different excess oxygen levels were analyzed since this variable
was the second most significant one revealed in the correlation
matrix analysis. Even though excess oxygen contributed 30% to the
overall regression line for two independent variables, the regression
coefficients (slopes) for all excess oxygen subsets are found to be
within the confidence limits of the regression coefficient of the
overall data. The intercepts for the subsets also fall within the
95% confidence limits for the overall intercept limits. These re-
sults suggest that the overall regression line describes the relation-
ship between SO^ emissions and sulfidity for all excess oxygen
conditions. This is not too surprising in view of the wide range
of S02 values indicated by the 95% confidence limits established in
Figure 15. The regression lines for low and normal excess oxygen
subsets are illustrated in Figure 20. The regression analysis for
high excess oxygen was not statistically significant (low "F" value
obtained), probably due to small amount of data available for analysis
in the 3.10% to 4.00% excess oxygen range.
An analysis of subsets was also made for the Total Air Flow vs. Boiler
Loading relationship described earlier in order to ascertain the effect
of air distribution on this relationship. Although the regression
coefficients for all three subsets fall within the overall_regression
coefficient limits, the intercepts (Y) at the mean point (X) are
significantly different. This indicates a family of curves (regression
lines) that are illustrated in Figure 21. These results support the
observation that more total air was required to maintain proper
combustion conditions in the recovery boiler when primary air was low
(35%). The increase in total air flow required over "normal" primary
air (45%) was 16,000 Ibs/hr. , almost the same incremental increase in
air flow required when increasing the level of excess oxygen from
1.5% to 2.5% for the normal (45/40/15) air distribution condition.
90
-------
AQQQ-
[-900--
•• • t.
JKXH] U---J-- 1L;-:—_j
lf^06-B—
i£Q£
TT-T-TI-^rt L' '
T9 30
Sulfidity (%)
Figure 20 SQz Emissions vs. Sulfidity
Overall Relationship and Sub-relationshjps for Excess 03 (%)
Ql
-------
-------
SECTION XV
EXPANDED TEST PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The basic EPA test program carried out during the period March-October,
1973 was intended to establish the effect of major variables such as
boiler loading, sulfidity level, air distribution combinations, and
excess oxygen on boiler emissions (TRS, SO;?, and particulate). During
the course of this testing program, it became apparent that other
operating variables were also having some effect on emissions.
An additional month of testing on No. 3 recovery boiler was therefore
programmed in order to investigate these additional operating variables
felt to be of some significance in overall emission control. These
included:
Liquor solids
Liquor temperature
Nozzle size vs. nozzle pressure
Secondary windbox pressure
Tertiary windbox pressure
Salt cake addition
The data sheets for this additional test program will be found in
Appendix H.
PLAN OF INVESTIGATION
The expanded program was carried out during January and February,
1974. In so far as possible, boiler loading, sulfidity, air distri-
bution, and excess oxygen were maintained fairly uniform within normal
limits for each of these variables. For the expanded program, only
the one operating variable being investigated was varied while all
others were held constant. At least two sets of data were taken for
each set of conditions investigated; in some cases four sets of data
were taken.
Liquor solids at both low (56-58%) and high (64-66%) solids level
in the recovery boiler feed liquor were investigated during a four-day
test period. All other conditions were fairly stable during this period.
Boiler loading ranged from 87% to 102%, sulfidity from 27.4% to 28.9%.
Liquor temperature was lowered from a normal level of 250°F to 220-225°F
for a two-day period and four tests were carried out to evaluate
noticeable changes in boiler emissions. All other conditions were
stable during this period. It was felt that a lower feed liquor
temperature might result in a lower smelt bed temperature resulting
in some reduction of vaporized sodium. The overall result would then
be an increase in S0£ emissions and a reduction in particulate emissions.
93
-------
The relationship between nozzle size and nozzle pressure was investi-
gated during three days in November and three days in January. The
sulfidity level in November was 30%, that in January was 27-28%. This
change in sulfidity level was not purposely made. This investigation
was made to determine the relationship between liquor droplet size and
emissions.
Low secondary windbox pressure was thought to effect combustion and
gaseous emissions of S02 and TRS due to the reduction of oxygen ad-
mitted at the smelt bed. An increase in emissions was anticipated.
Two days of testing were carried out.
Low tertiary windbox pressure was thought to contribute to increased
carryover of particulate from the smelt bed, thereby resulting in higher
particulate emissions from the boiler. Two days of testing were carried out.
Three different addition rates of salt cake were investigated over a three
day period. The reduction of salt cake (Na2S04) to sodium sulfide (Na2$)
is an endothermic(BTU depletion) reaction and should tend to lower the
temperature of the smelt bed. The anticipated result would be an increase
in S02 emissions similar to the situation resulting from a lower liquor
temperature.
TEST RESULTS
Low and High Black Liquor Solids
Table 24
INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS OF LOW AND HIGH BLACK LIQUOR SOLIDS
ON RECOVERY BOILER EMISSIONS
High Liquor Solids
1/22/74 1/23/74 Avg.
Date
Test No.
Sluice Solids(%)
Nozzle Size
Nozzle Pressure(psi)
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loading(%}
Excess Oxygen(%)
Boiler Exit(lb/hr.)
Actual
*Figure 12 Value
Difference
Average TRS(ppm)
Average S02(ppm)
Low Liquor Solids
1/24/74 1/25/74 Avg.
1212
65.5 65.9 64.6 64.7 65.2
40 40 40 40
40 40 40 40
29 29 29 29 29
102 102 100 99 101
2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6
4599 3252 4090 3817 3940
4390 4390 4270 4210 4340
+209 -1138 -180 -393 -400
1212
57.8 58.3 56.8 61.4 58.6
40 40 40 40
43 43 44 44
27 27 28 28 28
92 91 87 98 92
3.0 3.2 3.1 1.3
2961 2749 2378 4226 3071
3760 3700 3460 4140 3760
-799 -951-1082 +86 -689
0.4
0
NA
NA
0.3
6.5
4
1
* 95% confidence limits are - 1272 at 90-100% boiler loading
94
-------
The actual values obtained for particulate emissions from the boiler
have been compared in Table 24 with the values obtained from Figure 12
which gives the overall relationship between boiler exit dust load
and boiler loading established from the 126 sets of data collected in
the initial test program. The average black liquor solids level for
that data was approximately 61.5%. Only two values out of 126 ex-
ceeded 65.0% and only eight exceeded 64.0%, meaning that the data
variation encountered and the 95% confidence limits of * 1272 units
(+ 30% of mean value at 100% boiler loading) derived from the basic
test data (see Table 7 in Appendix F) was weighted little by the more
extreme (higher) values of black liquor solids investigated in the
expanded program.
For this reason it is significant that all of the data points tabu-
lated in Table 24 do fall within the previously established 95%
confidence limits. Moreover, most of the new data points, whether
high or low solids data, tend to fall below the mean regression line
for Figure 12. The conclusion is that the variation in black liquor
solids over the range 57% to 66% does not significantly affect the
amount of particulates discharged from the recovery boiler in the
exit gas stream.
In all cases TRS emissions were at or below four (4) ppm and S02
emissions were below seven (7) ppm, both considered satisfactory from
a control standpoint.
Black Liquor Feed Temperature
For the expanded test program, black liquor feed liquor temperature
was reduced to a level of 220 - 225°F vs. the normal level of 245 - 250°F
maintained throughout the earlier test program discussed in SECTION XIII.
No abnormal operating problems were encountered as a result of cooler
liquor. Emissions did not appear to be affected significantly one way
or the other. Using the linear regression line in Figure 12 as a
reference, all of the values for particulate emissions obtained from
low liquor temperature operating conditions fall within the overall
95% confidence limits shown in Figure 12. Three of the four values
deviate less than 100 units from the regression line value at each
particular boiler loading condition. The deviation of the average of
all four data points from the average regression line value is only
337 (4480-4143), considerably less than the ± 1272 confidence limits.
Because of the relatively low sulfidity conditions (27.0 - 27.4%)
maintained for this testing period, both TRS and S02 emissions were
low despite a relatively low excess oxygen level. TRS values did not
exceed 14 ppm which compared favorably with the regression line for
this variable shown in Figure 14. S02 values were extremely low, never
exceeding seven (7) ppm.
Nozzle Size vs. Nozzle Pressure
The purpose of this testing was to determine if TRS, S02 and parti-
culate emissions could be varied while maintaining a constant liquor
load by using different sized nozzles and pressures. The tests were
95
-------
performed on November 14, 15, 16, 1973, and on January 28, 29, 30, 1974.
A basic difference between the two test periods was a higher sulfidity
during the November test period, compared to the January test period
(30.2% versus 27.2%).
The data is summarized below.
Table 25
NOZZLE SIZE AND PRESSURE VERSUS EMISSIONS
Nozzle Size
Nozzle Pressure(psi)
Sluice Sol ids (50
Salt Cake Addition(lb/min.)15
Sulfidity(%)
Boiler Loading(%)
Excess Oxygen(%)
Boiler Exit(lb/hr.)
TRS (ppm)
S02(ppm)
A review of the emission data tabulated above does not reveal any
particular trends as nozzle size and pressure vary. In the earlier EPA
test program nozzle pressure remained fairly constant at 38-40 psi
and nozzle size was varied to accomodate the different liquor flows
established (i.e., boiler loading condition).
All of the particulate data collected during the period of nozzle
size and pressure investigation fell within the 95% confidence limits
for individual data points shown in Figure 12 except the one low value
of 1773 Ib/hr. obtained on November 15 when a nozzle size of 38 (nozzle
pressure of 42) was in effect. The precipitator efficiency calculated
from this data was also low, casting additional suspicion on the parti-
culate results obtained at that time.
For a particular sulfidity level (either high or low), TRS and S02
emissions are not significantly affected by a change in nozzle pressure.
There is a significant shift in average S02 emissions (from 1 to 108)
when the sulfidity level shifts from 27% to 30%, bearing out the con-
clusions reached in the basic EPA testing program carried out in 1973.
Overall
32
48
64.6
n.)15
28
90
3.0
3963
1
1
36
45
62.5
45
30
101
2.5
3669
15
74
36
39
63.8
15
27
91
2.2
4002
2
0
38
42
62.5
45
31
91
1.8
2603
25
119
40
35
59.4
45
30
89
2.0
3511
12
130
40
35
63.7
15
27
89
2.8
3597
0
3
Averages
45
30
94
2.
3261
17
108
15
27
90
1 2.7
3854
1
1
96
-------
TRS emissions also were higher for the high sulfidity periods. Excess
oxygen levels were also lower during these periods which would also
tend to increase TRS emissions. All TRS and SC>2 data fall within
the 95% confidence limits established earlier and shown in Figures 14
and 15 respectively.
Low Secondary Windbox Pressure
The windbox pressure during the two tests performed on February 7,
1974 was lowered from the normal 5-7" H2>0 to about 4" H20. There were
no appreciable changes in any of the emissions.
Low Tertiary Windbox Pressure
The windbox pressure during the four tests performed on February 4
and 5, 1974 was lowered from the normal +8" H20 to 4" H20. There were
no appreciable changes in any of the emissions.
Low Secondary and Tertiary Windbox Pressure
This condition was inadvertently present on February 7, 1974, and was
not a part of the original work plan. Both the secondary and tertiary
windbox pressures were around 4" H20. The S02 emissions did increase
slightly during the two tests conducted (15-25 ppm) as compared with
the very low level (1-5 ppm) maintained the rest of the week. The
reason for this increase is believed due to the lack of turbulence
in the furnace above the bed. This may lead to the channeling of
portions of the gases, blocking the intimate mixing of vaporized sodium
and S02- Statistically, there is very little difference in SO;?
emissions of five and 25 ppm when the broad 95% confidence limits are
examined.
Salt Cake Addition
This testing was conducted during the week of February 10. It was
expected that the boiler exit particulate and S02 emissions would
increase with an increase in Na2S04 addition. The three feed rates
of salt cake established were 25, 50, and 75 Ibs/min. During all
three test days, particulate emissions did not appreciably change.
The highest level of S02 (55 ppm) was obtained during the highest
addition rate period but this was well within the normal range of
S02 established in the earlier test program. The tentative conclu-
sion reached is that sulfidity and not the amount of salt cake addi-
tion per se primarily affects the level of S02 emissions. This is also
borne out by the data presented earlier in Table 25 where 15 Ib/hr.
of salt cake was being added during the low sulfidity periods of
investigation and 45 Ib/hr. during the higher sulfidity periods.
During the basic EPA testing program the typical salt cake addition
rate was 40-50 Ib/hr.
97
-------
SECTION XVI
MISCELLANEOUS TESTING STUDIES
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, INC. STUDIES
Comparison of Barton Titratpr and Gas Chromatograph Results for TRS
and SO? Emissions
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. entered into a 13-week
contract with EPA to carry out some specific testing studies to comple-
ment those being carried out by Hoerner Waldorf on No. 3 recovery
system. One of these studies involved monitoring sulfur gas emissions
at the stack using a gas chromatograph in order to compare the results
obtained with the usual Barton titrator data taken. Gas chromotograohy
testing began on March 21, 1973. Initially the procedure involved a
one-hour test period with gas injection to the cell every five minutes.
This was later increased to a two-hour test period. The only TRS
compound identified by the GC was h^S, Poor agreement between the
Barton titrator and gas chromotograph was noted for both TRS and S02
readings during the first three weeks of testing (identified as Period 1
in Table 26). '"ollowing modifications made on April 16 to minimize
differences between the two sampling systems, better agreement was ob-
tained. For the test period 5/7 - 6/15/73 inclusive, (identified as
Period 2 in Table 26) average TRS results were 1.7 ppm for the Barton
and 2.3 ppm for the GC for 16 sets of data. The average difference
in readings (based on absolute error, E) also decreased appreciably.
For this same period the average S02 results were 38 ppm for the Barton
and 40 ppm for the GC as compared to a difference of 57 vs. 70 for
Period 1. The average difference between Barton and GC S02 readings
based on the calculated absolute error, E, did not improve very much,
however. All of this data is summarized in Table 26.
Barton Titrator Accuracy
TRS and S02 emission data collected with the Hoerner Waldorf Barton
titrator and Environmental Engineering gas chromatograph showed many
discrepancies. An investigation to determine the reasons for these
discrepancies was conducted by Hoerner Waldorf, Environmental Engineering
and NCASI personnel. The investigation was performed by injecting known
quantities of H^S and S02 into each sampling system by the motor driven
syringe technique. This is the same technique which is used for routine
Barton calibration. The major differences between the GC and Barton
sampling systems were as follows:
1. The GC had a heated sample line; the Bartons did not.
2. The TRS Barton cell had a potassium biphthalate scrubber for
S02 removal.
3. Both Barton systems employed one-liter surge tank for condensate
knockout, whereas the GC sample line fed directly. Both sampling
systems employed a long sample line (50 to 70 feet in length).
98
-------
ro
4_>
ro
Q
cn
E
•r-
S-
O)
O)
E
O CO
- (0
C£ -M
LU E
0 E
LU O
•r—
CO >
E
• LU
O
Z "E
1— ro
CO «=C
CM M-
oo s-
i
M- E
4- O
f"^ ^_
«rv%
L.I J
ro
If
Q.
Q.
.
CD
^£
°T
ool
^
Q.
Q.
— '
CD
c^
o:
h-
to
a>
X
LU
s_
• 1 —
<£
s-
(1)
;~
Q
CO
E
0
I/)
s- a»
o •
E P
o
0
oo
oo
a;
1—
o
CD
E
O
S-
re
CQ
E
O
c_ ,
ro
CO
p.
*. N
O
,. — o
fc«
E
O
£
3
-Q
., —
S_
-g_>
to
o
.*— -V
s«
to
cn
E
__.
(O
o
_1
£
_
-r-
O)
ro
Q
! co
i
o
0
10
O
CO
o
,3-
1 —
o
^j-
co
CM
LO
-^
o
LO
LO
co
0
LO
._
CO
NO,
i
CM
CO
t— Ol O ' — i — ^J-coooo^*d-LOotcnO!— o
•— r— CM
LOLOCMCMCMN-CMLOLOO-d-COO
COCMCOCMCMCMCMCMCMi — CMCOCM
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
>sv — •- ^~- "••». "*>. "^- "^~- ~~^~~->^^ ^~^ ^ — ^
OOOOOOOOOOOOO
CO CO ^^ «*J CO LO CO ^d~ ^^ ^^ *J ^J" LO
^^. ^^- "^^ "^-* ^^- ^^ — ^ ^^*. ^ — ^^ ^^. ^^. ^^>
LO LO LO LO LO LO LO UO LO LO LO LO LO
LO LO ^" *^~ LO CO LO ^~ ^" ^J~ ^" ^" CO
COLOCO^OOLOCMOCMCMCMCMCM
^^_ —.^ _. ^_ ^_^ __ ^_^
i i r— o i O O
COCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCOCO
NO N» NX NO r^o, co co NO NO po* r^o. r^ r^o
lllllNoNolillll
Ill
^1- r-OOlOlOCMCOCMr— i— r—
•K ++III++IIII
•* •=3-r~oLOCMCMUDN-CO<3-O'—
CO OOOCDOCO^i-Oi— i — CO
* ++..' +
O O N- CTl CTt O O i — *3" i — Cn "=d"
No i — LOCDI — .CO^LON-CJlCMCO
CO
.
vo o cr> N- CM *stf- r^^ o^, CM CTiCT>OCONo<3-CT!No
CMi— OOOr— r— i—COi— CM
CO LO^l-^j-ro.N.VOO«ol-OCTiCO
No CMOOOO«d-lOr— CMOLO
i — O NO. CM CT» ^J- CTl O O O
CMCOCO-oJ- CMi — CMCOCOCO
OJ
ro
000000
•I — LO *^" ^" LO *P~ ^" LO LO 'vj" ^t" ^*
i- "^S. "^ "*^. "*^. "DI *^«s. "^^ "^. *^^ "^^. ""^x
QJ LOLOLOLOCOLOLOLOLOLO
(1 fV^ ^- ^- fY} Q ^- pQ (V) ^j- ^- ^j-
0
CJ>
c:
•r-
4_>
f&
4->
O
OOOO ^LOOOOOO
Of — ) f-) t — s , t«x». ( — i r"i ( — i f~\ ^~i
^j *^_j \^_j r~* i ^«* \_j ^_^ \__j t_^ \^j
P*^ CD LO P~~ VO ^~" r"~ O*l LO LO O
co ro co co oo co
co r*1** r*"* r^1** r~>. r^** r*** CM co co co
r^v i i i i i i r*^. P**- r^. r*v
1 CXJ CO CO LO O r- I i | |
P*> OJ OJ CM CM CO CO ^" tO T*""* I*"*"*
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LO
^~
VO
^f
'
vo
p— .
""
10
*d-
o
CM
CM
LO
0^
o
LO
-^
LO
CO
o
^^
o
CM
co
^0.
1
CM
1
IO
CO
_l_ _f_
r— UD
N» O
1 '
**
00
r— IO
"
O r-
CO CM
CTi LO
0 •—
O O
CM CO
LO LO
0^^0^_
O 0
LO ^J~
-^^ -^^
LO LO
CO ^~
O LO
V-J
N- 0
O__
•
co co
No ^0.
1 1
CM CO
1 1
CO
1
00
CM
1
CO
CO
co
co
CM
o
co
CM
LO
0^__
o
«^-
^^
LO
«£j-
o
f — )
o
CO
CO
^^.
1
LU
n
cu
ro
CT
E
ro
CD
E
Q
CD
Cn
ro
s-
QJ
>
*=c
*
99
-------
The results of this investigation are summarized in Table 27.
1. Identical concentrations of ^S introduced directly to each test
unit were read 93 percent high by the GC, and seven percent high
by the Barton titrator.
2. A concentration of F^S introduced through the unheated Barton
sampling line was read 81 percent low by the GC, and 28 percent
low by the Barton titrator.
3. A concentration of H2S and S02 introduced at the stack to the
Barton were read 11 percent (average) low by the H2S Barton,
and 81 percent (average) low by the S02 Barton.
From these studies it was concluded that some of the difference in
test results obtained could be explained by the difference in sampling
time interval. The gas chromatograph analyzed instant samples in-
jected every five minutes whereas the Barton analyzed a continuous
sample. It was also suspected that the Barton gas sample line might
be absorbing SO? in the line. It was agreed that Hoerner Waldorf
should do further work to verify the accuracy of the Barton titrator.
Since the Barton's 60 foot unheated sample line was a questionable
link in the Barton's accuracy, the Bartons were relocated so only a
six foot sample line was used. Introduction of known TRS and S02
concentrations through the new sample line resulted in 97 percent
recovery of injected HpS, and 101 percent recovery of SOo, verifying
the Barton's accuracy in their new location. The initial conclusion
drawn from this investigation was that the long sample line was
responsible for the questionable results obtained during earlier
testing. However, there did not appear to be any increase in the
level of daily emissions indicated by the relocated Bartons. (The
initial testing had indicated that an 81 percent increase in $62
emissions could be expected). A third Barton titrator was set up
in the old Barton location so a comparison could be made of test
results obtained simultaneously at both instrument locations during
actual boiler operation. For a 24 hour period the average H2S
measured by the relocated Barton was 9.3 ppm, whereas that measured
by the Barton ir the old location was 9.5 ppm. A similar test was
conducted while monitoring S02- For a five-hour period the average
S02 measured by the relocated Barton was 120 ppm, whereas that
measured by the Barton in the old locations was 126 ppm. It was
concluded that the Barton readings were correct in both locations.
The suspected reason for the discrepancies noted during the original
comparative testing period is the possibility of error introduction
by the spiking method employed. When the sample line was shortened
there was a corresponding decrease in the sample volume handled.
This reduced the dampening effect with a large sample volume. It is
believed that if it were possible to inject a known quantity of H2S
or S02 for several hours the dampening effect would be minimum and
more accurate comparisons could be made.
100
-------
Table 27
AND S02 INTERFERENCE TESTS
Sampling Mode
H2S directly to Barton
TRS cell
H2S directly to Barton
and GC(simultaneously)
HoS to Barton and GC
thru Barton sampling
line (simultaneously)
HpS to Barton and GC
thru heated GC sampling
line (simultaneously)
Concentration Instrument Reading Error (%)
(ppm) _ Barton (ppm)GC Barton GC
to Barton TRS cell
thru heated GC sampling
line(simultaneously)
S02 to Barton S02 cell
(introduced at stack)
9.8
19.6
5.4
8.6
10.6
29.4
29.1
54.0
98.0
98.4
8.9
17.8
5.8
6.2
8.8
29.5
23.3
47.6
11.9
27.2
- 9.2
- 9.2
10 + 7.0 +93
1.6 -28.0 -81
9.2 -17.0 -13
0
-20
-12
-73
101
-------
The Barton titrators were calibrated about once a week during the
test period. For a given cell set at a given instrument range the
change in calibration factor reflects the inaccuracies of preparing
sample gases and calibration techniques, electronic instability, cell
aging, and the influence of changes in ambient temperature and humidity.
The titrator is calibrated with H2S and S02 gas. Most calibrations
were done on range 10 because this was the primary range used. A few
calibrations were also made for range 30.
As a measure of error, the standard deviations of the calibrations
were calculated for each combination of cell, range and gas. Sigma
values ( 6 ) expressed as a percent of the average value were:
CELL RANGE SIGMA VALUE ( 6 )
H2S SO?
TRS 10 11.4%
S02 10 10.7% 8.8%
S02 30 9.7% 10.8%
There is an error of unknown magnitude when a reactive gas concentra-
tion in the stack is changing due to the surge and dampening characteris-
tics of the system. The surge capacity is in the sampling lines,
scrubber and knockout tanks. The chemical reaction in the cell takes
some unknown finite time to achieve equilibrium and the electronic
control has a built-in dampening circuit to level out short term peaks
and produce a smoother recorder trace. With most of the volumetric
surge capacity removed during calibration, it takes from five to ten
minutes for the recorder reading to level off after a major change in
concentration of the test gas.
Particulate Studies at Boiler Exit
Another of the studies undertaken by Environmental Engineering during
their 13-week testing program at Missoula involved particulate emission
testing of boiler exit gases ahead of the precipitator using a dry
filtration method (EPA train) in order to determine if such a procedure
were practical and feasible under conditions of relatively high grain
loadings in the gas stream being sampled. Particulate emission testing
with the EPA train ahead of the precipitator began on March 28, 1973.
Poor agreement with Hoerner Waldorf data was obtained for the first two
weeks as seen in Table 28 (Period 1). It soon became apparent that the
EPA train was impractical for use in gas streams where the particulate
concentration is relatively high (4-8 gr/SDCF). Nozzle plugging,
frequent filter changes (every 10-12 minutes), lack of isokinetic
conditions due to high gas volume, and an unwieldy equipment train for
cleaning and particulate collection all interfered with good, repro-
ducible sampling. A carefully controlled test on April 14 resulted in
some modifications made to the Environmental Engineering test procedure.
Following that, better agreement was obtained in the joint test data
collected as seen for Period 2 in Table 28. An improvement was also
102
-------
Table 28
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AT NO. 3 RECOVERY BOILER EXIT
(Comparison of Hoerner Waldorf and Environmental Engineering Data
both expressed as grains/SDCF)
Date
3/28/73
3/29/73
3/30/73
4/ 2/73
4/ 3/73
4/ 4/73
4/14/73
Average
Range
4/17/73
4/17/73
4/19/73
4/19/73
4/24/73
4/27/73
4/30/73
5/ 1/73
5/ 4/73
5/ 7/73
5/ 8/73
5/ 9/73
5/11/73
5/29/73
5/30/73
Average
Range
Period
Hoerner Waldorf
Wet Scrubber Train
7.45
7.49
8.00
6.35
8.31
7.46
6.09
7.31
6.09-8.31
6.66
7.48
9.44
7.23
8.01
7.18
6.95
5.89
7.73
8.48
8.01
6.26
7.98
6.13
5.76
7.28
5.76-9.44
Env.Engr.
) (EPA Train)
3.75
4.65
5.02
4.77
4.71
5.48
5.43
4.83
3.75-5.48
6.55
8.35
8.61
7.81
6.01
7.64
7.32
5.73
8.15
5.17
11.40
8.30
7.61
5.93
4.05
7.24
4.05-11.40
Data Difference
JHW - EEJ_
Absolute
- 3.70
- 2.84
- 2.98
- 1.58
- 3.60
- 1.98
- .66
% of HW Data
-50
-38
-38
-25
-43
-27
-11
- 2
+
+
- 3
+ 3
+ 2
11
87
83
58
00
46
37
16
42
31
39
04
.37
.20
1.71
- 2
+12
- 9
+ 8
-25
+ 6
+ 5
- 2
+ 6
-39
+42
+33
- 5
- 3
-30
*E2= 36.05= 2.40
E - 1.5
:2 _
= S(HW-EE)2
103
-------
noted in the average difference obtained between the two sampling
methods based on the calculated absolute error, E (1.5 vs. 2.7).'
COMPARISON OF PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS OBTAINED AT STACK
WITH EPA TRAIN AMD ALUNDUM THIMBLE METHOD
All of the stack sampling for particulate carried out prior to the
EPA testing program (begun in March 1972) was based on the alundum
thimble method which has always been recognized as an acceptable,
official standard method for the determination of oarticulate concen-
tration in stack gases.
The alundum thimble sampling train consists of a stainless steel
nozzle, thimble holder, and probe, followed by a wet scrubber and
mist trap. The thimble was sintered alundum, porosity RA-98. A
Sprague dry gas meter and a vacuum pump completed the train, with
rubber vacuum tubing interconnecting the various pieces of equipment.
For the EPA testing program the EPA sampling train was recommended
and therefore it was the only one used for the duration of the entire
study carried out during 1972-1973. The details of the EPA test
method are described in Appendix C.
In both test methods, stack moisture is determined by measuring the
condensate collected during a test. Both methods also call for the
overnight drying of the dry particulate catch to remove any moisture.
The major difference between the two test methods concerns the treat-
ment of the washdown and scrubber solutions. For the EPA test, the
front half (all components before the scrubbers) is washed down and
the washings oven dried, with the dried material from the washings
added to the filter catch. With the alundum thimble, the washings are
mixed with the scrubber water, brought to a specific volume, and then
analyzed for sodium on a Col eman flame photometer. This sodium is
then converted to equivalent Na2$04 and added to the thimble catch.
Seven simultaneous EPA-alundum thimble comparison tests were conducted
to determine if a meaningful relationship could be established between
the two sampling trains. With this correlation established, Hoerner
Waldorf's earlier data (1969-1971) could be better compared to the
more recent data collected with the EPA train. The results of these
tests are shown in Table 29. In each of the tests, the EPA train
yielded higher grain loadings than the alundum thimble method. The
average difference was 0.0131 gr/SDCF.
104
-------
Table 29
PARTICIPATE STACK EMISSIONS
(Comparison of Alundum Thimble vs. EPA Train)
Date
12/10/73
12/12/73
12/13/73
12/14/73
Averages
Alundun Thimble
(gr/SDCF)
0.0240
0.0482
0.0393
0.0339
0.0324
0.0373
0.0355
EPA Train
(gr/SDCF)
0.0439
0,0610
0.0488
0.0375
0.0366
0.0532
0.0593
0.0486
Di fference
(EPA-AT)
+ 0.0199
+ 0.0128
+ 0.0095
+ 0.0036
+ 0.0042
+ 0.0159
+ 0.0256
+ 0.0131
The use of this average difference (0.0131 gr/SDCF) for comparing
grain loadings determined with the EPA train to those determined
with the alundum thimble is not recommended, however, since the
majority of earlier grain loadings were in a higher range. The
majority of the earlier alundum thimble tests were conducted before
high (over 95%) precipitator efficiencies were obtained. The earlier
stack grain loadings were much higher (in the range of 0.080 to
0.510 gr/SDCF). It would apoear that had the EPA train been used
for all particulate testing during 1971-1972, the grain loadings
would have been even higher than those obtained using the alundum
method.
105
-------
SECTION XVII
REFERENCES
1. Thoen, G.N.; DeHaas, G.G.; Tallent, R.G.; and Davis, A.S.;
"The Effect of Combustion Variables on the Release of Odorous
Sulfur Compounds from a Kraft Recovery Furnace", TAPPI 51 (8)
329-333 (1968).
2. Shah, I.S. and Mason, L.; "New Two Stage Evaporator Scrubber
System for Efficient Recovery of Heat, Fume and Dust from
Recovery Boilers"; TAPPI 50 (10): 27A-32A (1967).
3. Riggenbach, J.D.; Johnson, E.H.; Hamlin, M.K.; "Measurement of
Particulate Grain Loadings, Particle Size Distribution, and Sulfur
Gas Concentrations at Hoerner Waldorf's Pulp and Paper Mill No. 3
Recovery System"; Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.
report prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0232, Task Order
No. 23.
4. Borg, A.; Teder, A.; Warnquist, B. of the Swedish Forest Products
Research Laboratory; "Inside a Kraft Recovery Furnace - Studies
on the Origins of Sulfur and Sodium Emission."; TAPPI 57 (1):
126-129 (1974).
106
-------
SECTION XVIII
APPENDICES
A. Design Parameters for the Major Components of the System 108
B. TRS and S02 Calculations m
Figure 1 - TRS and S02 Charts for 28% Sulfiditv 112
Figure 2 - TRS and S0? Charts for 29% Sulfiditv 112
Figure 3 - TRS and SO? Charts for 32% Sulfidity 112
Table 1 - Analvsis of TRS and S0? Chart Data 113
Sample Calculations
C. Parti cul ate Samoling H5
1) Particulate Sampling Procedure at Recovery Boiler Exit
Figure 4 - Hoerner Waldorf Particulate Sampling Train 116
used for Boiler Exit Sampling
Figure 5 - Configuration of Boiler Exit and Stack 118
Sampling Points
Conversion Factors and Definitions of Symbols
used in Calculation of Particulate Load
Table 2 - Determination of Average Gas Velocity in Duct 119
Table 3 - Determination of Mete red Gas Volume 120
Sample Calculations
2) Particulate Sampling Procedure at the Stack
Figure 6 - EPA Particulate Sampling Train used for 125
Stack Sampling
Table 4 - Determination of Average Gas Velocity in Duct 126
Table 5 - Determination of Metered Gas Volume 128
Sample Calculations
D. Black Liquor Solids Determination 131
E. Table 6 - Weekly Average Data for TRS, SOo, and Sulfidity 132
(1971-1973)
F. Statistical Data Analysis 137
Method for Computing Confidence Limits
Table 7 - Confidence Limits for Individual Values about a 138
Regression Line
Table 8 - Analysis of Regression Lines 140
G. Complete EPA Test Data for Basic Program 141
Glossary for Data Sheets in Tables 9, in, 11 141
Table of Conversion Factors (English to Metric Units) 143
Table 9 - Complete EPA Test Data for 26-28% Sulfidity Target Level U4
Table 10 - Complete EPA Test Data for 28-300/, Sulfidity Target Level 152
Table 11 - Complete EPA Test Data for 31-33% Sulfidity Target Level 162
H. Table 12 - Complete EPA Test Data for Expanded Program 170
107
-------
APPENDIX A
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM
1. No.3 Recovery Boiler (Babcock and Wilcox unit erected in 1966)
Nominal Capacity - 470 TPD (based on 3000 Ib dry solids per
pulp ton)
Design Loading - 1,400,000 Ibs of black liquor solids per
day at 6600 BTU/lb (equivalent to 1,418,000
Ibs of solids at Missoula with average liquor
BTU content of 6515 BTU/lb)
Recovery Building Dimensions - 60' x 77' x 126'
Dust Load (max.) from Boiler at Design Load = 8.0 gr/SDCF
Steam Production (max) - 235,000 Ib/hr at 750°F and 600 psi based
on feedwater temperature of 275°F entering
economizer
Total Heating Surface in Boiler - 31,167 sq.ft.
Heating Surface of Superheater - 7,754 sq.ft.
Heating Surface of No.l Economizer- 13,300 sq.ft.
2. No.2 Economizer (Babcock and Wilcox unit)
Heating Surface - 33,347 sq.ft.
Exit Gas Temperature - 400 °F
3. Evaporator Concentrator (Unitech unit)
Evaporation Capacity 49,000 Ib/hr
Total Heating Surface 10,000 sq.ft.
Feed Liquor - 163,000 Ib/hr at 200°F and 44% TS
Product Liquor-114,000 Ib/hr at 236°F and 63% TS
4. Electrostatic Precipitator (Research-Cottrell unit)
a. Performance Data
Maximum gas flow 207,000 ACFM (70,000 DSCFM)
Maximum gas temperature 400 °F
Particulate to the Precipitator 8 grains/SDCF
Particulate 0-Utlet loading 0.07 grains/SDCF
Guaranteed efficiency 99.125%
108
-------
Performance Data (continued)
Density of salt cake collected
Net Gas Velocity at rated volume
Gas Treatment time at rated volume
Collecting area/volume rate flow
Migration velocity
Typical Gas Conditions
H?0 by volume
FLO by weight
Specific Density of Gas
Physical Characteristics of Precipitator
Walls
Roof
Gas Inlet
Gas Outlet
Design Pressure (internal)
Number of chambers (units)
Number of Electrical Sections
in series per chamber
Number of collecting plates per section
Number of ducts (gas passages)per unit
Size of each duct
Dust Removal System
Collecting Electrodes
Total Collecting Area
Total Electrode Length
8 lb/cu.ft.
3.55 FPS
7.6 Sec.
0.338
7.36 cm/sec.
31%
21%
0.037
Tile-lined concrete
Concrete
Top
Top
20" HO
2(parallel units)
3
26
27
9" x 24' x 27'
Drag Bottom Conveyor
(2 drag chains per
chamber parallel to
gas flow)
Screw Conveyor
(12" dia.x!2" pitch)
Solid Steel Plates
70,000 sq.ft.
46,600 feet
109
-------
d. Electrical Components
Discharge Electrodes
Collecting Plate Rappers
Inlet Section
Center Section
Outlet Section
Series of vertical wires,
suspended midway between the
collecting electrode plates.
(.109" diameter bessemer
steel with coppered surface)
P-160 Eriez electromagnetic
Total 12 (6 each for North
side and South side chamber)
P-150 Eriez electromagnetic
Total 12 (6 each in North
side and South side chamber)
P-150 Eriez electromagnetic
Total 12(6 each in North
side and South side chamber)
Inlet Distribution Plate Rappers
Horizontal Units
Discharge Wire Rappers
Rapping Duration
Rapping Intensity
Power Supply
Transformer-Rectifier Units
Inlet Field (Section) T-R
Center Field (Section) T-R
Outlet Field (Section) T-R
P-150 Eriez electromagnetic
(1 each in both North and
South side chambers)
P-160 Eriez electromagnetic
Total 12 (6 for North chamber
and 6 for South chamber, 2 per
electrical section)
Variable, from 0.1 to 6
seconds each vibrator
Variable
460 volts
4 amps, 1 phase, 60 cycle
Total of four
One 48 KVA, 50 KV (RMS)
750 ma
One 96 KVA, 50 KV (RMS)
1500 ma
Two 64 KVA, 50 KV (RMS)
1000 ma
110
-------
APPENDIX B
TRS AND S02 CALCULATIONS
Two separate Barton titrators were used for the determination
of TRS and S02 concentrations. One Barton measured and recorded the
total sulfur gases present in the stack sample. The other Barton
measured the TRS concentration after the S02 in the sample gas had
absorbed in a potassium acid phthalate scrubber. The TRS value was
recorded on the same chart as the total sulfur gas reading from the
other Barton. The recording pen for TRS lags the other pen by about
10 minutes on the chart to allow freedom of pen movement.
A continuous record of both TRS and SO? were obtained from this
two-pen recorder. Examples of typical charts for three different
sulfidity levels are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Table 1 summarizes
the various factors used in the calculation of TRS and S02 values from
the chart data. A sample calculation using the chart data of Figure 3
is presented. In all cases 15-minute data points are used in the averaging
of data. These data points taken from Figure 3 are tabulated in Table 1.
The average for the No. 1 Barton Chart (TRS + S02) is 52.3. Using the
appropriate factors, the S0? concentration is calculated to be 440 ppm
(for range 30). The average for the No. 2 Barton Chart is 6.8, calculated
to be 5 ppm TRS (for range 10).
All of the TRS and SO- data compiled during the course of this
testing program was developed in the same manner.
Ill
-------
M
—9
,10 1
„..._. ;_,
u -
I, '1 - - — lfl{/
!
f-r^-r-: ,.-
1
(i -,--.-
o ' "^
i
— - 100 -- - - |
,
M :-£-—; i
r
u , , r """
i
•i ' ' i
i
,-i
6PM —Q bi
Figure 1 TRS and S02 Charts for 28% Sulfidity
| •
i_
8AM
10AM
Figure 2 TRS anc! S02 Charts for 29% Sulfidity
Figure 3 TRS and S02 Charts for 32% Sulfidity
112
-------
Table 1
ANALYSIS OF TRS AND S02 CHART DATA
Figure
Date
Time Period
No.l Barton(Total S Record)
Base Line Correction
TRS Factor
S0£ Factor
Range
No.2 Barton (TRS Record)
Base Line Correction
TRS Factor
Range
S0£ Analysis (ppm)
Average
Maximum
Mi n i mum
TRS Analysis (ppm)
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Sulfidity Average (%)
12/18/73
5PM- 1AM
2
0.794
3.58
10
2
0.848
10
5
21
0
1
3
1
28.0
6/24/73
6AM-2PM
2
0.878
3.80
10
2
1.020
10
82
146
59
3
4
2
29.3
10/16/73
7PM- SAM
2
3.01
8.95
30
2
0.984
10
440
566
312
5
13
2
32.3
Clock
Time
7: 00PM
7:15
7:30
7:45
8:00
8:15
8:30
8:45
9:00
9:15
9:30
9:45
10:00
10:15
10:30
10:45
11:00
11:15
11 : 30
11:45
12:OOMN
12:15AM
12:30
12:45
1:00
1:15
1 :30
1 :45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
No.l
Barton
Chart
43
54
63
59
61
61
63
63
63
54
48
48
58
54
50
50
54
48
46
44
40
40
42
43
48
52
47
47
51
62
60
54
56
No. 2
Barton
Chart
5
5
5
5
8
9
7
6
6
7
6
4
4
4
4
5
6
5
8
7
8
9
8
7
7
4
5
6
8
11
10
11
15
Average 52.3
6.8
113
-------
CALCULATION OF TRS AND SO VALUES
(based on Figure 3 and Table 1 data)
TRS Calculation
To obtain the TRS value from the No. 2 Barton Chart reading, the
base line correction is applied and the TRS Factor is applied. We then
obtain:
Average TRS value (ppm)
= TRS Factor (No. 2 Barton Chart reading - Base Line Correction)
= 0.984 (6.8-2.0)
= 5 ppm
SO Calculation
To obtain the SOo value from the No. 1 Barton Chart reading, two
corrections are necessary. One is the base line correction, the other
is for TRS as measured on this instrument. The TRS factor for No. 1
Barton is applied to the calculated value obtained above in order to
do this.
We then obtain:
Average S02 value (ppm)
= S02 Factor No. 1 Barton Chart reading - Base Line Correction
- TRS value
TRS Factor (No.l Chart)
- 8.95 (52.3 - 2 - 5)
3.01
= 8.95 (52.3 - 2 - 1.7)
= 440 ppm
114
-------
APPENDIX C
PARTICULATE SAMPLING
Participate sampling was carried out twice a day during the EPA
testing problem. Concurrent sampling both at the boiler exit duct and
at the stack was accomplished by two testing teams in order to get
meaningful data for the determination of precipitator collection
efficiencies.
Figure 4 shows the detailed configuration of the various sampling
points needed for meaningful particulate dust collection. Also shown
are the traverse points at which flow measurements were made and dust
fractions collected. At both sample points a velocity traverse of
the duct or stack is made with a calibrated "S" type pitot tube and
inclined manometer. The normal sampling time for particulate at each
location was 77 minutes, coinciding with one complete IK sootblower
cycle.
The details of the testing procedure employed at each sampling loca-
tion are given in the following sections.
PARTICULATE SAMPLING PROCEDURE AT RECOVERY BOILER EXIT
Equipment
The samole train used for oarticulate testing at the boiler exit is
illustrated in Figure 4. The probe is 1/2" stainless steel tubing,
with an inside diameter of 3/8". The first scrubber-condenser is a
2 liter Florence flask, fitted with a glass bubble tube. The bubble
tube is drawn out to a nozzle tip and positioned within 1/4 inch of the
flask bottom to take advantage of impingement separation. The second
and third scrubbers are commercial Greenburg-Smith impingers, the first
with a standard impinger tip and the second with a straight tube. The
mist trap consists of moist fiberglass wool, packed in a Gooch crucible
to remove any carry over from the scrubbers and to act as a final filter
in the system.
The meter is a Sprague dry gas meter, with totalizing dials to 999.99
cubic feet. Calibration is checked periodically with a fixed orifice
calibrator. The vacuum pump has a free air capacity of 7 CFM. The
flow through the sample train is adjusted by regulating the bleed
valve at the pump inlet.
Rubber vacuum tubing is used to connect the various pieces of equipment.
Procedure
1000 ml of distilled water are measured out and distributed to the three
scrubbers, reserving about 100 ml for washing the probe into the conden-
sate jar if any plugging occurs. A wad of fiberglass is placed in the
crucible of the mist trap and the vacuum hoses connected.
115
-------
t/1
c
•t—
03
(O
W1
0)
•M
-------
The system is checked for leaks by sealing the nozzle tip, drawing a
vacuum of at least 10 inches of Mercurv and pinching off the hose be-
tween the gas meter and vacuum pump. The system is leak free when no
bubbles are seen in the scrubber, the gas meter does not move, and the
vacuum does not drop perceptibly in one minute.
The duct area is divided into 10 equal rectangles with a sample point
located at the center of each rectangle. (See Figure 5).
A velocity traverse is made with a calibrated "S" type pi tot tube and
inclined manometer. Velocities are read off the calibration chart and
corrected for actual gas density. Stack temoerature and pressure are
measured, but for the preliminary figures, the moisture and gas analysis
are assumed from previous tests. From the point velocities, metering
rates are calculated to give isokinetic flow at the nozzle tip. (See
Table 2).
The probe is inserted into the stack with the nozzle located at the
first point, and turned to face upstream. At the same time, the vacuum
pump is turned on and the meter flow adjusted to establish isokinetic
flow at the nozzle. Each point is sampled for the same length of time
(7 minutes). The probe is moved from point to point at each port,
without stopping the sample flow. Sampling is stopped when changing
ports. During each test, the temperature and vacuum at the meter and
the temperature at the mist trap are recorded periodically. (See
Table 3).
When sampling is complete, the probe is first rinsed with any remaining
water previously reserved from the measured liter. All water in the
system is combined and measured. Subtracting the original 100 ml
gives the amount of collected condensate. The sample train is washed
three times with distilled water. The washings are added to the sample
liquid and the whole made up to volume in a volumetric flask (2000 ml).
The liquid is analyzed on the Coleman flame photometer for sodium and
the concentration multiplied by the total volume gives the total weight
of sodium sulfate collected.
The total gas volume measured at the gas meter is corrected to dry
standard conditions of 70°F and 29.92 inches of Mercury. The total
catch divided by the corrected gas flow sampled gives the dust loading.
This is reported as grains of dust per dry standard cubic foot of gas.
The amount of collected condensate is used to determine the moisture in
the flue gas and the gas density is corrected for temperature, pressure
and moisture. The stack velocity is then corrected for actual gas
density at stack conditions and the total gas flow calculated.
The total flow is corrected to dry standard conditions, and by multiplying
by the dust loading, the total weight of dust lost is calculated.
Sample calculations follow,
117
-------
N
W
Stack Sampling Points
Boiler Exit Sampling Points
IB I 2B ! 3B ' 4B I 5B
_, ^ [_ ,
4'
1A
I
2A
3A
4A
5A
161
Figure 5 Configuration of boiler exit and stack sampling points
118
-------
Table 2
DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE GAS VELOCITY IN DUCT (Vc)
DATE October 24, 1973 DUCT DIMENSIONS 4'xl6'=64.0 ft2(A)
SAMPLE STATION No.3 Boiler Exit DUCT TEMPERATURE 595°F (Ts)
PITOT TUBE A DUCT PRESSURE -.40 Hg" (Ps)
CALIBRATION DENSITY .0730 Oc) BAROMETER 26.71 Hg" (B)
Traverse
Position
1 A
B
C
D
2 A
B
C
D
3 A
B
C
D
4 A
B
C
D
5 A
B
C
D
Probe Traverse
(Inches)
6
18
30
42
Pi tot Tube
(H20")
.30
.35
.35
.34
.22
.23
.28
.17
.10
.13
.14
.33
.30
.39
.55
.78
.42
.45
.64
.81
Gas Velocity
(Ft./sec.)
33.0
35.3
35.3
34.9
28.4
29.0
31.9
25.1
19.6
22.0
22.8
34.5
33.0
37.2
43.8
51.1
38.5
38.9
46.9
51.9
Average
34.66
(vc)
119
-------
Table 3
DETERMINATION OF METERED GAS VOLUME (R)
DATE October 24, 1973
SAMPLE STATION No.3 Boiler Exit
TESTERS Wohler and Ball
TEST NO. 1
BAROMETER
*Traverse
Position
No, Inches
1A
B
2A
B
3A
B
3A
B
5A
B
12
36
12
36
12
36
12
36
12
36
Clock
Time
10:45 a.m.
10:52
10:59
11:08
11:15
11:23
11:30
11:39
11:46
11:55
12:02 p.m.
Averages
Meter Vol.
(Cu.ft.)
0.00
8.00
15.70
22.70
29.80
35.30
42.30
49.20
58.10
67.00
76.00
76.00xl.02 =
NO.
ON FACTOR
NSIONS 4
Meter Temp.
(°F. )
98
98
96
96
98
98
98
98
99
100
98
98
100
99
98
99
100
98
98
98
>2 98
(Tm)
1501352
1.02
26.71 Hg
'xl6'=64.0
Pump Vac.
(Ha")
8.0
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
5.7
5.7
7.0
7.0
7.8
7.8
9.6
10.0
9.4
9.4
9.4
7.86
(M)
(B)
ft.2 (A)
Fume Trap
Temp. (°F.)
52
50
50
48
47
48
48
48
50
48
48
48
48
48
47
47
46
48
48
48
(Pft = -34 Hg
* See Figure 5
120
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS AND DEFINITION OF SYMBOLS
USED IN CALCULATION OF PARTICULATE LOAD
R = Metered gas volume (as is) expressed in cubic feet (measured)
C = Volume of gas sampled, corrected to dry standard (DS) conditions
of 32°F and 29.92 " Hg.
B = Barometric pressure at test station (measured)
M = Meter vacuum (measured)
Pft = Vapor oressure of water at fume trap temperature (measured)
Ps = Pressure in duct (boiler exit) or stack (measured)
AP = Pressure drop across orifice outlet (EPA train)
N = Weight of particulate collected expressed in grams
DL = Dust loading exnressed as grains per dry standard cubic foot (DSCF)
Gs = Volume of wet gas corrected to standard conditions of temperature
and pressure (WSCF)
Hd = Humidity of gas sampled expressed in cu.ft. H^O/cu.ft.dry gas
Tm = Gas temperature at meter (measured)
Ts = Temperature in duct or stack (sampling ooint)
W = Condensate collected from gas sample exoressed in milliliters or
gram - equivalents (measured)
MW = Molecular weight expressed as Ib/lb mole
MV = Molecular volume of stack conditions expressed as cu.ft./lb mole
f° = Gas density at stack conditions expressed as Ib/cu.ft.
Vc = Gas velocity measured with Pitot tube expressed as ft./sec.
= Gas velocity (corrected) in stack expressed as ft./sec.
= Correction factor for actual gas velocity determination
A = Cross-section area of duct or stack exoressed in sq.ft.
Q = Total volumetric gas flow expressed as cu.ft./nrin.
Q' = Total volumetric gas flow corrected to dry standard conditions
E = Precipitator Collection Efficiency expressed as percentage
Dry Gas Average Weight = 30.687 Ib.(based on several Orsat analyses)
Conversion Units
Absolute Temperature (°R) = 460 + °F
Gas Volume at Standard Conditions = 359 cu.ft./lb.-mole
=22.4 liters/gram-mole
Molecular Weight of Water = 18
121
-------
CALCULATION OF DUST LOAD AT BOILER EXIT
Volume of Gas Sampled
(See Table 1 for values of P., Tm, M, Pft and B)
C =
26.71-7.86-.34l = 42.26 DSCF
29792J
22.4
C = 77,52
492
_460 + 98
Volume of Wet Gas
Gs = Rr_._._ T 492
i2 1 "B-M 1 + W T
460 + Tm 29.92 18x28.32
-J L_ _I l_
= 77.52 I" 492 1 [26.71-7.861+ 450 [' 22.4 1= 62.81 WSCF
460+98 29.92 18x28.32
L_ —' 1— i i.^, —I
Moisture Content of Gas
Hd = Gs - C = 62.81-42.26 = .486 cu ft H?0/cu ft dry gas
C 42.26
H20 by volume = Gs - C x 100 = 62.81-42.26 x 100 = 32.7%
Gs 62.81
Gas Density
(See Table 2 for values of Ps and Ts)
Gas Weight = Dry Gas Weight + Water Content of Gas
- (30.687 x 1.000) + (18 x 0.0486) = 39.439
MW
MV
= 39.439 = 26.5
1.4
= 359
86
460+Ts]
_ 492 J
Ib/mol
29.92
_B-ps
= 875 cu ft /lb-mole
= 359 |"460 + 59S] [29.92 1
L 492 jp_26.71-.40J
= MW = 26.5 = 0.0303 Ib/cu ft (at stack conditions)
MV 875
122
-------
Vo 1 ume tr i c Gas Fl ow
(See Table 2 for values of Vc, /^c, and A)
V = Vc
= 34.66 \/.0730/.0303 = 53.80 ft /sec
Q = V x A = 53.80 x 60 sec /min x 64.0 = 206,600 cu ft /min
r
B-Ps
Q'= Q x Wt. of Dry Gas x { 492
Wt. of Wet Gas [_460 +" TsJ J9.92j
= 206,600 x 1.000 x j 492
1
1.486
I ~T_/L_ l-\J • / 1 . TV
[460 + 595^ _ 29.92 "j
26.71-.401 = 54,900 DSCFM
Dust Load
DL = H = 17.76 grams x 15.43 grains - 6.484 qrains/DSCF
C 42.26 gram
Total Loss = DL x Q1 = 54,900 x 6.0484 x 60 min /hr
= 3053 Ib/hr
7000 grains/lb
123
-------
PARTICULATE SAMPLING PROCEDURE AT THE STACK
Equipment
An R.A.C. Train Stack Sampler, manufactured by Research Appliance
Company, was used for stack sampling in the testing program for No. 3
recovery system at Missoula. The unit conforms to specifications
given in Volume 36, No. 247, of the Federal Register "Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Samples - Method 5 Particulate Sampling."
For ease of moving from port to port in the course of sampling, the
sampling case was supported on a wheeled car in place of the factory
supplied Duorail support. This sample train is illustrated in Figure 6.
Procedure
A new filter (Whatman GF/C) is oven dried, desicated and weighed. The
sample train is assembled according to the manufacturer's instructions,
with 100 ml of distilled water in each of the first two impingers; the
third impinger is empty and approximately 200. grams of weighed dry
silica gell is in the fourth.
The system is checked for leaks by plugging the nozzle tip. With the
coarse-adjustment valve closed, the pump is turned on and the fine-
adjustment valve regulated to maintain 10 inches of Mercury vacuum.
At 10 inches of Mercury gage vacuum, the flow through the dry gas meter
must not exceed 0.02 cu.ft. per minute, or the leaks must be found and
corrected.
The stack is dividied into six equal areas with the sampling along two
diameters located 90° apart for a total of 24 sample points. Factory
supplied nomographs were used to establish isokinetic sampling at each
point. Figure 5 illustrates this arrangement.
A velocity traverse is made with a calibrated "S" type pi tot tube and
inclined manometer. The indicated velocity is read off of the calibra-
tion chart and corrected for actual gas density. The average velocity
multiplied by the stack area gives the total gas flow., (See Table 4).
The probe heater and filter oven are turned on for 15 minutes to warm up
to 250°F. The impinger section of the sample case is filled with ice.
The probe is inserted into the stack with the nozzle located at the
first position facing upstream. At the same time the vacuum pump is
started and isokinetic flow established. The required sampling flow is
obtained by nothing the pi tot tube manometer reading (AP), setting this
value on the operating nomograph, reading the corresponding AH and with
first the coarse and then fine control valves, making adjustments until
this AH is indicated on the orifice manometer. Each point is sampled
for the same length of time with adjustments made as needed for isokinetic
sampling. The pump is not turned off when moving from point to point,
but only when changing ports. The time, gas meter reading A.P, AH
readings, temperature in and out of the gas meter, scrubber train outlet
temperature and vacuum at the gas meter are recorded at the beginning,
124
-------
en
(O
CO
o
(O
s-
o
T3
O)
to
(O
s-
en
to
0)
3
O
03
Q.
O)
125
-------
Table 4
DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE GAS VELOCITY IN STACK (V_)
DATE
SAMPLE STATION
PITOT TUBE
CALIBRATION DENSITY
October 24. 1973
No. 3 Stack
B
.0730 Qoc)
DUCT DIMENSIONS 56.75 ft.2(A)
STACK TEMPERATURE 335°F. (Ts)
STACK PRESSURE .68 Hg" (Ps)
BAROMETER 26.71 Hg"(B)
*Tra verse
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
W
Probe Traverse
(Inches)
2.0
6.8
12.0
18.1
25.5
36.1
65.9
76.5
84.0
90.0
95.2
100.0
Pi tot Tube
P (H20")
Gas Velocity
(Ft./sec.)
02
42
42
22
.89
.68
.20
.15
.15
.12
.12
.11
.37
.43
.46
.41
.39
.40
.36
.39
.43
.48
.54
.50
Average
,9
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
59
70
70
65
56
49
25.6
22.6
22.6
20.1
20.1
19.8
36.1
38.6
40.3
37.8
37.0
37.2
35.6
37.0
38.6
41.0
43.2
41.8
40.26
(Vc)
See Figure 5
126
-------
the end, and at each change of position during the test. (See Table 5).
When the test is complete, the train is dismantled and the sample re-
moved to the lab for analysis. As much loose dust as possible is
brushed from the inside of the nozzle, probe and cyclone and added to
the filter catch. The filter is carefully removed, dried and weighed.
The entire probe and train from the nozzle through the filter holder is
washed with distilled water. The wash water is collected, evaporated
in tared breakers and the net increase in weight added to the weight
collected on the filter. The total liquid in the impinger train is
measured. The wet silica gel is weighed and the increased weight of
water is converted to volume (1 gram = 1 milliliter), and added to the
total water. Subtracting the original 200 ml gives the volume of
collected condensate.
The total gas volume measured at the gas meter is corrected to dry
standard conditions of 70°F and 29.92 inches of Mercury. The total
weight of dust collected, divided by the corrected gas volume, gives
the grain loading. This is reported as grains of dust per dry standard
cubic foot of gas.
The amount of collected condensate is used to calculate the stack gas
moisture. The gas density is corrected for temperature, pressure, and
moisture. The indicated stack velocity is corrected for gas density
and the actual total gas flow calculated from the average velocity
and stack area.
The total flow is corrected to dry standard conditions. By multiplying
the flow by the dust loading, the total weight of dust lost is obtained.
Precipitator efficiency is then calculated by subtracting the total
weight of dust lost up the stack from the total weight of dust at the
boiler exit (precipitator inlet) to determine the weight of dust removed
by the precipitator. Dividing the dust removed by the dust to the
precipitator and multiplying by 100 gives the percent efficiency.
Sample calculations follow
127
-------
Table 5
DETERMINATION OF METERED GAS VOLUME (R)
DATE October 24, 1973 TEST NO.
SAMPLE STATION No. 3 Stack
TESTERS
Traverse Clock
*Position Time
1 W
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 N
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
**10:45
10:48
10:51
10:54
10:57
11:00
11:03
11:06
11:09
11:12
11:15
11:18
11:21
**11:26
11:29
11:32
11 : 35
11:38
11:41
11:44
11:47
11:50
11:53
11:56
11:59
12:02
BAROMETER
26.71 Hg"
Boschee and Morton DUCT DIMENSIONS 56.75 Ft.
Meter Vol .
(Cu.ft.)
853.50
855.00
857.80
860.50
863.00
865.90
868.40
870.70
872.00
873.20
874.30
875.30
876.40
877.80
879.00
880 . 40
882.00
883,40
884 . 70
886.00
887 . 30
888.70
890 . 40
892.10
893.80
Total
Pi tot Tube Orifice
AP(H20") AH(H20")
1.02
1.55
1.55
1.40
1.30
1.07
.70
.26
.20
.17
.16
.14
.22
.32
.38
.30
.28
.25
.25
.28
.32
.45
.48
.40
- 40.30
(R)
1.80
2.62
2.62
2.40
2.30
1.90
1.28
.48
.38
.32
.31
.28
.41
.60
.70
.58
.53
.48
.48
. 53
.60
.87
.91
.77
Avg. - 1.01
(AH)
Meter
In
91
95
99
105
107
108
109
109
108
107
107
107
105
104
106
108
109
110
111
111
111
in
112
114
Temp(°F)
Out
91
92
92
93
94
95
96
98
98
98
99
100
100
101
102
102
102
103
104
104
105
105
106
106
Avg. -
(B)
2 (A)
Impinger
85
65
65
90
90
90
90
90
75
75
75
75
70
70
70
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
103
(Tm)
Pumo V
Jiia")
4.9
6.7
7.3
7.0
6.8
6.0
4.5
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.9
4.1
3.8
* See Figure 5
** Starting Time
128
-------
CALCULATION OF DUST LOAD AT STACK
Volume of Gas Sampled
(See Table 3 for Values of R, Tm, B ancUH)
C = R [ 492 ] [B + 4H/13.6
460 + Tm 29.92
C = 40.30
492
460 + 103
Volume of Wet Gas
Gs = R
492
460 + Tm
26.71 + 1.01/13.6J = 31.51 DSCF
29.92
22.4
B + 4H/13.6] + W
29.92 J
18 x 28.32
= 40.30
492
26.71 + 1.01/13,6 + 314.9 22.4
460+1031 L 29.92 J J18 x 28.32J
= 45.36 WSCF
Mo1 sture Content__of_ Gas
Hd = Gs - C = 45.36 - 31.51 = .440 cu ft H?0/cu ft dry gas
C 31.51
% HO by volume = Gs - C x 100= 45.36 - 31.51 x 100 = 30.5%
z Gs 45.36
Gas Density
(See Table 4 for values of Ps and Ts)
Gas Weight = Dry Gas Weight + Water Content of Gas
= (30.687 x 1.000) + (18 x 0.440) = 38.607
MW = 38.607 = 26.8 Ib /mole
1.440
MV = 359 [460 + Ts
492
29.92
B-Ps
= 359 [460 + 335
492
[ 29.92 1
[26.71 - .05J
= 651 cu ft /Ib mole
MW = 26.8 = 0.0412 Ib /cu ft (at stack conditions)
MV 651
129
-------
Volumetric Gas Flow
(See Table 4 for values of Vc, PC and A)
V = Mc\i$J°~ = 40.26 I/. 07507.0412 = 54.32 ft /sec
Q = V x A = 54.32 x 60 sec, x 56.75 = 185,000 cu ft /min
min
Q1 = Q x Irft. of Dry Gas x r 492 [B - Psl
Wt. of Wet Gas 1460 + Tsj |_29.92j
= 185,000 x 1.000 x f 492 1 J26.71 - .05] = 70,800 DSCFM
1.440 [460 + 335J [29.92 J
Dust Load
DL = \\_ = .0515 grams x 15.43 grains = .0255 grains/DSCF
C 31.51 grams
Total Loss = DL x Q1 = 70,800 x .0-255 x 60 nrin/hr
7000 grains/lb
= 15.5 Ib /hr
Precipitator Collection Efficiency
E = In-Put = 3053 - 15.5 x 100 = 99.5%
In 3053
130
-------
APPENDIX D
BLACK LIQUOR SOLIDS DETERMINATION
The liquor was collected in a tared graduated cylinder and the
volume read immediately before the sample cooled. In the laboratory
the outside of the cylinder is cleaned and dried. The cylinder and
contents are weighed and the cylinder tare subtracted to obtain the
net weight of liquor. The net weight in grams divided by the volume
in milliliters and multiplied by 8.33 gives the liquor density at
line conditions in pounds per gallon.
About 15 grams of well mixed liquor are transferred to a tared
aluminum dish and quickly weighed. After drying for 24 hours in a
forced circulation oven at 105°C, the samples are cooled in a
desiccator and reweighed. The net dry weight is expressed as a
percentage of the net wet weight and reported as oven-dry solids.
The values for both black liquor density and percent solids are
needed for the calculation of boiler loading as shown in the example
given on page 141.
131
-------
APPENDIX E
Table 6
WEEKLY AVERAGES FOR SULFIDITY, TRS, AND S02 (1971-1973)
Week Ending
6-30-71
7-11-71
7-18-71
7-25-71
8-1-71
8-8-71
8-15-71
10-24-71
10-31-71
11-7-71
11-14-71
11-21-71
11-28-71
12-5-71
12-12-71
12-19-71
1-2-72
1-9-72
1-16-72
1-23-72
1-30-72
2-6-72
2-13-72
Sulfidity (%)
27.4
26.1
27.3
27.7
28.2
28.7
28.9
30.0
29.7
29.2
27.8
27.6
28.3
29.3
29.9
30.0
29.3
29.5
29.5
29.4
28.9
29.2
29.5
Average TRS (ppm)
9.4
2.6
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.3
2.8
12.7
6-.0
3.9
2.5
11.4
13.0
13.6
4.8
24.8
15.8
25.1
15.1
18.8
11.3
13.7
12.3
Average SC
5
2
0
0
6
12
13
137
51
53
25
32
16
39
112
60
48
93
40
100
65
97
94
132
-------
Week Ending Sulfidity (%) Average TRS (ppm) Average S02 (ppm)
2-20-72
2-27-72
3-5-72
3-12-72
3-19-72
3-26-72
4-2-72
4-9-72
4-16-72
4-23-72
4-30-72
5-7-72
5-14-72
5-21-72
5-28-72
6-4-72
6-11-72
6-18-72
6-25-72
7-2-72
7-9-72
7-16-72
7-23-72
7-30-72
8-6-72
29.4
30.5
30.1
29.8
29.2
29.7
29.2
28.7
28.5
28.3
29.8
29.2
29.4
30.8
29.3
28.8
29.5
30.4
29.8
30.6
28.5
28.3
29.5
30.0
29.6
10
6.4
14.2
8.7
8.7
8.5
5.3
1.3
2.6
1.0
5.7
10.1
9.4
4.5
8.9
17.3
5.1
10.0
10.3
12.2
NA
7.0
17.2
7.3
2.1
80
147
128
89
93
72
55
8
65
57
47
108
71
58
36
61
43
36
58
35
NA
28
77
25
65
133
-------
Week Ending Sulfidlty (%) Average TRS (ppm) Average SO? (ppm)
8-13-72
8-20-72
8-27-72
9-3-72
9-10-72
9-17-72
9-24-72
10-1-72
10-8-72
10-15-72
10-22-72
10-29-72
11-5-72
11-12-72
11-19-72
11-26-72
12-3-72
12-10-72
12-17-72
12-24-72
12-31-72
1-7-73
1-14-73
1-21-73
1-28-73
29.5
29.5
30.3
30.4
31.2
30.2
30.0
29.3
27.4
28.2
29.2
29.9
30.7
29.6
28.3
28.6
28.6
28.2
28.7
28.8
28.6
28.7
28.7
29.8
29.8
6.4
2.1
5.7
16.6
12.3
15.3
7.5
NA
6.0
8.8
3.5
2.3
15.1
5.2
2.6
7.0
8.2
10.9
10.4
6.4
6.8
10.1
8.0
5.4
6.6
62
65
11
33
35
15
7
NA
16
28
31
69
136
61
54
92
44
133
91
106
135
59
71
77
31
134
-------
Week Ending • Sulfidity (%) Average TRS (ppm) Average S02 (ppm)
2-4-73
2-11-73
2-18-73
2-25-73
3-4-73
3-11-73
3-18-73
3-25-73
4-1-73
4-8-73
4-15-73
4-22-73
4-29-73
5-6-73
5-13-73
5-20-73
5-27-73
6-3-73
6-10-73
6-17-73
6-24-73
7-1-73
7-8-73
7-15-73
7-22-73
7-29-73
29.1
27.6
28.8
27.6
27.2
27. n
27.6
27.6
27.5
27.1
28.6
28.8
29.9
30.9
30.4
29.2
30.2
30.3
29.5
28.3
28.3
28.8
29.6
28.9
31.3
32.0
13.4
9.4
5.7
NA
10.4
5.0
6.7
12.4
4.7
15.6
12.4
9.1
5.7
7.7
4.0
3.9
3.8
6.5
3.6
1.4
10.4
9.0
NA
1.7
5.8
8.3
91
138
56
NA
36
16
43
53
20
35
79
36
89
42
47
61
64
43
49
30
127
145
NA
60
43
374
135
-------
Week Ending Sulfidity (%) Average TRS (ppm) Average SO? (ppm)
8-5-73
8-12-73
8-19-73
8-26-73
9-2-73
9-9-73
9-16-73
9-23-73
9-30-73
10-7-73
10-14-73
10-21-73
10-28-73
11-4-73
11-11-73
11-18-73
11-25-73
12-2-73
12-9-73
12-16-73
12-23-73
12-30-73
1-6-74
32.3
31.1
30.4
30.4
29.3
27.2
27.8
29.1
29.4
29.1
29.9
31.9
32.1
32.9
31.6
30.8
29.5
28.2
27.6
27.5
26.5
24.9
24.4
12.3
19.5
21.9
13.4
13.7
15.8
8.7
11.6
15.6
11.4
8.6
26.9
25.7
23.0
17.9
17.6
7.9
14.3
5.1
3.7
6.6
2.7
1.9
201
172
197
119
96
85
71
53
108
279
182
274
353
197
132
68
94
5
11
7
13
Negligible
Negligible
136
-------
APPENDIX F
STATISTISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS
METHODS FOR COMPUTING CONFIDENCE LIMITS
In the experiment being analyzed sample data were obtained
and straight line was fit to the data by the method of
least squares. Assuming certain conditions1 we are able to
estimate the universe values of A and B (intercept and slope)
from our sample values a and b.
The 95% confidence limits for B are given by b± ^0.025 sv.Y &-
,/ A
where to.025 is the 0.025 point of the "t" distribution for n=N-2.
(In our cases with the large number of values, this is anproxi-
mately 1.96). The standard error of estimate sy.x is the square
root of the mean square deviation about the regression line.
Sigma is the standard deviation of x in the universe. (Our
estimate forffx will be sx for all data points under consideration),
For example, in the case 3 - 7, Log S02 vs. Sulfidity, byx = .1278,
sy x = .4702, sx= 2.0818 and N = 69.
.1278 t 1.96 (.027) = .1278 ± .052 = .076, .180
We conclude that our chances are 0.95 that the universe regression
coefficient will be included between the lower limit of 0.076 and
upper limit of 0.180.
Estimates of the standard errors of estimates for the sample
intercepts and slopes are:
sa 2 = s * / N and sb 2 = s x Iff ?~ N.
y.x yx J
The latter was used in the calculation of confidence limits.
The confidence limits for the least-squares estimate of the
universe line of regression Yr= av + b X can be determined
as follows: y-x .vx
1r ' * " X * t
v
_. . . _ . y.x x
These limits are a quadratic form or X and form parabolic loci
around the sample line of regression. These loci are 0.95
confidence limits for the values of Yr, but they are not strictly
confidence limits for the universe line as a whole.
3. The equation for prediction limits for individual values about a
regression line is as follows:
Y = Vx byxx±
V y.x yx
The last term under the radical is the mean square deviation
about the regression line.
These limits also form parabolic loci around the sample line of
regression. It should be noted that predictions of the dependent
variable "y" are subject to the least error when the independent
variable "x" is near its mean—the narrowest area of the limits.
137
-------
Table 7a
951 CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL VALUES
ABOUT A REGRESSION LINE
Figure 12:
Boiler Exit Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading
Y = 62.1 X - 1940; Y = 4156, X « 98.1
X Value
70
80
90
98.14
100
110
120
Lower Limit
1110,6
1747.3
2377.3
2885.2
3000.6
3617.0
4226.6
Upper Limit
3706.6
4312.0
4924
5427
5543
6168.9
6801.5
Figure 13:
Precipitator Outlet Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading
All data excluding low efficiencies:
Y = 1.33 X - 89; Y = 39.4, X = 96.8
X Value
70
80
90
96.82
100
110
120
Lower Ljjnit
-19.06
- 5.51
7.91
16.99
21.20
34.35
47.38
Figure 14:
TRS Emissions vs. Excess 02
All Data: Y = 29.7 - 8.3 X; Y = 10.4, I
= 2.3
X Value
0
1
2
2.33
3
4
Lower Limit
4.
-2.
-10.
-12.
-18.
-27.
98
39
26
98
66
58
Upper Limit
26,63
39.61
52.72
61.73
65.96
79.33
92.83
Upper Limit
54.52
45.27
36.53
33.76
28.31
20.61
138
-------
Table 7b
95$ CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL VALUES
ABOUT A REGRESSION LINE (continued)
Figure 15:
Log S02 vs. Sulfidi
Y = 0.128
X Value
26
28
29.44
31
33
Figure 16:
Total Air Flow vs.
All Data: Y = 27.3
X Value
70
80
90
98.22
100
110
120
Figure 18:
ty
X - 2.0; Y = 63, X
Lower Limit
.42
.68
.87
1.07
1.31
Boiler Loading
+ 3.37 X; 7= 358,
Lower Limit
200.44
234.88
268.99
296.78
302.77
336.23
369.36
Precipitator Collection Efficiency vs.
= 29.4
Upper Limit
2.31
2.55
2.73
2.93
3.20
I = 98.2
Upper Limit
325.77
358.70
391.95
419.52
425.52
459.42
493.95
Precipitator Inlet Gas Volume
All data excluding low efficiencies
Y = 100.
X Value
140
150
160
170
180
187.54
190
200
210
78 - .009 X; Y = 99.
Lower Limit
99.02
98.93
98.84
98.76
98.67
98.60
98.58
98.49
98.40
1 , X = 187.5
Upper Limit
100.02
99.92
99.83
99.74
99.65
99.58
99.56
99.47
99.38
139
-------
Table 8
ANALYSIS OF REGRESSION LINES
Figure 19:
TRS Emissions vs. Excess
95% Confidence Limits
Lower
Upper
Low (26-28%) Sulfidity
Normal (28-30%) Sulfidity
High (31-33%) Sulfidity
Slope:
Intercept:
Intercept
16.01
30.88
56.73
Slope
-4.22*
-9.82
-15.64*
-4.78
7.51
at X =
-11.84
13.27
2.33, Y =
6.18*
8.00
20.29*
Figure 20 :
S02 Emissions (Log Function) vs. Sulfidity
95% Confidence Limits
Slope:
Intercept:
Intercept
Low (0-1.95%) Excess Oxygen -2.73
Normal(2.00-3.00%)Excess
Oxygen -1.92
High (3.10-4.00%) Excess
Oxygen Not Significant
Slope
.16
.13
Figure 21 :
Total Air Flow vs. Boiler Loading
95% Confidence Limits
Slope:
Intercept:
Intercept SI ope
Low (35%) Primary Air
Normal (45%) Primary Air
High (55%) Primary Air
19.15
33.69
16.88
3.59
3.28
3.41
Lower
Upper
.073 .182
1.688 (49) 1.915 C82)
at I- 29.44, Y =
1.91 (81)
1.78 (60)
Lower
2.92
352.67
Upper
3.82
363.57
at X = 98.22, Y =
372*
356
351*
* Exceeds confidence limits
140
-------
APPENDIX G
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR BASIC PROGRAM
GLOSSARY FOR DATA SHEETS IN TABLES 9, 10, 11
Liquor flows - Measured with a magnetic flow meter and continuously
recorded on a strip chart in gallons per minute.
Liquor densities - An average of two actual measurements during each
test period.
Liquor solids - An average of two black liquor samples collected
during each test period with solids being determined by oven drying a
12-18 gram sample of black liquor for 24 hours at 105°C.
Boiler loading - Actual true black liquor solids throughput divided
by design solids throughput, corrected for the BTU value in use at
that time.
EXAMPLE: No 3 recovery design - 1,400,000 Ibs true black
liquor solids per day at 6600 BTU/lb
Hoerner Waldorf black liquor contains 6,515 BTU's/lb
Therefore, corrected design solids throughput is:
1,400,000 x 6600 = 1,418,000 Ibs/day
6515
Given: Sluice flow 140 gal/mi n.
% Solids 62.0%
B.L.density 11.0 Ib/gal
Boiler loading would then be:
140 gal/min x .62 x 11 Ib/gal x 1440 min/day x 100 =97.0%
1,418,000 Ib/day
Salt cake - Is added via a calibrated screw conveyor. Salt cake is
the basic makeup chemical for the Kraft process and controls the
sulfidity level.
Nozzle size - The diameter of the nozzle in 32nds of an inch, e.g.,
a size 40 nozzle is 3.175 cm (1.25 inches) in diameter.
Nozzle pressure - The liquor line pressure (psig).
141
-------
Nozzle backsweep - The vertical upper and lower limits of nozzle
movement expressed in degrees with 0 degrees at the horizontal
position
Nozzle sidesweep - The rotation of the nozzle expressed in degrees
with 0 degrees at the vertical position.
Air flows - The amount of air entering the furnace at the primary,
secondary, or tertiary air ports. It is measured by pressure
differential in the duct and recorded continuously on a strip chart.
Total air - The summation of the individual primary, secondary, and
tertiary air flows.
Combustion air temperature - The temperature of the combustion air
after it has been heated by a steam heat exchanger and before it
enters the recovery boiler. It is measured and recorded continuously
on a strip chart.
Excess Q£ - The percentage of oxygen leaving the furnace. Measurement
based upon a paramagnetic principle. It is calibrated bimonthly,
using 1.0 and 9.0% oxygen standards and recorded continuously on a
strip chart.
TRS and S0? Averages - The amount of TRS and SOo as ppm (dry gas
basis) leaving the recovery boiler stack during the test period as
measured with a Barton titrator. Accuracies and calibration frequencies
are discussed in the section of this report entitled testing procedures.
Sulfidity - The percentage ratio of sodium sulfide to total alkali
(NaOH, Na2S, and ^003), all expressed as Na20. The daily sulfidity
is an average of six white and three green liquor titrations run by
lab personnel.
142
-------
Steam flow - The amount of 600 psig, 750° F steam produced in Ibs/hr
from the recovery boiler. The Hoerner Waldorf No. 3 recovery boiler
will produce 235,000 Ibs/hr of steam at design solids loading.
Boiler exit and precipitator outlet conditions - ACFM, DSCFM,
temperatures, particulate loadings, and precipitator efficiencies
are either directly measured or calculated from data collected
during each test period. An example of actual data collected and
sample calculations will be found in the APPENDIX of this report.
Precipitator inlet conditions - ACFM - The gas volume entering the
precipitator at actual pressure and temperature conditions.
Volume at 400° F - The precipitator was designed to collect 99.125%
of the incoming particulate at this temperature with an air volume
of 207,500 ACFM.
TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS
(English to Metric Units)
Multiply
cubic feet
degrees Fahrenheit(°F)
gallons
pounds
pounds per gallon
pressure (PSI)
by_
0.02832
(-32) x 5/9
3.785
0.454
0.1195
760/14.7
to obtain
cubic meters
degrees centigrade(°C)
liters
kilograms
kilograms per liter
pressure(mm.of mercury)
143
-------
Table 9
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (?,)
Boiler Loading (?= of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (Z)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (*)
SALT CAKE Obs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.S)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
fSize
[Pressure (PS I)
26-28
110
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-5-73
165
11.1
60.0
108
40
27.7
40
39
Liquor Temo. (°F) i 243
Backsweep (°)
Sides weep (")
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Drimarv (M Ibs/hr)
-6 to -19
12Lto 21R
243
175
(% of Total) i 4i
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (35)
TRS AVG. (pom)
165
42
55
14
395
2.0
(T.l
S02 AVG (ppm) I 9.0
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM "QOOO cu.ft./min)
250
656
279
DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./nin) '78.1
Grain Loadinq(ar/DSCF) 7.12
Particulate load( Ibs/hr) ,4763
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume 0 400°F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
410
?17
214
368
232
88.4
.0828
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) gg ^
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^) 98t5
i
26-28
110
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-5-73
165
11.1
59.7
108
40
27.7
40
39
245
-6 to -19
IZLto 21R
242
175
45
160
41
56
14
391
2.0
0.1
9.0
245
615
277
80.6
6.52
4502
415
?25
221
390
217
82.8
.0751
53.3
98.8
26-28
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-6-73
168
11.2
59.7
111
40
?6.7
40
39
245 •
-6 to -19 .
12L,to 21R
240
177
?fi-?a
no
45/40/15
?fi-28
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0 JO. 5-1. 5
3-6-73
168
11.1
60.0
110
45
?fi 7
40
39
245
-6 to -19
12Lto 21R
240
177
45 145
3-7-73
161
11.5
60.3
110
45
P7 n
40
39
£45
-6 to -19
12Lto 21R
245
165
AS
158 J158 150
40 J40 41
57 157
15 115
392
2.0
1.0
13
245
683
28?
392
52
14
367
2.0 p. 7
1.0 125.5
13 J18.5
255
662
291
250
545
26A_
77.8' 181.2 ifiS.S
6.45 (7.77 8.28
4303
420
?17
212 .
400
5408 J5236
430
115
231 bnq
223
418
240 {224
91.8 83.8
.0689
54.2
98.7
.0751
53.9
99.0
?05
Data
Missing
n
"
»
-
144
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%'
Boiler Loading (% of Design)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-%'
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
^Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°
Sldesweep (°
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hrj
26-28
110
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
3-?T?3
161
11.2
60.4
108
45
27.0
40
39
245
-6 to -19
12L to 21 R
240
167
1% of Total) 44
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 155
(% of Total)
Tertiary |1M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
41 '
55
15
377
0.7
TRS AVG. (opm) i 25.5
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
18.5
255
654
274
OSCFMdOOO cu.ft./mn) : 76.6
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 18.18
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 5370
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
410
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min) ! 214
Volume (? 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET "COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loadinq(1bs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(X)
212
400
234
88.0
.0985
74.3
98.6
26-28
no
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
3-8-73
161
11.2
60.5
108
45
27.0
40
39
245
-6 to -19
12L to 21R
235
158
38
200
48
58
14
416
1.5
3.5
17.5
260
681
293
81.9
8.57
6012
425
26-28
no
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
3-8-73
162
11.2
60.5
108
45
27.0
40
39
245
-6 to -19
12L to 21R
240
157
38
26-28
no
35/5n/m
2.0-3.0
3-9-73
162
11.2
59.4
106
45
27.8
40
38
245
-6 to -19
12L to 21R
240
158
38
26-28
nn
^/W/T?
2.0-3.0
3-9-73
162
11.2
59.6
107
45
27.8
40
3R
245
-6 to -19
12L to 21R
240
158
38
200 200 1 ?nn
48
59
14
416
1.5
3.5
17.5
260
666
28?
79.1
7.93
5373
420
227 1220
220
405
248
94.1
.0602
48.5
99.2
215
407
260
98.3
.0639
53.7
99,0
48
57
14
415
1.7
4.0
15.5
260
646
?83
80.5
9.13
6295
420
225
220
408
260
96.6
.0794
65.7
99.0
48
57
14
415
1.7
4.0
15.5
255
689
3nn
81.9
8.10
5674
425
231
224
413
266
97.8
.0686
57.5
99.0
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
rBoiler Loading (% of Desiqn)
Air Distribution (W2°/3c-%
Excess 02 (»)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
n
Flow (gpm)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (?,)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIOITY - (DAILY AVG. 8)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary 'M 1h<;/hrl
26-28
110
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-12-73
176
11.2
60.8
118
45
27.7
40
38
245
-6 to -19
12L to 22R
230
210
26-28
110
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-12-73
177
11.1
60.9
117
45
27.7
40
38
245
-6 to -19
I2L to 22R
235
210
26-28
110
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-13-73
177
11.2
59.5
116
26-28
no
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-13-73
179
11.1
59.0
116
45 145
27.7
40
38
245
-6 to -19
12L to 22 R
235
210
27.7
40
38
245
-6 to -19
12L to 22R
235
210
h of Total) 54 i 53 [53 153
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) ! l»
i'% of Total)
Tertiary M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (oom)
31
58
15
386
2.4
2.5
S02 AVG (pom) < 78
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
260
696
292
79.9
Grain Lcadinq(qr/DSCF) 8.59
Participate Load(lbs/hr) 5887
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temo (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume 0 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp <°F)
ACFM ' 1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinc[(qr/DSCFl
Particulate Loading(lbs/'hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
425
232
229
409
279
107
.0862
79.2
98,7
i 125
32
60
15
395
2.4
2.5
78
255
714
311
83.9
8.89
6400
435
237
228
405
276
106
.0939
85.5
98.7
130
32
60
15
400
2.7
2.6
51
250
700
308
83.4
5.63
4019
425
235
228 -
405
285
108
.1051
97.9
97.6
130
32
61
15
401
2.7
2.6
51
245
680
312
85.3
7,44
5441
445
248
235
423
278
106
.0924
84.1
98.5
-
146
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (1)
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%}
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liauor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
primary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (pom)
26-28
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-15-73
152
11.1
60.0
99
40
27.3
38
39
245
-7 to -20
12L to 21R
245
154
45
135
39
54
26-28
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-15-73
152
11.1
59.9
99
40
27.3
38
38
245
-7 to -20
12L to 21R
245
155
45
137
40
53
16 15
343
2.0
4.9
S02 AVG (ppm) I 33.6
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
' BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
230
588
233
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./min) • 70.7
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF) \ 6.64
Particulate Load(lbi/hr) ^^
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loadinq(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(X)
390
lag
191
371
196 •
77.5
.0464
30.8
99.2
345 •
2.0
4.9
33.6
235
574
241 •
73.4
6.83
4297
J90
26-28
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-26-73
156
10.8
60.2
102
40 1
27.5
38
38
245
-7 to -20
12L to 19R
245
163
45
142
39
60
16
365
2.4
4.6 -
13.4
235
615
258
75.7
6.25
4063
410 .
198 209
200
373
L201
78.4
.0388
26.1
99.4
207 -
388
243
93.5
.0403
31.6
99.2
26-28
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-26-73
155
10.5
59.2
-100
26-23
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
3-16-73
152
11.2
60.3
101
40 140
27.5
38
39
745
-7 to -20
12L to 19R
242
164
45
142
39
60
26.1
38
38
245
-7 to -20
12L to 21R
245
14?
44
133
41
50
16 115
366 (325
2.4
4.6
13.4
230
629
247
1.0
15.9
13.4
235
605
226
71.2 65.4
4.51 17.77
2756
400
195
195
387
249
95.8
.0366
33.8
98.9
4350
385
179
183
376
216
83.3
.0443
31.6
99.3
147
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%)
Boiler Loading {% of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/30-%
Excess 02 («)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING U)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/nrin)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.*)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
^ze
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°
Sidesweep (°
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primarv (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
% of Total)
Tertiary M Ibs/hr)
% of Total )
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
26-28
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
3-16-73
151
n.i
60.6
101
40
26.1
38
38
245
-7 to -20
12L to 21R
250
145
26-28
100
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3-19-73
151
11.2
60.7
101
40
27.6
38
38
245
k-5 to -21
12L to 19R
245
167
44 144
132
41
50
15
327
1.0
TRS AVG. (pom) j 15.9
S02 AVG (pom) 13.4
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr) 232.
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
597
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 224
DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./nin) • 65.9
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ; 6.53
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 3591
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM(1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume I? 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp i°F)
ACFM '1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
390
180
182
373
222
85.8
.0460
33.8
99.1
162
42
55
14
384
3.6
0.9
46.2
230
604
264
80.7
6.77
4679
410
26-28
100
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3-19-73
151
11.1
60.7
26-28
100
3R/<;n/i<;
2.0-3.0
3-20-73
151
11.1
59.8
100 199
40
27.6
38
38
245
-5 to -21
12L to 19R
245
167
44
162
42
55
14
384
3.6
0.9
46.2
230
627
?54
75.8
5.57
3619
400
40
28.2-
38
38
245
-6 to -21
12L to 19R
245
135
26-28
ion
^/SG/IC;
2.0-3.0
3-20-73
156
10.9
59.3
100
40
28 2
38
40
242
-6 to -21
12L to 19R
245
135
35 !36
188
50
50
14
373
2.2
7.3
43.6
225
635
?4fi
71.0
188
50
50
14
373
7.2
7.3
43.6
??
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (X)
Boiler Loading (% of Desion)
Air Distribution (r/2"/y-%
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
- BORER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE Obs/min)
._. -. SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 2)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
-
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp, (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
"COMBUSTION AIH TEMP (°F)
— ^-AIR-ROW
—
• t!
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
26-28
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
3-21-73
154
10.7
59.1
96
40
26.9
38
38
242
-6 to -22
12L to 19R
245
135
36
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) I I8b
(% of Total ) 1 50
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) |50
~ - - (% of Total)
lotal— -(M Ibs/hr)
(CESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
._ S02 AVG (ppm)
_ ._.-;._- - STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
-
?F
•
Temp. (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
14
370
2.4
7.5
55.2
223
607
249
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min) '.72.5
Grain Loading(qr/DSCF) :6.24
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 3gg1
ECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
410
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) '203
Volume @ 400° F
. .- --pRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp i°F) .
ACFM i.lOOO cu.ft./min)
'DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loading (gr/DSCFJ
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (X)
201
408
244 •
89.8
.0357
27.6
99.3
26-28
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
3-21-73
154
10.4
59.2
Q7
40
26.9
38
40
242
-6 to -22
12L to 19R
245
135
36
188
50
50
14
373 '
2.4
7.5
55.2
225
601
254
79.6
5.47
3500
410
209
206
396
243
91. V
.0408
31.9
99.1
26-28
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-22-73
152
10.9
60.1
im
40
28.1
38
38
245
-7 to -20
12L to 19R
235
193
52
"122
33
55
15
370
3.5
9.5 --
62.9
225
636
272
79.9
26-28
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-22-73
152
10.9
60.3
•im
40
28.1
38
38
245
-7 to -20
!2L to 19R
240
193
26-28
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-23-73
157
10.9
59.9
im
40
27.2
38
39
245
-7 to -20
I2L to 19R
243
183
52 154
122
33
56
15
371
3.5
9.5
62.9
235
653
265
75.9
5.22 16.53
3578
420 .
218
213
393
252
97.0
.0479
39.8
99.0
4248
410
201
205
405
259
92.2
.0501
42 ,'6
99.0
108
32
49
14
340
2.5
13.9
77.4
230
642
244
71.5
5.77
3531
400
191
191
3Q5
250
96.5
0425
35.1
99,0
149
-------
COMPLETE ERA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv [",)
Boil-er Loading [% of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (*)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M ibs/hrj
(% of Total)
26-28
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-23-73
157
10.8
60.0
103
40
27.2
38
39
245
-7 to -20
12L to 19F
245
183
54
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) ! 108
(% of Total )
Tertiary M Ibs/hr)
i% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
32
49
14
340
2.5
13.9
77.4
232
628
247
DSCFMflOOO cu.ft./Tin) ! 72-8
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF) ! &-31
Parti cul ate Load( Ibs/hr) 3942
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR .OUTLET COND.
Temp i°F)
ACFM ! 1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
410
197
195
391
ZbJ
97.8 .
.0366
30.6
99.2
26-28
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-28-73
115
11.0
58.7
73
40
27.8
32
40
247
-6 to -20
12L to 19R
258
118
45
106
41
36
14
260
2.5
1.9
21.2
170
555
178
53.8
b.96
2745
370
145
150
352
1/4
68.0
.0160
9. -3
99.7
26-28
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-28-73
115
11.0
59.0
74
40
27.8
32
40
247
-6 to -20
12L to 19R
260
118
45
26-28
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
3-29-73
121
11.0
58.8
77
40
26.9
32
40
247
-6 to -20
12L to 19R
258
121
26-28
75
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3-27-73
114
n.o
59.4
74
40
27.1
32
40
247
-6 to -20
12L to 19R
256
125
4C 1 46
106 105
41
36
14
260
2.5
1.3
21..?
175
556
176
51.7
6.92
3068
365
143
149
350
I/U
^6.6.6
.0164
9.4
99,7
40
36
14
262
2.2
4.0
16.1
180
558
179
54.0
6.95
3212
370
146
151
347
I//
69,0
.0150
3:9
99.7
m
41
36
13
272
3.2
7.7
20 3
170
547
180
55.2
6.72
3190
360
143
148
372
1/7
T5fi_9
.0?17
12.5
99.6
150
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 26-28% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%)
Boiler Loading (% of Design)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-*)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
BC
Flow (qpm)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
IILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
_. .. SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
-
u
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°) —
Sidesweep (°)
JMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
-
Primarv (M Ibs/hr)
26-28
75
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
3-27-73
114
11.0
59.8
74
40
27.1
32
40
247
-6 to -20
12L to 17R
256
125
(% of Total) 46
-Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 111
(% of Total) ! 41
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) i 36 ~
(% of Total) 13
-Total (M Ibs/hr) 272
•-r— : EXCESS 0? (55)
3.2
TRS AVG. (pom) - - 2.7
. . . . S02 AVG (ppm) . 20. J " '
.... STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr) 175
: BORER EXIT CONDITIONS
_.
Temp (°F)
551
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 178
26-28
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
4-2-73
113
11.2
61.0
76
40
27.3
32
40
247
-6 to -20
10L to 19R
252
105
37
142
49
41
14
288
2.7
7.8
42.0
180
536
173
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./mn) i 54.3 | 56.6
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ' 6.69
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) j'sns"
"PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
-H
Temo (°F)
365
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min) 145
Volume @ 400°F
- PRECIPITATOR OUTLET CONDI
Temp (°F)
ACFM 'lOOO cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
i Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading! Ibs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
151 - ~
355
172 •
66.2
.0168
9.6
99.7
5.90
2857
365
145
150
345
177
76.9
.0150
8.6
99.7
i
26-28
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
4-3-73
115
11.3
60.7
78
40
27.7
32
39
245
-10 to -17
10L to 19R
256
102
37
138
49
40
14
280
2.0
6.6 --
51.7
185
545
175
57.0
6.20 j
3548
365 .
145
150
335
171
68.8
.0132
7.2
99.8
26-28
75
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
3-30-73
112
11.2
60.3
• 75
40
26.9
32
40
250
-6 to -19
12L to 20R
252
134
26-28
?c;
55/30/15
2,0-3. q
4-4-73
llfi
11.1
59.8
76
40
25.4
32
41
248
-5 to -19
10L to 18R
255
138
53 I 53
80
32
38
15
252 -
?•?"-
1.3
3.8....
185
545
183
57.0
L7.43
3627..
375
151 .
156
345
177
72.2
.0058
3.3
99.9
82
3?
3R
15
258
? ?
16
LJ20
180
532
174
55.2
6.93
3277
365,
!4b
150
350
182
71.4
.0139
7.9
99.7
151
-------
Table 10
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%)
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution d°/2°/3°-%)
Exces? 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
-
Flow (gpm)
iDensitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (35)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liauor Temp. (°F)
Backsweap (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
28-30
no
45/40/15
2,0-3.0
4-11-73
165
11.1
62.5
114
50
28.4
40
39
28-30
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
4-11-73
160
11.1
62.6
'109
50
28.4
40
39
245 ! 245
-5 to -22
5L to 15R
230
190
(% of Total) 45
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) i 173
(% of Total) 41
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 61
(% of Total) 14
Total (M Ibs/hr) 424
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (ppm)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
~~
Temp (°F)
2.5
6.7
39.2
260
696
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) j 294
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin) - 81.4
-5 to -22
5L to 15R
235
178
28-30
no
2.0-3.0
4-12-73
157
11.3
61.2
106
45
28.6
40
38
245
-5 to -2'
5L to 15!
230
178
44 i 44
168
4?
57
14
403
2.5
6.7
39.2
255
666
246
78.6
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF) ' 7.78 3. 41
Participate Load(lbs/hr) , 5423
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp T°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET 'COND.
rrempT°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(gr/DSCF)
460
234
219
427
291
llfi.l
.1199
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) I ^9 .,
1 • *^ _
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (%) 9/'B
5671
430
173
4?
57
14
408
2.5
10.1
148
240
682
283
28-30
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
4-12-73
157
11.2
60.9
106
-45
28.fi
40
38
?45
-5 to -21
51 to 15R
235
178
28-30
nn
2.0-3.0
4-16-73
166
11.?
61.9
114
50
OQ "I
40
1Q
?45
-8 to -Ifi
5L to 15R
23Q
190
44 ' dc
170
4?
^7
14
405
_2.5
in.i
148
240
670
280
IfiR
40
fin
4,18
2.4
0 9
3° 15
255
695
289
80.4 79.4 j 80.5
5.36 7.fifi
3692
440
218, i 223
211
417
246
im a.
.0807
70.1
98.8
213
428
280
108 5
.1055
98.1
97.3
5217
440
225
215
423
280
110.9
.1028
97.4
98.1
6.73
4294
450
228
215
420
283
104.6
1131
101,3
97.6
152
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/2Q/3°-S)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Densitv (Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
^ize
Pressure (PSI)
28-30
no
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
4-13-73
164
11.2
60.5
no
50
28.2
40
39
Liouor Temo. (°F) i 245
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
rPrirnarv (M Ibs/hr)
-5 to -21
15L - 15R
242
170
(% of Total ) ! 43
[Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
161
41
61
16
392
1,0
26.5
IQfi
260
680
277
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./rnin) ' 76.9
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ! 6.73
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 4449
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
ITemp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
TJSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadina(gr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(X)
440
216
207
410
245
91.8
.0653
51.4
98.8
28-30
no
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
4-13-73
164
11.2
61,0
no
50
28.2
40
39
245
-5 to -21
15L to 15R
235
170
44
161
41
57
15
388
1,0
26.5
IQfi
255
678
277
76.1
7.83
5107
430
?17
209
407
??n
101.9
.0733
64.0
98.8
28-30
no
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
4-17-73
163
11.1
62.3
m
50
27.6
40
39
243
-8 to -16
5L to 15R
230
195
45
172
40
62
15
429
3,3 .
1.8
Tfi c;
255
636
289
85.8
6.94
5100
440
?37
227'
417
281
108.6 '
.0866
80.6
98.4
28-30
no
45/40/15
28-30
no
35/50/15
3.5-4.5 ! 2.0-3.0
4-17-73
162
11.1
62.1
no
50
27.6
40
39
248
-5 to -20
6L to 23R
230
194
45
4-18-73
171
11.3
61.1
116
5(1
28.4
40
38
240
-5 to -20
10L to 18R
235
161
•?Q
173 ! 197
41
61
14
428
3.3
1.8
1K 5
250
665
287
47
58
14
416
2.0
8.4
27 6
250
676
280
82.8 ! 75.5
6.18
4384
440
?31
221
422
280
106.8
.1160
106.2
97.6
9.03
5848
435
??n
211
408
280
104.7
.0549
49.2
99,2
153
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULF1DITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loading (* of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-5S)
Excess 02 (%}
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
28-30
110
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
4-18-73
168
11.3
61.4
115
50
28.4
40
38
Liauor Temp. (°F) J235
Backsweep (°) ,
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
-5 to-20
10L to 18R
235
160
fr, of Total1- 38
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 197
(% of Total) 48
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
h of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
58
14
415
2.0
TRS AVG. (ppm) ! 8.4
S02 AVG (com) 27.6
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr) 255
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
lACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
633
274
28r-30
no
28-30
?8-30
loo Hoo
35/50/15 155/30/15 55/30/15
2.0-3.0
4-23-73
157
11.1
62.3
107
50
29.5
40
36
245
-5 to -20
10L to 18R
240
161
39
196
47
59
14
416
2.0
4.8
36.3
250
678
272
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./mn) 78.2 76.3
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF) 7.28 8.55
Participate Load( Ibs/hr)
PRECIPITATOP. INLET COND.
Temp (°F
435
ACFHdOOO cu.ft./min) 224
Volume @ ^00° F 215
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temo T°F
414
•5592
440
215
205
417
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) i 276 268
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./rin) ; 102 102
Grain Loadina(nr/DSCF) .0796
Particulate Loadinq(]bs/hr) , 69.9
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^,) I 93,6
.1256
109.9
98,0
2.0-3.0
4-24-73
149.
11.2
62.3
103
50
28.7
40
39
245
-5 to -20
8L to 20R
234
197
54
115
31
55
15
367
2.4
3.7
122.
235
672
265
73.8
8.01
5070
420
2.0-3.0
1-24-73
147
11.1
54.3
103
50
28.7
40
39
245
-5 to -20
8L to 20R
235
198
54
113
31
55
15
366
2.4
3.7
122..
235
655
260
74.6
7.04
4495
420
28-30
TOO
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
4-26-73
155
11.2
60.8
104
50
30.0
40
40
245
-5 to -20
5L to 15R
240
?nn
52
126
33
56
15
382
2.8
2.6
75.6
235
673
261
77.1
6.88
4551
425
206 (205 204
201
400
255
200
400
257
97.9 199.1
.0380
32.0
99.4
.0486
41.2
99.1
198
415
253
101
.0600
52.1
98.9
154
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%}
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (i°/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
28-30
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
4-26-73
154
11.2
61.8
105
LJL°
30.0
40
40
Liquor Temp. (°F) | 245
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Dvt-n-v-M <»" IK- /t,v-N
rTlHiaiy In iBa/nr/
(% of Total)
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total )
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
-5 to -20
5L to 15R
242
200
ro
O£
126
33
56
15
382
2.8
TRS AVG. (pom) Z.b
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
75.6
235
676
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 271
OSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin) 79.9
j^Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ! 5.54
Participate Load( Ibs/hr) ; yj^-j
PRECIPITATOR IDLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp f°F)
ACFM '.1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
440
?14
204
420
274
112.1
.0442
42.5
99.0
28-30
no
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
4-27-73
T60
11.3
61.5
no
50
29.9
40
40
245
-5 to -20
5L to 15R
240
200
28-30
no
55/30/15
?.n-3 n
4-27-73
160
11.3
61.8
no
50
29.9
40
40
240
-5 to -20
5L to 15R
240
200
53 i 53
120
32
56
15
376
2,0
1.9
51.5
240
639
270
79.4
7.18
4888
430
?1<3
212
418
269
105.0
.0647
58.2
98,9
120
32
56
15
376
2,0
1.9
51.5
245
635
277
82.3
7.23
5104
430
??<;
218
420
274
103.0
.0721
63.7
98.8
28-30
100
45/40/15
? n."? n
4-30-73
145
11.1
61.4
97
45
30.7
38
38
245
?fl-3fl
100
45/40/T5
? r>_^ n
4-30-73
150
11.2
62.4
99
45
30.7
38
38
245
-6 to -19 !.-6 to -19
10L to 15R
235
Ifid
44
10L to 15R
240
Ifi7
44
148 I 147
39
63
17
375
2,2
1.5
128
235
612
263
74.3
7.29
5001
420
?lfi
211
410
250
98.9
.0676
57.3
98.9
38
63
18
383
2.2
1.5
128
250
656
268
73.2
6.95
4699
430
?U
206
405
265
102.6
.0691
60.8
98.7
155
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%}
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/20/3°-J!)
Excess 02 (%!
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 25)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
i% of Total)
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Terno (°F)
28-30
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
5-1-73
151
11.2
61,6
103
40
31.0
38
39
245
-5 to ,-20
10L to 15R
235
166
44
147
39
63
17
376
2.8
1.7
28.0
230
684
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 27?
DSCFMflOOO cu.ft./mn) ' 73.1
Grain Loadina(ar/DSCF) : 5.89
Parti cul ate Load( Ibs/hr) i ^q-jc
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Tetno (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
Volume @ £00° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp °F)
ACFM 1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (%)
430
213
206
410
257 -
99.8
, nQ45
80.9
98.0
28-30
100
45/40/15
2,0-3.0
5-1-73
159
11.1
61.1
101
45
31.0
38
38
245
-5 to -20
10L to 15R
235
166
44
147
39
63
17
376
2.8
1.7
28.0
230
685
275
73.3
6.77
4585
430
??7
220
425
255
98.0
.n7Q6 _ n
66.9
98.5
28-30
100
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
5-2-73
152
11.3
62.3
106
45
30.9
38
39
74?
-5 to -20
20L to 20R
235
181
28-30
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
5-4-73
151
n.?
60.1
• 100
45
30.2
38
39
?45
-6 to -19
15L to 18R
245
150
« 1 43
169
40
69
17
419
3.6
4.1 -
16.9
240
6T3
j?8ft
81.0
6.30
4694
410 .
?n
209
400
254
102.0
.1567
137.0
97,5
142
41
54
16
346
1.2
58.4
95.7
240
605
239
28-30
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
5-4-73
153
11 ?
60.6
in?
45
30.2
38
39
248
-6 to -19
15L to 18R
245
155
43
15D
42
5?
15
357
1.2
58 4
95.7
235
595
238
64.7 ! 66.4
8.33
4565
385
ion
193
370
215
82.0
.0555
39.0
99.1
8.47
48? 1
385
1QQ
194
365
226
86.4
.0365
27.0
99,4
156
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-308 SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loading (?i of Desian)
28-30
100
Air Distribution (l°/2°/30-%}| 35/50/15
Excess 02 (%) t 2.0-3.0
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
iFlow [qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (_PSI)
liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary IM lb?/hri
5-7-73
155
11.3
60.7
105
45
29.2
38
38
247
-7 to -16
15L to 20F
240
142
(% of Total) 36
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 195
(55 of Total) 49
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr} 60
(* of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 397
EXCESS 0? (%) 2.0
TRS AVG. (pom) 4.5
S02 AVG (ppm) 23.9
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr) 335
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
673
260
IDSCFMOOOO cu.ft./min) '73.6
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) • 8.25
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 5200
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
420
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min) ' 203
Volume G> 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
-
Temp f°F)
ACFM hOOO cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
199
410
267
98.8
.0750
63.5
98.8
28-30
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
5-7-73
154
11.2
62.6
106
45
29.2
38
38
245
-7 to -16
15L to 20R
240
150
00
2Q3
49
61
15
414
2.0
4.5
23.9
240
675
269-
76.4
8.48
5553
430
211
203
435
272^
97.4
.0730
60.9
98.9
28-30
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
5-8-73
155
11.3
61.1
106
45
30.0
38
37
247
-5 to -19
15L t.o ?OR
235
151
28-30
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
5-8-73
155
11.3
61.2
106
45
30.0
38
37
?47
-5 to -19
15L tn ?(1R
240
151
28-30
100
55/30/16
2.0-3.0
5-9-73
142
11.3
62.1
98
45
30.9
38
41
246
-R tn -17
17L to 20R
240
107
io/
36 36 153
?nn ?nn
48
68
16
419
2.4
2.6
42.5
240
681 '
?77
77.6
8.01
5325
435
48
67
16
418
?.4
2.6
42.5
245
718
?Rfi
76. R
m
31
Rfi
16
354
2.6
2.7
91.6
225
651
?R7
74 fi
10.32 15.88
6794
430
217 J216
?nq
430
270
97.4
.1313
101,7
98.1
?nq
415
?75
99.3
Data Missind
^
ii M
ii ii
3761
415
20?
199
396
244
q?_?
.0516
40.8
98.9
157
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (°n
Boiler Loading (% of Desian}
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-%)
Exces? 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
mow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (X)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure CPSI)
Liauor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°|
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
rPrirnarv (M Ibs/hr)
i% of Total)
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary I'M Ibs/hr)
'% of Total )
28-30
100
5fi/3n/1R
2.0-3.0
5-9,-73
142
11.2
60.8
95
45
30.9
38
41
245
-8 to -17
17L to 20F
245
187
53
112
32
55
15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 354
EXCESS 0? (35)
tRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./rnin)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
2.6
2.7
91.6
225
638
239
70.2
fi ?fi
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) j jjgg
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temo ^F)
ACFM .1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(1bs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
415
191
187
400
260
98.5
.0583
49.3
98.7
28-30
ion
5R/3n/iR
2.0-3.0
5-11-73
146
11.3
61.2
100
45
?Q.9
38
42
248
-5 to -20
5L to 20R
245
186
54
112
33
45
13
343
2.5
1.0
11.4
235
Data Miss in
M M
'1 (1
7 qq
4995
410
Data Miss in
-
405
235
82.1
.0724
51.0
99.0
28-30
inn
«tt/3n/1«;
2.0-3,0
5-11-73
146
11.4
61.2
100
45
?Q Q
38
42
250
-5 to -20
5L to 20R
245
186
53
112
3?
5fi
15
354
2.5
1.0
11,4
240
q660
242
73.0
fi sq
4308
415
b 189
186
395
222
81.5
.0622
43.5
99.0
,
158
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity W
Boiler Loading (% of Design)
Air Distribution (W20/30-%
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING {*)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
~1
Primarv (M Ibs/hH
28-30
75
45/40/15
2,0-3.0
5-29-73
114
11.2
61.7
78
40
30.8
34
39
245
-5 to -20
IOL to 20R
250
135
(SofTota^) *b
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 124
% of Total )
Tertiary M Ibs/hr)
% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? («)
TRS AVG. (ppm)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./mfn)
42
40
13
299
3.0
0.8
1.4
iqn
554
183
DSCFM(1000 cu.ft./nin) 59,4
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) j 6.12
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 3120
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temo (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temo i°F)
ACFM '.1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (S)
380
152
156
372
194 •
75.8
.0209
13.6
99.6
28-30
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
5-29-73
109
11.2
61.4
74
40
30.8
34
39
245
-5 to -20
IOL to 20R
255
135
45
123
41
40
13 "
298 '
3.0
u.a
1.4
190
551
173
55 8
6.69
. 3199
382
144
147
370
199
80.5
.0327
22.6
99.3
28-30
7R
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
5-30-73
113
11.3
60.5
76
40
30.0
34
40
245
-5 to -20
10L to 20R
250
136
46
122 •
41
40
13
298
2.9
2.4 '-
51.4
175
565
203
28-30
75
4RMn/ic;
2.0-3.0
7-17-73
111
11.3
64.5
.80
40
30.7
34
39
250
-5 to -20
15L to 20R
245
138
AC
-r*^
123
40
46
L15
307
2.8
0.9
28.9
190
535
200
64.2 65. .7
5.75
3166
385 .
167
170 -
385
202
77.0
.0455
30.0
99,1
7.01
3950
375
167
172
352
208
83.5
.0510
36.5
99,1
2R-3D
75
45/40/15
.5-1.5
6-20-73
119
11.4
59.1
82
40
28.3
34
38
l_~246
-5 to -18
10L to 20R
250
120
43
115
42
42
15
277
1.0
5.4
329
190
555
177
52.0
5.25
2521
368
145
150
375
T87
71.0
.0556
34.0
98.7
159
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loadinq (% of Desian)
Air Distribution n°/20/3°-%
Excess 02 (»)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
28-30
75
45/40/15
.5-1.5
6-25-73
125
11.3
61.4
86
40
28.2
34
40
28-30 .
75
45/AQ/15
.5-1.5
6-25-73
128
11.1
60.9
85
40
28.2
34
40
Liauor Temp. (°F) I 250 | 250
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
-5 to-20
10L to 15R
242
130
^5 to-20
10L to 15R
245
140
(% of Total) 45 : 45
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) ! 122
% of Total)
Tertiary M Ibs/hr)
% of Total )
40
40
15
Total (M Ibs/hr) j
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
1,5
16.7
206
207
595
211
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min) ' 62.7
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) . 6.02
Participate Load(lbs/hr) ( ^^
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
400
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min) 172
Volume & 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loaditiq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (%)
172
390
196
73.6
.0363
22.9
99.3
122
40
40
15
302
1.5
lfi.7
206
205
610
217
62.6
28-30
75
45/4n/t5
3.5-4.5
6-26-73
128
11.2
61.6
86
40
28.3
34
40
250 •
-5 to-20 .
10L to 15R
235
154
28-30
75
4^/dn/ic;
3.5-4.5
6-26-73
126
11.3
62.5
88
40
?8.3
34
40
250
-5 to-20
101 to 1RR
239
160
28-30
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
6-27-73
126
11.2
62.2
87
40
28 1
34
^4fl
250
-7 to-20
12L tn 1RR
238
117
45 ! 45 ! 37
142
40
44
15
340
3.4
q.fi
191
207
595 '
237
73.5
6.02 J5.50
3233
385
171
174
385
212
79.9
.0314
21.5
99.3
3466
390
191
193
385
232
90.9
.0386
30.1
99.1
142
40
44
15
340
3.4
9.fi
191
205
580
238
59.4
6.65
4192
392
195
197
395
243
93.6
.0347
2778
99.3
155
49
45
14
317
2.0
lfl.7
242
190
575
189
59.0
4 7"\
2145
380
153
157
385
209
79.4
.0330
22.5
.99.0
- 160
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 28-30$ SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%}
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
28-30
75
Air Distribution (l°/2° /y-l}\ 35/50/15
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.S)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
'Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
2.0-3.0
6-27-73
125
11.3
62.2
87
40
28.1
34
28-30
75
35/50/15
28-30
75
55/30/15
2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0
6-28-73
127
11.3
60.9
86
40
30.3
34
40 40
250
-7 to -20
12L to 18R
245
117
250
-7 to-20
10L tn 18R
244
115
7-11-73
122
11.?
61.0
82
40
28.1
34
41
250
-5 to -20
15L to 20R
245
165
28-30
75
28-30
75
55/30/15 j 55/30/15
2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0
7-11-73
118
11.3
62.8
83
40
28.1
34
40
7-12-73
128
11 l
62.3
89
40
27.6
34
40
250 i?50
-5 to -20 !-5 to -20
15L to 2QR
245
163
15! tn 20R
245
160
(% of Total) ! 37 j 37 ! 53 153 S3
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Terra (°F)
155
49
45
14
317
2.0
18.7
242
201
585
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) ! 213
153 100 100
49
44
14
312
1.9
19.2
223
190
610
212
DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./nin) ' 65.7 63.1
'Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 1 6.33 6.40
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) j ^ggg
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(gr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (%)
.
375
170
176
385
?nfi
79.6
.0283
19.3
99.5
3470
370
164
170
380
?n^
77.8
.0375
25.0
99.3
32
47
15
312
3.0
0.0
50,9
200
520
1»8
32
100
33
47 142
15 14
310
3.0
0.0
50.9
190
545
204
302
2.1
0.2
35.8
212
540
201
63.7 166.5 i63.7
6.22
3399
365
158
165 '
345
197
80.4
,0527
36.3
98,9
5.59 17.24
3184
365
167
175
342
197
81.7
.0554
38.8
98,8
,3956
365
166
173
345
217
88.1
.0548
41.3
99.0
. 161
-------
Table 11
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%}
Boiler Loadina (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (l0/23/30-%}
Excess 02 (55)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Tlow (gom)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 55)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor TCIPD. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
— I
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
31-33
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
7-25-73
157
11.4
63.9
117
45
32.4
40
39
245
-5 to -20
15L to 21R
230
131
(% of Total) 46
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 165
(% of Total) ! 41
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (ppm)
S02 AVG (pom)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMflOOO cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume I? 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCFj
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
r52
13
398
2.2
Data
Missing '
245
645
265
77.6
8.48
5636
410
209
206
388
261
102
D7?R
64.1
98.9
31-33
110
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
7-25-73
157
11.3
63.0
113
45
32.4
40
39
245
-5 to -20
15L to 21R
235
130
46
163
41
52
13
395
2.2
Data
Missing
245
642
270
79.5
9.09
6195
410
213
210
393
255
98.5
'.0908
76.6
98.8
31-33
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
7-26-73
152
11.4
65.0
114
45
32.1
40
41
?45
-5 to -20
12L to 2QR
235
173
45
31-33
no
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
7-26-73
149
11.3
64.3
no
45-
32.1
40
0.1
?45
-6 to -19
1?l tn ?nP
235
173
44
165 166
42
51
13
389
2.2
7.6
353
235
610
268
82.1
7.27
5120
405
43
51
13
390
2.2
7.6
353
235
595
254
77.0
7.53
4965
405
216 1208
214
385
251
98.8
.0798
67.6
98.7
207
387
269
105
.0762
69.0
98.6
31-33
no
45/40/J5
2,0-3.0
10-22-7-
143
11.5
64.8
107
45
32.^
40
37
?^n
-^ to .
30L to 1
230
153
44
isn
41
R7
15
37(1
2.0
21
?1R
235
625
245
72. n
6.73
4181
430
201
195
395
236
92.3
.0634
50.2
98.8
162
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity m
Boiler Loading 1% of Design)
A1r Distribution tl°/23/31'-*)
Excess 02 (r°)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qprn)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
(Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Prircarv (M Ibs/hr)
(% cf Total)
31-33
no
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
7-30-73
160
11.2
62.3
113
45
32.1
40
41
240
-5 to-20
15L to 20R
235
182
45
Secondarv (M lbs/hr) 170
(% of Total) 42
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 1 51
(% of Total)
Total (M lbs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1COO ci^ft./min)
13
403
3.2
11.4
39.6
235
665
262
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./nrin) 1 76.6
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) i 6.67
Participate Load( lbs/hr) ^Q2
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temo (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume (? 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Jemp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
rDSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin)
iGrain Loadino(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY (%)
425
206
200
403
258
99.8
".0760
65.0
98.5
31-33
no
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
7-30-73
153
11.3
62.2
109
45
32.1
40
39
240
-5 to -20
15L to 20R
235
187
46
167
41
55
13
409
3.2
11.4
39.6
235
676
278
82.0
7.08
4954
420
215
210
410
2//
109
.0765
71.8
98.6
31-33
no
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
8-2-73
159
10.9
59.4
105
45
32.7
40
40
240'
-6 to -19
15L to '20R
243
152
43
150
42
54
15
356
0.8
6.8
280
240
640 '
2i7
76.0
31-33
no
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
8-2-73
15Q
11.1
60.1
108
45
32.7
40
40
240
-6 to -19
15L to 20R
243
165
44
153
41
56
15
374
0.8
6.8
280
240
635
275
80.5
7.47 Data Missinc
4864
420
189
185 '
385
z^y
92.7
.0909
72.3
98,5
Data Missing
425
222
216
407
'iHb
93.3
.0881
70.4
-
31 -33
no
35/50/15
2.Q-3.0
7-31-73
I'M
11.1
60.3
105
45
31.1
40
41
245
-6 to -19
15L to 20R
240
1SQ
40
174
46
52
14
376.
2.1
18. 1
455
220
620
247
75.5
6.41
^039
415
200
198
391
2bd
97.9 .
.0613
51.4
98.7
163
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDfTY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfldltv (0/)
Boiler Loading (% of Desicn)
Air Distribution (]°J2°/3°-%}
Excess Q£ (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qptn)
Density (Ibs/qal)
31-33
no
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
7-31-73
154
11.2
Solids (%) 60.5
BOILER LOADIN3 (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%) ^
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
-
Primary i'M Ibs/hr)
(n, of Total)
106
45
31.1
40
41
245
-6 to -19
15L to 20R
242
Tin
38
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 190
(% of Total) 48
Tertiary \M Ibs/hr) 53
1% of Total) 14
Total (M Ibs/hr) 393
EXCESS 0? (%) 2.1
TRS AVG. (ppm)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min
J3SCFMOOOO cu.ft./mn)
18
455
225.
665
258
72.6
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF ! 7.39
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 4600
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temo (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume I? 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp T°F]
420
31-33
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
10-18-73
150
11.3
61.8
98
46
32.3
40
36
250
-11 to -15
15L to 5R
235
155
45
135
40
52
15
342
2.2
17
295
230
630
224-
66.5
31-33
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
10-19-73
140
11.3
60.9
98
38
31.8
40
38
250
-11 to -15
151. to 5R
244
144
44
137
41
50
15
331
1.8
74
433
228
610 '
230
31-33
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0 j
10-19-73
140
11.4
60.7
98
38
31.8
40
38
250
-11 to -15
15L to 5R
244
1 44
44 !
137
41
50
15
331
1.8
74
433
225
615
?13
66.2 161.4
6.18 16.55 16.96
3523
430
3720
410
202 183 187
198
400
,ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min 244
'DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading( Ibs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
94.1
.0649
52.4
98.9
177
380
234
97.4
.0506
42.2
98.8
185 '
361
215
87.7
.0317
23.9
99.4
3667
410
172
170
360
213
82.8
.0341
24.2
99.3
164
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv ("'}
Boiler Loading (" of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-£)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
31-33
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
10-30-73
145
Density (Ibs/qat) 11.4
Solids (%) 61>4
BOILER LOADING (%}
108
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min) 45
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
33.4
40
38
Liquor Temp. (°F) i 250
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary 'M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
235
149
31-33
100
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
10-30-73
140
11.5
63.6
105
45
33.4
40
38
250
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
235
143
43 | 42
Secondary (H Ibs/hr) 149
(% of Total) 1 43
Tertiary CM Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
51
14
349
2.0
TRS AVG. (pom) 18.1
S02 AVG (opm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
77.4
230
685
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 225
DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./rnin) i 62.0
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ' 7.71
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 4102
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
430
ACFMflOOO cu.ft./min) i 175
Volume (3 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp PF)
169
366
ACFM 1000 cu.ft./min) i 209
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min) 89.7
Grain Loadinq(cir/DSCF) .0421
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) 32 4
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%) 99.2
145
43
50
15
338
2.0
18.1
77.4
225
675
204 -
55.3
8.08
3828
420
31-33
100
31-33
100
45/40/15 45/40/15
3.5-4.5
10-29-73
150
11.5
63.9
107
45
33.4
40
40
250
-7 to -20
5L to 20R
230
i on
I WU
45
160
40
64
15
404
3.6
6.6
151
225
675
250
73.8
6.38
4031
435
157 197
154
355
208
84.2
.0482
34.8
99.1
190
365
233
100
.0661
57.1
98,6
3.5-4.5
10-29-73
150
11.5
63.5
105
45
33.4
40
40
250
-7 to -20
5L to 20R
230
172
45
152
40
61
15
385
3.6
6.6
151
230
675
253
72.5
6.56
4073
430
198
192
365
232
99.8
.0579
50.3
98.8
31-33
ino
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
11-1-73
147
11.5
64.8
104
45
32.5
40
37
250
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
230
i f\t\
1 OU
JO
T80
49
56
15
366
2.6
15.8
215
230
620
233
69.5
6.72
4002
420
190
186
346
227
94.2
.0356
28.6
99.3
165
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity (%)
Boiler Loadinq (" of Desion)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
IFlow (apm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (°0
SALT CAKE Ubs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
3l-3o
100
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
11-1-73
145
11.4
64.0
102
45
32.5
40
[Pressure (PSI) 37
Liquor Temo. (°F) ! 250
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
— j-
Primary M Ibs/hr)
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
230
130
(% of Total) 36
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 180
(% of Total) A9
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 56
(% of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr) | 356
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (DPiti)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temo (°H
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
2.6
Ib.K
215
235
595
235
DSCFMCIOOO cu.ft./nin) ! 70.4
31-33
ion
3" 5/50/1 5
2.0-3.0
11-2-73
140
11.4
61.8
31-33
••OT
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
11-5-73
145
11.4
63.4
95 ! 99
45
32.7
40
38
250
-5 to -20
15L to TOR
230
125
"5
31.4
40
40
255
-6 to -20
15L to TOP.
230
i n1*
IOI
36 55
175
50
50
14
350
2.6
23.8
256
220
615
224-
66.5
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ' 6.52 6.33
Particulats Load(1bs/hr) 3931
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
iTemo (°F)
415
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min) i 195
| Volume @ 400°F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Tenro (°F)
192
354
rACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 223
M3SCF . 0 POO ,cu_. f t . /mi n )
Grain Loadinn(or/DSCF^
3639
115
97
30
?0
15
328
2.6
Data
Missing
220
635
231
68.5
8.72
5120
425
31-33
100
5S/30/l!i
2.0-3.0
11-5-73
144
11.4
63.5
OR
*5
31.4
40
31-33
1M
"55/30/13
2.0-3.0
11-6-73
140
11.4
62.8
97
^5
31.1
40
^0 i £Q
255
-6 to -20
15L to 10R
230
181
n>b
9/
30
50
15
328
2.6
Data
Missinq
220
635
250
-5 to -2
10L to 1
230
180
•>t>
no
sn
50
15
330
3.0
b.3
291
218
620
235 228
69 . 1 i_68 . 0
6.89 1 4.53
5163
425
2640
4fiO
182 186 190 '194
179
344
221
• 90.6 i 92.8
.0354
.Participate Loading(lbs/hrj , 27.5
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^) j 99.3
.0320
25.5
99.3
181
363
23fi
96.2
.0496
40.9
99.6
18^
361
235
95.6
181
370
226
91.2
.0678 .0577
55,5 45.2
98.9 ! 98.3
!
166
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity ("'-.}
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
^NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
A]
1
R FLOW
Primarv fK Ibs/hrl
(% of Total)
Secondary (K Ibs/hr) •
(% of Total)
Tertiarv (M "Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
31-33
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
8-6-73
137
11.0
60.1
92
40
32.6
38
40
247
-5 to -20
15L to 20R
235
135
54
112
33
45
13
342
EXCESS 0? (%} \ 2.4
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (pom)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu. ft. /mi n)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
Data
Missing
225
599
237
66.7
Grain Loadinq(ar/DSCF) ' 5.94
Parti cul ate Load( Ibs/hr) . ,660
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
390
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./nin) | 190
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp T°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
l_Grain Loadinj.(gr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
192
368
232
92.2
.0520
41.1
98.9
31-33
100
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
8-6-73
136
11.4
62.7
99
45
32.6
38
40
247
-5 to -20
15L to 20R
240
]»0
53
112
33
4b
14
338
2,4
Data
Missing
225
617
236
65.2
6.78
4086
395
187
188
373
231
92.0
.1117
88.1
97.8
31-33
31-33
75 J7R
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
10-23-73
120
11.3
63.6
84
40
32.0
34
40
250
-8 to -18
20L to 5R
245
126
[45/40/15
31-33
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0 | 2.0-3.0
10-23-73
120
11.4
64.1
85
40
32. tf
34
40
250
-8 to -18
20L to 5R
245
126
45 *5
115
41
38
14
279
2.2
17
480
185
565
189
59.6
115
41
38
14
279
2.2
17
480
190
560
181
10-24-73
122
11.4
62.5
85
40
32.1
34
40
250
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
245
130
45
117
41
40
14
287
2.4
13
464
180
595
207
58.2 i 59.2
4.04 15.15
2061
390
2573
390
156 Il51
158
330
IbU
66.3
.0820
46.6
97.7
153
330
178
72.5
,0329
20.4
99.2
6.02
3053
395
167
168
335
185
/6.3
.UZ3/
15.5
99.5
167
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfiditv (%)
Boiler Loading (* of Desion)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/30-?i
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
I Flow (gpm)
JDensitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (">)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 2)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
31-33
75
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
10-24-73
125
11.4
62.2
85
40
32.1
34
31-33
75
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
10-25-73
125
11.5
62.9
89
40
32.7
34
40 1 40
250 250
-7 to -20
20L to 5R
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) 25Q
AIR FLOW
1
Primarv (M Ibs/hr)
132
(% of i oral!) i 46
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
117
40
-6 to -20
20L to 5R
250
122
31-33
75
45/40/15
0.5-1.5
10-25-73
125
11.5
63.7
91
40
32.7
34
40
250
-6 to -20
20L to 5R
250
125
31-33
75
45/40/15
3.5-4.5
11-10-73
120
11.3
63.2
. 81
TO
32.6
34
40
_?50
-5 to -20
15L to 15R
244-
136
31-33
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
1 1 -9-73
120
H.5
64.0
85
40
31.6
34
40
255
-5 to -2i
10L to 20
240
122
45 45 45 33
114
41
41 37
14
290
2.4
13
464
180
595
211
62.0
Grain Loadino(qr/DSCF) ' 5.87
Participate Load(lbs/hr) 31ig
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400°F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
i ACFM {1000 cu.ft./min)
395
171
172
332
199 •
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin) 80.9
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) . .0275
;Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) 19.]
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
99.4
14 "
273 '
0.7
115 -
42
37
13
277
0.7
45 45 --
352
190
595
186.
54.3
6.65
3094
380
148
151
335
183
76.0
.0431
28.0
99.1
352
200
580
202
60.0
6.41
3300
385 •
164
167 '
335
196
73.9
.0253
17.3
99.5
125 150
41 47
44
14
305
3.0
4.7
124
210
545
186
L60.9
6.33
3302
373
154
159
310
177
75.5
.0252
16.3
99.5
43
14
315
2.3
3.0
47
205
505
169
57.4
6.39
3142
365
145
151
290
ISO
79.3
.0485
33.0
99.0
168
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR 31-33% SULFIDITY RANGE
TARGET CONDITIONS
Sulfidity («,
Boiler Loading (c'o of Desion)
Air Distribution (l°/2D/3°-%
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Densitv (Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
31-33
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
11-9-73
122
11.4
64.2
84
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min) ! 40
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
31.6
34
40
Liquor Terro. (°F) ! 255
Backsweep (°)
Sidesv;eep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (»F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (H Ibs/hr)
-5 to -20
10L to 20R
240
1 11
tl-C
(% of Total) : 39
Secondary ;M Ibs/hr) \ 150
(% of Total) 47
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 43
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
14
315
EXCESS 0? (*) ? 3
TRS AVG. (pom) 3.0
S02 AVG (ppm) 47
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr) 210
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
515
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./nvin) 185
DSCFMdCOO cu.ft./min) 61.7
Grain Loadinq(ar/DSCF) 5.83
Particulate Loacl(lbs/hr) 3QR^
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Tera (°F)
365
31-33
75
35/50/15
2.0-3.0
11-2-73
120
10.9
61.8
77
40
32.7
34
a-Q
250
-5 to -20
15L to IOC
240
no
37
142
48
43 -
15
£95
3.0
21.6
260
190
585
178
53.8
31-33
75
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
11-6-73
140
11.6
64.6
79
4b |
31.1
34
40
250
-5 to -20
10L to 15R
250
140
55
76
30
33
15
254
3.0 --
14.4
335
177
555
168
53.1
31-33
75
55/30/15
2.0-3.0
11-7-73
120
11.5
65.9
83
40
30.9
40
40
250
-5 to -20
10L to 15R
240
145
31-33
7^
55/30/15
2.0-3.3
11-7-73
120
11.5
65.5
87
40
3Q.9
40
40
250
-5 to -20
10L to 15R
2*0
145
55 !54
80
30
38
15
263
?.3
14.2
117
200
595
187
pn
30
f 0
T^
16
257
2.3
H.2
117
200
580
199
57.0 J61.5
6.10 t 5.19 6.57 5.07
2811
390
2363
380 '
3212 3203
395
395
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./nin) 157 145 139 , Ib2 • |*>4
Volume @ 400°F ,„ I ,,, 147 • ,„ ,«
PRECIPITATOR CUTLET OttO.
iTemo (°F)
(ACFM i 1000 cu.ft./min)
IDSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin)
iGrain Loadina'cr/CGCF)
,Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
i 291
i 177
326
185
77.3 i 78.5
.0277 .0228
' 18.3
• 99.4
15.4
99.5
1 335
• 176
72.9
' .0260
1 16.2
! 99.3
326
335
1 70 ) 1 ?.*.
72.6 '77.1
.0270 .0271
16.8
17.9
99.5 99.4
169
-------
APPENDIX H
Table 12
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (r/2°/3°-%)
Excess Og (")
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (aprrO
Density (Ybs/gal)
Solids («)
BOILER LOADING ("/,}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
-
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F}
teacksweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
...... -
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
A]
R FLOW
[Primary (M Ibs/hr)
(:~ of Total).
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
{% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (pom)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temo (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFM(1000 cu.ft./mn)
High Black Liquor Solids (65%)
100
4b/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/22/74
133
f 1 .b
65.5
102
30
28.9
40
40
250
-5 to -20
8L to 8R
235
150
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/22/74
132
11.6
65.9
102
30
28.9
40
40
250
-5 to -20
8L to 8R
235
150
100 j 100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/23/74
132
11.5
64.6
100
30
28.9
40
40
250
-8 to -17
7L to 10R
235
150
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/23/74
131
11.5
64.7
99
30
28.9
40
40
250
-8 to -17
7L to 10R
235
150
45 i 45 i 45 j
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
T/
\RGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (" of Desion)
Air Distribution (TY20/3°-S)
Excess 02 '(Z)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flov) (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (f!)
SALT CAKE ( IDS /mm)
SULFIOITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
Al
—
R FLOW
TP.marV (M Ibs/hr)
Low Black Liquor Solids (58%)
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/24/74
141
11.1
57.8
92
30
27.4
40
43
235
-6 to -19
8L to 8 R
235
150
' C4 of Total i ' 4s
Secondary (K Ibs/hr) I 135
% of Total) 40
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 50
% of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 335
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (pom)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
-
Temp (°F)
ACFM (TOGO cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
3.0
u.i
4
199
585
^ 202
61.8
Grain Loadinq{qr/DSCF) t 5.59
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 2961
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume (? 400° F '
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
390
Ib4
166
370
181
71.0
Grain Loadinq(qr/BSCF) O.Obll
Particulate Loading(1bs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
31.2
99.0
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/24/74
139
11.1
58.3
91
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/25/74
137
11.1
56.8
87
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/25/74
138
11.3
61.4
98
30 30 30
27.4
40
43
235
-6 to -19
8 L to 8 R
235
150
28.3
40
44
245
-6 to -19
5L to 10R
235
145
28.3
40
44
250
-6 to -19
5L to 10R
235
145
45 45 46
135
40
50
15
335
3.2
0.3
9
195
595
. ZH5
62.0
5.17
2749
390
]bb
167
375
185
72.0
0.0552
34.0
98.8
125 1 125
40
46
15
316
3.1
Uata
Missing
189
570
197
59.3
4.68
2378
360
Ib6
164
365
211
80.3
0.0366
25.2
98.9
40
45
14
315
1.3
4
1
209
585
204
59.8
7.65
4226
380
164
168
370
215
81.0
0.0465
' 32.3
99.2
-
171
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution {r/2°/3°-%}
Excess 02 (S)
TEST DATE
• SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (X)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Priman' (M lt?s/^r)
Low Black Liquor Temperature (220°F.)
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/31/74
143
11.5
62.9
105
15
27.4
40
38
220
-8 to -17
8L to 10R
225
160 *
(^ of Total ) ! 4b
Secondary (N Ibs/hr) 145
(35 of Total) 40
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (°0
TRS AVG. (com)
SO? AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
53
15
358
1.8
14
0
236
565
214
DSCFMflQOO cu.ft./rnin) I 67.0
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load( Ibs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume (<> 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1009 cu.ft./min)
'DSCF (looo cu.ft./mn)
Grain Loading(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
7.88
4518
385
Ibl
163
370
23U
91.2
0.0410
32.1
99.3
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/31/74
141
11.4
63.3
103
15
27.4
40
36
220
-8 to -17
8L to 10R
225
160
45
145
40
53
15
358
1.7
Data -
Missing
231
620
214
61.9
8.33
4421
390
169
171
365
ZZB
86.9
0.0489
36.4
99.2
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/1/74
141
11.4
' 62.0
102
15
27.0
40
38
223
-7 to -19
8L to 10R
230
160
45
145
40
53
15
358
2.1
1
2
224
585
228
70.7
7.27
4408
385
I8b
188
375
230
90.4
0.0458
35.6
99.2
100 1
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/1/74
142
11.4
62.4
103
15
27.0
40
38
223
-7 to -19
8L to 10R
230
160
45
145 J "
40
53
15
358
2.0
0
7
230
560
184
58.8
6.40
3224
385
Ib3
155
375
229
90.0
0.0389
30.0
99.1
172
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desion)
Air Distribution (l°/2V30-%)
Excess ^2 (**}
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (apm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (»)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
'Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr ^
Nozzle Size (32-38) vs. Nozzle Pressure
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/30/74
120
11.5
64.6
90
15
100 I 100
45/40/15
2.0-3.C
1/30/74
120
11.5
64.6
90
15
28.1 | 28.1
32
48
248
-7-to -18
15L to OR
235
142 '
{% of Total ) i 45
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) i 128
(% of Total) 1 40
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
48
15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 318
EXCESS 0? (%) 2.5
TRS AVG. (pom) j 1
SO? AVG (opm) i 1
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Jemp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
200
510
lay
DSCFMMOOO cu.ft./mn) | 64.4
hGrain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) i 7.10
Participate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMflOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume § 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Jemp ("F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
i
3922
365
161
168
350
194
79.6
0.0283
19.3
99.5
32
48
248
-7 to -18
15L to OR
235
142
45
128
40
48
15
318
3.5
Data
Missing
199
545
Z\6
70.6
6.62
4004
370
176
182
360
224
93.1
0.0152
12.1
99.7
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
11/15/73
144
11.1
• 62.5
90
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
11/15/73
129
11.3
62.4
92
45 i 45
30.7
38
42
250
-7 to -18
15L to 5R
245
135
30.7
38
42
250
\ -
-7 to -18 !
15L to 5R
245
130
4b i 44
122 i 118 ; —•
40
46
15
303
1.5
20
163
211
570
IB3
54.5
7.35
3432
390
151
153
327
198
76.0
0.0455
29.7
99.1
40
46
16
294
2.1
29
75
209
580
Ibl
48.8
4.24
1773
380
131
133
323
180
70.1
0.0466
'28.0
98.4
-
173
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loadinq (* of Desiqn)
Nozzle Size (36) vs. Nozzle Pressure
100
100
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-%) 45/40/15 45/40/15
Excess 02 (°0 2.0-3.0
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING ("',}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
11/14/73
140
11.4
62.6
101
45
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%) f 29.9
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PS I)
Liquor Tenc. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary ''M Ibs/hr)
36
45
2.0-3.0
11/14/73
140
11.4
62.5
101
45
29.9
36
45
250 250
-8 to -17 -8 to -17
15L to 5R
245
146
'% of Total ^ ' 45
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 128
(% of Total) 40
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 50
(% of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 324
EXCESS 0? (%) ! 2.7
TRS AVG. (ppm) 4
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temo (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
24
221
565
194
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min) 59.6
Grain Loadinq(or/DSCF) I 7.78
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F
ACFMtlOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temo (°F:
JCFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
3977
390
161
163
333
194
76.6
Grain Loadinq(ar/DSCF) 0.0510
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
33.4
99.2
15L to 5R
245
HO
46
122
40
44
14
306
2.3
26
123
217
580
179
52.8
7.42
3361
390
',00 100
45/40/15 45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/29/74
122
11.5
- 63.8
91
15
26.8
36
39
250
-5 to -20
12L to 5R
240
148
45
2.0-3.0
1/29/74
121
11.5
63.8
90
15
26.8
36
38
250
-5 to -20
12L to 5R
240
148
44
1 34 1 35 !
I 40
49
41 i
50
15 15
331 333
2.4
3
L 0
205
565
198
62.5
7.07
3785
380
146 1 162
148
328
185
71.7
0.0489
30.1
99.1
166
360
206
82.6
0.0300
21.2
99.4
2.0
1
0
204
565
208
65.1
7.56
4218
380
170
174
365
209
82.1
0.0281
19.8
99.5
174
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (^ of Desion)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/30-%
Excess 02 (fO
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qom)
Density (ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING C',)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweeo (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
Nozzle Size (40) vs. Nozzle Pressure
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
11/16/73
142
11. P
59.3
89
45
30.2
40
35
250
-7 to -18
15 L to 5R
250
140
100 1 100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
11/16/73
143
11.?
59.5
sq
45
30.2
40
36
250
-7 to -18
15L to 5R
245
146
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
1/28/74
119
11.4
63.7
RR
15
26.8
40
35
245
-6 to -19
100
45/4D/15
2.0-3.0
1/28/74
122
11 4
63.7
qn
15
26.8
40
35
245
-6 to -19
10L to 10RJ 10L to 10R
235
145
! % of 1013!} i 44 i 45 j 46
Secondary (M lbs/hr) 130
CH, of Total) 41
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 48
(% of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (pom)
S02 AVG (pom)
STEAM FLOW (M lbs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temo (°F)
318
2.5
14
126
215
605
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 199
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min) i 59.0
'Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load( lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFM(1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume I? 400° F '
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp °F)
ACFM ;1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
6.84
3462
405
162
160
340
Ia8
73.7
Grain Loadinq(grYDSCF) i 0.0488
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) i jg g
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
99.1
130
40
48
15
324
1.5
9
133
210
610
199
57.2
7.26
3560
400
160
160
346
ifUb
78.9
0.0471
31.8
99.1
125
40
46
14
316
2.9
0
3
196
57C
176
54.3
7.93
3696
375
143
147
370
198
78.6
0.0306
20.7
99.4
240
135
44
125
41
46
15
306
2.6
0
3
201
.600
190
58.6
6.96
3498
375
150
154
365
187
73.7
0.0326
19.2
99.5
175
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Investigation of Windbox Pressure Variations
j nf/,»,, n\ Low Secondary P(4"H20)
Low Secondary P(4"H20) LQW Tertiar/ pJ4.,h/0j
Boiler Loadinq (!', of Desian) 100
Air Distribution (l°/2°/3°-S)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (X)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
l'\ nf 1 n t a 1 ')
Secondary (M Ihs/hr)
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/7/74
142
11.4
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/7/74
143
11.4
! 100 100
| i 45/40/15 45/40/15
. _
62.0 62.8 J
102
15
26.7
40
43
105
2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0
2/6/74
137
11.4
62.8
100
2/6/74
140
11.4
62.8
102
15 15 15
26.7
40
43
250 250
-6 to-21 -6 to -21
10L to 10R
225
150 "
44
T37
(% of Total) 41
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 50
(5 of Total) 15
Total (M Ibs/hr) 337
EXCESS 0? (°0
1.9
TRS AVG. (com) 2
S02 AVG (DDm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temo (°F>
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
1
220
635
218 " ~
(.DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./nin) 65.7
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ! 7.69
Participate Load(lbs/hr) 4328
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temo (°F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400JF
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin)
393
i/U
171
370
192
78.6
Grain Loadino(cjr/DSCF) 0.0417
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
28.1
99.4
10L to TOR
225
150
44
T3T
41
50
15
337
1.8
2
3
218
630
218
65.5
7.39
4148
390
170
172
378
198
27.2
40
42
^_7T2r
40
42
ZM 250
-b to-21 ! -6 to -21
10L to TOR
225
150
47
T2Y
39
45
14
325
10L to 101
225
150
4;
~"TZ5"
39
45
14
325
1.4 1.7
2
15
217
630
222
j_ 67.4
78.4
0.0624
41.9
99.0
7.91
4569
385
172
175
370
203
81.5
0.0593
'41.4
99,1
4
25
217
640
213
62.9
7.59
4093
385
164
167
370
198
79.0
0.0491
33.2
99.2
176
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
[Boiler Loading {% of Desion)
'Air Distribution (]° /2° /3°-%]
Excess 02 ('»}
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (?5)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - {DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Tetro. (°FJ
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
Primary (M Ibs/hr)
Investigation of Windbox Pressure Variations
Low Tertiary Windbox Pressure (4" H?0)
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/4/74
130
11.4
61.5
92
15
27.4
40
100 i 100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/4/74
132
11.5
62.8
97
15
27.4
40
38 | 38
ZbO
-5 to -20
10L to 10R
227
153
(?c of Total) i 45
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 140
[X of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
41
48
(% of Total) 14
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (°5)
TRS AVG. (DDITI)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
341
3.0
1
2
208
605
Z!(J
DSCFM'1000 cu.ft./nin) ! 64.4
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 7.83
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400°F •
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp {°F) '
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
4654
380
Ibb
170
380
217
86.6
0.0368
27.4
99.4
250
-6 to -21
10L to TOR
228
153
45
141
41
47
14
341
3.0
1
3
207
620
ZI8
66.1
7.35
4487
385
I/O
173
380
Z07
81.4
0.0279
19.5
99.6
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/5/74
134
11.4
61.6
96
15
27.6
40
40
250
-6 to -21
10L to TOR
225
150
44
100
45/40/15
2.0-3.0
2/5/74
131
11.3
61.4
93
15
27.6
40
40
250
-6 to -21
10L to 10R
225
153
45
142 143 !
42
48
14
340
2.2
2
3
206
620
21 i
64.8
6.63
3681
380
Ib4
168
360
184
74.4
0.0494
31.5
99.2
42
47
13
343
3.0
2
5
210
640
207
63.0
6.37
3439
387
159
162
375
207
86.4
0.0678
50.1
98.5
177
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
Investigation of Salt Cake Addition Rates
Boiler Loading [% of Desicin) 100
100
Air Distribution (W20/30-~) 45/40/15 45/40/15
Excess 02 ('>)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (",)
SALT CAKE Obs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
.Primary 'M Ibs/hr)
*'% of Tots! "i
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
2.0-3.0
2/11/74
141
11.8
63.5
106
25
27.7
40
43
2.0-3.0
2/11/74
140
100 j 100
45/40/15 45/40/15
2.0-3.0 j 2.0-3.0
2/12/74
140
11.7 11.6
64.0 64.7
106
" 25
27.7
40
43
250 250
-7 to -18
5L to 10R
230
155
4b
— RCT-"
(% of Total) 40
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) j 52
(•* of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
15
347
EXCESS 0? (%) 2.5
TRS MS. (pom) ! 1
S02 AVG (opni)
STEAM FLOW (f1 Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadina(ar/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Tenp °F)
ACFMHOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F '
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp f°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
7
218
622
238
71.1
6.98
4250
385
186
189
365
180
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min) j 69.6
Grain Loading(ar/pSCFj_ 0.0572
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
31.7
99.2
-7 to -18
5L to 10R
230
155
45
40
52
15
347
3.0
1
18
216
617
234
69.9
7.05
4228
385
184
187
365
.197
79.4
0.0655
41.4
99.0
2/12/74
140
11.6
65.2
107 | 108
50 | 50 '
27.4
40
43
250
-5 to -20
51. to 10R
230
155
45
— nro —
40
53
27.4
40
43
248
-5 to -20
5L to 10R
230
155
T4D —
40
56
15 15
348
2.2
9
8
222
615
ZZQ
69.8
5.99
3579
385
176
179
365
195
77.6
0.0385
25.6
99.3
351
1.9
3
5
223
615
^3S
72.0
7.4
4567
385
187
191
380
200
79.0
0.0356
24.1
99.5
178
-------
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR EXPANDED PROGRAM
TARGET CONDITIONS
[Boiler Loading (" of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/20/3°-%
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids 00
BOILER LOADING (?)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIOITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure [PSD
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweeo (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F)
AIR FLOW
.Primary (M Ibs/hr)
(^, or i otai j
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
Investigation of Salt Cake Addition Rates
IUU
4b/4U/lb
2.0-3.0
2/13/74
139
11.5
62.7
102
75
27.1
40
40
248
-5 to -20
5L to 10R
235
155
44
140
(% of Total) 40
Tertiary i'M Ibs/hr)
'% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (pprn)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOW (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
55
16
350
3.0
2
55
206
610
231
70.5
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) j 6.70
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp °F)
ACFM ' 1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadinq(gr/DSCr)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
4047
385
182
185
372
lyu
76.2
0.0509
33.2
99.2
700
45/4U/lb
2.0-3.0
2/13/74
138
11.5
62.3
100
75
27.1
40
40
248
-5 to -20
5L to 10R
235
155
44
140
40
55
16
350
2.8
2
26
202
620
224
68.2
6.39
3736
385
I7£
178
375
la/
74.1
0.0401
25.5
99.3
179
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
fflaae read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT MO. 2.
EPA-650/2-74-071-a
4. TITLE AMD SUBTITLE Improved Air Pollution Control for a
Kraft Recovery Boiler (Modified Recovery Boiler No. 3)
7. AUTHOHtS)
K. Henning, W. Andreson, and J. Ryan
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hoerner Waldorf Corporation
2250 Wabash Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION- NO.
6. REPORT DATE
August 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NC
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ADC-061
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0247
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVEREC
Final; Through February 1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
report' gives results of an intensive emission testing program to verify
the anticipated reduction in both gaseous and particulate air pollutants caused by the
conversion of a conventional kraft recovery boiler (utilizing direct contact evaporation
to a new controlled-odor design that eliminates direct contact evaporation. It docu-
ments both the cost and emission control capability of the modification, the first knowi
of this type in the U.S. The program also investigated major process variables that
affect kraft recovery boiler operation and the emissions resulting therefrom in order
to establish boiler operating conditions to minimize emissions. Investigated were;
boiler loading, liquor sulfidity, air flow, air distribution, and liquor solids concen-
tration. Test data was analyzed statistically by computer, using the multiple regres-
sion analysis technique. Particulate emissions were primarily affected by and directly
proportional to the amount of black liquor solids burned in the recovery furnace (boile:
loading). SO2 emissions were primarily dependent on the sulfidity level of the cooking
liquor being recovered. Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions were primarily affected
by excess oxygen levels , with an increase in oxygen resulting in a decrease in TRS.
The modification of the recovery boiler was successful: it reduced both TRS and parti-
culate emissions sufficiently to meet Montana state emission standards.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Sulfate Pulping
Boilers
Process Variables
Sulfur Oxides
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Kraft Recovery Boiler
Particulates
Montana
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tins Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unlimited
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
13H, 07A
13A
07B
21. NO. OF PAGES
189
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (9-73)
180
------- |