EPA-650/2-74-07U
DECEMBER 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SKRIKS
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, have been grouped into series. These broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and applica-
tion of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was
consciously planned to foster technology transfer and maximum interface
in related fields. These series are:
1. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS RESEARCH
2 . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
3. ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
4. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
5. SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
9. MISCELLANEOUS
Tliis report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to
develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and methodology
to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point and non-
point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment of pollution sources
to meet environmental quality standards.
-------
IMPROVED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
FOR A KRAFT RECOVERY BOILER:
RECOVERY BOILER NO. 4
by
Kurt Henning, Wayne Aridreson, and. James Rya
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. lAFiOl 5
EPA Project Officer: Dale A. Denny
Control System 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
December 1974
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the National Environmental Research
Center - Research Triangle Park, Office of Research and Development,
EPA, ana approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public for sale through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to document the cost of and the
emission control capability associated with construction and
operation of a "controlled odor" kraft recovery boiler.
The evaluation of this installation was accomplished by means
of an extensive emission testing program.
The testing program also investigated 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
investigated included boiler loading and liquor distribution.
The analysis of test data collected was accomplished statisti-
cally 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 affected
by the sulfidity level of the cooking liquor being recovered,
the higher the sulfidity level the higher the emissions of $62.
Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions were similarly affected by
liquor sulfidity.
The emissions of both TRS and particulates were sufficiently low
to enable the new system to meet Montana State Emission Standards,
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Demonstration Grant
Contract No. 68-02-0247 by the Hoerner Waldorf Corporation under
the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work was
completed as of May, 1974.
m
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The initial support and encouragement of Mr. Robert V. Hendriks,
the first EPA Project Officer for the testing program, is grate-
fully 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 coopera-
tion throughout the entire program.
Special thanks is due to Mr. Sheldon D. Sorensen, Manager of
Management Science for Hoerner Waldorf, for his invaluable
assistance in the statistical analysis of the test data collected.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Introduction 2
III Plan Implementation 4
IV System Shake-down 9
V Evaluation of the No. 4 Recovery System 10
VI EPA Testing Program for No. 4 Recovery Boiler 23
VII Data Analysis and Discussion of Results 32
Appendices
A Design Parameters for the Major Components of the System 42
B Particulate Sampling Test Procedures 45
C Complete EPA Test Data for No. 4 Recovery Program 51
1. Glossary for Data Sheets 51
2. Table of Conversion Factors (English to Metric Units) 53
-------
TABLES
Page
1. Capital Cost Summary for No. 4 Recovery System 8
2. Summary of No. 4 Precipitator Performance (1972-1974) 11
3. Analysis of Daily Average Values for TRS (1973-1974) 12
4. Analysis of Daily Average Values for S02 (1973-1974) 13
5. Measurements and Tests Included in EPA Test Program 25
6. Confidence Limits (95%) for Individual Values 33
about a Regression Line for Figures 12, 13, 14
7, Summary of Computer Analysis Results 37
8. Various Liquor Distribution Conditions Evaluated 39
9. Full Boiler Loading Data Summary 40
10. Low Boiler Loading Data Summary 41
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. Photograph of Completed Black Liquor Recovery System 3
2. Flow Diagram for No. 4 Recovery System 5
3. Analysis of TRS Emission Levels (Cumulative Percentage) 15
for Various Sulfidity Ranges
4. Analysis of all TRS Data Compiled 16
5. Analysis of SC-2 Emission Levels (Cumulative Percentage) 17
for Various Sulfidity Ranges
6. Analysis of all S02 Data Compiled 18
7. Lear Siegler Calibration Curve for No. 4 Recovery Stack, 20
Particulate Emissions vs. Optical Density Reading
8. Lear Siegler Recording Chart Indicating Upset Condition 22
in No. 3 Precipitator due to Rapper Malfunction
9. Lear Siegler Recording Chart Indicating a Reduction 22
in Stack Particulate Resulting from a Decrease in
Boiler Loading
10. Instrumentation and Sample Points for No. 4 Recovery System 24
11. Barton Titrator Setup 27
12. Steam Production vs. Boiler Loading (Overall Analysis) 34
13. Boiler Exit Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading (Overall Analysis) 35
14. Precipitator Outlet Dust Load vs. Boiler Loading 36
(Overall' Analysis)
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Phase II of the air pollution abatement plan for the Hoerner
Waldorf pulp mill in Missoula, Montana involved the construction
of a new "controlled odor" recovery boiler having a nominal
capacity of 1000 tons per day to replace two smaller and older
conventional recovery boilers. This project took 20 months to
complete at a capital cost of $11,253,000. In addition to the
new No. 4 recovery boiler, a black liquor evaporator concentra-
tor and a dry bottom, high efficiency (99.7%) electrostatic
precipitator were also installed as part of the overall program
for Phase II.
The No. 4 recovery system has been able to maintain sufficiently
low emissions of both TRS and particulates so as to meet the
Montana State Emission Standards of 17.5 ppm TRS (daily average)
and 52 Ib/hr. (daily average) of particulate matter. However,
to avoid exceeding the latter emission level it has been necessary
to limit the liquor loading of No. 4 recovery boiler to 90-95% of
design capacity. The most recent test data on the No. 4 precipita-
tor indicates a collection efficiency of 99.3-99.5%. Considerable
debugging of the precipitator was necessary and many modifications
were required to obtain present performance levels. Additional
modifications are anticipated to bring the precipitator up to its
guaranteed performance level at 100% loading. A Lear Siegler
transmissometer has been installed on the stack to provide the
operators with a continuous record of particulate emissions. This
monitoring instrument can be used to spot upsets in the recovery
operation and to alert the operators to particulate emissions ex-
ceeding permissible limits (State Standards).
Both boiler exit dust load and stack particulate were found to be
almost entirely dependent on boiler loading (i.e., the amount of
black liquor solids burned in the recovery furnace). At design
loading, boiler exit dust load averaged 9777 Ib/hr. Stack particu-
late averaged 56 Ib/hr. at 100% boiler loading.
Both TRS and S02 emissions were affected by the sulfidity of the
liquor being burned, the higher the sulfidity level the greater the
concentration of gaseous emissions.
The completion of Phases I and II in the recovery complex rebuild
program at Missoula, Montana, together with the extensive testing
program carried out to evaluate those improvements, has made Hoerner
Waldorf the first company in the United States to successfully
modify older, existing recovery facilities by the implementation
of new low-odor technology to enable the mill to meet current air
pollution standards. This program was completed without a corres-
ponding increase in the production capacity of the mill.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
The air pollution abatement plan carried out at the Hoerner Waldorf
pulp mill in Missoula, Montana consisted of two phases. Phase I
involved the conversion of a conventional 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.
The complete story of this conversion as well as a detailed
description of an intensive testing program carried out on the
No. 3 recovery boiler will be found in EPA Report No. 650/2-74-071-a
issued in August, 1974.
Phase II involved the construction of a 1000 ton (nominal capacity)
"controlled odor" recovery boiler to replace two smaller, older
recovery boilers. The conversion of these two smaller recoveries
was not attractive because of the lengthy outage time required for
their conversion. The implementation of major modifications to
them would have been quite difficult due to their relative
inaccessibility. Construction on Phase II began in February, 1971
and was completed in October, 1972. Figure I is a photograph of
the entire black liquor recovery complex at Missoula taken after
the completion of Phase II.
Following a rather lengthy shake-down period involving several
modifications made to the electrostatic precipitator, an extensive
testing program was carried out on the No. 4 recovery system. This
testing program was carried out over a period of two months and was
intended to complement an earlier testing program carried out on
the modified No. 3 recovery boiler. The No. 4 testing program
primarily investigated the effect of liquor distribution in the
furnace on particulate and gaseous emissions. Whereas the earlier
test program for No. 3 recovery investigated the effect of several
process variables (i.e., liquor feed, sulfidity, air flow, and air
distribution) on gaseous and particulate emissions, the test program
for No. 4 recovery focused primarily on the effect of liquor nozzle
orientation in the furnace. Two distinct levels of boiler loading
(liquor feed) were also investigated. A total of 52 sets of data
were collected.
This report presents design detail and capital cost for the new No. 4
recovery boiler as well as a summary of the testing program carried
out and an analysis of results.
-------
i-
0)
c
O)
o
s_
o
£
cu
on
>>
co
OJ
>
o
-------
SECTION III
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 2 is a flow diagram showing the No. 4 recovery system,
consisting primarily of a large "controlled odor" recovery boiler,
a 3-effect liquor concentrator, and a dry bottom electrostatic
precipitator.
Phase II of the pollution abatement plan for the Missoula mill was
announced to the general public in June, 1970 following the issuance
of a construction permit No. 186-909270 by the State of Montana on
June 23, 1970. Simons-Eastern Engineering Company was retained to
perform the detailed engineering. Mr. Newton Betts was hired on
August 24, 1970 as project engineer for Phase II.
The decision was made to order a new large "controlled odor"
recovery boiler from Babcock and Wilcox. Stringent guarantees for
both TRS and S02 emissions were obtained from the vendor based on
earlier test work carried out on the No. 3 recovery boiler.
The new No. 4 recovery boiler was constructed in 1971. It has a
design load rating of 3,000,000 Ib/day of dry solids based on 6600
BTU/lb dry solids (D.S.). This is equivalent to a nominal capacity
of 1000 tons/day of pulp processing capacity (based on 3000 Ib D.S./
pulp ton). Steam capacity of the boiler is 485,000 Ib/hr. at 750°F
and 600 psi. Under design load conditions the dust concentration
in the boiler exit gases should not exceed 8.0 grains/SDCF.
The unit has a water-cooled, full studded sloping floor arranged
for continuous smelt tapping; a boiler generating bank, superheater,
and economizer. Liquor is sprayed into the furnace through two
oscillating nozzles to effect proper distribution of liquor on the
furnace walls. The latter are of gas-tight membrane welded construc-
tion.
A nose baffle, located beneath the superheater, shields the high
temperature sections from direct furnace radiation and distributes
the gas to produce a desirable flow pattern over the furnace screen
and superheater tubes. The superheater is a pendant type, located
behind the furnace screen. It is arranged for parallel flow of
steam and flue gas. A multi-header vertical steel tube economizer
is installed directly behind the boiler tank.
Flue gases leaving the economizer enter the electrostatic precipitator
at about 400°F. The precipitator has two parallel chambers with four
electrical sections (fields) in each. The cross section of each
chamber is divided into 42 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.
-------
E
0)
oo
-------
Periodically, the plates and wire frames are vibrated or "rapped"
to dislodge the adhering salt cake. The dislodged dust falls to
the bottom of the precipitator where drag scrapers remove the
material to screw conveyor hoppers. From these hoppers, recovered
salt cake is conveyed to the sluice tank where it mixes with the
heavy (63% solids) black feed liquor.
The design gas flow specified for the unit is 470,000 ACFM at a
temperature of 440°F. The precipitator has a guaranteed collection
efficiency of 99.7% (by weight) based on a dust load of 10.0 grains/
SDCF in the entering gas stream for 100% boiler loading.
The cleaned flue gas is drawn from the precipitator by the induced
draft fan which discharges into a new stack. A circular, enclosed
test station was installed on the stack to provide the necessary
means for exit gas sampling and emissions determination.
Additional evaporator capacity was necessary in Phase II to replace
the direct contact evaporation lost with the shutdown of the two
small recovery boilers (No. 1 and No. 2). Two additional Unitech
concentrator effects were added to the existing one to provide the
necessary total evaporator capacity of 177,000 Ibs of water per
hour. An additional 39,000 sq. ft. of heating surface was required.
The incoming liquor is pumped to the third effect where solids are
increased to about 45%. From the third effect, liquor is pumped to
the first effect, and then to the second effect where the desired
product solids level is reached. Each effect is divided in half
with each half containing a preheat, falling film and rising film
section. Liquor feed to each effect can be alternated between
halves and this procedure is followed routinely to prevent tube
pluggage by chemical salt deposits.
Heavy black liquor (63% solids) from storage is introduced into the
recovery system through the sluice tank where the collected
particulate from the precipitator is returned to the liquor cycle.
From the sluice tank the liquor is pumped to the salt cake mixing
tank where fresh make-up chemical is added. Salt cake is metered
from the storage silo to the mix tank by means of a dry feeding
device. Liquor from the mix tank is pumped through direct steam
heaters to the oscillating spray nozzles at the furnace.
Smelt, consisting primarily of molten sodium carbonate and sodium
sulfide, is continuously tapped from the bottom of the No. 4
recovery furnace through four water-cooled smelt spouts into the
dissolving tank. Steam and recirculating weak wash are used to
break up the smelt stream as it runs from the furnace bottom into
the tank.
To prevent excessive particulate emissions from the dissolving
tank, a packed tower scrubber manufactured by the Ershig Company
was installed above the tank. Weak wash is used as the scrubbing
-------
medium in the counter-current tower, removing any entrained
particulate matter from the vapors emitted from the dissolving
tank that pass up and through the tower before their final dis-
charge to the atmosphere.
The smelt contacts weak wash in the dissolving tank to form
green liquor which is further processed in the recausticizing
area to produce white liquor which is subsequently used in the
cooking operation (wood chip digestion).
The design details for the major components of the No. 4 recovery
system described above are given in Appendix A.
The capital cost summary for the No. 4 recovery system is given
in Table 1.
-------
Table 1
*CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR NO. 4 RECOVERY SYSTEM
Building $ 1,758,760
Concentrator 495,370
Electrostatic Precipitator 945,824
Recovery Boiler 3,376,000
Auxiliary Equipment 982,792
I.D. Fan $ 34,283
I.D. Fan Turbine 45,000
F.D. Fans (2) 50,000
Sluice Tank & Agitator 15,200
Mix Tank & Agitator 21,000
Dissolving Tank Scrubber 52,000
Recovery Auxiliaries 755,931
Evaporator Auxiliaries 4,880
Precipitator Auxiliaries 4,498
Testing Stations 40
Mechanical Work 1,875,456
Electrical Work 699,838
Instrumentation Work 364,209
Engineering Service 715,170
Total $11,253,419
*Detailed Design and Engineering Data are given in APPENDIX A
-------
SECTION IV
SYSTEM SHAKE-DOWN
The entire No. 4 recovery system became operational on October 14,
1972. Of all the equipment started up, only the electrostatic
precipitator gave any appreciable operating difficulty. This re-
sulted primarily from equipment deficiencies that required many
months of continuous effort to correct. Mechanical problems with
the rapping mechanism required a great deal of attention. A
severe wire (electrode) burning problem was also encountered that
appeared to be related to wire swinging.
Joy 1 pneumatic rappers were originally installed on the precipita-
tor but they proved to be inadequate. The four original vertical
rappers on the inlet distribution plate were first replaced with
sixteen horizontal Martin vibrolators in April and May, 1973.
Eight of the latter were eventually replaced in May, 1974 with
Eriez rappers to eliminate the dust buildup on the distribution
plate. Eriez pneumatic rappers replaced all Joy 1 rappers on the
plate and electrode frames in May, 1973 to provide better rapping.
Lubrication for the rappers was also improved at that time.
The correction of the wire burning problem was a very lenghty and
complex effort. Ceramic stablizers were installed at the bottom of
the electrode weight frame in May, 1973 to minimize wire frame
swinging. Additional weight was added to the wires and individual
suspension was provided in December 1973 to prevent particulate
buildup under them. All the original stiff electrodes were removed.
These measures did not completely correct the electrode oscillation
problem, but did permit raising the boiler loading from a level of
80% to a level of 90-100% which permitted a more meaningful evalua-
tion of precipitator performance.
The particulate (salt cake) collected in the precipitator is conveyed
to the sluice tank located below the "B" field of the precipitator
where it mixes with the heavy black liquor. From the mix tank the
liquor is pumped to the furnace spray nozzles. A severe problem of
salt cake buildup in the "B" fields resulted from water vapor
entering the precipitator through the particulate discharge chute.
To correct this problem, a fan was installed in the sluice tank vent
in December, 1973 to discharge the vapor into the flue gas duct
between the boiler and the precipitator.
-------
SECTION V
EVALUATION OF THE NO. 4 RECOVERY SYSTEM
The operating efficiency of the No. 4 recovery system must be
sufficient to permit it to meet the emission regulations promul-
gated by the State of Montana. These specify a maximum daily
average emission of 17.5 ppm for total reduced sulfur gases (TRS)
and a maximum daily average for particulate emissions of 52 Ib/hr.
(over a 24-hour period at design solids loading) for No. 4 recovery
boiler.
PARTICULATES
Electrostatic Precipitator
The particulate emissions from the No. 4 precipitator exceeded the
specified state standard when the unit was first put into operation.
As previously described in Section IV, a number of modifications and
improvements were made over a period of several months before the
unit came close to its design "guarantee" specifications.
The most recent data obtained on the unit indicates a collection
efficiency of 99.3-99.5% for a boiler loading of 90-95%.
A summary of precipitator emissions and collection efficiencies
for the above two-year period of equipment modifications and improve-
ments is given in Table 2. This data indicates that an increase in
boiler loading (liquor feed) has been possible during this period
while still maintaining an acceptable collection efficiency.
It must be recognized that much debugging of the precipitator was
necessary and many modifications required before present performance
levels could be attained. Additional modifications are anticipated
to bring the precipitator up to its guaranteed performance level at
100% loading.
Dissolving Tank
The installation of a packed tower scrubber above the dissolving
tank, which receives the smelt runoff from the No. 4 recovery
boiler, permitted the dissolving tank stack to meet state emission
standards. Average particulate emissions from the vent stack were
found to be 290 Ib/day vs. a state emission standard (maximum
allowable) of 1344 Ib/day.
TRS AND S02
A detailed analysis of TRS and SO? emission levels at various
sulfidity ranges is presented in Tables 3 and 4. Daily average
data for the period January, 1973 - April, 1974 (inclusive) were
10
-------
Table 2
Summary of No. 4 Precipitator Performance (1972-1974)
Boiler Loading(%) Dust LossQb/hr.) Collect.Eff.(%) No.of
Test Period
11/29/72
12/1-12/15/72
5/23-6/1/73
6/12-6/13/73
6/28-8/1/73
8/16-8/31/73
9/17-10/15/73
12/17-12/20/73
2/8-2/28/74
3/16-3/31/74
4/1-4/30/74
8/1-9/5/74
Ave.
83
75
67
80
81
83
99
102
97
91
95
86
Range
-
67-83
64-71
-
70-88
79-87
96-100
98-105
84-102
90-98
90-100
82-90
Ave.
226
8.5
111
25
27
29
69
46
64
60
45
21
Range
-
7-10
80-131
18-32
10-84
17-50
38-99
40-56
44-111
28-178
21-95
14-28
Ave.
97.0
99.8
98.5
99.7
99.7
99.7
99.2
99.5
99.3
99.3
99.5
no boiler
Range Tests
-
-
98.3-98.9
-
99.0-99.9
99.5-99.8
98.6-99.5
99.4-99.6
98.9-99.6
98.0-99.7
98.8-99.6
tests run
1
2
3
2
7
6
5
3
9
6
19
4
11
-------
Table 3
*ANALYSIS OF DAILY AVERAGE VALUES FOR TRS
(for Period of January 1973-April 1974)
No.
64
33
27
26
10
(160)
10
6
5
4
4
(29)
1
2
0
0
2
(5)
1
1
0
1
0
0
%
32.5
17
14
13
5
5
3
2.5
2
2
0.5
1
0
0
1
0.5
0.5
0
0.5
0
0
C.P
32
49
63
76
81
86
89
92
94
96
96
97
97
97
98
99
99
99
100
,
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
No.
35
31
29
17
22
(134)
5
10
5
4
6
(30)
5
6
2
4
8
(25)
4
4
2
3
0
1
%
17.
15.
14.
8.
11
2.
5
2.
2
3
2.
3
1
2
4
2
2
1
1.
0
0.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
C.P.
17.
32
46.
55
66
68.
73.
76
78
81
83.
86.
87
89
93
95
97
98
99.
99.
100
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
No.
3
4
7
5
5
(24)
0
9
2
1
5
(17)
2
1
1
1
0
(5)
4
1
0
0
0
0
%
6
8
13
10
10
0
17
4
2
10
4
2
2
2
0
8
2
0
0
0
0
C.P.
6
14
27
37
47
47
64
68
70
80
84
86
88
90
90
98
100
Totals 451 197
*Barton Titrator Data
203
51
12
-------
Table 4
*ANALYSIS OF DAILY AVERAGE VALUES FOR S02
(for Period of January 1973-April 1974)
S02
Level
(ppm)
1-20
21-40
41-60
61-80
81-100
Total
No. Of
Data
Points
138
70
50
37
19
(26.1-28.
Sulfidity
No.
98
28
17
11
10
%
54
15.
9.
6
5.
5
5
5
0%
Range
C.P.
54
69.5
79
85
90.5
28,
.1-31.0
Sulfidity_
No.
39
36
31
21
6
%
21
19.5
17
11.5
3.5
Range
C.P.
21
40.5
57.5
69
72.5
31
.1-33.
Sulfidity
No.
1
6
2
5
3
%
2
12
4
10
6
0%
Range
C.P.
2
14
18
28
34
(1-100) (314) (164) (133) (17)
101-120
121-140
141-160
161-180
181-200
16
9
19
10
7
5
3
5
0
1
3
1.5
3
0
0.5
93.5
95
98
98
98.5
11
4
6
6
5
6
2
3,5
3.5
2.5
78.5
80.5
84
87.5
90
0
2
8
4
1
0
4
16
8
2
34
38
54
62
64
(100-200) (61) (14) (32) (15)
201-220
221-240
241-260
261-280
281-300
7
4
6
6
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0.5
0
98.
98.
98.
99
99
5
5
5
3
2
2
4
3
1.5
1
1
2
1.5
91.5
92.5
93.5
95.5
97
4
2
4
1
1
8
4
8
2
2
72
76
84
86
88
(201-300) (27) (1) (14) (12)
301-400 10 2 1 100 3 1.5 98.5 5 10 98
401-500 40 3 1.5 100 12 100
Totals 416 181 185 50
*Barton Titrator Data
13
-------
collected in order to develop this data for three sulfidity
ranges. The cumulative percentage (C.P.) data points for each
sulfidity r-:.ge rre plotted on semilog paper in Figures 3 and 5.
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 3) indicates that at a sulfidity range of
26-28%, approximately 99% of the daily average data falls at or
below 17.5 ppm, the Montana Air Emission Standard for TRS. At the
higher sulfidity levels of 28-33% the percentage of all data
meeting this criteria is 93-94%. This is considerably better
operating control than found for the No. 3 recovery boiler in an
earlier study where 89% of the data obtained for the 26-28%
sulfidity range met State Emission Standards as compared with
only 65% of the data obtained for the higher 31-33% sulfidity
range.
The TRS plot of all data presented in Figure 4 illustrates the
percentage of operating time that a particular level of emissions
is exceeded. For 5 ppm, the percentage is 30%; for 17.5 ppm,
the percentage is only 3%.
The S02 plot (Figure 5) indicates that at the lower sulfidity
range of 26-28%, 92% of the daily average data falls at or be-
low 100 ppm and 98% below 200 ppm. For the sulfidity range of
28-31%, 74% falls below 100 ppm and 90% below 200 ppm. For the
high sulfidity range of 31-33%, only 31% of the data falls at
or below 100 ppm and 64% below 200 ppm. Here again as was found
in the case of No. 3 recovery boiler, a major upward shift in
S02 occurs at the higher sulfidity levels above 31%.
The S02 plot of all data presented in Figure 6 illustrates the
percentage of operating time that a particular level of emissions
is exceeded. For 100 ppm, the percentage is 26%; for 200 ppm, the
percentage is 10%. At the present time there is no point source
emission standard for S02 in the State of Montana.
LEAR SIEGLER TRANSMISSOMETER
Introduction
On September 4, 1973, an on-stack optical transmissometer,
manufactured by Lear Siegler, Inc. was installed on the No. 4
recovery boiler stack. The optical transmissometer measures the
opacity of stack emissions, which then can be correlated with the
particulate concentration in the exit gas stream by manual testing.
The purpose of this instrument is to provide the operators with a
rapid and reliable readout of stack emissions to ensure continual
compliance with Montana air standards.
14
-------
uepueq.s uoissiiug .
00iy3d HiNOW 9L idOJ Q31IdW03 ViVQ Shi 39Vb3AV A1IVQ dO 33\/iN3Da3d 3AIi\/iniMiD
15
-------
tJ
0'
c
0
o
-I
(C
c:
a:
et
u
030330X3 SI 13A31 N3AI9 3WI1 JO 39VlN30b3d
16
-------
jrp ^~-£-_pLr TTV- -j —^ I
39tfy3Atf A1IVQ JO 39\/lN3DH3d 3AIiVinwnO
17
-------
-030333X3 SI°I3A31 N3AI9 3WI1 JO 39?lN33U3d
18
-------
Instrument Design
The Model RM 4 instrument consists of an optical sensor which is
attached to one side of the stack, with a reflector on the oppo-
site side. The optical sensor contains the light source, light
receiver, and the electronic signal processing unit. Both the
sensor and reflector units are continually flushed with air to
maintain dust-free equipment.
The data output from the transmissometer is continuously recorded
on a strip chart recorder. The optical density readout is re-
lated to stack grain loading by means of a correlation curve that
was developed from actual data points.
The transmissometer automatically re-zeros and calibrates at
45-minute intervals. These checks are accomplished by inserting
into the light beam (on the optical sensor side of the unit) a
reflector for the zero check and subsequently a filter which
has a known opacity. The results of these checks are recorded
on the strip chart so the operator can detect a malfunctioning
instrument almost immediately,
Instrument Calibration
A preliminary least squares relationship between optical density
and stack grain loading was calculated in mid-October 1973, using
the results of seventeen stack tests and the corresponding Lear
Siegler optical densities. This relationship was used until mid-
February, 1974, when thirteen additional data points were added to
the original date and a new least squares line calculated.
The Lear Siegler optical density calibration line presently used
for monitoring the No. 4 recovery boiler stack is shown in Figure
7. This relationship was derived from all data collected from
September 6, 1973, through June 12, 1974, exclusive of the February
22 - March 8, 1974 data, when the Lear Siegler zero point was not
correct. The 95% confidence limits for the individual data points
(73 in all) are also shown in Figure 7.
Utilization of Lear Siegler in Daily Operation
The Lear Siegler has become a valuable tool for operating personnel.
This instrument has been installed on both No. 3 and No. 4 recovery
stacks. An optical density value has been established as a guide-
l-;ne for both boiler and precipitator operators, which, if exceeded,
would result in a violation of State particulate standards. The
operators have been instructed to take steps to decrease the level
of stack narticulates if this optical density is reached. At 100%
boiler loading, Lear Siegler readings exceeding 40% of scale usually
indicate emissions exceeding State standards.
19
-------
-------
The Lear Siegler will also quickly identify a precipitator
malfunction. Figure 8 shows a portion of a strip chart where
a rapper malfunction occurred, resulting in an increase (from
40 to 100 Ib/hr.) in particulates passing through the No. 3
precipitator. The Lear Siegler enabled operations to be aware
of the problem and correct it much faster than normally would
be possible.
Figure 9 demonstrates that a decrease in liquor feed to both
boilers had an immediate effect on stack particulate losses.
In the case of No. 3 precipitator, emissions dropped from 45
to 30 Ib/hr.
-------
Figure 8 Lear Siegler recording chart indicating upset condition
in No. 3 Precipitator due to rapper malfunction
Figure 9 Lear Siegler recording chart indicating a reduction
in stack particulate resulting from a decrease
in boiler loading (liquor feed to recovery boiler)
22
-------
SECTION VI
EPA TESTING PROGRAM FOR NO. 4 RECOVERY BOILER
INTRODUCTION
The testing program formulated for the No. 4 recovery boiler
installed at the Missoula mill was intended to complement the
earlier testing work carried out on the modified No. 3 recovery
boiler, discussed in another EPA report.* The No. 4 testing
program primarily investigated the effect of liquor distribu-
tion in the furnace on particulate and gaseous emissions.
Sulfidity remained at a level of 26-28% throughout the entire
testing period. Two different boiler loading levels were
investigated, 70-75% and 90-100%.
Changes in air distribution and excess oxygen levels were planned
but these efforts were not successful due to the tendency of the
No. 4 recovery boiler to "black-out" under abnormal conditions
(i.e., unable to support combustion). Approximately two months
were devoted to this testing program (February-April, 1974).
MEASUREMENTS AND TESTS INCLUDED IN STUDY
Figure 10 shows the location of the various instruments used
to indicate and record the pertinent information required for
process control and data collection. Also shown are the loca-
tions of the sampling ports required for particulate collection.
Two particulate sampling stations 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 rectangular duct work where the straight run of
duct available was conducive to meaningful flow measurements.
The precipitator outlet sample ports were located on the main
stack inside a completely enclosed testing station permanently
attached to the periphery of the stack.
Table 5 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 (S02) were
continuously measured by means of two Model 400 Barton electroly-
tic 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).
* Improved Air Pollution Control for a Kraft Recovery Boiler:
EPA report 650/2-74-071-a of August, 1974.
23
-------
(U
•)->
l/l
>,
(/I
^
d)
>
o
o
-------
Table 5
MEASUREMENTS AND TESTS INCLUDED
Item
Black liquor flow to sluice tank
Black liquor flow to nozzle
Black liquor density
Solids content of liquor
Salt cake makeup
Temperature of liquor at nozzle
Nozzle pressure
Primary, Secondary and
Tertiary air flows
Temperature of incoming air
Excess oxygen
Precipitator inlet flue gas
temperature
Steam flow
Green liquor flow
Weak wash flow
Sulfidity
S02
TRS
Particulate
IN EPA TEST PROGRAM
Means of Data Collections
Magnetic flow meter, continuously
recorded
'Magnetic flow meter, continuously
recorded
Measured once per test
Refractometer, also check manually
once per test
Screw conveyor feed determined by rpm
Thermometer, continuously recorded
Pressure gauge, manual readout
Pressure taps, continuously recorded
Thermocouple, continuously recorded
Analyzer, continuously recorded
Thermocouple, continously recorded
Orifice, continuously recorded
Magnetic flowmeter
Magnetic flowmeter
Wet chemistry analysis
Barton titrator
Barton titrator
Sampled both at boiler exit and
stack for each test
25
-------
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 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 bro-
mine. The amount of current supplied to the cell is automatically
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) com-
pounds in the sample. A calibration factor is used to convert
current flow to parts per million of the measured compounds.
The gas flow 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 repre-
sents 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 citric acid batch scrubber has removed the S02-
The S02 is calculated by difference. 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 11 is a schematic flow diagram of the Barton titrator
setup used for testing at No. 4 recovery boiler stack.
Probe - a teflon probe is used to extract the gas sample from
the stack just above the I.D. fan. The sample stream is split
to measure total sulfur compounds and reduced sulfur compounds
(TRS).
Scrubber - To measure the reduced sulfur compounds, a scrubber
is provided to remove SO?. The scrubber is a gas washer bottle
filled with a citric acid solution. The latter contains one (1)
mole of potassium citrate to 0.2 mole of citric acid.
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 bubbler and electrode fitting.
26
-------
CL
4->
0)
CO
fO
S-
•H
O
•fJ
J-
R3
CO
Oi
27
-------
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.
Flowmeter - 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 mi 11 amps.
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.
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 139 minutes, corresponding to one complete "soot-
blowing cycle." The boiler itself is equipped with 40 IK sootblowers,
and the economizer with 13 sootblowers. These are long retractable
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 time sequence, which repeats every 139 minutes.
Because of the high dust loading ahead of the precipitator, dry
sampling methods could not be used at this point. A wet scrubbing
train illustrated in Figure 1, Appendix B 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 2,
Appendix B. 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 photo-
meter. The justification for using only the front half catch of
the EPA train is documented in Section C, pages 24-30 of NCASI
Technical Bulletin No. 67, "Comparison of Source Particulate
Emission Measurement Methods at Kraft Recovery Furnace Stacks."
The details of the above two testing procedures for the collection
of particulate matter from the flue gases are given in Appendix B.
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 cleaning 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 750 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 139 minute test (equivalent to one complete
sootblowing cycle) about 500 ml of condensate is collected
at the stack and 700 ml at the boiler exit. Volumes signi-
ficantly different than this are an immediate flag that
abnormal conditions exist in the boiler or that it is a bad
test. Leaks, which occasionally 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.
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.
PLAN OF INVESTIGATION
The testing program for the No. 4 recovery boiler was scheduled
over a two-month period. At least three sets of data were obtained
for each condition investigated.
29
-------
The original testing program called for maintaining a low liquor
sulfidity of 26-28% throughout. Air distribution, excess oxygen
levels and two boiler loadings (normal and low) were to be varied
to investigate the effect of each operating parameter on emissions.
Half the testing program was planned to investigate the effect of
liquor distribution on emissions by varying nozzle pressure, nozzle
sidesweep and nozzle backsweep.
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 after-
noon. The rather lengthy and involved procedure for particulate
sampling required three to four hours to complete each investiga-
tion. Minor changes in operating conditions were made three to
four hours before resumption of testing to allow conditions to
stablize.
Establishment of "Normal" Conditions
As a basis for comparison, "normal" conditions for the operation
of the No. 4 recovery boiler were established with the help of
Babcock and Wilcox personnel. The boiler manufacturer was called
in to fine-tune the unit so that the average TRS emission would
not exceed one ppm, the "guarantee" emission level for the boiler
when operated under proper operating conditions. This work was
accomplished during the last week of February, 1974.
The Babcock and Wilcox operating parameters established from these
initial studies were somewhat different from those originally
established by Hoerner Waldorf for the No. 4 recovery boiler. The
old and new conditions were the following:
Nozzle
Nozzle
Nozzle
Boiler Loading
Excess Oxygen (%)
Sizes
Backsweep
Sidesweep
Air Distribution
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Temperature of Primary Air (°F)
HW before B&W
90-100
2.0-3.0
40/40
-17° to -22°
5° L to 5° R
28
52
20
300
B&W Normal
90-100
1.5-2.5
40/40
-15° to -20°
5° L to 5° R
26
50
24
350
Operating Experiences and Observations at Different Conditions
Although it would have been desirable to investigate the magnitude
of emissions from the No. 4 recovery system under overload conditions
(i.e., higher boiler loading), the highest boiler loading attain-
able so as not to exceed State particulate standards was the 90-100%
range.
30
-------
Some variation in air distribution was intended during the
course of the testing program on No. 4 recovery boiler. However,
on two occasions when attempting to change the air distribution
from 26/50/24 to 35/40/25, the furnace "blacked out." It was
concluded that the new condition resulted in poor combustion due
to improper air utilization. Consequently, air distribution
changes were not attempted again.
An attempt was made to reduce the excess oxygen level below 1.5%,
but this effort resulted in furnace blackouts or the presence of
noncombustibles was detected before the level of 1.0% excess oxygen
was reached. These conditions of testing were therefore eliminated
from the program.
31
-------
SECTION VII
DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
As the completion of the EPA testing program it was possible to
analyze all the data (52 sets) and establish the relationship
between participate emissions and boiler loading. The relation-
ship between steam production and boiler loading was also estab-
lished. This analysis was accomplished statistically with the
aid of an IBM System 370 (Model 135) computer.
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.
Confidence limits of 95% were also calculated in order to show
the range of the individual values for the dependent variable
in each case. These confidence limits are summarized in Table 6
and are indicated by the dotted lines in Figures 12, 13, and 14.
These dotted lines indicate the spread anticipated for 95% of
all possible data points.
OVERALL ANALYSES
A summary of the results obtained from a cumputer analysis of all
data sets is given in Table 7. Figures 12-14 illustrate the major
relationships established from the data. The more comprehensive
data analysis carried out in an earlier test program for No. 3
recovery boiler was most helpful to zero-in more quickly on the
primary relationships that were most conducive to statistical
analysis. Unfortunately, the relatively uniform conditions of
liquor sulfidity and excess oxygen level in the exit gases pre-
vented a meaningful overall analysis of TRS and S0£ emissions, as
they are affected by these other operating parameters.
Figure 12 gives the relationship between steam production and
boiler loading. The regression analysis indicates that for 100%
boiler loading the average net steam generated by the No. 4 recovery
boiler is 436,000 Ib/hr. Taking into account the fact that
approximately 45,000 Ib/hr. steam is utilized in the sootblowers
to keep the economizer and boiler tubes clean, the total gross
steam production is about 481,000 Ib/hr. This is very close to
the 485,000 Ib/hr. rating for the boiler at design load. At
75% boiler loading the net steam availability is 322,000 Ib/hr.
Figure 13 gives the relationship between Boiler Exit Dust Load
and Boiler Loading. The average dust load at 100% boiler loading
is 9777 Ib/hr. The maximum dust load emission from the No. 4
recovery boiler at design load indicated by Babcock and Wilcox
is 9600 Ib/hr. (8.0 gr/SDCF).
32
-------
Table 6
95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL VALUES
ABOUT A REGRESSION LINE
Figure 12
Steam Production (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X)
Y = 4.53X - 16.06; Y = 395, "X = 91
[M lb.1 I'M lb.1
X Value (%) Y Lower LimitL hr. J Y Upper Limit L hr. "J
70 269 333
80 315 377
90 360 422
90.86 364 426
100 405 468
110 450 514
Figure 13
Boiler Exit Dust Load (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X)
Y = 166.75X - 6898; Y= 8254, X" = 91
X Value (%) Y Lower Limit(1b/hr.) Y Upper Limit (Ib/hr.)
70 2190 7,360
80 3921 8,964
90 5612 10,608
90.86 5757 10,752
100 7263 12,292
110 8874 14,016
Figure 14
Precipitator Outlet Dust Load (Y) vs. Boiler Loading (X)
Y = 1.176X - 61.5; Y" - 45.4, I = 91
X Value (%) Y Lower Limit (Ib/hr.) Y Upper Limit (Ib/hr.)
70 -35.4 77.1
80 -22.3 87.5
90 -10.0 98.7
90.86 -9.0 99.7
100 1.4 110.8
110 11.9 123.8
33
-------
34
-------
Y = T66.75X-6898
-------
-------
Table 7
SUMMARY OF COMPUTER ANALYSIS RESULTS
(Observation Dates: February - April 1974)
Standard
Variables No.of Points Mean Deviation
1. Boiler Loading
52 90.87
2. Steam Flow
(M Ib/hr.) 52 395.10 50.95
3. Boiler Exit Dust Load
(Ib/hr.) 52 8254.23 2167.36
4. Precipitator Outlet Dust Load
(Ib/hr.)
(All efficiencies) 52 45.37 29.38
5. Precipitator Outlet Dust Load
(Ib/hr.)
(Efficiencies at least 992) 49 40.59 20.47
Relationships Regression Equation
a. 1 vs. 2 SF = 4.525 BL - 16.056
b. 1 vs. 3 BEDL = 166.750 BL - 6897.59
c. 1 vs. 4 PODL(l) = 1.176 BL - 61.509
d. 1 vs. 5 PODL(2) = 1.173 BL - 66.146
37
-------
Figure 14 gives the relationship between Precipitator Outlet Dust
Load and Boiler Loading. The regression equation developed was
based on all the data sets compiled. At design boiler loading
(100%), the average particulate emissions from the precipitator
are 56 Ib/hr., just slightly above the Montana State Emission
Standard of 52 Ib/hr. for No. 4 recovery. If the three suspect
sets of data having precipitator efficiencies less than 99% are
omitted from the regression analysis, another equation is obtained
(see Table 7) having a similar slope but with a Y value approxi-
mately 5 units below the one obtained from the regression equation.
At design boiler loading, the modified regression line then gives
an average particulate emission of 51 Ib/hr. which does fall below
the maximum allowable State standard.
VARIOUS LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION CONDITIONS
Much of the testing program for No. 4 recovery boiler was devoted
to investigating the effect of different liquor distribution
conditions on emissions. Nozzle pressure, nozzle sidesweep, and
nozzle backsweep were varied individually and collectively to
evaluate such changes. A smaller nozzle size was used to obtain a
higher liquor feed pressure under full load conditions. A summary
of various operating conditions investigated are given in Table 8.
For low boiler loading conditions (69-76%), only the first four
conditions were employed.
Tables 9 and 10 summarize the results obtained from this part of
the testing program. Full boiler loading data is summarized in
Table 9 and low boiler loading data in Table 10. As a general
observation, it does not appear from the limited data collected
that any particular combination of operating parameters result
in a significant higher or lower level of emissions than the
others. It might possibly be significant in Table 9 that conditions
four and eight result in the highest level of particulate emissions
from the boiler. However, these averages are still below the
design dust load of 8.0 gr/SDCF. Both conditions include high
backsweep and wide sidesweep.
A comparison of the two tables indicates that the general level
of S02 emissions under low boiler loading conditions (Table 10)
is higher than the level of S02 emissions encountered under full
boiler loading conditions (Table 9). The complete test data for
No. 4 recovery will be found in APPENDIX C.
38
-------
Table 8
VARIOUS LIQUOR DISTRIBUTION CONDITIONS EVALUATED
1. All Conditions Normal: Nozzle Pressure, 30-35 psig;
Backsweep, -15° to -20°; Sidesweep, 5°L to 5°R
2. All Conditions Normal except High Backsweep (-10° to -14°)
3. All Conditions Normal except Wide Sidesweep (10°L to 10°R)
4. All Conditions Normal except High Backsweep and Wide Sidesweep
5. All Conditions Normal except High Nozzle Pressure (44 psig)
6. All Conditions Normal except High Nozzle Pressure
and High Backsweep (-10° to -14°)
7. All Conditions Normal except High Nozzle Pressure
and Wide Sidesweep (10°L to 10°R)
8. All Conditions Normal except High Nozzle Pressure,
High Backsweep and Wide Sidesweep
39
-------
CME
O Q-
CO Q.
CM
CO LO
CM
r— LO O
CM
r--.
CM
co
oo
co E
a: Q.
1— QL
co
LO
r^
CM
co
CO CTI
CM •—
S-
o
•)-> >>
to o
4-> C
•i- CU
Q-'i-
•i- O.
CJ •!-
CU 4- •
S- 4-
O_ UJ
CM
CTl
CT)
LO
CTl
CTl
LO
CTi
CT)
U3
CTl
CTl
CTi
CT)
CM
CTi
CTi
CTi
CTl
to
CT,
CTi
CTl
CU
-O
(O
1—
>-
o;
<
•^
s:
^r J
CO
ct
— i
c: S-
O ^ ^:
I/) (O _Q
w -t-> .—
•r- CO — -
"vf 00 CO
r-s co co
E
LU
CU
-I-5 -4-*
tO -i-
r~™" ?S ^^"^
3 LU U_
O O
••- S- Q
-P CU CO
(O •!- S-
O_ O CT
m v *>
«* to to
i — CO to
• • •
i^ r-~ to
CO C
co CU
CU CD'-^
U >>&«
X >?v_-
LU O
CO CM CO
• • •
i— CM CM
CT)
S- c:
CU •!-
i — "O - — •
•r- rtS 6-9
O O-— -
03 _l
4-
O (O co
• +J +->
O (O CU
s: Q co
i— r^ CTI
O CO CTl
^_
to co co
00 to LO CO VO
CO CM to CO CO
O LO O 00 i—
CO LO i— CO CO
• • • • .
r~- to r>» to r~-
i— I— 1— 1— <*
• • • • •
CM CM CM CM CM
LO f^. CM ^- CO
CTl CT) CTt CTi CTl
CO CO CO CO CO
to
"CM
+-> (C
CO 4->
CU to
\— Q
00 1
1 LO
to CM
^-~ --^
CO CO
C.
o
•r-
-4-J
•r~
-a
c
o
o
,_
CTl
CM
1 ^3-
CO O 1
CM CO CO
^•X ^*^*^^k
co <^-«vj-
CM CO
o
CM
CM CT) 1
1 • CTl
r- LO i—
^^» **^*. ^^.
^± ^ «^j-
tf 1C) IQ
-------
CME
O Q-
00 Q.
in
CO
CO
CO
co
oo £
o; ex.
I— Q.
CO
10
o
co
i.
o
03 CJ
••- CU
Q.-I-
O -r-
O) 4-
CO
01
CTi
CTi
CTi
O1
00
CTi
CT)
oo
CD
O --x.
tO _Q
00
to
CL.
O
4- Q
CO 00
O
CO'
D1
CO
in
vo
in
CM
LT>
00
CO
in
CO
O)
re
UJ
10 oi
X X
UJ O
tn
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
CM
o
CQ
o
r— T3
•i— (C
o o
CQ _l
en
to oi
a oo
co
CO
to -P
«
CM CM
in
CM
CM
o
-o
c
o
tJ
CM
CO
41
-------
APPENDIX A
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM
1. No. 4 Recovery Boiler (Babcock and Wilcox unit erected in 1972)
Nominal Capacity - 1000 TPD (based on 3000 Ib dry solids per
pulp ton)
Design Loading - 3,000,000 Ibs of black liquor solids per day
at 6600 BTU/lb (equivalent to 3,040,000 Ibs
of solids at Missoula with average liquor BTU
content of 6515 BTU/lb)
Dust Load (max.) from Boiler at Design Load = 8.0 gr/SDCF
Steam Production (max) - 485,000 Ib/hr at 750°F and 600 psi based
on feedwater temperature of 275°F entering
economizer
Total Heating Surface in Boiler - 60,483 sq.ft.
Heating Surface of Superheater - 15,052 sq.ft.
Heating Surface of Economizer - 66,750 sq.ft.
2. Evaporator Concentrator (Unitech unit)
Evaporation Capacity 177,000 lb/hr.
Total Heating Surface 49,000 sq.ft.
Feed Liquor - 459,000 Ib/hr at 190°F and 40% TS
Product Liquor - 282,000 lb/hr at 215°F and 65% TS
3. Electrostatic Precipitator (Western Precipitation unit)
a. Performance Data
Maximum gas flow 470,000 ACFM
Maximum gas temperature 440 °F
Particulate to the Precipitator 10 grains/SDCF
Particulate outlet loading 0.01 grains/SCF (wet)
Guaranteed Efficiency 99.7%
Density of Salt Cake Collected 8 Ib/cu.ft.
Net Gas Velocity at Rated Volume 3.80 FPS
Gas Treatment Time at Rated Volume 7.9 Sec.
Collecting area/volume rate flow 0.357
42
-------
Typical Gas Conditions
H20 by Volume
H20 by Weight
Specific Density of Gas
Physical Characteristics of Precipitator
Walls
Roof
Gas Inlet
Gas Outlet
Dust Removal System
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
Collecting Electrodes
Total Collecting Area
Total Electrode Length
Discharge Electrodes
31%
21%
0.037
Steel
Steel
Top
Horizontal
Drag bottom Conveyor
(5 drag chains per
chamber,90° to gas
flow, center discharge)
Screw Conveyor
(18" dia.x 18" pitch)
2(parallel units)
4
41
42
9" x 30'5" x 30'
Solid Steel Plates
158,760 sq.ft.
102,480 feet
Vertical wires
0.1055" - steel
43
-------
Electrical Field Designation
Collecting Surface Size Feet
Transformer-Rectifier Units
Silicone, full wave - KV
MA
Inductor Ratings - MH(2 each)
Power Supply
Voltage Control
Rapping Systems
Collecting Surfaces
Discharge Electrodes
Inlet Distribution Plate
Rapping Intensity
Rapping Duration
A B_ C D
6x31 9x31 9x31 6x31
50 50 50 50
800 1200 1600 1200
1.5 2.5 3.0 3.5
480V, 60 Hz , 3 phase
Thyristor
AUP - 300 Eriez pneumatic (total of 88)
AUP - 300 Eriez pneumatic (total of 32)
Martin Vibrolator (total of 8)
AUP - 300 Eriez pneumatic (total of 8)
Variable
Variable
-------
APPENDIX B
PARTICULATE SAMPLING
Particulate sampling was carried out once or 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.
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 sample train used for particulate testing at the boiler exit is
illustrated in Figure 1. 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 carryover 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 99.99
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
750 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.
The system is checked for leaks by sealing the nozzle tip, drawing a
vacuum of at least 10 inches of Mercury 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.
A velocity traverse is made with a calibrated "S" type pi tot tube and
inclined manometer. Velocities are read off the calibration chart and
45
-------
O i—
3 10
0 3
^
OJ
JD
O
Q.
S_
-------
corrected for actual gas density. Stack temperature 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.
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
(4.5 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.
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 750 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.
47
-------
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. 4
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 2.
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 gel! is in the fourth.
The system is checked for leaks by plugging the nozzle tip. Uith 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 yir apart tor a total of 24 sample points. Factory
supplied nomographs were used to establish isokinetic sampling at each
point.
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.
The probe heater and filter oven are turned on for 15 minutes to warn 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?, 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,
48
-------
CD
to
tn
u
to
TJ
O)
t/1
(O
s-
en
c.
to
^
u
•r"
+J
s_
ia
O.
<:
a.
3
cn
49
-------
the end, and at each change of position during the test.
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 ary 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.
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPLETE EPA TEST DATA FOR BASIC PROGRAM
GLOSSARY FOR DATA SHEETS
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. 4 recovery design - 3,000,000 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:
3,000,000 x 6600 = 3,039,140 Ibs/day
6515
Given: Sluice flow 300 gal/min.
% solids 62.0%
B.L. density 11.0 Ib/gal
Boiler loading would then be:
300 gal/min x .62 x 111 Ib/gal x 1440 min/day x 100 = 96.9%
3,039,140 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.
51
-------
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).
Nozzle backsweep - the vertical upper and lower limits of nozzle move-
ment 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 differen-
tial 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 gas air heater and before it enters
the recovery boiler. It is measured and recorded continuously on a
strip chart.
Excess 0? - the percentage of oxygen leaving the furnace. Measurement
based upon a paramagnetic principle. It is calibrated weekly, using
1.0 and 9.0% oxygen standards and recorded continuously on a strip chart.
TRS and SO? Averages - the amount of TRS and S02 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 Na2C03), all expressed as Na20. The daily sulfidity
is an average of six white and three green liquor titrations run by lab
personnel.
52
-------
Steam flow - the amount of 600 psig, 750°F steam produced in Ibs/hr
from the recovery boiler. The Hoerner Waldorf No. 4 recovery boiler
will produce 485,000 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.
TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS
(English to Metric Units)
Multiply
cubic feet
degrees Fahrenheit (PF)
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)
53
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Design)
Air Distribution (l"0/20/3°-X)
Excess D£ C/0
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (opnf)
Density (Ibs'/qal)
Solids (S)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 2)
NC
)ZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor TeniD. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweeo (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) l°/2°
AI
~1
R FLOW
"Primary (M Ihc/hH
INITIAL
nw —
"ZS75Z720
2. 0-3.0
2/18/74
301
11.4 .
62.2
100
30
27.5
40
39
225
-17 to -22
5L to 5R
300/300
148
Ju' -^ . _*. 1 \ ! OQ
iAJV-«t i»j^w»/ > C.U
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 272
(% of Total) 52
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 108
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
TRS AVG. (DDID)
S02 AVG (opm)
STEAM FL01I (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
20
528
2.5
2
0
429
410
465
DSCFMOOOO cu.ft./min) M65
Grain Loadingt'qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
rACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
8.20
11,576
405
462
460
420
406
rDSCF (1000 cu.ft./min) (147
iGrain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 'nrnrRn
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) |44 Q
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(X) 99.6
"NORMAL" CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY
100
n?875272TT"
2.0-3.0
2/18/74
302
11.4
62.6
102
30
27.5
40
39
225
-17 to -22
5L to 5R
300/300
148
100
•W527?o~~
2.0-3.0
2/19/74
293
11.5
64.9
104
30
27.5
40
39
225
-16 to -21
5L to 5R
300/300
148
—
-
—
—
28 28 :
272
52
105
20
525
2.5
2
0
429
420
485
167
8.71
12,500
405
477
474
410
403
147
fl.n.434
54.7
99.5
272
52
105
20
525
2.3
2
0
442
420
506
178
8.14
12,445
405
497
494
415
419
143
n.nafi.i
60.8
99,4
i —
r
)
54
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loadinq (" of Desian)
Air Distribution d°/20/3°-l)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (55)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (0F)'-|o/20
AIR FLOW
IPHmarv/ (M Ihs/h^
BABCOCK /
TO MINIMI
2/20/74
294
11.4
64.5
103
30
28.3
40
35
220
-18 to -21
5L to 5R
300/300
146
WD WILCOX "TUNE-UP" EFFORT
ZE TRS EMISSIONS
2/22/74
268
11.4
63.7
93
30
27.9
40
34
213
-18 to -21
5L to 5R
300/300
126
2/26/74
256
11.5
65.4
91
50
26.8
40
30
225
-19 to -22
5L to 5R
300/300
134
2/26/74
241
11.5
66.0
87
50
26.8
40
28
225
-19 to -22
5L to 5R
300/300
162
2/27/
248
111.5
NA
NA
35
26.9
40
27
225
-15 t(
5L to
300/3C
129
ZS
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./min)
Grain Loadinq(cir/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Teno (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading __[" of Desian)
Air Distribution Ir/2°/3°-°0
Excess Q£ (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING {%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Li'auor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) i°/2°
AIR FLOW
"
Primary (M lbs/hlf>)
BABCOCK AND WILCOX "TUNE-UP" EFFORT •
TO MINIMIZE TRS EMISSIONS
2/28/74
272
11.5
63.9
94
3b
26.8
40
26
225
-15 to -19
3L to 7R
350/300
140
i r.i _ .c -r _ j. - I t ' O Q
V/o w I 1 u i- u I y £ O
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 263
% of Total) 52
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 101
% of Total) 20
Total (M Ibs/hr) 504
EXCESS 0? (%} 1.9
TRS AVG. (pom) 1
S02 AVG (opm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
3
379
395
ACFM (1GOO cu.ft./min) 485
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./nin) 178
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) :7.56
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp °F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM_linon cu.ft./min)
OSCF (innn cu.ft./nin)
[Grain Loadinq(gr/DSCF)
11,538
390
482
488
400
391
146
0.0494
Particulate LoadingObs/hr) {52.0
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
99.3
3/4/74
276
11.5
65.4
98
Ib
27.6
40
32
225
-12 to -1£
5L to 5R
350/300
140
26
266
50
126
24
532
1.4
0.1
2
419
407
479
176
6.86
10,346
405
478
475
410
394
150
0.0373
47.9
99.5
3/5/74
285
11.3
64.0
98
30
27.2
40
32
225
-12 to -18
5L to 5R
350/300
140
3/5/74
284
11.5
65.7
102
3U
27.2
40
32
225
-12 to -18
5L to 5R
350/300
140
26 :26
266 266
50
126
24
532
1.8
50
126
24
532 I
1.2
1 1
1 2
422
415
390
139
7.53
8,960
395
381
383
407
408
152
0.0374
48.7
99.5
438
412
424
152
7.63
10,049
400
418
418
408
410
142
0.0473
57.4
99.4
56
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading_[% of Desian)
Air Distribution fl0/20/3°-"0
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (apm)
iDensitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 2)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) l°/2°
AIR FLOW
Primary fw Ibs/hr)
"NORMAL" CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY B & W
•
100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/6/74
293
11.5
64.5
103
15
27.4
40
32
215
-20 to -25
5L to 5R
350/300
140
100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/6/74
302
11.5
65.2
107
15
27.4
40
32
215
-20 to -2J
5L to 5R
350/300
140
100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/7/74
284
11.5
65.8
102
30
27.3
40
35
225
-15 to -21
5L to 5R
350/300
154
100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/8/74
276
11.5
66.2
100
30
27.2
40
31
225
-15 to -21
5L to 5R
350/300
134
iS of lot:;]; i 25 25 28 : 25 i
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 266
(% of Total) 48
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 148
1% of Total) 27
Total (M Ibs/hr)
554
EXCESS 0? (%) 1.8
TRS AVG. (pom) 0.3
S02 AVG (pom) | 3.8
STEAM FLOU (fl Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
435
421
480
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./min) 174
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F1
ACFMOOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume 0 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
7.46
10,168
NA
410
420
159
Grain Loading.(or/DSCF) n 0410
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) 5g
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
99.4
266
48
148
27
554
1.8
0
4.7
435
410
467
172
7.46
10,175
NA
4T5
4? 3
159
n 0510
70
99.3
266 266
48
136
24
556
1.5
1.2
1.7
440
413
456
165
7.17
9,442
NA
415
413
154
_0 Q620
82
99.1
49
142
26
542
2.0
1-0
2.3
415
395
440
157
6.37
8,408
NA
405
404
154
0.0540
71
99.2
57
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Afr" Di stri buti 6n"( 1 °"/2°/35-%)
Excess 02 («)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flov/ (apm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (",}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.S)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
rSi ze
Pressure (PS I)
Liquor Terno. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) 1°/2°
AIR FLOW
primary fM ]S$/hr)
NORMAL LOA
~9CP70ir"
T675072l~
0.5-1.0
3/26/74
268
11.1
65.6
92
30
28.3
40
35
235
-15 to -20
5L to 5R
350/300
140
D, LOW EXCESS OXYGEN
90-100
26/50/24
0.5-1.0
3/25/74
277
11.2
66.6
98
30
27.5 v
40
37
225
-15 to -20
5L to 5R
350/300
140
V-vv»t 1 vs t, u I / . L.J f <_ O
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 244
(% of Total) 49
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 111
(% of Total) 22
Total (M Ibs/hr) '495
266
53
101
20
5Qr.lQQ-_
26/50/24
0.5-1.0
3/25/74
281
11.1
66.2
98
30
27.5
40
37
225
-15 to -20
5L to 5R
350/300
149
28
266
50
in
22
507 |526
EXCESS 0? (%) 2.1 1.8
TRS AVG. (pom) 4.2
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLO'i (11 Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
3.3
414
402
421
158
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 7.86
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) g 684
PRECIPITATOR INLET COHD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET CONO.
Temp PF)
NA
390
ACFM (lonn cu.ft./min') I 368
hSCF (iron m ft./"iin) J144
Grain Loadina(qryLSCF) '0.0226
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S)
27.8
99.7
13.5
4.3
450
400
448
169
7.38
9,092
NA
392
372
144
.1448
178.4
98.0
1.6
21.0
29.6
450
400
501
154
6.34
7,235
NA
392
343
133
JH35
38.2
99.5
58
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (" of Desian)
Air Distribution 0°/20/3°-%)
Excess 02 ('})
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Densitv (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) l°/2°
AIR FLOW
1
Primary (M Ih^/hrl
HIGH BACKSWEEP(-10 to -13) NORMAL SIDESWEEP(5L to 5R)
90-100 [90-100
26/50/24 1 26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/28/74
267
11.2
63.7
1.5-2.5
3/29/74
268
11.3
64.4
90 93
90-100
26/50/24
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5 1.5-2.5
3/29/74 J4/30/74
266
11.3
65.3
92
15 20 |20
27.3 1 27.7
40
32
40
32
248 235
-10 to -15j -10 to -14
5L to 5R 1 5L to 5R
350/300
132
350/300
135
275
11.2
63.7
93
40_
27.7 27.5
40
32
223
40
35
225
-10 to -15 -10 to -13
5L to 5R
5L to 5R
350/300 350/300
150
134
'% ct 'lota:'; i 25 ; 28 29 ;26
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 249
% of Total) 47
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 152
% of Total) 28
Total (M Ibs/hr) 533
EXCESS 0? (%)
2.3
TRS AVG. (DOTH) ; o
S02 AVG (com)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFM(1000 cu.ft./mn)
9.0
410
405
371
141
233 1247 252
48
120
24
488
2.1
48 49
120 132
23 25
517 '518
2.3 '?.?
6.0 ^5.1 ?.4
19.2 9.7 ,1.4
402 414 1404
410 410 J435
443 1497 483
168 181 182
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 5.40 8.30 8.39 '7.49
Inarticulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400 °F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET CO?!D.
Temp f°F)
6,739 9,433
1
i
i
NA
390
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 36?.
DSCF (lOnn cu.fr.. ,/min) 145
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCFj : 0.0365
Particulate Loadinq(lbs/hr) 45,5
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(Z) 99.3
NA
395
343
133
10,337 19,179
''
NA
403
377
144
MA
!
i
!
4nn
3RO
143. . i _ ._.
0.0278 JO. 0294 0.0777 :
31.6
99.7
36.1
99.7
95.2 }
99.0
1
59
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Design)
Air Distribution 00/20/3°-%)
Excess D£ (%)
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) l°/2°
AIR FLOW
H
Pn'ri?*".' 'M lh<;'hr^
NORMAL BACKSWEEP (-15 to -20) WIDE SIDESWEEP (10L
90-100 __
1.5-2.5
4/3/74
275
11.3
65.6
97
20
27.1
40
35
225
-15 to -20
10L to 10R
350/300
135
90-100
"26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/4/74
280
11.4
66.3
100
20
27.0
40
. 35
225
-15 to -2C
10L to 10F
350/300
137
. ™ .j. j---^- | • '05 1 26
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 261
% of Total) 50
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 126
% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%}
24
522
2.0
TRS AVG. (opm) 1.5
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
6.0
439
410
453
DSCFMMOOO" cu.ft./min) 1^
263
50
126
24
526
2.5
1.2
7.7
440
400
445
171
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 6.81 6.45
Particulate Load(lbs/hr) 8,306
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume (3 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
MA
395
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min) 362
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./mn) 132
LGrain Loadiji£(ar/LiSCFj 0.0308
Particulate Loading Ibs/hr) 137 5
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
99.5
8,125
NA
392
367
147
0.0342
43.1
99.5
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/4/74
277
11.5
66.3
100
20
27.0
40
35
225
-15 to -20
10L to 10R
350/300
137
26 ;
261
50
129
24
527
2.5
'
1.7
2.3
430
400
1
i
469 i
183
6.71
8,976
NA
400
379
156
0.0254
34.0
99.6
60
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Lpadinq (% of Desian)
Air Distribution fr/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Densitv (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG. 2)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
'Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) l°/2°
AIR FLOW
Pr-jmap' 'M Ihs/hH
HIGH BACKSWEEP (-10 to -13) WIDE SIDESWEEP (10L to 10P
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/1/74
280
11.4
63.5
96
20
27.5
40
35
225
-in tn -14
10L to 10R
350/300
132
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/1/74
278
11.4
64.5
97
20
27.5
40
35
225
-in tn -1/j
10L to 10F
350/300
132
,a ^J. t -.*- , 'I 97 i Oy
^ , •> u i t w uu i y t- / (- 1
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 246
(% of Total) 50
249
50
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 117 117
(% of Total) ! 23
Total (M Ibs/hr) 495
EXCESS 0? (%) 1.5
TRS AVG. (porn) : 13.6
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
34.8
392
420
542
DSCFMMOOO cu.ft./mn) 208
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) i7.53
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temn (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
8,866
NA
395
367
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./riin) 137
Grain Loadinq(qr/OSCF) '0.0331
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) 35^
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY("0 99,5
23
498
1.3
7.3
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/2/74
268
11.4
64.0
93
20
27.2
40
34
225
-10 tn -14
10L to 10R
350/300
135
26 ;
258
49
129
25
522
2.6
1.6
24.7 2.0
412
410
463
166
7.60
9,075
NA
390
369
414
410
524
194
8.28
9,945
NA
400
365
139 140
0.0337
37.4
99.6
0.0346
41.6
99.6
"
61
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution (l°/2°/30-S)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (gpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILFR LOADING (X)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)~
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) l»/2°
AIR FLOW
PHm?r» I'M IKc/hr)
HIGH LIQUOR PRESSURE, SMALLER NOZZLE SIZE
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/5/74
272
11.4
67.2
99
20
27.3
34
44
225
-15 to -21
5L to 5R
350/300
150
10, _.«. 1 _i, 1 1 ,OQ
V'LIV^I 1 U bU 1 /
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution rTV2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (apm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (2)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) r,2°
AIR FLOW
'Primary (M Ibs/hr)
HIGH LIQUOR PRESSURE, NORMAL SIDESUEEP, HIGH BACKSWEEP
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/19/74
275
11.3
63.5
94
25
28.4
34
45
225
-10 to -13
5L to 5R
350/300
133
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/19/74
274
11.3
63.1
92
25
28.4
34
45
220
-10 to -12
5L to 5R
350/300
135
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/20/74
274
11.2
62.2
90 i
25 ,
26.8 , !
34
44
225
-10 to -15
5L to 5R
350/300
133
V/ovyttwi-uiy ' L.Q '26 '26 |
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 255
(% of Total) |49
255
49
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr) 129 < 130
(% of Total) 25 25
Total (M Ibs/hr) 517
EXCESS 0? (%)
TRS AVG. (DDIII)
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FL01I (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
2.2
520
2.0
2.0 3.0
5.9 2.4
413
400
513
DSCFMHOOO cu.ft./nin) 190
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
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. /mini
DSCF [1000 cu.ft./min)
7.23
9,439
416
395
451
164
7.43
9,878
?
NA
390
315
141
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) f).mR3
Particulate Loadinq(lbs/hr) , ^ 4
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^) j 99^5
NA
400
363
144
n 0450
55.6
99.4
252 I
49
131
25
516
2.0
I
j
4.6
35.3
410
410 ; j
496
182 '
6.64
7,955
i
NA
390
362
130
0 077'
92.5
98.8
1
63
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loadinq (% 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)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°)-
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) r/2°
AIR FLOW
Priptar1./ (M IbS/hr)
in „ £ -r - x _ 1 »
\ 10 U 1 1 \J l-U 1 1
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 •
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
HIGH LIQUOR PRESSURE, WIDE SIDESWEEP, NORMAL BACKSl
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/15/74
279
11.2
63.3
94
20
28.8
34
45
210
-16 to -22
10L to 10R
350/300
137
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/16/74
280
11.2
63.1
94
20
28.6
34
45
210
-Ifi to -22
10L to 10F
350/300
132
26 I 26
258
49
129
25
524
2.2
2.3
14.4
415
410
505
187
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 16.80
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temo (°F)
ACFM{1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
[DSCFJ.1000 cu.ft./min)
[Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
8.258
NA
405
365
142
0.0398
48.3
99.4
249
49
126
25
507
2.0
3.5
46.8
417
400
460
158
7.04
8.115
NA
400
354
13f5
0.0166
30.7
QP.fi
90-100
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/16/74
277
11.2
63.3
93
20
28.6
34
45
?in
-16 to -??
10L to TOR
350/300
137
OC ' i
i.u i ,
252
49
129
25
518
2.0
2.S
19.8
418
400
482
179
6.79
7,950
NA
395
357
137
0.0319
34.6
qq.6
i
64
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution n°/20/30-%)
Excess 02 («)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qprn)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.S)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°V
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) r f2°
AIR FLOW
Primaru (M 1h$/hr)
HIGH LIQUOR PRESSURE, WIDE SIDESWEEP, HIGH BACKSWEEP
gn-inn
2R/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/17/74
274
11.3
63.8
94
ZO
28.6
34
45
220
-11 to -14
10L to 10R
350/300
133
1 ; , . , j. , . 4. -,-,'. nc
\ 111 \J \ lUOCtl/ i^O
Secondary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr} - .
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (%)
252
49
134
25
519
2.3
TRS AVG. (pom) ! 2.3
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FL'OU (,M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./nin)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(1bs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temo (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume (a 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
3.0
411
405
476
177
7.58
8,956
NA
400
358
DSCF (inoO cu.ft./min) 138
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 0.0314
Particulate Loadinq(lbs/hr) ^ ,
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(S) 99.6
9.0-lQO
26/50/?4
1.5-2.5
4/17/74
272
11.3
64.0
93
20
28.6
34
45
225
-11 to -1^
10L to 101
350/300
135
26
252
49
134
25
521
2.4
2.1
1.0
415
415
491
180
7.45
8,241
NA
400
335
129
O.fWl
35.4
99.6
90-100
?fi/5n/?a
1.5-2.5
4/18/74
271
11.2
63.4
91
2b
27.8
34
45
225
-10 to -14
10L to 10R
350/300
133
25 :
257 1 i
50
132
25
522
2.6
1.3
5.9
403
400
496
184
8.41
9,799
NA
395
356
136
n.03?q
35.3
99.6
65
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (% of Desian)
Air Distribution fr/2°/3°-%)
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liduor Temp. (°F)
Backsweep (°) •
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) r/2°
AIR FLOW
1
Primap* 'M Ibs/hr)
NORMAL LOW LOAD CONDITIONS
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/18/74
212
11.4
65.0
74
J3J
26.7
32
28
235
-15 to -20
5R to 5R
350/300
104
\ _4. 1 ,^.. I '. • JJ-
\ 10 *J I t v> ou i ; ' c. J
, Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 213
(% of Total) 52
Tertiary LM Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
95
23
Total (M Ibs/hr) |412
EXCESS 0? ("0 2.7
TRS AVG. (pom) 1.2
S02 AVG (ppm)
STEAM FLOU (H Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
12.9
305
370
355
DSCFM(lOOf) cu.ft./rrin) 139
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 15.79
Participate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
TemD (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume @ 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
(Temp >°F)
'ACFM * lOOO cu.ft.Vmin>
JOSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
5,741
NA
355
287
116
^firain Loadinq(or/DSCF) ' .nn.in
IParticulate Loading(lbs/hr) 3,4
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^)
99.9
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/22/74
216
11.2
66.1
76
10
26.7
32
33
223
-15 to -2C
5L to 5R
350/300
107
26
205
50
98
24
410
2.3
1.4
23.5
343
365
295
115
6.35
3,830
NA
350
219
70.4
.01 Rn
10.8
99.7
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
3/22/74
224
11.1
66.5
78
30
26.7
32
33
223
-15 to -20
5L to 5R
350/300
115
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
5/23/74
220
11.3
64.4
76
20
26.6
32
28
225 j
-16 to -21 !
5L to 5R
350/300
112
28 28 ;
210 207
50
92
22
417
2.5
52 l
82 |
20 !
401
2,5
1.1 1-3
25.4 ,76.9
360
360
383
154
4.82
4,453
NA
350
293
94.7
.0037
3.0
99.9
330
375
389
145 :
5.61
5,719
NA
355
283
120
0.0118
12.2
99.8
66
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading J% of Desian)
Air Distribution fT0/2°73°-?0
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/gal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PS I)
Liquor Temp. (°F)
'Backsweep (°)-
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) ]o/2<>
AIR FLOW
l
PHmary fM IbS/hr)
LOW LOAD, NORMAL SIDESWEEP, HIGH BACKSWEEP
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/22/74
205
11.3
63.4
70
25
26.9
32
29
225
-10 to -13
5L to 5R
350/300
98
/ r/ _jr-r^j.^1\ ' 0 c
V ,_ u i i \j oj i ; . ^tS
Secondary (M Ibs/Hr)
JX of Total)
Tertiary (M Ibs/hr)
(% of Total)
Total (M Ibs/hr)
EXCESS 0? (°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./min)
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COMD.
Temp (°F)
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume 0 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COMD.
Temp f °F)
ACFM dODO cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./nin)
Grain Loadinq(ar/DSCF)
196
52
79
77
373
2.3
5.7
130
289
365
450
171
6.03
5,408
NA
360
269
105
0.0372
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) i 33 3
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY^) 99-4
70-75 I
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/23/74
207
11.2
63.0
69
20
26.5
32
29
225
-10 to -i:
5L to 5R
350/300
98
26
193
52
82
22
373
2.1
5.9
119
298
375
356
132
5.71
4,782
NA
350
?51
98
0.0310
26.0
99.5
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/23/74
205
11.2
63.1
68
20
26.5
32
29
225
-10 to ~13
5L to 5R
350/300
95
i
25
193
52
82
22
370
2.5
i
j
1
7.2 !
150
293
375
;
i
405
,
148 i
5.80
5,139
NA
350
271
103
0.0240
21.3
99.6
• i —•
i
67
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (" of Desion]
Air Distribution Tl°720/35-X)
Excess o2 (:;)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (X)
BOILER LOADING (35)
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.%)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure PSI)
Liquor Temp. .(°F)
Backsweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F) 10/2o
AIR FLOW
Prirfjrv (M Ih*", /hi"\
LOW LOAD, WIDE SIDESWEEP, NORMAL BACKSWEEP
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/29/74
210
11.2
62.8
70
40
27.6
32
30
70-75
"26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/29/74
208
11.2
63.1
70
40
27.6
32
30
225 225
-17 to -21
10L to 10R
350/300
98
-16 to -21
10L to 10F
350/300
Q8
70-75
^675072?"
1.5-2.5
5/2/74
222
11.3
70-75
26750/24"
1.5-2.5
5/6/74
218
11.5
63.4 |66.7
75
40
26.4
32
33
225
79
25
27.7
32
34
223
-16 to -20J-I6 to -21
10L to 10R
350/300
101
10L to TOR
350/300
101
—
Pr^nrsry (*"• Ibo/h1")
98
{'/* ct 'lets';; 2/
Secondary (M Ibs/hr) 193
% of Total) 52
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) ; 76
% of Total) i 21
Total (M Ibs/hr) 367
EXCESS 0? (%)
2.4
TRS AVG. (pom) . 5.5
S02 AVG (com) i 122
STEAM FLOU (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
274
385
4/4
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min) 171
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) 16.30
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F
ACFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Volume 0 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Temp °F
ACFM i 1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu.ft./min)
5,393
NA
350
261
100
iGrain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) : Data
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY(%)
Missing
-
98
27
190
53
72
20
360
2.4
6.7
132
278
385
428
156
6.14
5,524
NA
355
273
105
Data
Missing
-
101
101 I
'LI ,26 ;
196 202
52
82
21
379
2.5
52
85 |
22
388
2.2
4.4 2.1
97 |21.7
297 '318 ;
360 345 j
JJU
132
5.71
5,150
NA
345
152 !
4.89 !
4,608 !
i
NA
355
267 277
105 110
0.0536
48.3
99.1
0.0563
53.0
98.9
6R
-------
NO. 4 RECOVERY EPA DATA
TARGET CONDITIONS
Boiler Loading (" of Design)
A'ir Distribution (]° /2°~]3°-%}
Excess 02 (%)
TEST DATE
SLUICE TANK LIQUOR
Flow (qpm)
Density (Ibs/qal)
Solids (%)
BOILER LOADING (%}
SALT CAKE (Ibs/min)
SULFIDITY - (DAILY AVG.X)
NOZZLE CONDITIONS
Size
Pressure (PSI)
Liquor Temo. (°F)
iBacksweep (°)
Sidesweep (°)
COMBUSTION AIR TEMP (°F).-|0/2o
AIR FLOW
Pfimgv-u (M IbS/hr)
LOW LOAD, WIDE SIDESWEEP, HIGH BACKSWEEP
70-75
2673U7Z*
1.5-2.5
4/24/74
207
11.3
63.6
70
40
26.7
32
31
225
-10 to -13
10L to 10R
350/300
98
70-75
" 5B/ 50/24"
1.5-2.5
4/24/74
210
11.3
63.9
72
40 _^
26.7
32
31
225
70-75
26/50/24
1.5-2.5
4/25/74
209
11.3
63.2
70
40
26.9
32
30
225
j
i
j
I
!
I
-10 to -13 -10 to -13
10L to lOf
350/300
98
10L to 10R
350/300
93
,'u/ _j- i _4-, i \ i 97 97 'jf.
\.J wl IVUWiy U/ ; C/ ; CO
Secondarv (M Ibs/hr) 189
% of Total) 52
lay
52
Tertiary M Ibs/hr) 76 i 76
% of Total) 21
Total (M Ibs/hr) 363
EXCESS 0? (%)
2.4
21
363
2.5
TRS AVG. (pom) 1 b.9 5. 1
S02 AVG (opm)
STEAM F'LO'-j (M Ibs/hr)
BOILER EXIT CONDITIONS
Temp (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCFMdOOO cu.ft./min)
Grain Loadina(qr/DSCF)
Particulate Load(lbs/hr)
PRECIPITATOR INLET COND.
Temp (°F)
ACFM{1000 cu.ft./min)
Volume (3 400° F
PRECIPITATOR OUTLET COND.
Terra (°F)
ACFM (1000 cu.ft./min)
DSCF (1000 cu. ft. ,/nin)
189
53
71
21
353
2.0
i
12.0 ;
103 l_K)2 243 i
288 i 300 ! 289
375
380
356 j^a
13U rrg
6.08 6.25
5,297 5,396
NA , NA
350
262
102
Grain Loadinq(qr/DSCF) ' 0.0109
Particulate Loading(lbs/hr) 9.5
I
345
256
101
O.OOQO
7.8
PRECIPITATOR EFFICIENCY ("•) 99.8 99.9
355
|
3a/
14/
4.71
4,069
NA
345
260
101
0.0084
7.3
99.8
-
J
I
1
)
t
69
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-650/2-74-071-b
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Al r Pollutl on Control for
a Kraft Recovery Boiler: Recovery Boiler No. 4
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE „
December 1974
7. AUTHOR(S)
K. Hennirig, W. Andreson, and J. Ryan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Hoerner Waldorf Corporation
2250 Wabash Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55165
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ADC-061
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0247
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; Through May 1974 ____
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
is. ABSTRACT
repOr£ gjyes results of intensive tests to est ilish the level of both
gaseous and particulate air pollutants discharged from a controlled- odor kraft re-
covery boiler. It documents both the cost and emission control capability of such a
boiler, designed and erected without direct contact evaporation of the feed liquor.
Also investigated were major process variables that affect kraft recovery boiler
operation and the emissions resulting therefrom in order to establish boiler oper-
ating conditions that minimize emissions. Investigated were boiler loading, liquor
sulfidity, and liquor distribution within the furnace. Test data was analyzed stat-
istically by computer, using the multiple regression analysis technique. Particulate
emissions were primarily affected by and directly proportional to the amount of black
liquor solids burned in the recovery furnace (boiler loading). Both SO2 arid total
reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions were affected by liquor sulfidity: emissions incr-
eased as sulfidity levels increased. This new kraft recovery boiler incorporates
most recent technology for air pollution control, enabling it to meet the Montana
state emission standards for both TRS and particulates .
the
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS j
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Sulfate Pulping
Boilers
Process Variables
Sulfur Oxides
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Kraft Recovery Boiler
Particulates
Montana
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group j
13 B
13 H, 07 A
13A
07B
21. NO. OF PAGES
77
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
70
------- |