&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office c;f Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 81-IBR-15
Octobe: 1981
Industrial Boilers
Emission Test Report
Boston Edison Company
Everett, Massachusetts
-------
INDUSTRIAL BOILERS
Emission Test Report
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
BOILER NO. 7
Everett, Massachusetts
September 29 - October 2, 1981
Technical Directives 14 and 15
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina, 27711
by
Duane R. Day
Contract No. 68-02-3547, Work Assignment No. 2
(ESED 76/13)
81-IBR-15
July 1982
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION
DAYTON LABORATORY
Dayton, Ohio 45407
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Results 4
Description of monitoring 4
Test results 4
3. Process Description and Monitoring 22
Process description 22
Process monitoring 25
4. Location of Sampling Points 32
Control system inlet 32
Control system exhaust (outlet) 32
5. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 36
Summary 36
Sampling 36
Sample analyses 38
Oil sampling and analyses 39
Sample handling 39
Data reduction 39
Quality assurance 39
Appendices
A. Field sampling data sheets and computer
coding forms A-l
B. Printouts of sampling results B-l
C. Analytical methods for sulfuric acid and
sulfate determinations C-l
D. Analytical Data D-l
E. Project Participants E-l
0111/A ' iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
Location of Boston Edison Company Mystic River
Station
2 Schematic diagram of Boston Edison boiler
installation 3
3 Unit seven boiler process flow diagram 25
4 Exhaust gas flow configuration for 7A south
inlet duct at Boston Edison. (Ref. Buell
drawing provided by Boston Edison Company) ... 33
5 Inlet duct sampling for 7A south and 7B north
at Boston Edison Company Mystic River Station. . 33
6 Photos of south inlet and ports at north inlet
at Boston Edison Company Mystic River Station. . 34
7 Stack and sample port heights at Boston Edison . 35
8 Traverse point locations for Boiler No. 7 stack
at Boston Edison 35
9 Dual-probe sampling train 37
IV
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Source Sampling and Analyses at Boston Edison
Company Boiler No. 7 in Everett, Masschusetts.
2 Emission Data for Boston Edison Company Mystic
River Station Boiler No. 7 in Everett,
Massachusetts (Metric Units)
Emission Data for Boston Edison Company Mystic
River Station Boiler No. 7 in Everett,
Massachusetts (English Units)
Summary of Differences Between Method 5 and
Method 5B Results at Outlet of Boston Edison
Company Mystic River Station Boiler No. 7
(September 30 - October 2, 1981)
5 Inlet Data for Boston Edison Company Mystic River
Station Boiler No. 7 in Everett, Massachusetts
(Metric Units) 10
6 Inlet Data for Boston Edison Company Mystic River
Station Boiler No. 7 in Everett, Massachusetts
(English Units) 11
7 Summary of Duration of Sampling, Stack Tempera-
ture, Stack Flow Rate, Sample Volume, Sample
Water Content, and Static Pressure at Boston
Edison Company Mystic River Station Boiler No. 7
in Everett, Massachusetts 12
8 Summary of Integrated Gas Analysis Results at
Boston Edison Company Mystic River Station
Boiler No. 7 in Everett, Massachusetts
(September 30 - October 2, 1981) 13
9 Summary of Fuel Oil Analysis at Boston Edison
Company Boiler No. 7 in Everett, Massachusetts
(September 30 - October 2, 1981) 15
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
lOa Summary of Method 9 Plume Opacity Observations at
Boston Edison Company Boiler No. 7 in Everett,
Massachusetts (September 30, 1981) 16
lOb Summary of Method 9 Plume Opacity Observations at
Boston Edison Company Boiler No. 7 in Everett,
Massachusetts (October 1, 1981) 18
lOc Summary of Method 9 Plume Opacity Observations at
Boston Edison Company Boiler No. 7, in Everett,
Massachusetts (October 2, 1981) 20
11 Results of Baking at 160°C and 176°C on
Particulate Masses 21
12 Boiler Process Data 27
13 Electrostatic Precipitator Process Data: Run 1. 28
14 Electrostatic Precipitator Process Data: Run 2. 29
15 Electrostatic Precipitator Process Data: Run 3. 30
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Emissions from Boiler No. 7 at the Boston Edison Company's Mystic
River Station, Everett, Massachusetts, were tested September 30 -
October 2, 1981 by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC). Figure 1
shows the location of the plant. This work was performed for the
Emissions Measurement Branch of the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Contract No. 68-02-3547, Work Assignment No. 2.
The boiler tested is a 1.9 x 106 kg/hr (4.2 x 106 Ib/hr) capacity
oil-fired utility boiler. It is equipped with two 45 kV electro-
static precipitators (ESP). Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of
the installation showing the locations sampled.
The purpose of the sampling program was to determine the effect of
raising the temperature of the filter and probe on an EPA Method 5
train from 120°C (248°F) to 160°C (320°F) and of baking the filter
at 160°C (320°F) on the amounts of particulate, sulfate, and sul-
furic acid emissions measured downstream of the electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Method 5 testing with the filter and probe at 160 ± 14°C
(320 ± 25°F) and baked at a temperature of 160 ± 11°C (320 ± 20°F)
will be referred to as Method 5B testing.
Although the objective of this contract (No. 68-02-3547, work
assignment No. 2) is to provide technical support data for
industrial boilers, the utility boiler sampled at Boston Edison
Company was deemed satisfactory to meet these objectives.
-------
K>
Figure 1. Location of Boston Edison Company Mystic River Station.
-------
INLET
SAMPLING
PORTS
BOILER
OUTLET
SAMPLING
PORTS
V V V
V V V
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATORS
STACK
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of Boston Edison boiler installation.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
DESCRIPTION OF MONITORING
Table 1 summarizes the monitoring that was performed at the Boston
Edison plant. It consisted of three simultaneous runs of Methods 5
and 5B at the stack, downstream of the two ESP, and Method 5 at the
inlet ducts, prior to the two ESP. A special dual-probe stack test
system was used for sampling by Methods 5 and 5B simultaneously
through the stack sample ports. Sample volumes of at least 1.7 dry
standard m3 (60 dry standard ft3) were taken during the stack samp-
ling. The boiler was running under normal, steady-state conditions
(i.e., continuous soot blowing, at least 80% of full capacity)
during the emission testing.
The oil burned was considered to be representative of normal feed.
The Boston Edison Company provided analyses of the No. 6 fuel oil
burned.
The filters and dried acetone washes of the Method 5 and 5B runs
were weighed, baked, and weighed again; this process was repeated
until the sample weight did not change more than 4 mg between suc-
cessive weighings. They were then analyzed for sulfuric acid
and sulfates.
Methods 1 through 4 were used during all Method 5 sampling runs as
in typical compliance monitoring. In addition, the plume opacity
was measured during all tests by EPA Method 9.
TEST RESULTS
The particulate, sulfuric acid, and sulfate emissions measured by
EPA Methods 5 and 5B are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 (particulate
emissions represent all emissions measured by weighing the Methods
5 and 5B samples and include sulfates and sulfuric acid). Table 2
shows the percent reduction in particulate mass that was caused by
baking the samples. As Table 2 shows, the weight of the Method 5
samples after baking was 62% to 80% of the weight before baking.
The weight of the Method 5B samples after baking was 67% to 81%
of the weight before baking. Table 3 shows the percents of the
Method 5 concentrations represented by the Method 5B concentrations
measured simultaneously at the same location. Particulate concen-
trations measured by Method 5B were 29% to 88% of the Method 5
-------
TABLE i. SOURCE SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AT BOSTON EDISON
COMPANY BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS
Date
9/30
10/1
10/2
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
MRC Job Ho. 101. 1221
Total
no. of
samples
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
'
Sample
type
'art.i '-til ate and
jaq nt exhaust
Articulate and
>aq at Inlet North
'articulate and
>ag at Inlet South
'lumc Opacity
'articulate and
sag at exhaust
'articulate and
jag Inlet North
'articulate and
jag Inlet South
Plume Opacity
'articulate and
at exhaust
Particulate and
bag at Inlet North
Particulate and
bag at Inlet South
Plume opacity
Sampl ing
method
!-.(. r., .1.,,!
5B
1-4, r>
1-4, 5
9
1-4, 5, anc
SB
1-4, 5
1-4, 5
9
-4, 5, and
sn
1-4, 5
1-4, 5
9
v.v, !l ;
Contract No.: i.n-n.>- ivu Assignment Number: , . nj ,(f)/t, Technical Directive: M ami i'.
Company Name: IIOSTON I:DI::«N Company Location: ny-.tic ;>ivr -i.it ion, I:V.T.-II. M.I-.S.-,- -hus~u •-
Industry: utility Hnilf-r Process: t>u-rir...i Control Equipment: Tw"
[•:l'-< t.ront.il ic I1' '"'i pi t..it 'tr r.
Sample
collected
by
Minimum
sampling
time
240 min
90 min
87.5 min
SimuJ t.i-
neou.s with
above
120 min
90 min
90 min
SimuJ ta-
neous with
above
120 min
90 min
90 min
simnl t a-
n'-ous wit}
above
Minimum
volume qas
sampled ft3
•vlSO
50
22
•^75
50
72
V75
50
68
Initial Analysis
Type Method
V.'lc,, It y,
t*^mp. , Oz ,
FI2n, ro,
C02
Samo .is ab
Same as all
Visua 1
observation
Vr loc i ty ,
temp. , 02
I20, CO,
:o2
Same as at
Same as at
Visual
jbservatior
Vc DCJ ty ,
temp. , Oa,
I2O, CO,
C02
Bame as abc
Same as arx
Visna 1
obsorvatiot
1-1
>vc
we
9
1-4
ove
ove
9
1-4
ve
ve
9
By
Final Analysis
Type Method
\irticul .itf
SO3, li2SO«
^nme as abr
Same as abc
Particular
SOs, H2SOU
Same as ab(
Same as alx
'articulate
?O3, H2SOU
Same as ab<
Same as atx
H«-thorts ''> nii'l SB
10/IO/K'i pro'-orluro
ve (not M^tho'l 5B)
ve (not Method 5B>
Methods 5 and 5B
10/10/HO procedure
ve (not Hrthod SB)
ve (not Method SB)
Methods 5 and 5B
10/10/80 procedure
.ve (not Method SB)
>ve (not Method SB)
-------
TABLE 2. EMISSION DATA FOR BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MYSTIC RIVER STATION
BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS (METRIC UNITS)
Average emissions
Run Sampling
number Date method Pollutant
1 9-30-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
2 10-01-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
3 10-02-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
q/dscm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.086
.054
.017
.015
.0019
.0011
.0044
.0029
.126
.060
.040
.011
.0035
.0012
.0098
.0047
.090
.057
.034
.019
.0019
.0015
.0166
.0096
kg/hr
155
97
31
28
3
2
7
5
224
106
70
20
6
2
17
8
165
100
63
33
3
2
30
16
.46
.04
.82
.16
.22
.05
.37
.23
.49
.70
.62
.80
ng/J
28.1
17.7
5.7
5.1
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.9
44.0
21.0
13.9
3.9
1.2
0.4
3.4
1.6
30.2
19.4
11.7
6.1
0.7
0.5
5.7
3.1
Corrected
to 12% C02a,
g/dscm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.083
.053
.016
.015
.0018
.0011
.0043
.0028
.134
.064
.042
.012
.0037
.0013
.0104
.0050
.092
.058
.036
.019
.0019
.0015
.0169
.0098
Percent difference
in sample weight
Percent caused by baking
isokinetic sample
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
100
101
100
101
100
101
100
101
95
100
95
100
95
100
95
100
.0
.6
.0
.6
.0
.6
.0
.6
.5
.1
.5
.1
.5
.1
.5
.1
.6
.8
.6
.8
.6
.8
.6
.8
80
71
69
81
62
67
is the concentration normalized to 12% CO2 . C = C x 5755-; where C is the measured concentration in the
stack, and %CO2 is the percent CO2 measured in the stack. " z
Weight before baking - weight after baking
weight before baking
x 100
-------
TABLE 3. EMISSION DATA FOR BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MYSTIC RIVER STATION
BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Average
Run Sampling
number Date method Pollutant
1 9-30-81
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
2 10-01-81
5
5B
5
5B
5
5B
5
SB
3 10-02-81
5
SB
5
SB
5
SB
5
5B
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-Before baking
-After baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Sulfate
Actual
gr/dscf
0.038
0.024
0.008
0.007
0.0008
0.0005
0.0019
0.0013
0.055
0.026
0.017
0.005.
0.0015
0.0005
0.0043
0.0020
0.039
0.025
0.015
0.008
0.0008
0.0007
0.0073
0.0042
emissions
Ib/hr
342
214
68
61
7
4
17
11
494
233
155
43
13
4
38
18
365
221
138
72
7
5
67
37
.63
.51
.25
.37
.72
.51
.28
.14
.69
.95
.50
.04
Ib/mm Btu
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.065
.041
.013
.012
.001
.001
.003
.002
.102
.049
.033
.009
.003
.001
.008
.004
.070
.045
.027
.014
.002
.001
.013
.007
Corrected
to 12% CO2 ,
gr/dscf
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
037
023
008
007
0008
0005
0018
0013
058
028
018
005
0016
0005
0045
0021
040
025
015
008
0008
0007
0074
0043
Percent of Method 5
gr/dscf represented
Percent by Method 5B gr/dscf
isokinetic at outlet
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
100
101
100
101
100
101
100
101
95
100
95
100
95
100
95
100
.0
.6
.0
.6
.0
.6
.0
.6
.5
.1
.5
.1
.5
.1
.5
.1
.6
.8
.6
.8
.6
.8
.6
.8
63
88
63
68
47
29
33
47
64
53
88
58
^"hifi 1 R thA r*nnnf»nt-T-.-*-M nn nnrmal i -yorf t-r* 19V rT>.. C = r v • uh*»Kr» P i ri t-h*» moawi 1^*^(1 1,4. d \~j.wii utsj. iua A .L
-------
particulate concentrations after both samples were baked. For the
unbaked samples, Method 5B concentrations were 47% to 64% of the
Method 5 concentrations. Sulfuric acid concentrations measured
on the Method 5B samples were 33% to 88% of the baked Method 5
samples. Sulfate concentrations measured on the Method 5B samples
were 47% to 68% of the baked Method 5 samples. These results are
based on baking to a constant weight (i.e., weight loss less than
10 mg). Between I and 3 bakings at 160°C (320°F) were required
to achieve constant weight.
Computer printouts of the particulate emission rates are provided
in Appendix B.
The differences between Method 5 and 5B emissions are summarized
in Table 4 (using the baked methods 5 and 5B filters). This table
also summarizes what percent of the differences between Method 5
and 5B particulate emissions (baked) can be accounted for by dif-
ferences in the amounts of sulfuric acid (and sulfuric acid and
sulfates combined) measured on the baked samples collected by
Method 5 versus 5B. Approximately 3% to 47% of the amount of dif-
ference in Method 5 versus 5B particulate emissions are accounted
for by the amounts of measured sulfuric acid emissions. Sulfuric
acid and sulfates combined account for 27% to 137% of the differ-
ence in Method 5 versus 5B particulate emissions.
Results for particulate analyses at the inlets north and south are
shown in Tables 5 and 6. The weight of the Method 5 particulate
samples after baking was 90% to 92% of the weight before baking
for inlet north and 89% to 95% for inlet south.
Table 7 summarizes the duration of the Method 5 and 5B sampling,
the sample volumes, the stack temperatures, the stack flow rates,
the water content, and the static pressure of the flue gas. Dif-
ferences in the stack temperature, flow rate, and water content
associated with the Method 5 and 5B outlet samples are an indicator
of the precision of the results.
Table 8 summarizes the flue gas carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations in integrated Method 3 sam-
ples taken at the exhaust of the trains used to collect Method 5
and 5B samples. These values were used to calculate ng/J,
lb/106 Btu, and results at 12% C02 in Tables 2 and 3. Due to
problems encountered with Method 3 sample bag collection at the
back end of the Method 5 train at both inlets and the subsequent
ORSAT analysis, molecular weights, and O2, N2, and CO2 concentra-
tions for the inlets were assumed to be equal to the outlet con-
centrations for each run (see Table 8). Since relatively little
ambient air is introduced into the duct system due to the positive
pressure of the ducts and ESP, the stack concentrations for M.W.,
02, N2, and CO2 represent approximate concentrations at the inlet
ducts. Concentrations for run 3 were averaged from runs 1 and 2
because a leak in the sample bags contaminated the samples making
the ORSAT analysis invalid.
8
-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN METHOD 5 AND METHOD 5B RESULTS AT
OUTLET OF BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MYSTIC RIVER STATION BOILER NO. 7
(SEPTEMBER 30 - OCTOBER 2, 1981)
Run
number
Pollutant
Method 5
minus
Method 5B
emissions
kg/hr Ib/hr
Percent of difference
in particulate emis-
sions kg/hr (Ib/hr)
represented by diff-
ference in sulfuric
acid emissions
Percent of difference
in particulate emis-
sions kg/hr (Ib/hr)
represented by dif-
ference in sulfuric
acid and sulfates
combined
Particulate 3 7
Sulfuric acid 1.4 3.1
Sulfates 2.7 5.9
Sulfuric acid
and sulfates 4.1 9.0
Particulate3 50 112
Sulfuric acid 4.2 9.2
Sulfates 9.1 20.1
Sulfuric acid
and sulfates 13.3 29.3
Particulate3 30 66
Sulfuric acid 0.8 1.7
Sulfates 13.8 30.5
Sulfuric acid
and sulfates 14.6 32.2
47
137
8
27
49
aEmissions measured using masses after baking samples.
-------
TABLE 5. INLET DATA FOR BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MYSTIC RIVER STATION
BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS (METRIC UNITS)
Inlet north average emissions
Run Sampling
number Date method
1 9-30-81
5
5
5
5
2 10-01-81
5
5
5
5
3 10-02-81
5
5
5
5
Pollutant
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Actual
g/dscm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.325
.292
.0011
.0029
.416
.384
.0012
.0047
.439
.401
.0015
.0096
Corrected to
12% C02a,
kg/hr g/dscm
310
279
2.0
5.2
416
381
2.0
8.2
433
394
2.7
16.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.315
.283
.0011
.0028
.442
.408
.0013
.0050
.446
.408
.0015
.0098
Inlet south average emissions
Actual
g/dscm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.609
.550
.0019
.0044
.304
.271
.0035
.0098
.295
.279
.0019
.0166
Corrected to
12% C02a,
kg/hr g/dscm
547
494
3.5
7.8
288
257
6.2
17.4
279
264
3.5
30.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.589
.532
.0018
.0043
.323
.288
.0037
.0104
.300
.284
.0019
.0169
^hic ic 1-he r-r>nr-Ant-rati on normal i 7. pH tyi 1 7V PO- . P - P x -. ; where C is the measured concentration in the
inlet duct and %CO2 is the percent CO2 measured in the
inlet duct.
-------
TABLE 6. INLET DATA FOR BOSTON EDISON COMPANY MYSTIC RIVER STATION
BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Inlet north average emissions
Run Sampling
number Date method Pollutant
1 9-30-81
5
5
5
5
2 10-01-81
5
5
5
5
3 10-02-81
5
5
5
5
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Particulate
-Before baking
-After baking
Sulfuric acid
Sulfate
Actual
gr/dscf
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.142
.128
.0005
.0013
.182
.168
.0005
.0020
.192
.176
.0007
.0042
Ib/hr
684
616
4.5
11.4
914
840
4.5
18.1
954
868
5.9
37.0
Corrected to
12% C02a,
gr/dscf
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
137
124
0005
0013
193
178
0005
0021
195
179
0007
0043
Inlet south average
Actual
gr/dscf m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.266
.240
.0008
.0019
.133
.119
.0015
.0043
.129
.122
.0008
.0073
emissions
Corrected to
12% C02a,
Ib/hr gr/dscf
1,206
1,088
7.6
17.2
634
566
13.7
38.3
616
582
7.7
67.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.257
.232
.0008
.0018
.144
.126
.0016
.0046
.131
.124
.0008
.0074
This is the concentration normalized to 12% CO2 . C = C x
stack, and %CO2 is the percent C02 measured in the stack.
12
; where C is the measured concentration in the
-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF DURATION OF SAMPLING, STACK TEMPERATURE, STACK FLOW RATE, SAMPLE
VOLUME, SAMPLE WATER CONTENT, AND STATIC PRESSURE AT BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
MYSTIC RIVER STATION BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS
Run
number
1
2
3
Location
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Sampling
method
5
5B
5
5
5
5B
5
5
5
5B
5
5
Duration
of
sampling,
min
240
240
90
87.5
120
120
90
90
120
120
90
90
Measured
stack
temperature
°C °F
167
167
189
190
183
183
191
193
183
183
191
193
333
333
372
374
361
361
376
379
361
361
376
380
Stack flow
rate
dscm/
min x
104
2.99
2.98
1.60
1.50
2.97
2.94
1.65
1.58
3.08
2.91
1.64
1.58
dscf/
min x
10s
10.58
10.52
5.63
5.28
10.48
10.38
5.84
5.58
10.86
10.28
5.79
5.57
Sample volume
dscm
4.65
3.86
1.42
0.63
2.33
1.93
1.44
2.05
2.33
1.93
1.45
1.93
dscf
164.3
136.3
50.0
22.1
82.2
68.0
50.9
72.4
82.2
68.1
51.2
68.1
Sample
water Stack static
content, pressures
%
9.3
9.7
9.6
7.9
10.8
11.9
8.7
9.7
10.4
11.5
10.3
11.2
cm H20
-4.6
-4.6
+2.4
+3.8
-4.6
-4.6
+2.4
+3.8
-4.6
-4.6
+2.4
+3.8
in. H20
-1.8
-1.8
+0.95
+1.5
-1.8
-1.8
+0.95
+1.5
-1.8
-1.8
+0.95
+1.5
-------
u>
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS AT BOSTON EDISON COMPANY
MYSTIC RIVER STATION BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS
(SEPTEMBER 30 - OCTOBER 2, 1981)
Run
number
1
2
3
Location
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Outlet
Inlet
North
Inlet
South
Sampling
method
before
Method 3
bag
5 and 5Ba
5
5
5 and 5B
5
5
5 and 5B
5
5
CO,, %
12.4
12.4
12.4
11.3
11.3
11.3
11. 8b
11.8
11.8
CO, %
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
02, %
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
5.5b
5.5
5.5
N2, %
82.6
82.6
82.6
82.6
82.6
82.6
82. 6b
82.6
82.6
Dry
molecular
weight,
kg/kg mole
(Ib/lb mole)
30.2
30.2
30.2
30.1
30.1
30.1
30.1
30.1
30.1
One bag collected for 5 and 5B trains to represent outlet.
3Average of runs 1 and 2 due to leak in sample bag.
-------
Fuel oil samples and analytical results were obtained from Boston
Edison Company and are shown in Table 9.
Tables lOa, lOb, and lOc show a summary of the plume opacity obser-
vations. Average opacities between 0.6 and 11.4 were observed
during all three runs. Due to poor weather conditions opacity
observations during run 3 were difficult. Plume opacity data
sheets are in Appendix A-l.
Table 11 summarizes the results of the baking of the particulate
samples. The filters and acetone washes were weighed, baked at
160°C (320°F) to constant weight, and baked again at 176°C (350°F)
to constant weight. Baking to a constant weight is a less than
10 mg weight loss between bakings. Between 1 and 3 bakes were
required for each sample at 160°C to achieve a constant weight
and only 1 bake was required at 176°C. The baking procedure is
described in more detail in Section 5. Appendix D-2 gives a
detailed breakdown of the weights after each baking. Values
from Table 11 before baking and baking at 160°C were used to
determine emissions rates in Tables 2-6.
Appendix D-5 contains a summary of information on the precision
and accuracy of the sulfate, and sulfuric acid analysis. Six
quality control samples of sulfuric acid were prepared from 0.2 N
sulfuric acid and analyzed with the stack samples. The measured
amounts of sulfuric acid were between 77% and 107% of the "true"
values. The results of the analysis of two EPA sulfate quality
control samples showed a 102% to 143% recovery of sulfate. A
blank filter was also analyzed as a quality control sample;
2.85 mg of sulfate was measured on this filter. The lowest amount
of sulfate observed on a stack sample was 8.8 mg. In addition,
EPA Method 6 round-robin SO vials were used as QC/QA check on
titrations. Results showedxan 100.0% average recovery on 18
samples.
Appendix D-2 contains information on the precision and accuracy of
particulate analysis. The filter and acetone wash for each sample
were analyzed using the procedure outlined in Section 5. Every
sample was weighed to a constant weight (i.e., a less than 10 mg
weight loss between successive weighings). However, the actual
maximum value constant weight was 3.6 mg and the average for all
weighings was ±0.6 mg. In addition, blank filters and acetone
washes were analyzed as a QC/QA check.
14
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF FUEL OIL ANALYSIS AT BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOILER NO. 7
IN EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS (September 30 - October 2, 1981)
_ _ __ Visco.ity —
ncah neat ^oibswu *
Run No. Gravity, content, content, re«idue. Sulfur, SSr SSU Ash, Vanadiun, Sodiun, Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen,
(Pate) API at 60"F Btu/lb Btu/gal % % at 122°F at 100'r %
Run 1
(9-30-81)
Run 2
(10-1-81)
Run 3
13.4
12.9
13.2
18.477
18,451
18,466
150,269
150,579
150,438
14.04
14.23
14.10
1.99
1.90
1.91
179
185
188
4,014
4,164
4,225
0.08
0.09
0.10
400
483
483
44
44
46
86.20
86.20
86.23
11.05
11.08
11.17
0.36
0.36
0.37
0.33
0.39
0.25
(10-2-81)
All value* are average of two analyses.
Saybolt Fural seconds.
Saybolt Universal seconds.
-------
TABLE lOa.
SUMMARY OF METHOD 9 PLUME OPACITY OBSERVATIONS AT
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT,
MASSACHUSETTS (September 30, 1981)
Date: o-31-B:
Type of Discharge: Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: 500 ft
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: Brown to bluish white
Observer Name: Vasudev B. Kulkarni
Distance from Observer to Discharge
Point: 2,500 ft - 4,000 ft
Type of Plant: Utility Boiler
Location of Discharge: Electrostatic Precipitator Exhaust
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Velocity: 15-20 mph
Location of Observation: After plume height
Duration of Observation: 287 min total8
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: NE
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
ng Time: 1
2
3
4
5
6
10:25 - 10:49
11:01 - 12:01
12:10 - 13:10
13:15 - 14:15
16:00 - 17:00
17:03 - 17:26
Summary of average opacity
Set
number
lb
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Start
10:25
10:31
10:37
10:43
11:01
11:07
11:13
11:19
11:25
11:31
11:37
11:43
11:49
11:55
12:10
12:16
12:22
12:28
12:34
12:40
12:46
12:52
12:58
12:04
Time
End
10:30
10:36
10:42
10:48
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
11:36
11:42
11:48
11:54
12:00
12:15
12:21
12:27
12:33
12:39
12:45
12:51
12:57
13:03
13:09
Sum
100
35
-
-
200
165
185
150
120
180
200
125
60
60
190
185
195
50
115
225
280
135
180
190
Opacity
Average
6.3
5.8
-
-
8.3
6.9
7.7
6.5
5.7
7.8
8.7
7.8
5.5
4.6
13.6
8.4
11.5
8.3
6.8
9.4
11.7
6.1
9.0
10.6
Number of blanks
indicating
unreadable
due to clouds
8
18
24
24
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
8
13
11
10
2
7
18
7
0
0
2
4
6
(continued)
16
-------
TABLE lOa (continued).
Summary of average opacity
Set
number
Time
Start
End
Sum
Number of blanks
indicating
Opacity unreadable
Average due to clouds
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42<
43(
44
45
46
47
48
13:15
13:21
13:27
13:33
13:39
13.: 45
13:51
13:57
14:03
14:09
16:00
16:06
16:12
16:18
16:24
16:30
16:36
16:42
16:48
16:54
17:03
17:09
17:15
17:21
13:20
13:26
13:32
13:38
13:44
13:50
13:56
14:02
14:08
14:14
16:05
16:11
16:17
16:23
16:29
16:35
16:41
16:47
16:53
16:59
17:08
17:14
17:20
17:26
155
155
180
235
235
165
240
205
150
115
175
40
25
85
35
*»
155
50
50
200
220
395
125
35
6.5
7.0
7.5
10.2
9.8
7.2
10.4
8.5
7.1
5.5
9.7
6.7
6.3
10.6
4.4
9.7
12.5
6.3
8.3
9.2
16.5
9.6
5
Average all sets except 3,4, and 40: 8.3
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
3
3
6
18
20
16
16
24
8
20
16
0
0
0
11
17
Total observation time includes periods when no opacity
readings could be obtained because of transient conditions,
3Test started.
'Test ended.
OPACI
CENT
5
3 4
TIME, hours
17
-------
TABLE lOb.
SUMMARY OF METHOD 9 PLUME OPACITY OBSERVATIONS AT
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT,
MASSACHUSETTS (October 1, 1981).
Date: 10-1-81
Type of Lischarge: Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: 500 ft
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: Bluish white
Observer Name: Vasudev B. Kulkarni
Distance from Observer to Discharge
Point: 2,500 ft
Type of Plant: Utility Boiler
Location of Discharge: Electrostatic Precipitator Exhaust
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Velocity: 5-10 mph
Location of Observation: Varied
Duration of Observation: 166 nin total
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SW
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
ig Time: 1
2
3
4
5
11:15 - 12
13:30 - 12
13:15 - 14
14:30 - 15
15:30 - 16
:45
:30
Summary of average opacity
Set
number
1
2
3
4
5b
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Start
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
11:51
11:57
12:03
12:09
12:30
12:36
12:42
13:15
13:21
13:27
13:33
13:39
13:45
13:51
13:57
14:03
14:09
14:30
Time
End
11:20
11:26
11:32
11:38
11:44
11:50
11:56
12:02
12:08
12:14
12:35
12:41
12:45
13:20
13:26
13:32
13:38
13:44
13:50
13:56
13:02
13:08
14:14
14:35
Sum
155
130
50
95
55
95
40
120
185
75
60
145
40
30
115
65
230
25
110
100
140
140
170
55
Opacity
Average
6.5
5.9
8.3
4.0
2.3
5.9
5.0
5.0
7.7
5.0
6.7
6.0
4.0
5.0
4.8
7.2
9.6
5.0
4.6
4.2
9.3
7.0
8.5
2.3
Number of blanks
indicating
unreadable
due to clouds
0
2
18
0
0
8
16
0
0
0
15
0
14
18
0
15
0
19
0
0
9
4
4
0
(continued)
18
-------
TABLE lOb (continued).
Summary of average opacity
Set
number
Time
Start
End
Sum
Number of blanks
indicating
Opacity unreadable
Average due to clouds
25V
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
14:36
14:42
14:48
14:54
15:00
15:06
15:12
15:30
15:36
15:42
15:48
15:54
16:00
16:06
16:12
16:18
16:24
14:41
14:47
14:53
14:59
15:05
15:11
15:16
15:35
15:41
15:47
15:53
15:59
16:05
16:11
16:17
16:23
16:29
20
25
0
15
85
5
30
55
90
35
40
95
40
155
130
95
90
0.8
1.0
0
0.6
3.5
0.5
1.9
2.3
3.8
1.5
1.7
4.0
3.6
7.0
5.4
4.0
3.8
0
0
0
0
0
14
8
0
0
0
0
0
13
2
0
0
0
Average all sets : 4.5
observation time includes periods when no opacity
readings could be obtained because of transient conditions
Test started.
Test ended.
>-
f—
o
Q.
O
1
o
a:
ix
30
JV
20
10
0
^^^^ JL ^^^^. ^^
^^^•^\ ^^ •— ^^ ^v ^^^^^^
\ \ \ *•*— t-*^' ^^^^ t
3
TIME, hours
19
-------
TABLE lOc.
SUMMARY OF METHOD 9 PLUME OPACITY OBSERVATIONS AT
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY BOILER NO. 7 IN EVERETT,
MASSACHUSETTS (October 2, 1981).
Date: 10-2-81
Type of Discharge: Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: 500 ft
Wind Direction: SW
Color of Plume: Not specified
Observer Name: Vasudev B. Kulkarni
Distance from Observer to Discharge
Point: 700 ft - 1,000 ft
Sampling Time: 1 11:10 - 12:10
2 12:15 - 1:15
Type of Plant: Utility Boiler
Location of Discharge: Electrostatic Precipitator Exhaust
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Velocity: 5 mph
Location of Observation: Varied a
Duration of Observation: 120 min total
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: NW
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
Summary of average opacity
Set
number
_b
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ,
10d
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Average
Time
Start
10:00
11:10
11:16
11:22
11:28
11:34
11:40
11:46
11:52
12:15
12:21
12:27
12:33
12:39
12:45
12:51
12:57
13:03
13:09
all sets
End
11:00C
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
11:51
11:57
12:20
12:26
12:32
12:38
12:44
12:50
12:56
13:02
13:08
13:14
except
Opacity
Sum
.
0
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
0
10
35
0
50
35
25
10
0
0
2-8:
Average
_c
0.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0
0.7
1.5
0.0
2.1
1.5
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.7
Number of blanks
indicating
unreadable
due to clouds
24
0
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
observation time includes periods when no opacity
readings could be obtained because of transient conditions.
bTest started.
cReadings between 10:00 and 11:10 were not possible due
to overcast conditions.
T'est ended.
f-
1— 1
«_>
D_
O
o
oc.
LU
n
JV
20
10
0
-
B
,
1
TIME, hours
20
-------
TABLE 11. RESULTS OF BAKING AT 160°C AND
176°C ON PARTICULATE MASSES
Run
number
1
2
3
Sample
number
OH15
OL
IN
IS
OH
OL
IN
IS
OH
OL
IN
IS
Before baking
weight, mg
203.3
388.1
449.2
381.0
113.6
287.9
600.6
640.5
107.5
202.1
639.5
571.8
Weight after
baking at 160°C,
mg
57.8
76.8
404.5
343.9
21.0
90.3
552.3
572.6
35.1
76.6
582.3
539.9
Weight after
baking atd!76°C,
mg
53.5
76.4
399.7
341.3
18.0
87.7
547.0
563.2
33.1
73.7
580.0
532.2
Values for total sample (filter plus acetone wash). All samples
weighed to a constant weight.
bOH = Outlet high (Method 5B); OL = outlet low (Method 5);
IN = inlet north; IS = inlet south.
°Required between 1 and 3 bakes to achieve constant weight.
ilequired only 1 bake to achieve constant weight.
21
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND MONITORING
(supplied by Radian Corporation)
This chapter presents a generalized description of the boiler and
electrostatic precipitator processes. Both processes are dis-
cussed individually in the following two subsections. Process
descriptions include flow diagrams and descriptions, equipment
design data, typical operating conditions and performance data.
The process data collected during runs one, two and three are
tabulated and any process upsets or abnormalities that occured
during the testing period are discussed. In addition, general
comments on the process operation are included.
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Boiler System Description
The Boston Edison Company's Unit Seven is a 585 megawatt utility
boiler/generator system that supplies electrical power to a cen-
tral grid system. The unit seven boiler fires a high sulfur, high
vanadium residual oil and is typically based loaded at or near
560 megawatts.
Designed by Combustion Engineering, Unit Seven is a controlled
circulation, tangentially fired utility boiler (cyclone type). In
the tangential firing system, the furnace itself constitutes the
burner. Fuel and air are introduced to the furnace through four
wired box assemblies, located in the furnace corners. The fuel
and air streams from the windbox nozzles are directed to a firing
circle in the center of the furnace. The rotative and cyclonic
action that is characteristic of this type of firing is most ef-
fective in turbulently mixing the burning fuel in a constantly
changing air and gas atmosphere. The air and fuel streams are
vertically adjustable by means of movable nozzle tips. This
tilting allows adjustments for maximum combustion efficiency to
be made.
Six levels of oil guns are used. The second elevation guns fire
steam atomized light oil to light and bring the unit up to tempera-
ture and pressure. The other five elevations of guns fire steam
22
-------
atomized heavy oil to carry unit load. Four overfire air regis-
ters are used to admit secondary air into the furnace as a means
of controlling NO emissions. These registers are normally set
in the 20 percent open position.
Figure 3 shows a generalized flow diagram of the unit seven
boiler system. Combustion air is preheated to 450°F and intro-
duced into the boiler, with the fuel, through one of 4 windbox
assemblies. Combustion air is supplied by two forced draft fans
having a combined horse power of 2090 (shaft horse power). Com-
bustion flue gases exit the furnace and enter the economizer where
incoming boiler feedwater is preheated. The feed water flow is
upward through the economizer, that is, counter current to the
flue gas flow. The flue gas leaves the economizer at 590°F and
the flow is split into north and south side flows. The south side
flow supplies combustion air preheat energy for combustion air
preheater one while the north side supplies combustion air pre-
heater two. After exiting the combustion air preheaters, each flue
gas stream passes through a 2490 horsepower (shaft horsepower) in-
duced draft fan before entering the electrostatic precipitator
(ESP). The ESP, described in the next section, treats the north
and south side flue gas streams independently. Fly ash from the
ESP hoppers is reinjected on a continuous basis. Reinjection is
used to burn residual carbon in the fly ash and to increase the '
mass percent of vanadium in the fly ash. Fly ash is sold to a
concern that extracts the vanadium and uses it as an alloy.
The Unit Seven boiler is designed to produce superheated steam at
a temperature and pressure of 1005°F and 2440 psig, respectively.
The design excess air value is three percent. However, during
testing the excess air values ranged between 6.0 and 7.5 percent.
The watch engineer indicated that an excess air value of about 6
percent and a carbon monoxide concentration of less than 50 parts
per million indicate the most efficient combustion conditions.
Electrostatic Precipitator Description
After the flue gas exits both combustion air preheaters one and
two, each side passes through an I.D. fan and then enters a Buell
modular electrostatic precipitator (model BA1.4X44K44-8.2P). The
precipitator is a split flow unit, with flue gas from preheater
one entering the south side and flue gas from preheater two enter-
ing the north side. Both the north and south sides have two sec-
tions each, with 4 modules per section. This yields a total of
eight modules per side. Current is supplied to each side by a
bank of 10 three phase transformer/rectifier panels. Panel A sup-
plies DC current to module 1, panel B supplies module 2 and so on.
After leaving the precipitator, flue gases from both sides are
combined and exhausted to a common stack. Pressure drop through
the unit does not exceed 3 inch w.g.
23
-------
To Stack
Soutr.
ES?
North
ESP
Craft
Gas (Scuth Side) Flue Gas (North Side)
ECO;;CMIZER
Light Oil -
(for startup)
Heaw Oil
UTILITY
BOILER
FURNACE
a- r
21!
COMBUSTION
AIR
PREHEATER 1
Forced
Draft
Fan
COMBUSTION
AIR
PREHEATER II
Forced
Draft
Fan
Induced
Draft
Fan
A1r
Figure 3. Unit seven boiler process flow diagram.
24
-------
The precipitator uses a straight wire emitter electrode and flat
plate collecting electrode configuration. Total emitting wire
length is 168960 ft. and total collecting plate area is 253,440 ft2.
At full load, (580 MW, 1,910,000 acfm) this plate area yields a
specific collection area (SCA) of 133 ft2/1000 acfm (design SCA).
Electrode cleaning is done on a continuous cycle using a combined
rapper/vibrating cleaning system. Buell impact rappers are used
for cleaning the collecting plate electrodes and Buell vibrators
are used for cleaning the emitting wire electrodes. Rapping and
vibrating systems are controlled independently and can be adjusted
in intensity and frequency. The maximum collecting plate area
rapped at any instant is 2700 ft2 or 1.1 percent of the total
plate area.
Particulate emission compliance tests (Method 5) have been conducted
by Boston Edison Company that demonstrate a particulate removal
efficiency of between 85 and 93 percent. These tests were conducted
near full load with the boiler firing a 1 percent sulfur residual
fuel oil.
PROCESS MONITORING
Boiler and Precipitator Process Data Monitoring of Plant Processes
During Testing
The boiler and precipitator processes were monitored during testing
for the following reasons:
1. To insure that the boiler was operating near capacity and at a
relatively steady state;
2. To insure that the boiler was operating within normal
tolerances;
3. To insure that all precipitator modules were operating normally;
4. To record process data used in determining emission rates;
(pounds emitted/MM Btu)
5. To record process data used as a qualitative guideline to
document normal boiler and ESP operation.
Eight boiler process parameters were monitored during testing.
These parameters are listed here with a description of the loca-
tion at which the measurements were made.
1. Steam production rate - (103 Ib/hr)
2. Steam temperature - average superheater outlet temperature (°F)
3. Steam pressure - average superheater outlet pressure (psig)
25
-------
4. Flue gas oxygen - measured on a dry basis after the economizer
at the north and south sides (percent)
5. Flue gas temperature - measured at north and south sides after
the economizer (°F)
6. Combustion air temperature - measured after preheaters one
(south) and two (north) (°F)
7. Opacity - measured at north and south sides after the economizer
(percent)
8. Fuel oil flow - (gpm)
Three precipitator process parameters were monitored during test-
ing. These include: primary voltage (volts), primary current
(amps-a.c.), and precipitator current (amps d.c.).
Process Data
Table 12 lists all boiler process data while Tables 13, 14, and
15 list all precipitator data for runs one, two and three, re-
spectively. A discussion of the process operations during test-
ing is presented in the next subsection.
Discussion of Process Data
In general, the boiler maintained steady state operation throughout
the testing period. In addition, boiler load remained relatively
constant within a range of 590 to 595 megawatts. There were no
major process upsets during runs one, two or three.
Prior to the start of each test, Boston Edison personal measured
the flue gas carbon monoxide content and percent excess air. This
was used as an indicator of efficient combustion and steady state
operations. For each test, these indicators were very close to
the values normally used by Boston Edison to achieve efficient
combustion (6% excess air, <50 ppm CO). Excess air values ranged
from 6.0 to 7.5% and carbon monoxide concentrations ranged from
trace to 90 ppm.
Table 12 shows a 95.2 percent south side opacity value occuring
at 11:46. This is a false reading in that the opacity meter light
burned out just prior to 11:46.
During run two, the nozzle tilt angle was changed in a effort to
increase combustion efficiency. Adjustment occured between 1:00
and 1:30, during which time the flue gas oxygen dropped from 2.16
(south) and 2.19 (north), to 1.84 (south) and 1.65 (north). There
was no significant change in opacity as a result of the nozzle
tilt angle adjustment.
26
-------
TABLE 12. BOILER PROCESS DATA
N)
<*v^
&.*•» \
I ~rt 1
IV-JlJ
^-^
? S°**1-^
Q.J
*i
^*m"^
- SW.^
lime Geiiel'dtur
Imd (Hll)
10:07 593.8
Start Kim 1 10:17
10:37 594.0
11:07 597.3
11:37 505.3
12:08 506.0
12:30 509.4
13:08 592.2
|MJ3:38 592.7
'' 14:08 590.9
14:38 592.9
15:08 591.8
15:38 591.4
16:08 592.5
16:38 592.9
Finish 16:50
Surt Run 2 10:40
10:10 592.5
10:41 594.2
11:11 5!)6. 4
11:41 594.5
12:11 595.1
12:41 595.8
13:11 594.2
l*«i 13:41 593.8
14:11 592.9
14:26 594.7
Finl-.h 14:30
Start Kun 3 9:57
9:46 591.1
10:16 568.7
10:46 507.4
11:16 5u9.6
11:46 590.5
12:16 567.8
ft* 12:47 589.8
Fuel Oil
Flow! GPH)
613
622
622
613
622
613
613
613
613
613
613
613
613
613
622
613
622
622
622
613
622
622
613
622
613
613
613
613
613
613
613
Slejm Fluw
103 Ib/hr
3764
3760
3784
3763
3757
3710
3741
3/29
3733
3733
3735
3/36
3739
3744
3781
3790
31)06
3790
3702
3708
3788
3701
3786
3788
3745
3743
3727
3744
3744
3716
3729
Steom
lenip(F )
999
1000
998
1002
1002
11)03
1002
1002
997
1017
1003
1000
1000
uno
994
996
993
1003
1000
999
494
996
998
997
998
1000
9'J'J
1000
900
997
1001
Pru|«i lies Flue
(us C.,y.»:n
fllidilly
Pressure! PS1G) Suulh(I) llorlh(I) Siiulh(I) Hottli(I)
2535 1.90
2530 2.15
2548 2.19
2536 2.15
2532 2.23
2501 2.31
2521 2.00
2518 2.29
2509 2.19
2518 2.21
2501 2.31
2506 2.20
2516 2.36
2518 2.34
2540 2.29
2542 2.15
2559 2.16
2545 2.05
2541 2.11
2530 2.16
2545 .04
2535 .81
2539 .69
2546 .89
2554 .80
2530 .06
2537 .94
2518 .90
2561 .90
2554 .95
2512 .96
1.99 10.6
2.46 12.4
2.56 13.9
2.57 17.0
2.60 15.0
2.76 12.6
2.37 11.9
2.62 12.1
2.44 13.3
2.73 10.7
2.59 11.1
2.50 10.9
2.75 16.0
2.16 11.4
2.21 13.5
2.29 15.1
2.16 12.4
2.11 13.3
2.22 13.9
2.19 16.7
.65 15.0
.72 15.1
.51 16.3
.90 13.3
.46 14.9
.74 10.6
.79 11.7
.62 13.2
.01 95.2
.70 10.1
.98 7.9
9.1
9.1
9.0
10.5
9.8
10.9
12.3
12.7
12.3
12.1
11.6
11.5
11.3
11.4
11. 5
11.5
11.2
11.5
10.6
10.8
11.3
II. 1
11.4
9.0
9.0
0.8
H.8
10.5
10.4
10.9
Cuiliusllon Air Tcwp
SuulMF
462
459
459
461
458
460
459
458
456
456
455
456
457
456
458
459
459
459
459
459
459
459
459
458
461
461
461
461
460
461
461
) North! 1 )
478
479
479
479
402
400
4I>0
400
479
479
478
477
477
477
476
478
477
478
478
478
477
478
477
479
405
405
404
481
484
481
404
Fluf Gas
SoutMF
655
655
657
657
659
656
657
656
655
656
655
656
657
657
658
659
660
659
661
660
659
658
656
657
657
658
657
657
657
655
658
f-.lt Tin.u
) KurlhU )
657
6SB
658
658
6(,0
650
650
658
657
650
657
656
657
65 B
657
659
659
660
660
661
658
658
656
658
660
660
660
659
660
659
660
Finish 12:45
-------
TABLE 13. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PROCESS DATA: RUN 1
Time
Run I (Start 10:17)
10:40
11:40
NJ
oo
12:50
14:00
(finish 14:40)
- -_., - - - .-.- , . - - - - - .- - ,.._ . . . .. , . ... ~ ,. . ... . - - .. . - _ ._ „ .. .
Panel
Number
Al
A2
01
B2
Cl
C2
01
02
El
E2
Al
A2
in
D2
Cl
C2
01
H2
El
E2
Al
A2
Ul
1)2
Cl
C2
01
02
El
E2
Al
A2
Dl
02
Cl
C2
01
02
11
f2
Primary Current
(Am|>s_A/C)
55
25
IfiO
100
225
160
170
160
170
160
70
20
190
130
210
160
170
lf,0
170
160
100
10
200
110
210
160
160
160
170
160
165
160
195
215
230
195
165
160
170
155
S(ii|tlL Side
Prlmiiry Voltage- ESP Current
(Volts A/C]^ {Amps II/C)
275 0.3
250 0.1
375 .1
375 .4
325 .5
275 .1
340 .2
330 .2
360 .3
325 .2
300 0.3
275 0.1
400 1.5
330 0.9
320 .5
200 .0
340 .2
330 .1
350 .3
320 .2
325 0.6
250 0.1
400
320
320
2 HO
21)0
340
350
320
365
305
315
375
320
290
325
330
320
310
.6
.7
.5
.0
.0
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
.5
.7
.0
.4
.2
.2
.3
.1
Primary Curn.'tit
{Amps A/C)^
70
70
200
210
230
200
170
160
170
150
on
50
200
220
230
190
170
160
170
150
100
120
200
220
230
190
190
160
170
150
130
20
200
195
225
160
165
160
175
165
llorth SI ill.-
Primary Volta'je
{Volts A/C)
21)0
300
3r.O
400
320
300
325
340
320
310
2/5
275
3r,0
400
3?0
290
320
330
320
310
30
350
340
4110
320
290
290
320
320
310
360
310
300
400 .
320
275
340
330
355
325
ESP Current
(Ani(>s D/C)
0.4
0.4
.5
.7
.7
.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
0.4
0.3
.5
.8
.8
.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
0.8
0.4
.5
.7
.7
.4
.4
.2
.2
.1
0.8
0.2
.6
.5
.6
.1
.2
.2
.3
.2
-------
TABLE 14. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PROCESS DATA: RUN 2
K>
VO
Panel
Time Number
"
Hun Z (Start 10:40) A|
11:00 A2
Bl
02
Ct
C2
Dl
D2
El
E2
12:00 Al
A2
Bl
B2
Cl
C2
01
02
El
E2
13:00 Al
A2
Bl
B2
Cl
C2
01
02
El
E2
14:00 Al
A2
Bl
62
Cl
C2
Dl
02
El
(finish 14:30) E2
Primary Current
_ (Amps A/C)
100
130
200
200
230
195
165
160
170
155
ISO
120
197
210
230
195
165
160
170
155
130
120
197
200
230
195
165
160
170
155
110
no
195
206
230
195
165
160
170
155
South Side
Primary Voltage ESI' Current
(Volts A/C) (Amps D/C)
340 0.8
300 0.8
300
390
320
300
325
310
370
310
390
360
350
100
370
300
325
335
320
310
.5
.8
.8
.5
.2
.2
.2
.1
.2
.9
.3
.7
.8
.5
.2
.2
.3
.2
350 0.9
300 0.8
350
385
370
300
325
335
320
310
365
350 (
360
300
320
295
322
335
320
308
.5
.5
.0
.5
.2
.2
.3
.2
.0
).7
.5
.7
.8
.4
.2
.2
.2
.1
Primary Current
lAmpjJ/C)
80
30
200
200
215
160
165
160
175
160
100
35
200
190
215
160
167
158
175
160
110
50
200
203
215
160
167
158
175
160
100
50
200
205
215
160
1C7
160
175
160
North Side
Primary Volta
-------
TABLE 15. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR PROCESS DATA: RUN 3
Time
Run 3 (Start 9:57)
10:15
11:15
W
O
12:15
12:45
Panel
llumher
(finish 12:45)
Al
A2
Dl
1)2
Cl
V.
01
02
El
12
Al
A2
Bl
02
Cl
C2
DI
D2
El
E2
Al
A2
Dl
C2
Cl
C2
Dl
02
El
E2
Al
A2
1)1
B2
Cl
C2
Dl
02
El
E2
Primary Current
„ (.^T^/VC)
100
120
197
220
23U
195
165
160
170
155
125
135
195
215
2.10
195
165
ICO
170
155
150
115
195
220
230
195
165
160
170
150
155
110
197
217
232
196
155
160
170
152
South Side
Primary Voltaqe ESP Current
_JVoHs _A/CJ. lA)ii|>s_li/C)_
300 1.0
360 0.0
360
395
330
300
325
335
320
310
350
3/0
350
4U2
325
300
320
335
320
310
360
375
355
400
325
300
325
335
320
305
360 0
310 0
350
400
328
300
325
335
322
305
.5
.7
.11
.5
.0
.2
.3
.1
.9
.0
.5
.8
.0
.5
.2
.2
.3
.1
.0
.2
.5
.0
.8
.4
.3
.2
.3
.1
.9
.7
.5
.0
.8
.4
.2
.2
.2
.0
Primary Current
(Amps A/C)
70
30
205
205
215
160
K,5
160
175
160
90
40
205
205
215
160
165
160
175
160
70
50
205
205
215
160
165
160
175
165
90
30
200
205
216
170
167
160
174
163
North Side
Primary Voltage fsf" Current
_JVpHs A/C) JA_'!1«_P/C L
2(10 0.4
270 0.3
405 .6
375 .6
335 .6
290 .0
345 2
315 .2
3C,0 .3
325 .2
330 ( .1
270 U.3
403 .6
3BO .6
335 .6
290 .0
345 .2
330 .2
300 .3
325 .2
320 0.5
290 0.3
400 .6
380 .6
340 .6
290 .1
350 .2
335 .2
360 .3
325 .2
330 0.5
265 0.2
400 .6
390 .5
330 .6
295 .1
348 .2
335 .2
358 .3
325 .2
-------
Tables 13, 14, and 15 indicate the electrostatic precipitator
was operating normally and that all modules remained in service
throughout the testing period. Intermittant sparkover occured
in the first module (ESP inlet) of both the north and south sides
(module one corresponds to panels Al and A2 for both sides).
Boston Edison personal indicated this spark-over was a normal
condition. Approximately 80 percent of all precipitated particles
are collected in module one and as a result the high increases the
opportunity for spark over to occur.
31
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
Emissions to the atmosphere from Boiler No. 7 were measured in
the smoke stack. Inlet ducts to the electrostatic precipitators,
7A south and 7B north, were also sampled (see Figure 2).
CONTROL SYSTEM INLET
Twelve, 10 cm (4 in.) ID sampling ports were located on the two
identical, 6.1 m (20 ft) long (1.4 diameters) and approximately
6.4 m by 3.4 m (21 ft by 11 ft) inlet ducts. Two sets of turning
vanes were located 0.8 m (2.5 ft) (0.17 diameters) upstream of
the ports and 2.3 m (7.5 ft) (0.5 diameters) downstream of the
ports (see Figure 4).
A 36 point traverse was used at both inlet ducts, 6 ports and 6
points per port (see Figure 5). Due to the short distance from
the turning vanes to the sampling ports, criteria for EPA Method 1
could not be met, however based on the preliminary velocity tra-
verse the 36 point traverse used was the best alternative to ob-
tain acceptable measurements. Two photographs of the inlet ports
are shown in Figure 6.
CONTROL SYSTEM EXHAUST (OUTLET)
Four, 3 in. ID ports were located on a 152 m (500 ft) long, 6.5 m
(21.3 ft) diameter smokestack, 41 m (135 ft) (6.3 diameters) from
the flue gas inlet and 75 m (245 ft) (11.5 diameters) from the
stack outlet (See Figure 7). The site met all criteria for an
acceptable measurement site for particulate traverses under EPA
Methods 1 and 5 procedures.
A 24 point traverse was used at this location, with six points
being sampled at each port as shown in Figure 8. A two stack con-
figuration is used at the site; an inner masonry stack (21.3 ft
diameter) for flue gas surrounded by a second concrete stack. A
3-ft wide platform in the 6 ft space between the two stacks, was
available at the sampling ports. The ports were 1.2 m (4 ft)
above the platform. A special dual-probe with heated flexible
tubing was used for sampling Methods 5 and 5B simultaneously at
the stack sampling ports.
32
-------
ID i
FAN L
I
TURNING
VANES
(5)
SAMPLING
PORTS
(12)
TURNING VANES
(7)
' TURNING VANES
(9)
TURNING VANES
(47)
Figure 4. Exhaust gas flow configuration for 7A south
inlet duct at Boston Edison. (ref. Buell
drawing provided by Boston Edison Company).
4"I.D. PORTS
131'
17"
. 8.2" .
16.4'
16.4"
16.4"
16.4"
16.4"
•245'
Figure 5. Inlet duct sampling for 7A south and 7B north
at Boston Edison Company Mystic River Station.
33
-------
South Inlet
North Inlet Ports
Figure 6. Photos of south inlet and ports
at north inlet at Boston Edison
Company Mystic River Station.
34
-------
STACK
500'
Figure 7. Stack and sample port heights at Boston Edison.
TRAVERSE
POINT NO.
A
B
C
D
E
F
STACK
DISTANCE FROM
INSIDE WALL
5.3"
16.9"
29.7"
44.6"
63.0"
89.7"
ID • 252"
Figure 8. Traverse point locations for Boiler No. 7
stack at Boston Edison.
35
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
SUMMARY
The sampling and analysis methods used at each site are shown in
Table 1. Three simultaneous runs of Methods 5 and 5B sampling
occured at the stack downstream of all air pollution control
equipment and Method 5 sampling occured at both inlet ducts. A
special dual-probe stack test system was used for simultaneous
sampling of Methods 5 and 5B through the stack ports. The flue
gas velocity, temperature, flow rate, oxygen content, and carbon
dioxide content were measured by EPA Methods 1-4 during all test
sampling runs of each location (outlet, inlet north, inlet south).
Integrated Method 3 samples were taken from the exhaust of the
Method 5 trains. In addition, EPA Method 9, plume opacity, was
observed.
The Method 5 and 5B samples (filters and dried probe washes) were
weighed, baked at 160°C (320°F) for 3 hours and weighed, and then
baked again at 176°C (350°F) and weighed, prior to sulfuric acid
and sulfate analysis. The sulfuric acid and sulfates analyses
used procedures supplied to MRC by EPA on 10 October 1980.
SAMPLING
Heated glass-lined probes and Reeve Angel Type 934 AH filters were
used for the Method 5 and 5B stack testing. The filter tempera-
tures were monitored using thermocouples installed in the oven. A
special dual-probe stack test system was used for stack testing by
Methods 5 and 5B simultaneously through the same individual stack
ports. Flexible teflon-lined heated probe lines were used to con-
nect the probes to the filters. Figure 9 is a schematic diagram
of the dual-probe system. The nozzle centers of the Method 5 and
5B trains were approximately 3.8 cm (1.5 in.) apart in this system.
Stainless steel probes and Reeve Angel Type 934 AH filters were
used at the inlets for Method 5 sampling.
Method 5 and 5B stack sample volumes of at least 60 cubic feet
were taken. Method 5 inlet sample volumes of at least 50 cubic
feet were taken, when possible. The probes, nozzles, and filter
holders were rinsed with acetone. When Methods 5 and 5B were
used, Methods 1 through 4 were also used, as in compliance
monitoring.
36
-------
THERMOCOUPLE
FILTER
THERMOCOUPLE
S-TYPE
PI TOT TUBE HEATED PRO BE
VACUUM LINE
ICEBATH IMPINGERS
1 THERMOCOUPLE
DRY GAS AIR-TIGHT
METER PUMP
DRY GAS AIR-TIGHT
METER PUMP
Figure 9. Dual-probe sampling train.
37
-------
SAMPLE ANALYSES
EPA provided the general methods to be used for particulates,
sulfuric acid and sulfate analysis on the Method 5 and 5B samples
at a meeting on 10 October 1980. Gary McAlister clarified these
procedures on 24 October 1980, and further refinement of the pro-
cedures occurred during the analysis of samples collected during
previous emission testing under this work assignment. The pro-
cedures used are summarized in Appendix C.
After the probe washes and filters were dried and weighed (using
standard Method 5 procedures), the Method 5 and 5B samples were
baked at an average temperature of 160 ± 11°C (320 ± 20°F) for 3
hours to a constant weight (i.e., a less than 10 mg weight loss
between consecutive bakings). Between 1 and 3 bakings for each
sample were required at 160°C to achieve constant weight. After
the 160°C baking, all samples were baked at 176°C (350°F) to a
constant weight. Only 1 bake was required at 176°C to achieve
the constant weight. As a quality control step, after each baking,
the sample was weighed to constant weight (i.e., a less than 4 mg
weight change between consecutive weighings). This particulate
analysis procedure is shown in detail in Appendix C. Room temper-
ature isopropanol was added to each sample. The samples soaked
for at least 12 hours, then the filter in isopropanol was ultra-
sonically extracted for 30 minutes. The extracts were filtered
and analyzed for sulfuric acid using the barium-thorin titration.
This isopropanol extraction and analysis procedure was performed
twice on every sample. Those portions of the extracts that were
not titrated will be bottled and retained.
After the sulfuric acid extraction with isopropanol, water was
added to the filters and solid residues. After they soaked for
at least 12 hours, they were ultrasonically extracted for 30 min-
utes. The extracts were filtered, passed through a Rexyn-101
ion exchange column, and analyzed for sulfates (using barium-
thorin titration). The water extraction and sulfate analysis
procedure was performed twice on every sample, and the untitrated
water extracts were bottled and retained.
After all extractions, the filters and solid residues were dried
and saved under dry nitrogen in a refrigerator, along with the
untitrated extracts. These samples will be saved for no more
than 6 months.
Blank filters and residue from the evaporation of clean acetone
were analyzed when the stack samples were analyzed, along with
standards and quality assurance audit samples of sulfate and
sulfuric acid.
38
-------
OIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Fuel oil samples and analytical results were obtained from Boston
Edison Company and are shown in Table 9.
SAMPLE HANDLING
Filter contents were transferred into closed clean containers.
Sampling equipment (i.e., probe and tip) was brushed and rinsed
with acetone and the rinse collected in a bottle. This occured
at sampling location or at the MRC sampling truck located near
the stack. Access to the samples was limited by storing them in
a locked truck, except when being handled by authorized individ-
uals. The samples were shipped in the truck to the MRC Dayton
Laboratory for analysis. Records of the chain of custody of the
samples were maintained and are shown in Appendix D-6.
DATA REDUCTION
MRC's computer and programmable calculators were used to reduce the
analytical and field data to determine results. The "F" values used
to determine ng/joule (lb/106 Btu) emissions were taken from the
boiler emission regulations in 40 CFR 60.45(f)(4)(ii).
Appendix A contains copies of all raw field sampling data sheets
and coding sheets for data processing.
Appendix B contains complete computer printouts of the results of
the sampling.
Appendix C contains the detailed analytical methods used.
Appendix D contains sample analysis data and a summary of the
results of the quality control and assurance procedures.
Appendix E identifies the people performing the sampling, analysis,
and data reduction.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
MRC's usual quality assurance procedures were applied to the
stack testing by EPA Methods 1 through 5B. These included all
of the applicable procedures specified in the Federal Register
for Methods 1 through 5 and the procedures specified in the EPA
Guidelines for the Development of Quality Assurance Programs for
these methods.
MRC's Quality Control and Quality Assurance supervisor prepared
quality assurance audit samples simulating the anticipated sul-
furic acid and sulfate content of boiler stack samples. The con-
tent of the audit samples were known only to her and the chemists
preparing the audit samples, not to the chemists performing the
39
-------
analysis. MRC analyzed blank filters, samples of acetone, stand-
ards, and quality assurance audit samples when the stack samples
are analyzed.
The accuracy of the data used in computerized data processing
will be checked by comparing the printout of the data used to
calculate results with the raw field data used to code the com-
puter input.
40
------- |