1GCEA^SPECIAL REPORT
      SECONDARY BENEFITS OF
 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS USED
TO MEET NSPS FOR UTILITY BOILERS
                 MAY 1980
                   By

                 L. L. Scinto
                 TRW, Inc.
              Contract No. 68-02-3138
            EPA Project Officer: W. H. Ponder
      INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. N.C. 27711

-------
                    1GCEA^SPECIAL REPORT
      SECONDARY BENEFITS OF
 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS USED
TO MEET NSPS FOR UTILITY BOILERS
                 MAY 1980
                   By

                 L. L. Scinto
                 TRW, Inc.
              Contract No. 68-02-3138
            EPA Project Officer: W. H. Ponder
      INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. N.C. 27711

-------
                               DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviev^ed by the Industrial  Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.

-------
                                 ABSTRACT

     A study of airborne emissions from controlled utility .boilers was made
to characterize the performance of emission control  systems  in removing
non-criteria pollutants.  Both particulate control and flue  gas desulfuri-
zation systems were evaluated.  Non-criteria pollutants considered were
trace elements, organic compounds, and primary sulfates.
     Removal efficiencies and emission factors for non-criteria pollutants
were reported for a flue gas desulfurization system and various particulate
control devices.
     Emissions of toxic trace elements from controlled and uncontrolled
bituminous coal-fired boilers were estimated for various types of control
devices.
     A preliminary assessment of the environmental impact of controlled  and
uncontrolled trace element emissions from pulverized bituminous coal-fired
dry bottom boilers was made.  It was concluded that control  of emissions to
the level of current new source performance standards would  result in sub-
stantial reduction in the adverse health effects of airborne emissions from
electric power generation.
     This study was performed- under the Conventional Combustion Environmental
Assessment program, Contract No. 68-02-3138, by TRW, Incorporated, under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The work was com-
pleted as of May 1980.

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Abstract .	iii
Figures	     v
Tables	    vi

     1.  Introduction	     1
             Background	     1
             Organization	     3
     2.  Conclusions 	     5
             Secondary Benefits of Particulate Control  	     5
             Secondary Benefits of Flue Gas Desulfurization	     6
             Environmental Impact Assessment	     7
     3.  NSPS for Utility Boilers	     8
             Combustion Processes. .... 	     8
             Applicability of NSPS 	     9
     4.  ECS Performance	    12
             Particulate Control Systems	    13
             Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems	    30

References	    35
Appendices
     A.  Background Data	    39
     B.  Particulate ECS Data	    47
     C.  FGD System Data	    56
     D.  Novel Emission Control Systems	;  ..	    60
     E.  Environmental Impact Analysis	    65

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number                                                                 Page

.   1     Trace element emissions from a pulverized  coal-fired           16
         boiler .......  	  	

   2.  •  Trace element emission factors for western coal-fired
         power plants using cyclones and wet scrubbers  for emission
         controls	    19

   3.    Trace element emission factors for western coal-fired
         power plants using cyclones and wet scrubbers  for emission
         controls	,	    20

   4.    Trace element emissions from two western  coal-fired power
         plants	    23

   5.    Performance of hot- and cold-side electrostatic
         preci pita tors	    24

   6.    Performance of a cold-side ESP on a coal-fired power plant .    25

   7.    Effect of FGD system on trace element emissions.  ......    32

 D-l.    Particulate control by novel devices 	    61

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                 Page

   1.    Standards of Performance for Electric Utility Steam
         Generators - 40 CFR Part 60. ..	   10
   2.    Actual  Trace Element Collection Exhibited  by Cyclone
         Separator	   15
   3.    Trace Element Collection Efficiencies Exhibited by Venturi
         Scrubbers - Coal-fired Power Plants.	 . l.  .  . .   17
   4.    Trace Element Collection Efficiencies Exhibited by
         Electrostatic Precipitators - Coal-fired Power Plants.  ...   22
   5.    Controlled and Uncontrolled Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions From
         a Pulverized Coal-fired Power Plant	,	   27

   6.    Controlled Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions From Coal-fired Power
         Plants	   28

   7.    Effect of Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) on PSE From
         Combustion Sources	   29

   8.    Trace Element Collection Efficiency Exhibited by FGD
         System - Coal-fired Power Plant	   31
   9.    Reduction of SOa and S04= Emissions by FGD System During
         Coal Firing	   34
  10.    Reduction of Fluoride Emissions by FGD System During Coal
         Firing .	   34
 A-l.    Average Trace Element Concentrations in Coal ... 	   41
 A-2.    Average Trace Element Concentrations of Residual Oil ....   43
 A-3.    Partitioning of Elements in Coal  Combustion Residues ....   45
 A-4.    Trace Element Enrichment Factors for Coal-fired Utility
         Boilers Equipped With Particulate Emission Controls. ....   46
 B-l.    Size Distributions for Controlled and Uncontrolled
         Particulate Emissions From Utility Boilers 	   48
 B-2.    Efficiencies of Particulate Removal by Control Devices for
         Various Size Fractions 	   50
 B-3.    Estimated Trace Element Emission Factors From Combustion of
         Bituminous Coal	   53
 C-l.    Controlled and Uncontrolled Trace Element Emissions From a
         Coal-fired Utility Boiler Equipped with FGD System 	   57

 C-2.    Comparison of Trace Element Removal Efficiencies of an SOg
         Scrubber on a Coal or Fuel-Oil Fired Industrial Boiler ...   58
                                    vi

-------
                             TABLES (Continued)
Number                                                                 Page

 D-l.    Performance of Novel Fine Participate Control Devices to
         Conventional Venturi Scrubbers 	 . 	   62

 D-2.    Tabulated Data From Nahcolite Test Program ... 	   64

 E-l.    Environmental Assessment of Uncontrolled Emissions From
         Pulverized Coal-fired Dry-bottom Boilers	 .   67

 E-2.    Environmental Assessment of Controlled Emissions From
         Pulverized Coal-fired Dry-bottom boilers ..........   68

 E-3.    Environmental Assessment Summary	   68
                                    vii

-------
                                SECTION 1
                           '   INTRODUCTION

     The primary benefit of an emission control  system (ECS)  is  the  removal
of criteria pollutants from the boiler flue gas  stream.   In increasing
numbers, utilities are turning to the use of particulate  and/or  gaseous
ECS's to comply with emission reductions required by New  Source  Performance
Standards (NSPS) promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).  Control devices such as wet scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators
(ESP's), and fabric filters (baghouses) are being used to mitigate par tic u-
late emissions.  Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)  systems are used to  control
gaseous sulfur dioxide emissions.
     In addition to the primary benefits of sulfur dioxide and particulate
removal systems, secondary benefits are obtained by the application  of
control technologies to utility boilers.  Besides being able to  mitigate
emissions of criteria pollutants required by NSPS, emission control  systems
have the ability to remove potentially hazardous air pollutants  from boiler
flue gases.  Conventional ECS's can remove a substantial  portion of such
non-criteria pollutants as trace elements, organic compounds, and primary
sulfates from combustion source emissions.
     This paper will examine the ability of particulate control  and FGD
systems to mitigate emissions of non-criteria pollutants  from utility
boilers.  Data from the open literature and from the Conventional Combus-
tion Environmental Assessment (CCEA) data base will be presented to quantify
removal efficiencies and emission factors for sources  equipped with  various
ECS's.
BACKGROUND
      In considering the emission of non-criteria pollutants from combustion
sources, and the .ability of ECS's to mitigate these emissions, it is helpful
to understand the origins and characteristics of the emitted pollutants.
Trace element emissions arise from the presence of these  elements in the

-------
fuel.  The trace element emissions  from fossil fuel-fired utilities, equipped
with modern pollution control  devices,  consist primarily of submicron
particles.  A large body of recent  work has  shown that the smaller  fly ash
particles resulting from combustion may be considerably enriched  in several
toxic trace elements.  The most widely  accepted model for trace element
enrichment in fly ash formation involves the volatilization of these elements
during combustion, followed by condensation  or adsorption over the  available
matrix material {composed primarily of  the nonvolatile oxides of  Al, Mg,  and
Si).  The smaller particles, which  show the  highest  concentration of several
trace metals, are not as efficiently collected by pollution control devices
as are larger fly ash particles. These smaller particles, enriched in poten-
tially toxic trace metals, also have the highest atmospheric mobilities and
are deposited preferentially in the pulmonary and bronchial regions of the
respiratory system.
     Emissions of organic compounds, particularly polycyclic organic matter
(POM), originate largely from inefficient mixing of  fuel and oxidant during
combustion rather than from strictly the fuel itself.  Gaseous POM  is formed
during combustion by pyrosynthetic  and  pyrolytic reactions, and condenses
or is adsorbed on available ash surfaces in  cooler parts of the combustion
process.  At stack temperatures, a  significant portion of the POM may still
be in the gaseous form, and can be  removed by wet scrubbing devices.  Parti-
culate POM. may be removed by particuVate control devices.
     Primary sulfate emissions (PSE) arise both because of the presence of
sulfur in the fuel and because of improper combustion conditions.  With
fuels of high sulfur content burned with a high level of excess oxygen,
fuel sulfur is oxidized to not only SOg, but to higher oxides such  as SO^,
HgSO^, and metallic sulfates (MSOJ, The proportion of sulfate emitted as
gas, liquid, and particulate varies from source to source, and thus the
efficiency of different types of ECS's  in reducing PSE also varies.
     A thorough discussion of the health effects of  non-criteria  pollutant
emissions is beyond the scope of this report. However, when  appropriate,
Maximum Acute Toxicity Effluent (MATE)  values for the health  effects of air
emissions have been used to quantify the potential adverse effects  of these
emissions on the human population.   Numerical values of  the MATE  correspond

-------
to the concentration of a substance estimated to cause minimal  adverse
effect in a healthy receptor exposed once or intermittently for short time
periods.  Discharge severity (DS) has also been used in this report to
characterize health effects.  DS is a simple index of the potential  hazard
of a single substance in a discharge.  It is used in the early  stages of an
environmental assessment to (1) identify the substances in a waste stream
which are potentially the most harmful; (2) evaluate the need for further
characterization of the discharge or development of improved control tech-
nology; or (3) present the results of waste stream chemical analyses in
terms of health effects in a manner which facilitates review and interpre-
tation.  DS is a unitless quantity equal to the discharge concentration  of
                                                *
a particular substance divided by its MATE value .
ORGANIZATION
     This report deals specifically with utility boilers.  The  applicability
of NSPS to utility boilers is discussed in Section 3.  A brief  description
of combustion processes and a summary of regulations is included.
     Data on the ability of various ECS's to reduce non-criteria pollutant
emissions are presented and analyzed in Section 4.  The data are predomi-
nantly from studies on coal-fired utility boilers rather than units fired
with oil or gas.  Coal-fired sources have been more extensively characterized
because they represent the largest source of non-criteria pollutant emissions,
and because they hold promise as being the major contributors to U.S.  energy
self-sufficiency in the near future.  Separate subsections deal with parti-
culate controls and FGD systems, and present data on the ability of these
ECS's to remove specific classes of non-criteria pollutants.
     Several appendices are included at the end of the report.   They contain
supplemental data pertinent to discussions in the text, and are presented
as follows:
 In calculating DS, MATE has been equated to the Discharge Multimedia
 Environmental Goal (DMEG) for the same substance.

-------
     •   Appendix A - Background Data.
     •   Appendix B - Particulate ECS Data.
     •   Appendix C - FGD System Data.
     f   Appendix D - Novel.Emission Control  Systems.
     t   Appendix E - Environmental Impact Analysis.
     The major conclusions of the report, based on data herein, follow the
Introduction as Section 2.

-------
                                SECTION 2
                               CONCLUSIONS

     Emission control systems are capable of removing a large portion of
the potentially hazardous pollutants produced from fossil-fuel combustion.
In addition to removing criteria pollutants  such as SOg, NOX, and particu-
lates, emission controls remove non-criteria pollutants.  Such pollutants
include trace elements, organic compounds, and sulfates.
     In the U.S., coal combustion is responsible for the majority of annual
mass emissions of non-criteria air pollutants from power generating facil-
ities.  Emissions of non-criteria pollutants from oil combustion are less,
because both emission factors and energy consumption are less for oil
combustion than for coal.  Combustion of natural gas has a negligible con-
tribution to non-criteria pollutant emissions to the atmosphere.
     In assessing the secondary benefits of emission control systems, both
particulate control and flue gas desulfurization systems have been consi-
dered.  Although the quantity of relevant source test data quantifying
non-criteria pollutant collection efficiencies and emission factors is
meager, sufficient data exist with which to estimate average emissions.
Conclusions based on the existing emissions  data base are presented below
for particulate control and flue gas desulfurization systems.  Further
conclusions based on emission estimates are  also presented, in order to
provide a quantitative approximation of the secondary benefits of emission
controls.
SECONDARY BENEFITS OF PARTICULATE CONTROL
     •   Control systems which most efficiently collect fine particulates
         provide the greatest reduction in emissions of non-criteria
         pollutants, because these species tend to concentrate on fine
         parti cu-lates.
     s   For dry particulate control systems, volatile trace metals
         (particularly Hg, Sb, and Se), organics, and halogens are the
         least efficiently collected non-criteria pollutants, because
         these species are often present in the vapor phase.

-------
     §   Mechanical  collectors  exhibit poor removal  efficiencies  for
         trace elements.   Collection  efficiencies  for  individual
         trace elements generated from coal  combustion range  from
         3-9521.  Emission factors for trace elements with  low Maximum
         Acute Toxicity Effluent concentrations  (for health effects
         of air emissions, MATE less  than one  milligram per cubic
         meter) range from about 1-1000 pg/J heat  input.

     t   Electrostatic precipitators  are normally  able to  collect
         greater than 90% of any given trace element generated  from
         coal combustion'(with  the exception of  Hg,  Sb, Se, and the
         halogens).   Emission factors for trace  elements with low
         MATE concentrations range from about  0.1-100  pg/J.

     •   Electrostatic precipitation  has been  shown  to reduce primary
         sulfate emissions from coal  and. oil combustion by approxi-
         mately 50%.

     •   A combination of mechanical  collectors  and  an electrostatic
         precipitator has been  shown  to collect  2-71%  of the  benzo(a)-
         pyrene emitted from a  coal-fired utility  boiler.

     §   Trace element collection efficiencies for wet scrubbers  used
         on coal-fired utility  boilers approach  the  values for  electro-
         static precipitators for some elements.  Compared to mechanical
         collection, wet scrubbing results 1n  order  of magnitude
         decreases in emission  factors for at  least  half of the low-
         MATE compounds identified in coal fly ash.

  •   •••   Fabric filters installed on  coal-fired  combustion sources have
         been found to. have collection efficiencies  for Hg and  Se at least
         as high as for electrostatic precipitators. Under optimum condi-
         tions, a fabric filter has removed 100% of  the Hg 1n coal from  the
         flue gas. However, As  and Be collection efficiencies for fabric
         filters appear to be less than for electrostatic  precipitators.

SECONDARY BENEFITS OF FLUE GAS  DESULFURIZATION

     •   From 4-97% of low-MATE trace element  emissions were  collected
         by a limestone slurry  sulfur dioxide  scrubber operating  at a
         coal-fired utility.  With the exception of  As, removal effi-
         ciencies exceeded 65%.  Emission factors  after the control
         device ranged from less than 1-1000 pg/J  for  low-MATE  trace
         elements.

     •   The concentration of polycyclic organic matter was reduced
         from 18.7 micrograms per cubic meter  to below the detection
         limit by the use of the limestone slurry  scrubber.

    -•   Primary sulfate emissions can sometimes be  reduced by  wet
         scrubbing, however, under some operating  conditions, reentrain-
         ment of scrubber liquor can  occur to  reduce or negate  any
         emission reductions.

-------
     t   Fluoride emissions  were  reduced by  limestone  slurry scrubbing
         by more than 62%.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

     t   The discharge severity of low-MATE  trace elements from uncon-
         trolled combustion  of pulverized bituminous coal in dry-bottom
         boilers is approximately equal  to the discharge severity  of
         sulfur dioxide and  nitrogen oxides.  If control to the level
         of NSPS is practiced, the low-MATE  trace element discharge
         severity is only about 1% of that for sulfur  dioxide  plus
         nitrogen oxides.

     •   Control of emissions from pulverized bituminous coal-fired  dry-
         bottom boilers to the level of current NSPS affords a 99.5%
         reduction in the low-MATE trace element discharge severity,
         but only a 54% reduction in sulfur  dioxide plus nitrogen  oxides
         discharge severity.

-------
                                SECTION 3
                         NSPS FOR UTILITY BOILERS

     Standards of performance for new stationary sources of air pollution
have been promulgated by the EPA for utility boilers.  These new source
performance standards (NSPS) apply to very specific categories of utility
sources.  In this Section, these sources and their emission characteristics
are described briefly.  The regulations pertaining to these sources are
summarized and some of the specifics of their applicability are presented.
COMBUSTION PROCESSES
     According to estimates by the National Electric Reliability Council
(NERC), coal combustion accounted for 64.8% of the fuel energy consumed in
external combustion for electricity generation in the U.S. during 1978 (1).
Petroleum and natural gas accounted for 21.7% and 13.6%, respectively.
Since potentially hazardous emissions of non-criteria pollutants are gener-
ally greatest for coal (on a per joule basis), coal combustion represents
the largest source of these pollutants.                       •
     Emissions of two important classes of non-criteria pollutants - trace
elements and POM - are associated largely with particulate emissions.  Since
particulate emissions arise from ash in the fuel, emissions of trace elements
contained in ash are high from coal combustion, moderate from oil combustion,
and essentially nil for gas combustion.  Similarly, the relatively poor
combustion achieved with coal leads to higher POM emissions than from oil
or gas.
     The characteristics of emitted particulates from coal and oil combustion
differ  substantially.  These differences are important in analyzing the
effectiveness of control devices.  Coal combustion produces more particulate,
but oil combustion generates smaller fly ash particles which are not as
efficiently removed by control devices.  The amount of ash retained in the
boiler  as bottom ash versus the amount emitted as fly ash depends on firing
configuration.  For bituminous coal combustion (the major source of U.S.

-------
electric power), the average fraction of coal  ash collected as  bottom ash
(Eg) for different boiler types ranges from 0.2 for pulverized  dry-bottom
boilers, to 0.35 for pulverized wet-bottom boilers, to 0.865 for cyclone
boilers (2).  That is, of the total  ash in coal, 80% is emitted as fly ash
from pulverized dry-bottom boilers,  65% from pulverized wet-bottom boilers,
and 13.5% from cyclone boilers.  A more detailed characterization of com-
bustion source emissions, related specifically to trace element emissions,
is given in Appendices A and B.
APPLICABILITY OF NSPS
     The NSPS for utility boilers, which comprise 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Da,
are shown in Table 1.  These regulations were promulgated June 11, 1979
(44 FR 33580) and incorporate some changes from the Subpart Da regulations
as proposed September 19, 1978  (43 FR 42154).
     In general, the Subpart Da regulations apply to electric utility steam
generating units which:  (1) are capable of firing over 73 MW (250 million
Btu/hr) heat input of fossil fuel (alone or in combination.with any other
fuel), and (2) for which construction or modification is commenced after
September 18, 1978.  The facility of which the unit is a part must:  (1) be
physically connected to a utility power distribution system, and (2) be
constructed for the purpose of selling (a) greater than 25 MW electrical
output and (b) more than one-third of its potential electrical  output
        *
capacity .
Exclusions
     The following sources are excluded from all or part of the applicabili-
ty of the Subpart Da regulations:
     •   Any source modified to accommodate other (nonfossil) fuels
         shall not come under the applicability of Subpart Da.
     •   Any source modified from gas or liquid fuel to accommodate
         any other fuel (fossil or nonfossil) shall not come under
         the applicability of Subpart Da.
  Potential electrical output capacity is defined as 33% of the heat input
  rate.

-------
           TABLE 1.   STANDARDS  OF PERFORMANCE  FOR  ELECTRIC UTILITY
                        STEAM  GENERATORS  - 40  CFR PART 60
Affected Facility
Coal-fired boilers
(and coal-derived.
fuels)
Pollutant
Participate
Opacity
Emission Level
13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/million Btu)
20% (27% for 6 min/hr)
Monitoring Requirement
Ho requirement
Continuous
*«•
Oil or gas-fired
boilers
                      SO
N0x-rt
  Anthracite,
  Bi tumi nous,
  and Lignite**
  Subbituminous
  coal
  Coal-derived
  fuels  and
  shale  oil
-  >1ore_than 252
  coal refuse
Particulate
Opacity
SO,
                       NO  - oil
                       NO;;- gas
520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/million Btu)t
and 90% reduction*,  except  70%
reduction when emissions are
less than 260 ng/J (0.60 lb/
million Btu)*

260 ng/J (0.60 To/million Btu)
220 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million  Btu)

220 ng/J (0.50 Ib/million  Btu)


Exempt

13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/million Btu)
20% (27% for 6 min/hr)
340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/mill1on  Btu)
and 90% reduction* or
86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/million Btu)
(no reduction requirement)
130 ng/J (0.30 To/million  Btu)
86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/million Btu)
                                                       Continuous compliance
                                                                             Continuous compliance
No requirement
Continuous           «
Continuous compliance
                                                       Continuous  compliance**
                                                       Continuous  compliance
  Continuous monitors are used  to determine excess emissions only,  unless  noted as "continuous
  compliance".
* For SRC-1 an 85% reduction requirement applies (24-hour average).

* Percent reduction requirement does not apply to facilities firing 100% anthracite, resource
  recovery facilities firing less than 25% fossil fuel (90-day average), or  facilities located
  in noncontinental areas.
  30-day roll inn average, except where noted.

^Commercial demonstration permits  are available for:  SRC-1 (SOg)  1.20 Ib/million Btu and 80S
  reduction (24-hour); FBC ($02) 1.20 Ib/million Btu and 85% reduction; Coal  liquefaction (NOX)
  0.70 Ib/nrillion Btu.
**If more than 25% lignite which was mined in North Dakota, South Dakota,  or Montana is fired
  in a slag tap furnace, the standard is 0.80 Ib/million Btu.
                                               10

-------
     t   Resource recovery facilities which  derive  greater  than
         25% of their heat input (quarterly  basis)  from nonfossil
         fuels are exempt from the sulfur dioxide regulations
         contained in Subpart Da.

     a   Facilities burning only anthracite  coal are  exempt from
         the percent reduction sulfur dioxide requirements  of
         Subpart Da, but must meet the 520 ng/J emission limit.

Other Aspects of NSPS

     In addition to setting standards of performance, NSPS  regulations:

     •   Define "emergency conditions" of control system mal-
         function for the purpose of determining compliance during
         such malfunction, and

     t   Allow the granting of commercial demonstration permits,
         waiving some parts of the NSPS for  a period  of time to
         allow for an initial full scale demonstration of a plant
         utilizing new technology.
                                    11

-------
                                SECTION 4
                             ECS PERFORMANCE

     A review of the literature of air pollution control technology was
conducted to determine the effectiveness of conventional control devices
in reducing the emission of non-criteria pollutants from utility boilers.
Results of this review are presented as controlled and uncontrolled emission
factors (mass per unit heat input) for the source, and collection efficiency
of the control device.  Emission rates (mass per unit time) are not general-
ly reported, since they are dependent on source size, and can be accurately
estimated-from-emi-ssion-factors.  Non-criteria pollutants considered were
mainly trace elements, but also included organics (including POM), primary
sulfates (SOj and S0^~), and fluoride.
     Control .systems-considered in this evaluation included both particulate
control and FGD systems.  Particulate control devices included cyclones,
mechanical precipitators (multiclones), wet scrubbers, ESP's, and fabric
filters.  Because of limited data, only one type of FGD system was evaluated.
     The data base for non-criteria pollutant emissions from controlled
utility boilers is not extensive.  Only a limited number of studies have
focused on emissions of these pollutants, and of these studies, only a few
have reported on the performance of control devices.  The major sources of
data for this report are summarized in Appendix B.
     In this section actual source test data are presented on the perfor-
mance of particulate control and FGD systems in utility boiler applications.
Since the number of sources for which data are available is minimal, the
data presented-should be interpreted as being sound, but statistically in-
adequate.  In an attempt to lend statistical validity to these results,
supplementary data in Appendix A have been used to estimate emission factors
for trace element emissions from controlled utility boilers.  The calcula-
tions and assumptions used for these estimates are given in Appendix B.  The
statistical significance of the emission estimates are discussed in terms of
the adequacy or inadequacy of the data base.

                                    12

-------
     One further qualification should be made concerning  the  data presented
in this Section.  Because collection efficiency of a  control  device  is
dependent on inlet particle concentration,  ECS configuration  plays a part
in determining control device efficiency.   Thus,  the collection efficiency
for a wet scrubber operating on a boiler flue gas  stream  may  not equal  the
efficiency of the same device on a flue gas stream that has undergone
electrostatic precipitation.  Control device configuration may also  affect
enrichment factors (defined in Appendix A).  These facts  will  affect the
quality of emission estimates derived from any data presented in this report.
PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS
     Reduction of non-criteria pollutant emissions, especially toxic trace
elements, is enhanced if a particulate control system can efficiently remove
the small particles on which these pollutants are  concentrated.  Four con-
ventional technologies that have been used in the  utility industry to control
particulate emissions are discussed below.   A brief assessment of each
technology precedes the available source test data for that technology.  A
summary of novel devices is included in Appendix D.
Mechanical Collection
Technology Assessment—
     Cyclone separators are the most common mechanical collectors used by
utilities to mitigate particulate emissions.  Cyclones can efficiently
                                               *
remove particles of approximately 5 urn diameter  at dust  loadings of 2-200
   3             3
g/m  (1-100 gr/ft ) with only a moderate pressure  drop.   Because of  their
ability to handle high dust loadings, cyclones are best suited for use as
precleaning devices for other control processes.  However, their inability
to collect fine particles (<3 pm), which are associated with  adverse health
effects, is a major disadvantage.  Typical  mass collection efficiency for
these devices range from 20-30% for cyclone boilers (coal and oil),  40-60%
for pulverized coal-fired boilers, and 70-85% for stoker-fired boilers (3).
 Throughout this' report, particle size or diameter will  be in terms of the
 equivalent aerodynamic diameter.
                                    13

-------
High efficiency cyclones (mechanical precipitators,  multiclones)  offer
greater collection efficiency, but at higher pressure  drop.   Collection
efficiencies range from 30-40% for cyclone boilers,  65-75%  for pulverized
coal-fired boilers, and 85-95% for stoker-fired boilers  (3).
Trace Element Emissions—
     The ability of cyclone separators to remove trace elements has not been
well characterized.  Trace element collection efficiency for  a cyclone
separator was reported by Radian Corporation (4) for a unit installed on a
250-MW cyclone boiler firing North Dakota lignite.   Results of the study
are presented in Table 2.
     Emission factors for 18 trace elements from an  Eastern coal-fired
power plant ..are shown_in F-igure 1.  Data are from Cowherd et  al (5), for a
125-MW pulverized dry-bottom unit.  Emissions are reported  as picograms of
trace element per joule heat input in coal (pg/J) .
Wet Scrubbers
Technology Assessment—
     A common type of wet scrubber designed for particulate removal  is the
venturi.  This device can attain a total mass collection efficiency  of 99%
or more.  Collection efficiency for large particles is  high, but decreases
with decreasing particle size.  Energy input has a strong influence  on
performance.  At higher energy inputs (pressure drops), collection effi-
ciencies for fine particles increase.  Other types of wet scrubbers  include
cyclonic, spray tower, and packed bed designs.  Wet scrubbers are often
designed to remove not only particulates but sulfur dioxide as well.
Trace Element Emissions—
     The results of two studies on the impact of venturi  scrubbers on trace
element emissions from coal-fired power plants were reported by Radian (6).
Trace element collection efficiencies for these tests are presented  in Table 3.
 Throughout this report, numerical values reported for emission factors in
 pg/J  are approximately equal to hourly emissions in grams for a source
 with  potential electrical output capacity of 92 MW.

-------
TABLE  2.   ACTUAL TRACE ELEMENT COLLECTION
           EXHIBITED BY CYCLONE SEPARATOR*

Trace
Element
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Hg
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
V
Zn
Collection
Efficiency, %
66.0
75.3
31.4
95.4
84.3
54.8
44.0
45.1
27.7
56.8
25.3
54.2
3.2
61.0
66.8
24.9
18.6
30.0
7.4
33.1
36.2
39.4

  Source:  Data from Radian (4) for a
  coal-fired power plant with cyclone
  boiler firing North Dakota lignite.
                     15

-------
                  PRRTICULRTE  CONTROL  BY TWO  FOUR-BRNK. MULTICLONE UNITS
   10'
CL
LJ



U
_J



       As  Ba   Be   Ca   Cd   Cl    Co   Cr
                                     Cu    F   Hg

                                      CLEMENT
                                             Mn   N1   Pb  Sb   Sn   V   Zn
             Figure 1.  Trace element emissions from a pulverized  coal-fired boiler.

-------
     —3. " TRACE- ELEMENT "COLtfefiON-EFFieiENCIES EXHIBITED-BY-
           VENTURI SCRUBBERS - COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Element
Al
As
B
Ba
Be
Br
Ca
Cd
.. Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
, . Mo .
Na
Ni
. Pb
.. Sb
Se
Si
Sn
Sr
Th
U
V
Zn
Collection Efficiencies,
Venturi
99.5
96.3
NDt
99.5
ND
ND
99.7
ND
98.4
>99.8
96.1
ND
ND
>99.9
ND
>99.9
ND
99.9
99.9
98.4
99.9
ND
ND
95.5
85.0
ND
ND
99.8
>99.9
99.5
99.2
99.3
Percent
Venturi
99.7
92.1
93.6
99.0
99.2
ND
99.0
92.3
ND
96.9
88.9
99.3
98.0
99.2
12.6
- ND
ND
98.5
ND
52.8
ND
95.0
98.0
99.3
97.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
96.0
97.0
97.4

Source:  Radian (6).

ND - No data.
                               17

-------
      Figures  2  and  3  present data  from Radian  (4) and Ondov et al.  (7) on
 trace element emission  factors  for utilities firing western coal.   Wet
 scrubber data are from  four tests  on  boilers firing pulverized coal, and
 equipped with venturi scrubbers.   Data for cyclone firing, also  from Radian
 (4),  are from a single  test of  a cyclone boiler firing North  Dakota lignite,
 and equipped  with cyclone collectors.  MATE values used  in this  report to
 categorize non-criteria pollutants describe the concentration of contaminants
 in source emissions to  air that will  not evoke significant or irreversible
 harmful  responses in  humans, provided exposures are of limited duration.
                                                               V
 MATE'S are taken from del and and  Kingsbury (8) and reflect most recent
 changes  (September  1979) made to this document.
      Data for collection of non-criteria pollutants by a venturi scrubber
 operated.Jn FGD mode  are presented in the section on FGD systems and in
 Appendix C.
 Electrostatic Precipitators
 Technology Assessment---
      ESP's are  effective in controlling emissions of both large  and small
 particulates  from combustion sources. Overall collection efficiency of
 high-performance ESP's  can exceed  99.5%.  Studies have shown  ESP efficiency
 reaches a minimum for particle  diameters of approximately 0.5 vm, but still
 exceeds 90% for these particles.   In  addition  to high collection efficiency,
 another advantage to  ESP's is the  low pressure drop across the device.
      However, ESP's have the disadvantages of  high capital costs and varia-
 tions in efficiency with changing  fly ash resistivity and flue gas flow  rate.
 The latter problem  has  led to adoption of two  stage ESP  configurations.  For
 high  resistivity fly^ash typical of low-sulfur western coals, the efficiency
 of ESP's is reduced.  ESP's located downstream of the air heaters in the
 normal cold-side configuration  suffer most from this variation in resis-
tivity.   Newer  designs  have incorporated ESP's in a hot-side  configuration
 upstream of the air heaters, which allows operation of optimum fly ash
 resistivity.   However,  hot-side ESP's may encounter resistivity  problems
 when  the coal is-.low in sodium.
                                     18

-------

103

0.
z
!r 10
a
I

u

EMISSION FACTOR, P ICOGRflMSxJOU
L °o S-


y
X
/
y
/
/







•*
f
f\
f\
f
ff
f f
t\
ff
f f
f
t
f t
ff
f\
f .
.
$
%
\
'/


V
'/
^
.,

•r





f'f
f'f
f'
f'f
r[
»
rt
f
f'f
r'f
/
f[
f\






I
I
1
~
T
f _
,«,
/^
(**
,•[
/t
/|
/^
ff
'" As Ba Be Cd

ELEMENTS WITH MrVTE
f t-
f ,
^*
F*|
,»'<
f\
r*_i
,*,
Se Tl








1
V
/
/
V
y
1
t





r*[
f
f\
f\
f\
f\
f\
f _
r»|
f\
f i
f
f\
f\
,»_
f
•
f'f
f*,
f
r










\l

   Figure 2.  Trace element emission factors  for western coal-fired
              power plants using cyclones  and wet scrubbers for
              -emission controls (4,  7).
The four plants using scrubbers were all  fired  with pulverized coal; the
one plant using cyclones was cyclone fired.   Maximum acute toxicity
effluent (MATE) values from (8) are for source  emissions to air based on
health effects.
                                  19

-------
to* ^


»-
Q_ 	
FXISSION FACTOR, P ICOORAMS/'JOU.E HEAT IN
I .i • s * . ^
A


\
V,
4
•^
1
1






~
?7
f .
f ,
f .
f •
f 4
f •
f .
f .
f t
f 4
f ,
f •
f •
f •
f •
f .
t .
f 4
f .
f .








(






I
»

~




•*"
f f*
f\4
f'f








1






I
F






r™*
t* t
f\4
f'f4
f\>
f 1
f'f-
f'(







W
F

1
r^l

•£
*

e

EL




-
rn
f i
r •
r '
f


DC





1

NT


7.
%
i
C

S




'"
r.-
t •
f 4
f •
f -
f •
f •
r'f


HI1





L

[H




^
1

MRTE
.




X
1
>l
^

1*
^

9
^.1
M




""

EM
IU





H
iNT
.!(




1
n

Wf




~
•T1
r -
^ .
f •
f •
f 4
t '
f •


*f





H

CU




1
to

SIC K
„




N

€1
^

^
^
!
•

re*




-i
•
i
f i
/ .
f •
f •
f •
f •
f •
f .
f •
f •
f •
f •
f *
f t
f •
f •
f •
f •
f •
f *
f '
f •


1





S






1
n






f 4
f •
f ,
t 4
f •
f 4
f •



—




S


C
.S
S



I
r


YCI
CR
CR



~
yn
f 4
f 4
f .
f •
f .
f 4
f •
f ,
f 4
''f



1C*
UB.
LA*.




z


E
»
*



1
n


fO
m



-
•*•
ff'
f 4
f 1
f 4
f t
f'f



'
'










'~
^


    Figure 3.  Trace element emission factors for western coal-fired
               power plants using cyclones and wet scrubbers for
               emission controls (4,7).
The four plants using scrubbers were all fired with pulverized coal; the
one plant using cyclones was cyclone fired.  Maximum acute toxicity
effluent (MATE) values from (8) are for source emissions to air based on
health effects.
                                  20

-------
Trace Element Emissions—
     Selected data from four different studies  (4,  9,  10, H) Of Esp trace
element collection efficiency are presented  in  Table 4.  Variations in
specific elemental collection efficiencies for  the  four ESP's tested reflect
differences in design capacity, operating conditions,  and configuration.
In most cases, collection efficiencies are high,  and in good agreement with
data from the other sources tested.
     Mann et al (12) reported the results of a  study of trace element
emissions from two tangentially-fired utility boilers  firing western sub-
bituminous coal.  Although both coals were of the same type, they differed
in moisture and ash content and heating value.   In one plant, a hot-side ESP
operating at 370°C (700°F) was used for particulate control, and in the
other  plant, a cold-side ESP operating at 120°C (250°F) was used.  Total
 (particulate and  vapor)  trace element emissions after the ESP's were
reported  for 13 elements.  These data are shown in Figure 4.
     Trace element emission  factors for pulverized western coal-fired power
 plants are summarized  in Figure 5.  Only data for elements with low MATE
 values (<1 mg/m  ) are  shown.  Two  sets of data each'for hot-side (4, 12)
 and cold-side  (7, 12)  ESP  configurations were plotted to indicate the
 minimum (shaded  bar) and maximum  (dotted line) emission factor measured
 for each element.
      Lyon (13) has  summarized the  results of extensive studies on a coal-
 fired power plant in Tennessee,  performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
 Tests were conducted on a.290-MW cyclone boiler firing eastern bituminous
 coal, and equipped  with a  cold-side  ESP.  Figure 6  shows the results of two
 tests in which emission factors  were computed  after the control device.
 Note  that for selenium, analysis results  for Test 1 performed with two
 different methods yielded emission factors  of  0.8 and  10 pg/j.
 Organic Emissions—
       The ability of an ESP to collect compounds of  POM turns on its efficient
 removal of particulate on which the POM is  adsorbed.   However, POM emitted
 in  the  gas phase cannot be removed by ESP's.
                                     21

-------
 TABLE  4.   TRACE ELEMENT  COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES EXHIBITED BY
            ELECTROSTATIC  PRECIPITATORS - COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Element
AT
As
B
Ba
Be
Br
Ca
Cd
Cl
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Hg
K
Li
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ng
. Ni
P
Pb
Sb
Se
Si
Sn
Sr
Th
U
V
Zn
Total ash

Plant A*
99.2
99.9
94.7
99.9
97.6
NO
99.0
95.5
4.5
98.2
85.6
99.1
-92.3 -
98.6
0.0
ND
ND
99.0-
98.6
89.2
ND
78.5
ND
91.6
96.0
61.8
ND
ND
ND
ND
98.2
92.2
96.3
99.1
ESP Collection
Plant B*
NDf
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
98.8
ND
ND
99.8
ND
ND
99.6
ND
ND
ND
ND
100
ND
ND
99.7
ND
99.3
99.1
94.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
99.9
99.6
99.7
Efficiency,
Plant C*
99.6
97.5
ND
99.5
ND
ND
99.6
.96.7
ND
99.3
98.6
99.3
ND
99.3
ND
99.4
ND
100
99.1
ND
ND
99.4
ND
96.6
77.5
95.7
ND
ND
100
99.3
98.6
98.7
98.2
99.5
Percent
Plant D*
98.9
88.5
ND
96.0
99.1
. 99.8
98.7
91.2
ND
97.5
96.2
ND
ND
98.7
ND
99.0
ND
98.8
98.4
94.9
ND
ND
ND
' 94.5
92.3
92.3
ND
ND
ND
98.7
96.3
96.3
93.7
97.0

Plant A - 350 MW unit, Western coal,  hot-side ESP  (4);   Plant B  -
105 MW unit, Eastern coal  (9);  Plant C -  290 MW unit  (10);  Plant
D - 625 MW unit, cold-side ESP (11).

ND - No data.
                                22

-------
      MC I'K'LCll' I U-V'OKS
                                                                   OK' EMISSION  CONTROL
ro
CO
                                                                                       HOT-SI DC
                                                                                --€>•- COLD-SIDC
         a: in0  -
         u
Cd    Cr   Cu
                                                         Mn    Hg     Ni     Se    T1     U     Zn
Ash   As
                 Figure 4.  Trace element emissions from two western coal-fired power plants  (12).

-------
                          WESTERN CORL-FIRED  POWER PLRNTS FIRING PULVERIZED CORL
ro
-p»
J •

H-
Q.
Z
t-
cn

i Id2'

u
D
o
\
1 f\
^
EMISSION FRCTOR,PICOGRfih
i
\ o o
_• O — i
1 	 t . 	 1
_t - .'4 	 	 J












•
r * *


xx
XX
xx

XX
XX
xx
xx
xx
XX
XX
XX
XX
xx
XX
xx
xx
x /
x>
xx
XX
XX
xx
XX
XX
xx
xx
XX
XX
xx
XX
XX
xx
XX
XX
xx
XX
xx
XX
xx
XX
XX
xx

"»«— "••"j - L-II'J • - - -•







HOT

(MIN)
	 COLD (MIN)




	 HOT
(MRX)
	 COLD (MflX)
















f" "1




r" i"
F; i
2 i h.
X . J7x~,
^7x KZ pr?
xx xx p^xx^ PX>
•n^pii
XX
xx
XX
xx
xx
xx
XX
xx

i

r * "
i§

I
77
XX
xx
xx
XX
xx
XX
xx
xx
xx
xx
XX
XX
xx
xx
Xx


!
1
xx
XX
X/
XX
xx
xx
XX
xx
xx
XX
'X
xx
XX
xx
XX
XX
XX
XX
xx
XX
XX
XX



I











r J
XX








• -i
i !
1 t

I
I
T
xx
xx
XX
xx
XX
x>
XX
XX
XX
XX
Xx

^
7~7\
XX
XX
X /
x'x
xx
XX
XX
xx
XX
XX
Xx


"T
xx
xx
XX
xx
XX
Xx











X
fj


^x1
XX
xx
XX
xx
X>
xx
xx
xx
XX
xx
XX
XX
xx
xx
xx
XX
xx
xx
XX
XX
XX
Xx





               As      Ba     Be     Cd     Co     Cr     Cu     Hg

                                                    ELEMENT
N1
Sb
Se
               Figure 5.  Performance of hot- and cold-side electrostatic precipitators (4, 7, 12).

-------
                                CYCLONE  BOILER FIRING ERSTTRN BITUMINOUS CORL
             10'
ro
en
\-

\
i/i

en
iz
o
o
u
         u
         cr
         o
         CO
         U
            10
             -1
!
       1
                  '/
                  XX
                  / s
                       1

       v/.
                          //
                          f /
                f /
                //
                / /

                / /

   f /
  //
               As

                                         f /
                                         f /
                                         f /
           f /
                                       //
 \
f /
' /
' /

//
                  v/
                  //
                                                f /

                                                        /
                                       /v
                                                       f /
               //





               XX


               /x
                                 Y
                                  '
                                 v/
             Ba
Cd
                     Co
 ]
 I
f /

' /


//


/ /

/ /

/ /
                                                                                    TfST I

                                                                                    TfSt 2
                                                f/
                                                f /
                                                                              f /
//
 /

 /
 /

 x




'&

Cr
    Cu     N1

     CLfMCNT
Pb
    Sb
     Se
                                                                                          1

                                                                                            XX
                                                                                              /
                                                                                   //
XX
XX
                   Figure 6.   Performance of a cold-side ESP on a coal-fired power plant (13).

-------
      In his

 (PAH)  emissions,  Hangebrauck  (14) reported data for emissions from a utility

 boiler firing  pulverized coal.  Data for benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) emissions

 before and after  emission controls are presented in Table 5.  BaP collection
 efficiency ranged from  2-71%.  Table 6 presents BaP emission data from six

 coal -fired power  plants of different design, using mechanical collectors

 and/or ESP's.   Note  that nearly all controlled and uncontrolled BaP emis-
                                                                 3
 sions  reported in Tables 5 and 6 exceed the MATE value of 20 ng/m .  It

 should be noted,  however, that ESP's designed and built since the Hangefarauck

 study  exhibit  more efficient  parti cul ate removal, and thus are likely to
 collect more PAH  emissions than other units.

 Primary Sulfate Emissions-

      Data on the  effect of electrostatic precipitation on primary sulfate

 emissions (PSE) of sulfur trioxide/sulfuric acid and metallic sul fates are

 presented in Table 7 (15, 16, 17).  Two points are notable:

      •   Percent  reduction in particulate sulfates (MSCty) and total
          PSE- is generally higher for coal-fired units than for oil-
          fired units.   This is most likely due to the smaller mass
          median diameter of oil ~fly ash.
,  .    •   Percent reduction  in  SOa/HzSCty  is  less than for MS04 since
          the former are  present  in  flue  gas primarily as gases and
          liquid droplets.   Much  df  the reduction in acid aerosol is
          probably due to removal  of H.2S04 adsorbed on parti cul ates.

      Increases in SQj/HgSC^ emissions from  ESP-controlled systems have  been

 noted in the literature, and often  are accompanied by unexpected decreases

 in S02 across the ESP.  This observation was  noted by McCurley and DeAngelis

 (17) in reporting PSE data  on  a  coal-fired  industrial source equipped with

 a hot-side ESP.  They suggest  two potential conversion mechanisms of SOg to

 S03 based on the input of energy from the ESP to the combustion gases via

 the corona discharge (electrical  arcing  across the ESP electrodes).

      «   Arcing in a precipitator may cause localized "hot spots" in
          which the conversion  of S02 to  $03,  and/or S04 would occur
          quite rapidly,  as  the temperature  is a dominant rate control-
          ling factor. Since the gases are  already hot in comparison
          to those encountered  in an ESP  in  a  cold side configuration,
          it is plausible that  this  additional heat input could cause
          the observed results.
                                    26

-------
r\>





f
t
TABLE 5. CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS
FROM A PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT*
Test
Number

1
2
2
3
4t
4t
5t
5t
Sampling
Point*

B
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
M9/S

21 i
9.4
8.1
8.4
18
17
130
39
BaP Emission
3**
ng/Nm

no
50
42
42
130
120
930
270
Rates
ng/kg coal

1.3
0.57
0.51
0.49
1.5
1.4
12
3.3
BaP Emission Factor
pg/J heat input
i
0.046 r
0.021 j
0.018 1
t
j
0.021
0.053 •
0.052
0.42 1
0.12 1
          *   Data are from Reference  (14)  for  a  vertically-fired dry  bottom  furnace.
          t   Test numbers 4 and 5 were  conducted at  75%  load,  as opposed  to  Tests 1,2 and 3, which were
              conducted at full  load.                                    .
          *   B = sampling point before  ash collector; A  = sampling  point  after multiple cyclone and ESP.
          **  Nanograms BaP per  cubic  meter of  flue gas at 21°C, 1 atmosphere.  .

-------
                      TABLE  6.   CONTROLLED BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS  FROM  COAL-FIRED POWER  PLANTS  (14)
Unit Number*
1
1
1**
1**
Control
Methodt
MC
MC
MC
MC
+ ESP
+ ESP
+ ESP
* ESP
Fuel Rate
kg/s
. 16.4
16.9
12.1
11.6
ug/s
8.1
8.4
17
39
BaP Emission Rates
3* !
ng/Nm gg/kg coal
42
42
120
270
0.51
0.49
1.4
3.3
BaP Emission Factor
pg/J heat input
0.018
0.018
0.052
0.12
                                      ESP
                                      ESP
                               13.1
                               12.5
                            6.2
                            7.8
                      39
                      48
                       0.46
                       0.62
                             0.016
                             0.020
                                      MC + ESP
                               14.3
                           53
                     320
                       3.7
                             0.13
ro
CO
4tt
4
4tt
MC
MC
MC
2.2
2.7
2.3
9.0
1.7
1.4
330
 57
 46
4.2
0.64
0.62
0.13
0.021
0.020
                                      ESP
                                      ESP
                               14.9
                               16.8
                          170
                           39
                     730
                     170
                      11
                       2.4
                             0.35
                             0.072
6**
6**
6**
MC
MC
MC
2.3 . 1.6 ,
2.3 <1.0
2.3 <1.0
58
<36
<33
0.68
<0.42
<0.42
0.023
<0.014
<0.014
                      t
                      *
    Units  1,2,3 and 4 fired  pulverized coal;  units 5 and 6 fired crushed coal.  Unit 1  =  vertically-fired,
    dry bottom; Unit 2 =  front wall-fired, dry-bottom; Unit 3 » tangentially-fired, dry bottom; Unit 4 =
    opposed-downward-inclined burners, wet bottom; Unit 5 • eyelone-fired, wet bottom;  Unit 6 = spreader
    stoker, travelling grate.  All units operated at 100X load unless otherwise noted.
    MC • multiple cyclone; ESP » electrostatic  preclpitator
    Nanograms BaP per cubic  meter of flue gas at 21°C, 1 atmosphere.
                      **  75* load
                      tt  Fly ash reclrculated.

-------
       TABLE 7.  EFFECT OF ELECTROSTATIC  PRECIPITATOR  (ESP) ON  PSE
                 FROM COMBUSTION SOURCES
                               Percent Reduction  1n  Emissions
       System                  S03/H2S^4    RsT^    Total  PSE     Reference

Oil-fired utility.  Cold
side ESP.  MgO addition and         3        61          46           15
recirculation of ash from
ESP.
Coal -fired utility.                 -                   58           16
Coal-fired utility.  Cold          on        QQ                       -n
side ESP.                          20        "           '           17
     •   Corona discharges also have been shown to produce ozone (03)
         which could-readily react with S02 to yield SOs and 02-  This
         second mechanism has been postulated previously to explain
         the apparent conversion of N2 to NO in an ESP.
Fabric Filters
Technology Assessment—-
     The greatest advantage of fabric filters (baghouses) is their ability
to efficiently remove submicron particles regardless of changes in coal ash
properties.  Disadvantages lie in the temperature and chemical limitations
of fabric materials.  Pressure drop is usually higher than for ESP's, but
energy consumption is about equivalent to an ESP operating at high efficiency
on high resistivity ash.
     Bradway and Cass (18) reported on extensive studies of a baghouse
installation on a small coal-fired utility.  In 22 tests (half at normal
and  half at abnormal operating conditions), the average total particulate
mass collection efficiency of the baghouse was 99.84% at an outlet loading
             q
of 0.0039 g/m   (0.0017 gr/dscf).  Collection efficiency for submicron
particles was 99% at 0.1 pro, 99% at 0.5 ym, and above 99% at 1.0 pro.  No
statistical difference in performance was found between normal and abnormal
operating conditions.

                                   29

-------
Trace Element Emissions—
     Yeh et al (19) reported that a baghouse was superior to an ESP in  re-
ducing toxic trace element emissions from a coal-fired combustion source.
Under average conditions, the percent of trace elements entering in the coal
which was not collected in the boiler (as bottom ash) or the baghouse was 9*
for As, 23% for Be, 45% for Cd, and 37% for Pb.  Under optimum conditions,
0-18% of the Hg and 9-13% of the Se in the entering coal were emitted.   Ensor
(20) reported that greater than 99.9% removal of Al, Ca, Cu, Fe, Pb, Ni, Si,
U, and Zn were achieved by a baghouse installed in a coal-fired utility. Trace
                                                               •i
element removal data from an EPRI study (RP 1130-1) have not yet been published.
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION SYSTEMS
     No comprehensive studies of non-criteria pollutant emissions from  FGD
systercs—insta-l-led-on-utll-ity-boilers have been published in the literature.
Data presented in this section and in Appendix C are derived from studies
performed under the Emissions Assessment of Conventional Combustion Systems
(EACCS) program.
     Leavitt et al (21) studied the performance of a limestone slurry SO-
scrubber installed on a bituminous coal-fired cyclone boiler at a utility
in Kansas.  The unit was rated at 874 MW (gross) electrical output.  The
fuel fired was low grade subbituminous coal of local origin, containing  "   *  '
approximately 25% ash and 52-6% sulfur with a heating value of 20.9 to  22.6
GJ/kg.  The FGD unit was a two-stage venturi-absorber, designed for simul-
taneous S02 and particulate removal.
     Trace element collection efficiencies for the FGD unit during a single
test are presented in Table 8.  An overall removal efficiency of 94% was
obtained for these trace elements.  Figure 7 shows the relationship between
controlled and uncontrolled trace metal emission factors.
     Organic emissions were also characterized before and after the FGD
unit.  Removal efficiency averaged 14% for C,-Cg organics, 72% for Cy-C-ig
organics, and 63% for >C,g organics.  Specific organic compounds identified
at the scrubber inlet included aliphatic hydrocarbons, substituted benzenes,
ethylbenzaldehyde, dimethy!benzaldehyde, 2,6-pereriden-dione-4-one, 2,6-
dimethyl-2,5-heptadion-4-one, and the methyl ester of a long chain acid.
These organics were present at levels of 0.2 to 20 ug/m  .  With the exception

                                    30

-------
TABLE 8.   TRACE ELEMENT COLLECTION EFFICIENCY EXHIBITED
           BY FGD SYSTEM - COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT*
Trace Element                      Removal  Efficiency, %
Al
As
Be.
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
N1
Pb
Sb
Se
Sr
V
Zn
97.7
4.08
91.4 	
95.9
88.6
93.2
90.8 \
84.2
96.8
94.0
78.6
97.3
73.6
65.4
76.2
91.7
89.4
80.0

  Data from Leavitt (21), for a two stage venturi-
  absorber S02 scrubber installed on a cyclone boiler
  firing Eastern bituminous coal and rated at 874 MW
  (gross).
                          31

-------
ro
CORL-r rR[;f> FOWCR H RNT r fR !UO >-;!G)i-<;,Ul ! i.!f-. [:RjT['fvJ fit TUMINOUf, CORL
10'' -
1—
-}
C:~
~r *
i-4
a1 'd" •
i r
1'
u-
7j
o
~>
\ ' 0 " •
V
a:
a
u
u—
C.
%
L<
O
a:
L.
b 'C'
1- 4
LI
LO
»- 4
v "•
LJ





	 	 f r/-. • •»• -\
/" r , ' ' » I./ *.. i J
/ : : ' W! "!•: ' C."|/5
^ r/i ^
£ ^ ^.-
' / */ • ; " • v/
^ 1 ^ P : 1
x ?x fyl yi ry
/
/
/
''/
\
'/
/
/,
/
y
y
/
/
n • K
;' ^
' 4 K y
' - rTT*"1 ^
^ L
i||
•' < X
'' i X
' J /
' ^
;j x;
X J '-/^
'A S/
'• V,
\ i
' ?
;j ^
'« X
•• J .. -, /
/ f y I ^r

• 1 '/^ ^
^ 1 *-^ ^x
•] ^j //
•A
'•] y fy y
•;i 1
1
'•l f
^
t /,
• j y,
' < X
* i ^.
- j /
-;; ^
** j ./^
''-1 ^
— . i/*/ ₯}*/''.'
% t $ JO
' •*/ X > X y. »-y» v,
' ' I"T/I X* r / ' ' X* " /^ X
'J f/1 '^ ^^ ^ ^ t^
'j Y Y'} 7' V)( Yf\ YX 7
'\ */ s/'. 6r ''/ //•'. S/-T* s/
' J ^ y« /s Y *' f \ /**' */''** */
* Xy* */ ' */ f * *' /

' A */ * s '' */ y * f
''<''• xT' yi' y''' '' x'' ^' y^
'i x ' x- xt-' />.., "/ • X' x
' x * x' *" ^ ' _/T ' * s •' * / f *
''A '/'A '/'.• ry/i r/l'-i r/'.'-l v '• iv
;i ^
/ • *
',\ W V/ •"/
•:! L 0 0 ^ ^
' •! X -N X/ (-y // . X
^ y-i yj ix "/I y
/' y- K/J yi 'As
' V - !>4r. iyj '/., V
/ y'/ x''1 yj y -^ v
/ / - y '- ' yi y • ' v
' .v . y •.-. •VL. y .' v
. y. V/. Vx] y-' V
' y ' S^ -: i ^ ' ''' ' x^

•' 7 ' ~ / ' i 7 ' 7 ''> x/
• X- X/j X- X'< X
;] ^; x,;j xj; ^,;| y:
/> ' //' \ Sjf //•''( ^/












k
»



j
t
'
'
'


f
/
/_
Al As Be* Ca Cd Co Cr Cu Hg Mn Ni Pb Sb Se Sr V Zn
f •• :•>'/•>' r
l.t « "U. « 1
*
Actual emission measured at 0.67 pg/J.











































                             Figure 7.   Effect of FGD  system on  trace element emissions.

-------
of ethylbenzaldehyde, substituted benzenes,  and aliphatic  hydrocarbons,
none of the other orgam'cs were identified at the  scrubber outlet.  Several
polycyclic organics were also identified at the scrubber inlet,  at  concen-
trations ranging from <0.03 to 9 yg/m  (several orders  of  magnitude less
than their MATE values).* They included naphthalene,  substituted naphtha-
lenes, biphenyl, and substituted biphenyls.   None  of  these compounds  of POM
were identified at the scrubber outlet.
     Primary sulfate emissions were substantially  reduced  by  the FGD  unit.
Removal efficiencies, for S03 and S0^~ are shown for two tests in Table 9.
     Fluoride emissions were also measured at the  scrubber inlet and
outlet.  Removal efficiency for fluoride was greater  than  62-84*, as  shown
in Table 10.
     Other studies have focused specifically on the ability of wet  SOg
scrubbers to remove primary sulfates.  Homolya and Cheney  (22) reported
results of an extended series of measurements at a coal-fired utility boiler,
equipped with~a-wat-limestone FGD unit.  Concurrent inlet  and outlet  samples
were taken across the FGD and analyzed for total sulfate.   In 10 of 32
measurements, outlet sulfate concentrations exceeded  those at the inlet,
probably due to scrubber liquor entrainment.  Of the  remaining 22 measure-
ments, sulfate removal ranged from 5% to'56%, and  averaged 25%.   About 85%
of the emitted sulfate consisted of free H2S04> which was  in  the gas  phase
prior to scrubbing, but was converted to aerosol by penetrating  the slurry
and demisters (both maintained below the acid dewpoint).  In  another  study
at.a coal-fired power plant, Delumyea and Zee (23) tested  the performance of
an FGD system consisting of turbulent contact absorber  (TCA)  modules  utilizing
thiosorbic lime, installed downstream of a cold-side  ESP.   They  found in a
series of ten measurements that the sulfate removal efficiency of the TCA
ranged from 27% to 52%, with an average removal efficiency of 37%.  In one
case (not included in calculating average removal  efficiency) outlet  sulfate
concentration exceeded inlet sulfate concentration.
k                                               O
 Total concentration of POM measured = 18.7 vg/m .  Detection  limit was  about
 0.03
                                    33

-------
         TABLE 9.   REDUCTION OF  S03 AMD S04= EMISSIONS
                   BY  F6D  SYSTEM DURING COAL FIRING (21)

Sulfur
Compound
<
so/t
Emission
Inlet
99.4
53.7
15.5
18.2
Factor, nq/J
Outlet
17.2
1.9
5.1
2.4
Removal
Efficiency,
Percent
82.7
96.5
67.1
86.8
Mole % of Total
Sulfur Species
in Flue Gas
2.1
1.7
0.3
0.5

Level 2.
f Level 1 .








    TABLE 10.  REDUCTION OF FLUORIDE EMISSIONS BY FGD SYSTEM
               DURING COAL FIRING (21)*
Fluoride Emission Factor.  ng/J
Inlet'Outlet
                      Removal  Efficiency,
0.37

0.9
<0.14

<0.14
>62

>84
  Level 1.
                               34

-------
                               REFERENCES
 1.    8th  Annual  Review of  Overall Reliability and Adequacy of the North
      American  Bulk  Power Systems.  National Electric Reliability Council.
      Princeton,  N.J.,  August  1978.

 2.    Shih,  C.  et al.   Emissions Assessment of Conventional Stationary
      Combustion  Systems.   Volume  III  Electricity Generation External
      Combustion  Sources.   EPA-600/7-79-029d, TRW Incorporated, October
      1979.  (draft)

 3.    Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors.  Third Edition,
      including Supplements 1-7.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Publication No. AP-42, August 1977.

 4.    Radian Corporation.   Coal-Fired  Power Plant Trace  Element Study,
      A Three Station Comparison.  Volumes I-IV.  PB-257 293, Austin,
      Texas, 1975,

 5.    Cowherd,-.C.. Jr.,  et al.   Hazardous Emission Characterization of
      Utility Boilers.   Midwest Research Institute,  Kansas City, Missouri,
      1975.

,6.    Edwards,  L.O., et al.  Trace Metals  and  Stationary Conventional
      Combustion  Sources.  Radian  Corporation,  Austin,  Texas,  March  1979.
      (draft).

 7.   Ondoy, J.M., R.C. Ragaini, and A.H.  Biermann.   Comparisons  of
      Particulate Emissions from a Wet Scrubber and Electrostatic
      Precipitator at a Coal-Fired Power Plant.  American Chemical
      Society  Division of Environmental  Chemistry Preprint,  16(2):200-203,
    -  1976.

 8.   Cleland, J.G. and G.L. Kingsbury.   Multimedia Environmental  Goals
      for Environmental Assessment.   Volumes I and II  plus September 1979
      update.  EPA-600/7-77-136, U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, N.C.,  November 1977.

 9.   Lee,  R.E.  Jr., et al.  Concentration and Size of Trace Metal  Emissions
      From  a Power Plant, a Steel  Plant, and a Cotton  Gin.  Environmental
      Science  and Technology, 9(7):643-647,  1975.

 10.   Lyon,  W.S. and J.F. Emery.  Neutron Activation Analysis Applied to
      the Study  of Elements Entering and Leaving a Coal-Fired Steam Plant.
      International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry,
      4(2):125-133, 1975.
                                    35

-------
11.   Ondov,  J.M.,  et  al.   Elemental  Emissions  from Coal-Fired Power Plant:
      Comparison of a  Venturi  Wet  Scrubber System with a Cold-Side Electro-
      static  Precipitator.   UCRL-80110,  Lawrence Livermore Laboratory,
      Livermore, California, 1977.

12.   Mann, R.M., et al.  Trace Element  Study of Fly Ash Emissions from Two
      Coal-Fired Steam Plants  Equipped with  Hot-Side and. Cold-Side Electro-
      static  Precipitators  for Particulate Removal.  EPA-908/4-78-008,
      Radian  Corporation, Austin,  Texas, 1978.

13.   Lyon, W.S.  Trace Element Measurements at the Coal-Fired Steam Plant.
      CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio,  1977.

14.   Hangebrauck,  R.P.,  D.J.  von  Lehmden, and  J.E. Meeker.  Sources of
      Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in  the Atmosphere.  Public Health Service,
      U.S. Department  of Health, Education,  and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio,
      1967.  44 pp.

15.-  Dietz,  R.-N.,-R.F.--Wieser, and L. Newman.  Operating Parameters Affect-
      ing Sulfate Emissions from an "Oil-Fired Power Unit.  In Workshop
      Proceedings on Primary Sulfate Emissions  from Combustion Sources,
      Volume  II.  EPA-600/9-78-020b,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  N.C., August 1978.  pp. 239-270.

16.   Homolya, J.6., H.M. Barnes,  and C.R. Fortune.  A Characterization of
      the Gaseous Sulfur Emissions from  Coal- and Oil-Fired  Boilers.  In:
      Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Energy and the Environ-
      ment.  Cincinnati,  Ohio, October 1976.

17.   McCurley, W.R. and D.G.  De Angelis.  Measurements of Sulfur Oxides
      from Coal-Fired  Utility and  Industrial Boilers.  In: Workshop Pro-
      ceedings on Primary Sulfate  Emissions  from Combustion  Sources,
      Volume  II.  EPA-600/9-78-020b,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      Research Triangle Park,  N.C., August 1978.  pp. 67-85.

18.   Bradway, R.M. and'R.W. Cass.  Fractional  Efficiency of a Utility
      Boiler Baghouse, Nucla Generating  Plant.  PB-246 641,  GCA Corpora-
      tion, Bedford, Massachusettes,  August  1975.  148 pp.

19.   Yeh, J.T., et-al.  Removal of Toxic Trace Elements from Coal Combus-
      tion Effluent Gas.   PERC/R1-76/5,  U.S. Energy Research and Develop-
      ment Administration,  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1976.   21 pp.

20.   Ensor,  D.S., R.G. Hooper, and R.W. Scheck.  Determination of the
      Fractional Efficiency, Opacity Characteristics, Engineering and
      Economic Aspects of a Fabric Filter Operating on a Utility Boiler.
      EPRI/FP-297, PB-261  472, Metrology Research Incorporated, Altadena,
      California, 1976.  206 pp.

21.   Leavitt, C., Et  al.  Environmental Assessment of Coal- and Oil-Firing
      in Controlled Utility Boilers.  TRW Incorporated, Redondo Beach,
      California, March 1979 (draft).
                                    36

-------
22.  Homolya, J.B.  and J.L.  Cheney.   A Study  of  Primary  Sulfate Emissions
     from a Coal-fired Boiler with FGD.   Journal  of  the  Air  Pollution  Control
     Association, 29(9):   1000-1004,  September 1979.

23.  Delumyea, R.D. and C.A.  Zee.   CCEA—Sulfates Sampling and  Analysis  on
     Utility FGD Unit.  Prepared by TRW,  Inc. under  EPA  Contract No. 68-02-
     2613, Task 25, for U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, N.C.   April  1980.

24.  Tyndall, M.F., et al.  Environmental Assessment for Residual Oil
     Utilization - Second Annual Report.   EPA-600/7-78-175,  Catalytic
     Incorporated, September 1978.

25.  Klein,  D.H., et al.  Pathway of Thirty-Seven Trace  Elements Through
     Coal-Fired Power, PI ant.  Environmental Science  and  Technology,
     9(10):  973-979, 1975.

26.  Schrag, M.P., editor.  Fine Particle Emissions  Information System
     Users Guide.  EPA-600/8-78-006,  Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
     City, Missouri, June 1978.

27.  Shannon, L.O. and P.G. Gordon.  Particulate Pollutant System Study.
     Volume  II - Fine Particulate Emissions.   Midwest Research Institute,
     Kansas  City, Missouri, August 1971.

28.  Weast,  T.E., et al.  Fine Particulate Emission  Inventory and Control
     Survey.  EPA-450/3-74-040, PB-234 156, Midwest  Research Institute,
     Kansas  City, Missouri, January 1974.

29.  Cato, G.A., L.J. Muz to t, and R.E. Hall.  Influence of Combustion
     Modifications on Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers.  In:.
     Proceedings of the Stationary Source Combustion Symposium, Volume
     III.  EPA-600/2-76-152c, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     June 1976.                 ,

30.  Crawford, A.R., et al.  The Effects  of Combustion Modification on
     Pollutants and Equipment Performance of Power Generation Equipment.
     In: Proceedings of the Stationary Source Combustion Symposium,
     Volume  III.   EPA-600/2-76-152c,  June 1976.

31.  Bolton, N.E., et al.  Trace Element Measurements At the Coal-Fired
     Allen Steam Plant.  NSF-EP-43, Oak Ridge National  Laboratory, Oak
     Ridge,  Tennessee, March 1973.

32.  Kaakinen, J.W., et al.  Trace Element Behavior in Coal-Fired Power
     Plants.  Environmental Science and Technology,  9(9):862-869, 1975.

33.  Hillenbrand,  L.J., R.B. Engdahl, and R.E.  Barrett..  Chemical
     Composition of Particulate Air Pollutants from Fossil-Fuel Combustion
     Sources.  "EPA-R2-73-216.  Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus,
     Ohio, March 1973.
                                    37

-------
34.   Gorden,  G.E.,  et al.  Study of the Emissions from Major Air Pollution
      Sources  and Their Atmospheric Interactions.  University of Maryland,
      College  Park,  Maryland, Report for the period November 1, 1972 to
      October  31, 1974.

35.   Curtis*  K.E.   Trace  Element Emissions from the Coal-Fired Generating
      Stations of Ontario  Hydro.  Report No. 77-156-K, Ontario Hydro
      Research Division, April  1977.

36.   Ragaini, R.C.  and J.M.  Ondov.  Trace Contaminants from Coal-Fired
      Power Plants.   UCRL-76794, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Liver-more,
      California, September 1975.                              -

37.   Ray, S.S. and  F.G.  Parker.   Characterization of Ash from Coal-Fired
      Power Plants.   PB-265 374, Tennessee Valley Authority Power Research
      Staff, Chattanooga,  Tennessee, January 1977.

38.  -Oglesby, S. Jr.-and-D.  Teixeira.  A Survey of Technical  Information
      Related to Fine-Particle  Control.  RP 259, Southern Research Insti-
      tute, April 1975.

39.   Leavitt, C.,  et al.   Environmental Assessment of Coal- and Oil-Firing
      in a Control-led..Indus trial  Boiler, Volume  III.  EPA-600/7-78-164c,
      TRW Incorporated,  Redondo Beach,  California, August 1978.

40.   Drehmel, D.C.   Fine Particle Control Technology: Conventional  and
      Novel Devices.  Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
      27{2):138-140, 1977.

41.   Abbott, J.H.  and D.L. Harmon.  Concepts  in Fine Particulate Control
      in the Metallurgical Industry.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
      Research Triangle Park, N.C.  May 1979.   34 pp.

42.   Knight, J.H.   The Use of Nahcolite  for Removal of  Sulfur Dioxide
      and Nitrogen  Oxides from Flue Gas.   Superior Oil Company Oil Shale
      Department, October 1977.

43.   Hangebrauck,  R.P.,  D.A. Denny, and  W.G.  Tucker: Nomenclature for
      Environmental Assessment  Projects.   U.S. Environmental Protection
      Agency, Research Triangle Park,  N.C., August 1979.  7 pp.
                                     38

-------
                               APPENDIX A
                            BACKGROUND DATA

     In this Appendix, data will  be presented which are essential to a
detailed examination of non-criteria pollutant emissions from utility
boilers.  Particular attention is paid to trace elements in coal as a
background for emission estimates.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
     Both current and future fuel  consumption data  are available from
estimates provided by the National Electric Reliability Council  (NERC).
For 1978,'NERC (1) estimated total fuel  consumption of 120.4 Tg of western
bituminous coal (2,698 PJ), 316.6 Tg of eastern bituminous and anthracite
coal (8,280 PJ), 31.1 Tg of lignite coal (477 PJ),  94.1 x 106 m3 of resi-
dual oil* (3,830 PJ),.and 62.9 x 109 m3 of natural  gas (2,399 PJ) for
electricity generation external combustion sources.
     According to NERC, coal combustion for electric power generation
consumed 11,455 PJ of energy in 1978.  By far, the  largest portion of this
was bituminous coal, which accounted for 95.6% of the total.  Anthracite
and lignite accounted for the remaining 0.27% and 4.16%, respectively.  In
the bituminous category, consumption was dominated  by pulverized dry-bottom
boilers, which consumed 8,370 PJ of the total 10,949 PJ of bituminous coal
fired.  Pulverized wet bottom boilers and cyclone boilers consumed 1,266 PJ
and 1,217 PJ, respectively.  The remaining 94 PJ was consumed in stoker-
fired units.
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL AND OIL
     In order to estimate emissions from coal firing, the fuel must be
fully characterized.  Essential information includes heating value (gross),
sulfur and ash content (as-fired), and trace element constituents.
 Includes 2.9% distillate oil.
                                    39

-------
     Emission factor estimates in this report will be based on a heating
value for bituminous coal of 25,586 J/g (11,000 Btu/lb).  National average
sulfur and ash contents used were 1.92% sulfur and 14.09% ash.
     Table A-l is a summary of the trace element characteristics of various
U.S. coals by region.  A large number of references contain coal trace
element data.  Notable among these is the computerized National Coal Resources
Data System, which provides published coal analyses from both the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Bureau of Mines.  Average trace element
concentrations are given in Table A-l for eastern bituminous coal, western
bituminous coal, bituminous coal (combined eastern and western bituminous
coal, in proportion to their consumption by electric utilities), North Dakota '
lignite, Texas lignite, and anthracite.  The average values for eastern
bituminous coal-,-western bituminous coal, and North Dakota lignite are
weighted averages in accord with annual coal production by county.  The
average values for Texas lignite and anthracite are averages of the trace
element data provided by USGS and unweighted by county.
     The data base on the trace element content of residual oil is limited.
The most comprehensive data base is the one developed by Tyndall et al (24),
for which a composite oil analysis based on a weighted average of U.S.
crudes (domestic and imported) was used to characterize the trace element
content of residual oil feedstock.  Average trace element concentrations of
residual oil from this data base are presented in Table A-2.  Variations
in these average concentrations are not known.  An average heating value of
43,760 J/g (146,000 Btu/gal) is assumed for residual oil.
BEHAVIOR OF TRACE METALS DURING COMBUSTION
     Emissions of trace elements from oil-fired utility boilers can generally
be computed by assuming that all trace elements present in the oil are
emitted through.the stack .  Based on this assumption and the data in Table
A-2, emissions of Ni, V, Be, Pb, Co, Cu, and P from oil combustion are of
-environmental concern.
  Using  this  assumption  an estimated emission factor can be computed for
  each trace  element  in  Table A-2.  The estimated emission factor EFj for
  element  i with  concentration C-j in oil is EF-j (ng/J) = 22.86 x C^ (ppm).

                                    40

-------
                TABLE A-1.   AVERAGE  TRACE ELEMENT  CONCENTRATIONS  IN  COAL
of tk«

tl1.tr <»«>
«l>nU«(«l|

toll (M
•oron (B)
Itrlw (M)
I«rr1lluri (8t)
81
Crtlut (tr)
furoplw ([»)
flwrtdt (F)
Inn (Ft)
Cjllltfi (&•)
bdolfnlw (Cd)
fonwnlvl (£«)
Hifrlw (HI)
Htrcur, (Kg)
HoUltw (Ho)
lodlnt (1)
India. (1*1
IrldltM (I')
fount* (()
Unlk.nlui (1.)
Itlklui (H)
Lgttlli* (Iv)

0.14
11.02]
11.4
O.I
41.9
87.7
1.00
• I.9S
10.1
1.476
0.42
16.2
1.064
8 79
11.7
2.34
1S.2
1 4j
O.SS
0.51
01 1
10.621
4,21
1.44
4.2*
1.09
0.21
0.20
I.4S
0.20
0.20
1,662
10.1
11.2
0.14
Hf»». torn
.00
267
1.8
.10
1.2
6.9
.0?
.00
i.i
1S2
.01
1.00
92
.17
7.0
.08
1.0
.04
.11
.01
7.4
1?)
.31
.41
.17
.0?
.01
.OS
.74
.05
.70
109
.ss

!oi
»*

17
M
69
4
75
64
78
1)
29
1*
18
24
10
77
80
2)
19
21
f
74
S7
)?
69
10
68
2)
45
9
19
II

JJ
64
49
70
Meiltr
TtlT '
W»

0.18
15.916
1.44
0.10
4S.Q
IDS
0.86
0.42
4.87
l».7*2
1.28
20.2
294
4.14
11.8
0.74
14.8
1.18
0.51
f.99
141
8.858
1.81
0.15
7.47
0.82
0.099
0.18
0.64
0.17
0.70
1,111
7.06
IS.O
0.06*
Dr«l*tlo»
of Ikt
Ht«n, pp«
.12
48S
.71
Mt
1.1
27
.17
.00
.76
1.787
.01
7.9
19
.48
.78
.17

!o?
.00
.71
4.1
266
.21
.00
.14
.11
.00
.00
.00
.01
M
47
.4?
7.1
.00
?.
'Tei«'-
Orvl'tto* *
ol tkt
Horth fahou llyiUt '_ 1t»«> llonltt . _ hi
"•(»'«" ~" Jti'ndVrJ ' 'Kin ~5t«ndjr3 'STe'"
tl" Oevlttlon » pp> 0»UIIon * cp»
Ol tkt Of tkt
: Hri*. (*•
19
29
41
2
SB
40
SO
4
18
29
2?
17
18
48
SO
11
S7
14
4
1*
M
79
48
'4
42
14
M
"4
14
10
2
28
41
2*
12
O.S8
12.170
8.62
0.10
S6.S
148
0.46
LSI
8 61
7.101
0.66
18.?
6S2
7.S7
2S.9
1.9?
15.1
1.4S
O.S4
7 79
107
10.1)7
4.10
I.2S
1 7*
lioi
0.18
0.20
1.2)
0.18
0.20
1.510
9.28
?».?
0.17
.00
264
1.8
.00
t.i
8.9
.07
.00
I.I
ISI
.01
.99
91
.17
7.0
.08
1.0
.08
.10
.01
?.*
171
.11
.47
.1?
.06
.01
.OS
.78
.05
.00
108
.SS
9.S
.01
S6
6)
12$
8
I7S
104
126
17
47
61
45
41
48
120
1)0
17
111
IS
11
4)
86
6*
111
14
110
17
75
11
1)
21
8
61
10S
7?
12
0.049
4.416
S.24
0.06?
64.7
soi
0.11
0.40
0.77
11.707
0.35
1).)
63.S
1.14
7.S?
1.7)
11.1
O.SO
O.U
O.I?
77.$
4.749
1.8?
0.11
0.7*
0.74
0.044
0.14
0.36
0.072
0.062
MS
1.74
l.M
0.049
Hem. pp>
0.01
S??
0.19
0.00
10
8*
0.08
0.7)
0.4?
i./m
0.18
S.6
)?
0.09
1.7
0.8*
0.04
0.06
0.0)
o.os
*.4
S66
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.1?
0.0?
o.o?
0.19
0.00
0.00
171
0.84
7.2
0.01

10 ' 0.18
9 M.I36
7 ' 1.0
7 ' •- '
10 714
10 124
10 1.14
1 " ,
7




1
1

1





1







9.447
0.26
.44
<240
7.9
20.4 .
..
24. S

..
..
4*. 9 ,
4.140'
Ml

3.54
».
Q.22
..
• -.
.»
7
« 512
10 20.9
1 11.7
1
***•*• ppo
0.01
BU
o.i
..
U
i)
0.11

.*
S20
0.01

»•
o.s
I.S

1.8

..
*•
^ }
751
O.U
.•
0.95
.«
0.01
.•
.«
.,
,.
H
1.8
1.7
••

4
2?
24
^.
29
2?
?»

._
2?
2*
24
24
74
79

29

,. '
.•
18
21
I*

1)

24
..
.«
..
..
2?
28
24
••

O.I)
20.172
1.65
-0.87
8.84
M.6
1.)?
0.15
..
1.04?
0.19
46.9
404
9.11
IS.*

10'*
2 02
1.21
0.88
81. S
4,161
S.5»
I.I?
1.49
••102
O.U
O.M

<0.4I
-0.lt
2.118
20.*
20.2
• 1.19
te«l
SI
2

S)
19
3)

SO
5)
..
S)
19
22
12

S)
S)
19
2?
so
S)
8
,.,
50
50
5)
4«
5)
50
                                                      . ConU.unJ .
• tl IW m«t*r of 5tt> of o>U.  A i»t ol i)«tf wjr r«prfl m «nr«o* ol * muter of 4«U poloM er to*rll*ft t tlaglr
feptndln) on tkt rtftrtnce sourct.

K • «ol (O*patt4 bKiutt tht only 1«t« •>tlltb1t tre til for to4l fn» tfc* \UM count/.
                                                                                          point.'

-------
                                                                       TABLE  A-1.    (Continued)
IN)
Tract llwwt
tkvMilm )
SdllllM (M)
ftlobli* (M>)
MM4/»ti» (M)
llcktl (il)
Osilw (Oil
•tofphgriis {•)
tlld (P»)
ftllldlu* (N)
rVtltodjvlMi IrY)
mtUM in)
tubltflw (U)
Ihtaluo IIU)
RhotfiM in.)
tutktnluc (!•)
Antimony (So)
Sctmflw (Scj
Sflfftluv (S*)
Slllto* (SI)
Smrlw (]•)
Tin (>)
KrtMtlM (Sr)
T«i>t«lm (I«)
TtrbluB lib)
Itllurlui (1«|
Tnarlui (Tt)
Tltnilw (fll
IhjIIlK (Tl)
Urinlw |u)
VtAAdlW (V)
Iwwttn («)
Utrlw (I)
Ttttrtl* (Tb)
Hoc (i.)
ZlrCOAlM (If)
i«Ur
«•
405

i!7I
470
S.7)
S.12
11.1
t.t
It!
4.41
0.1
2.11
0.1
10.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.47
S.I4
1.01
11.800
I.M
1.11
77.*
0.10
0.11
Q.tl
1.45
lit
0.17
O.It
l.ll
17.1
O.M
o!st
3ft 9
S1.I

Orrljtlon
ol tto
KM», op*
10
1.1
.il
IS
1.4
t.t
l.t
.10
M
.41
.10
.00.
Il'
.20
.10
.10
.07
.45
.12
4*2
.10
.44
1.4
.01
.Ot
.01
.to
27
.00
.00
.11
4.0
.14
.11
.02
1.S
t.t
t tfcittr
•* ft*
IS 1.474
77 St.*
S* 4.01
M I.IOS
17 4.10
M 11.*
17 14.8
i O.t
41 til
71 .17
I .021
10 .8*
i .1
it .41
1 .2
1 .1
i .1
M .SI
II .»0
41 .54
IS 1 ,1S8
24 .40
K .71
11 1S1
24 .54
22 .41
10 .081
14 .40
40 4*8
10 .41
t .011
ts .si
71 t .7
tl .11
4* .50
11 .12
7* 34.8
it 47.1

tl tte
Ntm. pp>
tl
4.1
.7*
20
.IS
.00
.IB
K«

.11
K
.00
«c
.4*
8C
K
K
.0)

!ot
S22
.M
.45
1)
.02
.04
.00
.M

.02
.00
.55
1.1
.01
.54
.01
t.t
7.1
t BUtMtnout North tfckott limit* l*«l« U»ilU tothrleltt
• Htu SttnArtf Net* Stmdiri) HTM {UnJtrJ Httn Sttiijtrd
II pea Br.l.tlon H ft* OnUllon • rfm Or>l«tloi> 8 pp> OoUtlon •
ol th* i of th* of Ik* Of the
*•». M" ! «»••. PP» •!••». •»» IW». pp>
tl r 1.120 2* 62 2.211 54 ( 2.041 Ili 27 751 M SI
47 M.8 1.1 124 44.7 17 10 111 If 27 71.1 7.) i)
4S • S.7I .it 104 t.it 0.02 2.11 8.2* 27 7.40 8.12 il
28 • I4S 14 14 1.411 407 Ml 18 27 Mi 108 S)
IS S.3J 1,4 ft .SB 0.07 157 0 It 24 1.4S 0.11 47
10 . 7.17 t.t it .01 .0 tl.t S 1 4 11.4 l.{ 20
SI '17.* 1.2 1)0 .to .«f 1 11.* 87 2* 17.1 1.4 SI
1 . 0.2 .09 t .062 .00 -• • •- 
-------
                           TABLE A-2.  AVERAGE TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS OF RESIDUAL OIL
U>
Trace
Element
Vanadium
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Iron
Silicon
Calcium
Magnesium
Chlorine
Tin
Aluminum
Lead
Copper
Cadmium
Cobalt
Rubidium
Titanium
Manganese
Chromium
Barium
Zinc
Phosphorus
Molybdenum
Arsenic
Selenium
Uranium
Antimony
Boron
Concentration,
ppm
160
42.2
34
31
18
17.5
14
13
12
6.2
3.8
3.5
2.8
2.27
2.21
2
1.8
1.33
1.3
1.26
1.26
1.1 ,
0.90
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.44 '
0.41
Trace
El emeht
Gallium
Indium
Silver;
Germanium
Thallium
Zirconium
Strontium
Bromine
Fluorine
Ruthenium
Tellurium
Cesium
Beryllium
Iodine
Lithium
Mercury
Tantalum
Rhodium
Gold
Platinum
Scandium
Bismuth
Cerium
Tungsten
Hafnium
Yttrium
Niobium

Concentration,
ppm
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.10
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
i 0.01
0.006
; " 0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001

                     Source:   Tyndall  et al  (24).

-------
     Analysis of trace element emissions  from  coal-fired  utility boilers
has indicated that for certain of the  trace  elements, there are definite
differences in the concentrations of these elements between the fly ash and
bottom ash fractions, and between the  fly ash  at  the inlet to  control devices
and the suspended particles in the stack  gas.  Most of the studies agreed
that-trace elements are distributed into  the various fractions of coal com-
bustion residue according to definite  partitioning patterns.   The three
main classes of partitioning behavior  observed are (25):
     •   Class I.  Elements which are  approximately equally concentrated
         in the fly ash and bottom ash, and  are not volatilized to a
         great extent during combustion,
     •   Class II.  Elements which are enrivhed in the fly ash relative
         to their concentrations in the bottom ash, due  to volatilization
         during combustion.              .                    .    .
     e   Class III.  Elements which are discharged to the environment in
         the gas phase.
     According to Klein et al (25), results  from  the study conducted  at
Tennessee Valley Authority's Allen Steam  Plant indicated partitioning of
the elements into the three classes as discussed  above and shown in Table
A-3.  Of 38 elements analyzed, 20 elements were found to belong to Class  I,
9 elements were found in Class II, and 3  elements in Class III.  Six
elements - chromium, cesium, sodium, nickel, uranium, and vanadium -  could
not be definitely assigned to a class  but appeared intermediate between
Class I and Class II.  Selenium exhibits  behavior intermediate between
Class II and Class III.  In examining  the results from other studies, it
is noted that the enrichment behavior of  the trace elements are generally
consistent, despite the differences in the  furnace and coal types, sampling
and analysis procedures.  Generally the Class  II  elements are  heavily
concentrated on the smaller fly ash particles.
     In the calculation of trace element  emission factors, it  is more
.convenient to use the concept of enrichment  factors.  This is  because trace
element emissions are dependent on the trace element content of coal, the
boiler firing configuration, size of the  boiler,  as well as the efficiency
of particulate control devices, among other factors.  The use  of enrichment
factors enables direct comparison and compilation of trace element emission
                                    44

-------
     TABLE A-3.  PARTITIONING OF ELEMENTS  IN  COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUES

Class
Class I
Concentrated
fly ash and
Class II
Enriched in

equally between
bottom ash
fly ash

Al
Ba
Ca
Ce
As
Cd
Cu

Co
Eu
Fe
Hg
Ga
Mo
• Pb
Element
K
La
Mg
Mn
Sb
S
Zn

Rb
Sc
Si
Sm


Sr
Ta
Th
Ti

  Class III
  Discharged in the gas phase
Hg
Cl
Br
  Source:  Klein (25).
data on a normalized basis, and facilitates  the computation process.   For
the purpose of this report, the overall  enrichment factor (ER)  is  defined
as the ratio of the concentrations of an element and aluminum in stack fly
ash, divided by the corresponding ratio  in coal.  Thus,.
                                ER,
where:  C-j  = concentration of element i, yg/g
        CAT = concentration of aluminum, ug/g
        subscript s = stack fly ash
        subscript c - coal.
Aluminum is selected as the reference element because  it is known to exhibit
about the same concentration in fly ash and bottom ash,  and among fly ash
particles of different sizes.  Enrichment factors, as  defined above, are
dependent on the collection efficiency of control  devices.  Since enrichment
for the volatile Class II species is more pronounced in  the finer particu-
lates, enrichment factors for boilers equipped with high efficiency control
devices are correspondingly higher.  Table A-4 summarizes enrichment factor
data obtained from many studies reported in the literature.
                                    45

-------
                          TABLE A-4.   TRACE ELEMENT ENRICHMENT  FACTORS  FOR  COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
                                         EQUIPPED WITH PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROLS*
O>
Trac
El erne
Alt
As
B
Ba
Be
Br
Ca
Cd
C1
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Fe
Hg
K
LI
Mg
Kn
Ho
Na
Hi
f
Pb
Sb
Se
Si
Sn
Sr
Th
U
V
In
e No
Control
nt Mean
Enrichment s(x)
Factor, x
1.00
1.9
.-
.79
..
..
0.80
2.0
»
1.7
2.0
2.6
. •
0.96
..
1.3
«
1.3
1.0
•-
1.6
2.1
••
2.6
3.8
1.7
0.97
— •
1.2
1.1
1.5
2.4
2.2
— —
0.6
..
.-
..
..
0.05
0.1
».
0.1
0.1
0.7
BW
0.32
..
0.1
-.
0.1
. 0.03
--
0.1
0.6
,•-
0.7
0.9
0.4
--
..
—
«
0.07
0.6
0.3
Mechanical Precipttator
No. of
Data
Points
..
2

1

— —
2
2

2
2
2
-w
2
._
2
..
2
2
-.
2
2
»-
2
2
2
1
_.
1
1
2
2
2
Mean
Enrichment .s(x)
Factor, x
1.00
3.23

0.48
0.82
• •
0.21
3.40

0.90
1.2
0.86
— —
0.87
— .
»_
• *
.*
0.43
2.55
• .
1.1
._
1.45
6.03
1.23
._
0.63
0.99
..
..
1.26
1.54
..
2.34

0.35
0.01

..
2.30

0.37

0.06
— —
,0.23

• ._
• ._
..
0.35
0.35

^0

0.15
siis
0.87
._
0.48

»-
••
0.34
0.58
No. of
Data
Points

3

2
2

**
2

3
1
2
— —
2

^_
w.
»
2
2

2

2
3
2

2
1

„»
2
3
Mean
Enrichment
Factor, 5
1.00
4.36
2.23
0.85
3.37

1.10
3.64

1.56
3.21
2.22

1.23

1.11
1.29
1.53
1.52
2.95
1.13
5.14
0.99
8.08
12.48
16.0
1.0
4.95
1.36
0.88
0.98
1.22
1.69
ESP
S(x)

1.48
1.50
0.24
1.51

0.41
1.31

0.38
1.28
0.80
^_
0.41

0.32
1.12
0.29
0.21
1.18
0.33
2.47
0.22
2,77
4.93
8.17

3.17
0.43
0.34
0.18
0.29
0.34

Ho. of
Data
Points

12
4
8
10
^—
7
11

13
11
10
— w
12
._
6
2
6
14
9
7
12
2
13
B
8
1
8
6
4
6
12
13
Wet
Mean
Enrichment
Factor, x
1.00
19.05
18.3
2.75
1.55
m .
2.53
31.35
.»
5.00
26.15
2.50
— —
2.05
.*
1.33
0.12
4.4
1.80
65.7
60.6
99.7
10.4
11.4
8.75
12.9
1.0
70.3
6.70
0.14
6.1
11.3
9.90
Scrubber
s(x>
. —
'17.05
«
1.65
0.3S
..
1.97
29.65
.•
3.80
24.25
0.10
• .
0.85
.-
0.37
--
-.
..
58.3
«
..
..
5.3
4.45
2.40
«
--
5.60
—
.—
•-
4.50

Tio. of
Data
Points
._
2
1
2
2
.-
2
2
, .*
2
2
2
•.—
2
•-
2



1



2
2
2






2
                  Enrichment factor is defined as the concentration ratio of element I  to the reference element
                  emitted 1n fly ash, divided by the corresponding ratio In coal.


                  Altuiinun is the reference element.  Therefore, by definition, the enrichment ratio Is unity.

-------
                               APPENDIX B
                          PARTICULATE ECS DATA

     Data are presented in this Appendix on the collection  efficiency of
various ECS's for different sizes of fine particles,  and  on estimated
emissions of trace metals from bituminous coal combustion.   These data
supplement information in Section 4 of the text.
FINE PARTICLE EMISSIONS:  ....                    ...
     The data sources for fine particulate emissions  are  rather limited.
Four sources were used for this compilation.  The Fine  Particle Emissions
Information System (FPEIS) (26), a computerized data  base maintained by
the Environmental Protection Agency, provided three sets  of data on parti -
culate size distributions from pulverized coal-fired  dry-bottom boilers,
plus data on stokers-with fly ash reinjection.,  Shannon et  al  (27) and
Weast et al (28) of Midwest Research Institute (MRI)  reported  efficiencies
of particulate control devices as a function of particle  size, and particu-
late size distributions'for cyclone boilers fired with  bituminous coal.
Cato et al (29) reported particulate size distributions for pulverized coal-
fired boilers, spreader stokers without fly ash reinjection, and oil-fired
boilers.  Crawford et al (30) reported particulate size distributions for
three pulverized coal-fired boilers:  two tangential  and  one horizontally
opposed.
     For five types of utility boilers, the particulate emission factors
for four size fractions (less than 1 ym, 1-3 ym, 3-10 ym  and greater than
10 ym, where the particulate sizes represent the aerodynamic particle dia-
meters) are presented in Table B-l.  The total uncontrolled particulate
loadings have been calculated assuming a national average of 14.09 percent
ash in the feed coal, except for the spreader stoker  with fly  ash reinjec-
tion.  This value was calculated using the AP-42 emission factor.  These
total particulate loadings were multiplied by the size  distributions for
each category to obtain the emission factor for each  size fraction.
                                    47

-------
                           TABLE B-1.  SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED
                                       PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM UTILITY BOILERS
CD
Combustion
System
Pulverized Bituminous
Coal-fired Dry- bottom
Boiler




Bituminous Coal -fired
Spreader Stoker With
Fly Ash Re inject Ion




Bituminous Coal-fired
Spreader Stoker
Without Fly Ash
Relnjectton

-

Bituminous Coal-fired
Cyclone Boiler





Residual 011 -fired
Boiler






Participate
Control Device
None
Cyclone
Hultlclone
Scrubber
Electrostatic Preci pita tor (ESP)
Venturl Scrubber
Fabric Filter
None
Cyclone
Multiclone
. Scrubber
Electrostatic Preci pita tor (ESP)
Venturl Scrubber
Fabric Filter
None
Cyclone
Hultlclone
Scrubber
Electrostatic Preci pita tor (ESP)
Venturl Scrubber
Fabric Filter
None
Cyclone
Hultlclone
Scrubber
Electrostatic Predpltator (ESP)
Venturl Scrubber
Fabric Filter
None
Cyclone
Hultlclone
Scrubber
Electrostatic PreclpUator (ESP)
Venturt Scrubber
Fabric Filter
1 '! I .<
! Emission Factor, ng/J
10pm
3737
1121
187
15
19
<8
<1.9
4017
1205
201
16
20
<8.0
<2
2963
889
148
12
15
<6
<1.5
254
76
13
1.0
1.3

-------
     Uncontrolled particulate emissions  from pulverized  dry-bottom  and
stoker units have similar size distributions, with  about 1  percent  by weight
of the particulates in the less than 1 urn size fraction  and the  bulk  (78-90
percent) of the particulates in the greater than 10 ym fraction. For  the
cyclone boiler, a greater proportion of  fine particulates is emitted -  8
percent by weight are in the less than 1 ym fraction and only 34 percent
by weight are in the greater than 10 ym  fraction.  Oil firing produces  much
fewer and finer particulates than coal firing, with 35 percent by weight
in the less than 1 ym fraction and only  13 percent  by weight in  the over  r
10 ym fraction.
     Emission factors from boilers equipped with particulate removal  devices
(cyclones, multic!ones, scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators,  Venturi
scrubbers, and-fabric filters) were calculated by using  average  efficiencies
of particulate removal for each size fraction as presented in Table B-2.
By comparing total particulate loadings  from one boiler  type with various
emission control devices, it is clear that fabric filters have the  greatest
removal efficiency.  In terms of the health effects of particulate  emissions,
the size fractions with aerodynamic diameter less than 1 ym may  be  considered
the most important, since these particles are not removed by the upper
respiratory tract.  For this size fraction, the high efficiency  electrostatic
precipitators and. the fabric filters are the most efficient particulate
removal devices.
TRACE METAL EMISSION FACTOR ESTIMATES
     The principal reference sources used to develop the trace element
emissions data base for bituminous coal-fired utility boilers were  data
from the CCEA program and the following  literature sources:
     •   A study by Schwitzgebel et al of the Radian Corporation
         to characterize trace element emissions from three coal-
         fired utility boilers (4)  - The units sampled  include  a
         tangentially-fired 330-MW boiler with three venturi scrubbers,
         a tangentially-fired 350-MW boiler with a hot side electro-
         static precipitator, and a 250-MW cyclone boiler with a
         mechanical cyclone for particulate control.  The first  two
         plants were fired with Wyoming  subbituminous coal and the
         third plant with lignite coal.   A material balance approach
         for  27 elements was used to characterize the effluents  around
         the  power plants.
                                    49

-------
         TABLE B-2.   EFFICIENCIES  OF  PARTICIPATE REMOVAL  BY
                     CONTROL  DEVICES  FOR VARIOUS SIZE FRACTIONS
   Particulate
 Control  Device
  Efficiencies of Participate Removal,  %
<1 pro      1-3 ym      3-10 ym      >10 ym
Medium Efficiency
Cyclone
Multiclone
Medium Efficiency
Scrubber
High Efficiency
ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Fabric Filter
0.25
11
26
96.5
71
96
12
54
77
98.25
99.5
99.75
50
85
98.0
99.1
>99.8
>99.95
70
95
99.6
99.5
>99.8
>99.95

Source:  Reference 2.
       A study conducted by Bolton et al  of the Oak  Ridge National
       Laboratory on the Allen Steam plant (31) -  The  boiler sampled
       was a 290-MW cyclone unit burning  coal  from Kentucky and
       Southern Illinois, and equipped with an electrostatic preci-
       pitator.  Determinations were made for  concentrations and
       mass balances of 54 elements.

       A study conducted by Kaakinen et al of  the  University of
       Colorado on the Valmont Power Station (32)  -  The boiler
       sampled was a 180-MW unit, equipped with a  mechanical collector
       followed by an electrostatic precipitator in  parallel with a
       wet scrubber.  The samples collected were for all  input streams
       and all outfall streams.  Chemical analysis data were available
       for 18 elements, including three radionuclides.

       A study conducted by Mann et al of the  Radian Corporation (12)
       - The units sampled were two 350-MW tangentially-fired boilers
       using Wyoming subbituminous coal and equipped with electrostatic
       precipitators.  Mass balance data  for 15 elements were available.

       A study conducted by Klein et al of Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
       also for the Allen Steam plant (25) - The concentrations and  mass
       flow rates of 37 elements were followed through the cyclone boiler.
                                  50

-------
    t   A  study  conducted by Hillenbrand et al of Battelle Columbus
        Laboratories  for the Edgewater Power plant (33) - The unit
        sampled  was a pulverized coal-fired boiler equipped with an
        electrostatic precipitator.  Enrichment factors for 27 trace
        elements across the electrostatic precipitator were reported.

    e   A  study  conducted by Gorden et al of the University of Maryland
        on the Chalk  Point Station (34) - Two 355-MW units firing
        pulverized coal were sampled.  The samples collected included
        coal, bottom  ash, fly ash from the economizer, fly ash from
        the electrostatic precipitator, and fly ash suspended in the
        stack gas.  Analysis for 35 elements were performed.  The
        enrichment of an element in the suspended fly ash relative to
        its concentration in the coal was determined.

    •   A  report by Curtis of the Ontario Hydro on trace element
        emissions from the R.L. Hearn, Lakeview, Lambton and Nanticoke
        stations (35) - The four stations sampled have a total of 24
        boilers  firing pulverized coal and a generating capacity of
        9,200 MW. Data presented were based on a continuing program
        for the  measurement of 44 trace elements in coal, ash, and
        stack gas.  The boilers sampled were equipped with electro-
        static precipitators of 98.6 percent average efficiency.

    t   A  study  conducted by Cowherd et al of the Midwest Research
         Institute on  the Widows Creek Power Plant (5) - The unit
        sampled  was a 125-MW, tangentially-fired boiler equipped with
        a  mechanical  fly ash collector.  Analysis and mass balances
        for 22 trace  elements were reported.

    t   A  study  conducted by Lee et al of the U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency  (9)  - The unit sampled was a 105-MW coal-
         fired power plant in Illinois.  Changes in concentrations of
         12 trace elements across the electrostatic precipitator were
         reported.

    •   A  study  conducted by Ragaini and Ondov of the Lawrence Livermore
         Laboratory  (36) - The plant tested was a single tangentially-
         fired  unit fed with western coal and operating at 430 MW.  The
         unit used a cold side electrostatic precipitator with between
         99.5 and 99.85 efficiency.  Enrichment factors for 20 trace
         elements were determined.

     In addition  to the above studies, three reports of a survey nature
provided an extensive  review of trace element emissions from coal combus-
tion.   These are  the  reports prepared by Ray and Parker of the Tennessee
Valley  Authority  (37), Oglesby and Teixerira of the Southern Research Ins-

titute  (38), and  the  Radian Corporation  (6).
                                    51

-------
     To estimate air emissions of trace elements  from  coal-fired utility
boilers, it is necessary to examine the data base from three aspects:   (1)
the trace element content of coal consumed by utilities,  (2) the fate  of
                                                       f
trace elements during coal combustion, and (3) the effect of different
pollution control devices.  The first two points  were  addressed in Appendix
A, where data on the trace element content of coal were presented, and an
overall enrichment factor defined to describe the fate of trace elements
during combustion.
     With the use of enrichment factors, trace element emission factors can
be calculated from the trace element content of coal,  the heating value of
coal, the fraction of coal ash produced as bottom ash, and the efficiency
of the control device for particulate removal.  In equation form, the
emission factor EF^ for trace element i is calculated  as:
                        (C.)c                            -
                  EF. = nTL-£-  (1 - EB) (1 - En)  ER. x 103
                          c
where:  EFj   -Demission factor for element i, ng/J
        (Ci)c = concentration of element in i coal, yg/g
        He    = higher heating value of coal, J/g
        EB    = fraction of coal ash retained in  the boiler as bottom  ash
        En    = fractional total particulate collection efficiency of
                control device n
        ER.j   = overall "enrichment factor for element  i.
     The values for (C^)c and ER^ are tabulated in Appendix A.  Values for
Eg depend on boiler type and were discussed in Section 3  of the text.
For E , the following values have been assumed:
     t   For mechanical precipitators (multic!ones), E =  0.702
     •   For ESP's, E = 0.9787
     o   For wet scrubbers, E = 0.996
Actual efficiency in the field is highly dependent on  inlet particle loading
and size distribution, as well as other factors specific  to the device (e.g.,
fly ash resistivity for ESP's).
     Table B-3 is a summary of estimated trace element emission factors from
controlled and. uncontrolled combustion of bituminous coal.  Only those trace
                                    52

-------
 TABLE B-3.  ESTIMATED TRACE  ELEMENT EMISSION  FACTORS
                  FROM  COMBUSTION  OF BITUMINOUS COAL
Trsee
Element

No
Control
Devicet
Estimated Emission
Mechanical
Preel pita tar
Alone*
Factor, pg/J*
Electrostatic
Precl pita tor
Alone**

Wet
Scrubber
Alonett
 As
 Ba
 Be
 Cd
 Co
 Cr
 Cu
 H1
 Pb
 Sb
 Se
 V
  As
  Ba
  Be
  Cd
  Co
  Cr
  Cu
  N1
  Pb
  Sb
  Se
  V
          PULVERIZED DRY BOTTOM BOILERS

  520             265                  25
3.700             662                  89
  1+*               7.3                 2.2
   41              21                   1.7
  400              64                   7.9
1,620             290                  55
1,200	121          .        23
1.200             183                  62
  570              94                  39
  140              68                  10
  140              30                  28
2.500             390                  27

          PULVERIZED MET BOTTOM BOILERS

  430             216                  21
3.000             538                  72
  I                 6.0                 1.8
   34              17                   1.4
  330              52                   6.4
1.300             235                  45
1,000              98                  16
  950             149                  SO
  460              77                  31
  120              55                   8.1
  110              24                  23
2.000             320                  22

               CYCLONE BOILERS
 21
 54
  0.19
  2.8
  4.8
 85
  4.8
227
 10
  1.3
  4.2
 48
 19
 51
  0.18
  2.6
  4.5
 79
  4.5
213
  9.6
  1.2
  4.0
 45
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
N1
Pb
Sb
Se
V
88
620
I
7.0
68
270
210
200
96
24
23
420
" " 44.8" •"" "
112
1.2
3.5
11
49
20
31
16
11
5.0
66
' 4.3
15
0.37
0.29
1.3
9.3
3.9
11
6.6
1.7
4.7
4.6
3.5
9.2
0.03
0.46
0.80
14
0.81
38
1.7
0.22
0.71
8.1
  Estimated emission factors derived from weighted average Individual  trace element
  concentrations in bituminous coal; national average heating value of bituminous coal
  as  fired (25,586 J/g); mean or assumed total partlculate collection efficiencies of
  various boilers and ECS's; and experimental mean enrichment factors for individual
  trace elements across  a  boiler or control device.
  Mean total partlculate collection efficiencies (mass of bottom ash per mass  of ash In
  Incoming coal) for the three boiler types are as follows, with number of data points
  in  parenthesis:  pulverized dry bottom boilers « 0.20 (48); pulverized wet bottom
  boilers • 0.35 (91); cyclone boilers • 0.865 (44).
  Assured total partlculate collection efficiency 1s 0.702.
  Assumed total partlculate collection efficiency Is 0.9787, probably low for
  existing NSPS.
^Assumed total particulate collection efficiency Is 0.996.
**lnsuff1cient data.
                                      53

-------
elements with MATE values less than 1  mg/m  are  shown.   Only  bituminous
coal combustion is considered because:
     •   Coal combustion accounts for  more trace element emissions
         than oil combustion in the U.S.
     8   Bituminous coal combustion accounts for about  95.6 % of
         the energy consumed by utility boilers  in the  U.S.,  based
         on 1978 data.
     •   The data base for controlled  trace element emissions from
         bituminous coal combustion is more extensive than that for
         oil firing or for anthracite  or lignite coal firing.
     It must be noted that the data-in Table B-3 are based on the use of a
single control device.  The overall enrichment factor ER^  takes into account
both boiler firing type and emission control device n,  where  n = 1.  For
facilities-utilizing-two-or-more ECS's in series, a different method of
calculating the emission factor EF.. must be used.  The  overall enrichment
factor ER.j may be expressed as the product of enrichment factors across  the
boiler and all subsequent ECS's, i.e., .
where:  ERjj = enrichment factor for element i across the boiler  .
        r^  = enrichment factor for element i across control  device n
        n   = number of control device (total of N devices).
The value of r.. will vary depending on the inlet particle loading and size
distribution.  The value of ER* is simply the enrichment factor for the no
control situation, from Table A-4.  Using data reported in Table A-4, r^
for each control -device/boiler- type combination can be estimated.  Then the
following general equation can be used to estimate EF. :
                                        „
where:  (n)n = enrichment ratio for element i across control device n.
     Alternately, if the collection efficiency of control device n is known
specifically for element i,
                                    54

-------
                            .ERg(l-EB)Ji  [l  -(£,)„]


where: (E.)  = fractional mass collection efficiency of device n for element
         1 n.  i (total of N devices).

     Statistical evaluation of the data used in calculating  the emission

factors in Table B-3 has led to the following conclusions concerning the

adequacy of the emissions data base for bituminous  coal-fired utility

boi1ers:

     •   For pulverized bituminous coal-fired dry bottom boilers
         equipped with electrostatic precipitators, the existing data
         base is inadequate for barium, beryllium,  calcium,  iron,
         lithium, nickel, phosphorus, lead, and selenium, and adequate
         for all-the-other-trace elements.

     «   For pulverized bituminous coal-fired wet bottom boilers
         equipped with electrostatic precipitators, the existing data
         base is inadequate for beryllium, calcium, Iron, lithium,
         nickel,-phosphorus, and adequate for all the other trace
         elements.

     §   For bituminous coal-fired cyclone boilers  equipped with
         electrostatic precipitators, the existing  data base is in-
         adequate for beryllium, iron, lithium, nickel, and phosphorus,
         and adequate for all the other trace elements.

     0   The existing data base characterizing trace element emissions
         from any type of bituminous coal-fired boilers equipped with
         wet scrubbers is generally inadequate.  Among the trace
         elements, the existing data base is only adequate for cadmium,
         copper, potassium, molybdenum, antimony, selenium,  and zinc.

     •   The existing data base characterizing trace element emissions
         from any type of bituminous coal-fired utility boilers with
         no emission control or equipped with mechanical precipitators
         is generally inadequate due to lack of sufficient enrichment
         ratio  data.

     t   The existing trace element emissions data base for bituminous
         coal-fired stokers is inadequate since no data are available.
                                    55

-------
                               APPENDIX  C
                            FGD SYSTEM DATA

     Most data on FGD systems  reported in  the  literature are  for  installa-
tions on coal-fired boilers.  However, limited trace  element  data exist.
Data presented in this Appendix are  intended to supplement  data presented
in Section 4 of the text.
COAL-FIRED UTILITY SOURCE
     Table C-l presents further data from  the  study by  Leavitt et al  (21)
reported in Section 4.  Concentration of trace metals emitted to  the
atmosphere-is, compared _to the  MATE value to arrive at a discharge severity
for each species.  The data indicate that  the  FGD system reduced  the  total
discharge severity of the flue gas stream  (for the indicated  elements)  from
the uncontrolled level of 740  to 54, a 92.7% reduction.
COAL- AND OIL-FIRED INDUSTRIAL SOURCE
     Leavitt et al (39) studied an industrial  boiler  equipped with  dual-
alkali FGD system which was capable  of firing  either  coal or  oil.  They
obtained data on the performance of  the  FGD system during both coal and oil
combustion.  Trace element collection efficiencies exhibited  by the FGD
system are presented in Table  C-2.  The  overall removal efficiency  for  the
indicated elements was 99.5% for the coal-fired test.  Of the 22  elements
reported, 18 exceeded their MATE value at  the  scrubber  inlet, and only  four
at the outlet.  Oil firing resulted  in only an 87% removal  of trace metals,
due to the smaller median diameter of oil  fly  ash particles.  Of  the  same
22 elements, 11 exceeded their MATE  value  at the scrubber inlet,  and  five
at the outlet.
     Other conclusions of the  study  are  summarized below, for both  coal and
oil firing.
                                    56

-------
     TABLE C-1. CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED  TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS  FROM
                A COAL-FIRED UTILITY  BOILER  EQUIPPED WITH FGD  SYSTEM
           Concentration , mq/m
Element    Scrubber     Scrubber
            Inlet        Outlet
                                 MATE for Ai r
                                (Health Basis)1"
Discharge Severity (PS)
  Scrubber    Scrubber
   Inlet       Outlet
Al
As
Be
Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sr
V
Zn
**
TDS
TWDSft
132
0.98
0.021
49
5.1
0.19
1.3
1.2
401
0.095
0.70
2.0
11
0.78
0.37
0.46
0.78 .
105



3.0
0.94
0.0018
2.0
0.58
0.013
0.12
0.19
13
0.0057
0.150
	 0.054
2.9
0.27
0.088
0.038
0.083
21



10
0.50
0.002
13
0.100
0.100
0.500
0.100
1.0
0.050
5.0
0.015
0.15
0.50
0.20
10
0.050
5.0



13
2.0
11
3.8
51
1.9
2.6
12
400
1.9
0.14
130
73
1.6
1.9
0.046
16
21

740
504 ng/J
0.30
1.9
0.90
0.15
5.8
0.13
0.24
1.9
13
0.11
0.03
3.6
19
0.54
0.44
0.0038
1.7
4.2

54
22 ng/J

*
Analyses
* M •» v> ^ i** i tMt

by Level
nf+it^f\ ^T ** w

2 procedures.
• •* r**i * /M


A*TC i £ *%M <£»*#%** •


t M ft «**k*Ml*^ Mh«« ft *+**f*


******* r* \ i
 **
AH] calculation, with the follov/ing exceptions:   Ca and Sr - AH«;  Co
and Cr as the element; Zn as ZnO.

Discharge severity (DS) is defined as the ratio, of discharge concentra-
tion to MATE value.

Total discharge severity (TDS)  = IDS for the indicated elements.

Total weighted discharge severity = z(DS x emission factor) for elements
with MATE <1 mg/m3 only.
                                      57

-------
    TABLE  C-2.  COMPARISON  OF TRACE ELEMENT REMOVAL
               EFFICIENCIES OF AN SOe SCRUBBER ON A
               COAL  OR FUEL-OIL FIRED INDUSTRIAL BOILER

Trace
Element
Al
As
B
Be
. Ca
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mg
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
Sr
V
Zn
Zr
Total
Removal Efficiencies,
Fuel -Oil
Fired Boiler
92
81
.... 93
Unknown
83 . : .
77
89
90
99
95
87
91
87
89
83
94
91
87
98
71
90
94
87
Percent
Coal -Fired
Boiler
99
97
88
98
99
99
99
95
99
"99
55
99
98
99
95
99
99
97
99
98
98
99
99

Note:  SOp scrubber is a double alkali  unit.

Source: -Leavitt et al (39).
                               58

-------
Coal Firing

     •   Average SO^ removal  was 97%.

     •   NOX reductions of 0-24% were  measured across  the scrubber,
         but may have been due to sampling phenomena.

     •   Total particulate removal by  the scrubber was 99.4%.

     t   S03 removal was 33%.

     •   SO*" removal was 88%.

     •   Total organic emissions were  generally less than 9  ng/J  and
         these emissions appeared to'be primarily C-| to GS hydrocarbons
         and hydrocarbons heavier than C]5«  While uncontrolled
         emission rates for Cy to C-jg, and C-jg and higher hydrocarbons
         are low, emissions of these organics were further reduced by
         21% and 85%,-respectively, in the scrubber unit. POM was not
         found in the scrubber inlet or outlet at detection  limits of
         0.3 pg/m3.

Oil Firing

     •   Average SOg removal  was 97%.

     •   Total particulate removal was between 75% and 84%.

     •   SOg removal was 28%-29%, about the same as for coal firing.

     •   S0*~ removal v/as about 60%."

     •   Organic emissions were generally less than 5  ng/J and were
         similar in character to coal-fired emissions.  Approximately,
         88% and 83% of Cj to C-jg, and C-js and higher  hydrocarbons,
         respectively, were removed by the FGD system.
                                    59

-------
                               APPENDIX D

                     NOVEL EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS


     Often an ECS cannot be strictly categorized as a scrubber, fabric

filter, or ESP.  The system may differ significantly from conventional

technology.  In these cases, the ECS may be considered a novel  device.

Novel systems described in this appendix are designed for either fine
particulate removal, or simultaneous SOg and participate removal.

Novel Fine Parti oil ate ECS's

     The following fine particulate ECS's have been tested by EPA as novel

devices (40, 41):

      1.  Sonic agglomerator (Braxton)
      2.  Steam-hydro scrubber (Lone Star Steel)
      3.  Dynactor scrubber (RP Industries)
      4.  Pentapure impinger (Purity)
      5.  ADTEC scrubber (Aronetics)
      6.  CHEAP (Andersen 2000)
      7.  Centrifield scrubber (Entoleter)
      8.  Gravel bed (Rexnord)
      9.  Electrostatic scrubber (APS)
     10.  Electrotube (APS)
     11.  FRP-100 low energy wet scrubber (Century Industrial Products)
     12.  Apitron (American Precision Industry)
     13.  Electrified bed (Particulate Control System)
     14.  Ionizing wet scrubber (Ceilcote)

A detailed description of these devices is beyond the scope of this report.
Notably, all these ECS'-S utilize water except for the gravel bed, Apitron,

and electrified bed.  Test results for eight of the systems listed above

are presented in Figure D-l (40).  Only the Steam-hydro, ADTEC, and elec-
trostatic scrubbers demonstrate greater than 90% removal (<10% penetration)

for 0.5 micron diameter particles.  The Apitron shows greater than 90%
removal of 0.5 ym particles (41).

     Table D-l compares the performance of seven novel ECS's to the per-
formance of conventional low (25 cm WG) and high (273 cm WG) pressure drop
                                    60

-------
                PENETrlflTION flS ft FUNCTION OF RERCOYNfWIC PRRTICLE OIWCTCR
                                                                       /E;. BED
                                                                    DY.N & CENT
                                                                    ELECTSOSTfl
                                                                    CHEW
                                                                    RDTEC
                               PfWTICLE DlflNCTER. MICRONS
           Figure D-l.   Particulate control  by novel  devices.
Dynactor and centrifield  scrubbers.

Electrostatic  scrubber.
                                     61

-------
venturi scrubbers.  The Steam-hydro and  ADTEC  units  show the best perform-
ance of the systems shown, being slightly  better  than  the high pressure
drop venturi in removing fine particles.   Unfortunately, both novel  devices
require a large amount of enthalpy from  waste  heat to  drive the scrubber.
When total energy use is considered, performance  of  these and other  novel
devices is in line with conventional technology.
Simultaneous SOo/Particulate ECS
     Baghouse application of dry sorbent technology  appear to have a sound
technical basis.  Various studies and test programs  have resulted in designs
that can be effective at SO^ removal rates of  70% to 80% using nahcolite,
a naturally-occurring mineral form of sodium bicarbonate, as the sorbent
material.  Removal rates of 85% to 90% are possible  based on test data,
however, further work on system design is  needed to  attain these higher
efficiencies.
    TABLE 0-1.  PERFORMANCE OF NOVEL FINE PARTI.CULATE CONTROL DEVICES
                TO CONVENTIONAL VENTURI SCRUBBERS (40)

                                                   Smallest Diameter
    Device                                         Collected at 50%
                                                  Efficiency, microns

    Impinger                                              3.5
    Gravel Bed                                            1.4
    Venturi (25 cm WG)                                    0.7
    Dynactor                                              0.65
    Centrifield                                           0.6
    CHEAF                                                 0.53
    Venturi (273 cm WG)                                   0.3
    ADTEC                                                 0.13
    Steam-hydro                                          <0.1
                                   62

-------
     During January and February of 1977,  a  pilot  baghouse  study was con-
ducted at Basin Electric Power Cooperative's Leland Olds Station in Stanton,
North Dakota.  Wheelabrator-Frye Incorporated was  responsible  for  the
equipment and conduct of the test.   Superior Oil Company provided  the
nahcolite, and Behtel Power Corporation coordinated the overall effort  (42).
     The Leland Olds Station burned lignite  with an ash content of 8.35%,
sulfur content of 0.75%, and higher heating  value  of  6495 Btu/lb (15.07  x
10  J/kg).  Nahcolite was injected  downstream of the  air preheater and was
collected, along with the coal ash, in 12  bags, each  11.5 inches (0.292  m)
in diameter and 30 feet (9.15 m) long.  The  bags were made  of  combination
fiberglass cloth with a silicone graphite  finish.  Total fabric area was
                       o
1080 square feet (100 m), and the  unit was  operated  at a filter ratio  of
3:1.  Bags were cleaned by deflation and mechanical shaking.
     A total of 81 runs were conducted during the  program.  Test results
relating SOg and NOX removal to stoichiometric ratio  are shown in  Table
D-2.  The data show that simultaneous removal of SOg  and particulates  in a
properly designed-baghouse is practical.
                                   63

-------
                               TABLE D-2.  TABULATED DATA FROM NAHCOLITE TEST PROGRAM (43)
o>
Stolchlometrtc Removal Efficiency
Test
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
10
14
15
16
16A
17
18
19
19A
20
20G
22
22A
226
23
23G
26
27
Ratio
1.21
1.05
0.98
1.12
0.93
1.08
0.79
0.87
0.51
0.45
0.86
0.79
1.50
1.52
0.92
1.66
0.48
0.42
1.14
0.90
0.83
1.63
1.13
0.89
0.92
J*
33.5
37.4
47.6
55.7
50. 5
82.7
46.4
54.6
47.0
37.2
68.8
64.8
85.7
90.1
67.2
91.0
13.1
22.2
27.0
24.0
49.3
40.3
60.3
65.3
59.0
N0x
14.3
14.5
12.0
13.4
9.2
18.5
13.9
12.6
9.1
11.0
24.5
19.2
24.0
35.0
33.6
52.9
6.0
5,9
13.7
6.8

11.1
25.4
10.6
12.5
Paniculate



99.4
99.7
99.6


99.7
99.8

99.8
99.9
99.7
99.9
99.8
99.4
99.8






Feed
Utilization
X
27.5
35.9
48.4
50.2
55. 5
76.9
59.2
63.3
96.2
84.6
79.9
81.9
58.4
59.9
75.1
55.0
27.7
53.5
23.7
26.2
58.9
24.4
53.2
73.1
64.0
Inlet
ppffl
956
998
861
865
903
842
949
944
830
1708
1707
1091
967
1719
2422
2760
918
948
1726
894
1655
915
947
831
1013
Pl>fl
628
669
668
C40
612
622
581
601
584
573
531
562
554
557
529
560
434
511
539
487
379
514
516
540
521
Temp.
°F
297
297
291
301
289
288
289
291
288
294
289
292
289
291
296
292
291
288
294
289 .
294
292
295
286
292
Outlet
PPfl)
636
625
451
383
447
146
509
429
440
1073
533
384
138
170
794
248
798
738
1260
679
839
546
376
288
415
WO.
ppfl
538
572
588
554
556
507
500
525
531
510
401
454
421
362
351
264
408
481
465
454
388
457
385
483
456
dec
Load
fU
419
402
401
419
398
419
408
419
416
408
399
399
407
407
387
401
378
402
397
380
416
372
397
407
406
Lb Steam
Itr
2.29
2.35
2.27
2.35
2.29
2.36
2.32
2.37
2.36
2.29
2.25
2.24
2.31
2.31
2.29
. 2.38
2.00
2.40
2.35
2.12
2.35
2.15
2.30
2.42
2.37
Dates
1977
2/4
2/5
2/2
2/3
2/12-15
2/14-15
2/15-16
2/16
2/17
2/19-23
2/20-23
2/18
2/21-24
2/22-24
2/25
3/2
2/27
3/1
2/28
2/26-27
2/28
2/27-28
2/28
3/3
3/1

-------
                            .    APPENDIX  E
                       ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT ANALYSIS

      In order to determine the  environmental  impact  of controlled versus
 uncontrolled non-criteria  pollutant  emissions,  a  preliminary  analysis  has
 been performed based on  trace element  emissions data in this  report.
 Terminology and methodology set forth  by the  EPA  (43)  has  been  used  to
 judge the environmental  acceptability  of air  emissions front bituminous
 coal-fired dry-bottom boilers.   Emissions  estimates  from AP-42  (3) and
 Appendix B of this report  form  the basis of the uncontrolled  emissions data.
 ControVTed-emtssions-are-based  on NSPS for S0~, NO , and particulates  from
                                              c     **         i
 Section 3.
      Uncontrolled SOg emissions (in  g/kg coal)  from  pulverized  coal  combus-
 tion are estimated~as 19-times  the sulfur  content (in percent)  of the  coal
 (3).  Using national average heating value and  ash content of bituminous
 coal (Appendix A), this  results in an  emission  factor of 1426 ng/J.  Un-
 controlled NOX emissions,  based on 9 g NOX (as  NOgJ/kg coal  (3),  average
 352 ng/J.
      Uncontrolled trace  element emissions  from  pulverized  dry-bottom coal
 combustion were computed for 11 elements with MATE values  less  than  1  mg/m
 in Appendix B of this report.  These elements are As, Ba,  Cd, Co, Cr,  Cu,
 Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, and V.  Uncontrolled particulate  emissions, based on
 national average ash content and heating value  of bituminous  coal, and
 E^ = 0.2 for pulverized  bituminous coal-fired boilers, is  estimated  at 4410
 ng/J.
      Controlled 502* NOX,  and particulate  emissions  are based on  the NSPS
..of 520 ng/J, 260 ng/J, and 13 ng/J,  respectively.  This results in an
 average removal efficiency of 63.5%  for  S02,  26.1% for NOX,  and 99.7%  for
 total ^articulates.
                                     65

-------
     Using the required removal efficiency of E  =  0.997  for total  particu-
lates, trace element emissions for this  degree of  control  can be calculated.
Assuming this control is provided by an  ESP,  controlled  trace element
emission factors (pg/0) can be calculated from data in Table B-3  by de- .
creasing the ESP emission factors in the table by  the ratio of (1  - 0.997)/
(1 - 0.9787).
     Data from Shin (2) provide a conversion  factor from emission factor
                             2
(ng/J) to emission rate (mg/m ).  For pulverized dry-bottom coal combustion,
the emission factor (ng/J) is equal to a constant  B, times the emission
rate (mg/m ). -The value of B is 0.47751 ± 0.0095  (95% confidence .range of. ..
the mean).
     Discharge severities (43) can now be calculated for controlled and
uncontrolled emissions of S0« and individual  trace metals.  The results are
presented in Tables E-l and E-2.
     Table E-3 presents a summary of this preliminary assessment.  The
data show that application of emission controls  to meet  NSPS is extremely
effective in reducing the severity of the air emissions"from pulverized
coal-fired dry bottom boilers.  Since these sources burned 73% of all coal
consumed for electric power production in the U.S. 1n 1978 (1), these
results are indicative of the Immense secondary  benefits of emission
controls.
  Data  in Table B-3 were calculated based on an ESP efficiency of 0.9787.
                                    66

-------
TABLE E-1.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM
            PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED DRY-BOTTOM BOILERS

Element Emission
Factor, ng/J
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
V
Total
S02
NOX (as N02)
Total
Grand Total
.52
3.7
.041
.40
1.62
1.2
1.2
.57
.14
.14
2.5

1426
352


Emission
Rate, mg/m^
1.09
7.75
.086
.838
3.39
2.51
2.51
1.19
0.293
0.293
5.24

2990
737

i
MATE Value,
mg/m^
.50
.50
.10
.10
.50
.10
.015
.15
.50
.20
.050

13
9


.Discharge
Severity
2.18
15.5
.86
8.38
6.79
25.1
168
7.95
.586
1.47
105
341
230
82
312

653
                                  67

-------
TABLE E-2.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF CONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM
            PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED DRY-BOTTOM BOILERS

Element Emission
Factor, ng/J
As
Ba
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Sb
Se
V
Total
S02
NOX (N02)
Total
Grand Total
.0035
.0125
.00024
.0011
.0077
.0032
.0087
.0055
.0014
.0039 '
.0038

520
260


Emission
Rate, mg/m3
.0074
.026
.00050
.0023
.016
.0068
.018
.012
.0030
.0083
.0080

1090
544


MATE Value,
mg/m3
.50
.50
.10
.10-
.50
.10
.015.
.15
.50..
.20
.05

13
9


Discharge
Seven ty
.015
.053
.0050
.023
.032
.068
1.2
.077
.0059
.041
.16
1.70
83.8
60.5
144.3
146

          TABLE E-3.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Uncontrolled

Trace Elements
S02 + NOX
Total
Discharge
Severi ty
341
312
653
% of
Total
52
48
__
Controlled
Discharge
Severi ty
1.7
144.3
146
% of
Total
1
99
__
% Reduction
in Discharge
Severi ty
99.5
53.8
77.6
                                 68

-------