EPA-450/3-74-063
DECEMBER 1974
                    PARTICULATE
 EMISSION  CONTROL  SYSTEMS
       FOR OIL-FIRED  BOILERS
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        Office of Air and Waste Management
     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
     Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                                  EPA-4 50/3-74-063
           PARTICULATE
EMISSION  CONTROL  SYSTEMS
   FOR OIL-FIRED BOILERS
               GCA Corporation
              Technology Division
               Burlington Road
           Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
             Contract No. 68-02-1316


        EPA Project Officer: Edwin J . Vincent



                Prepared for

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Air and Waste Management
      Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
        Research Triangle Park, N. C.  27711

                December 1974

-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.  Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia  22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA Corporation, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1316.  The contents
of this report are reproduced herein as received from GCA Corporation.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
                   Publication No. EPA-450/3-74-063
                                 11

-------
                               ABSTRACT

The results of this study have been reported in three sections:
(1) a listing of oil-fired combustion units including their size,
fuel rate and composition, type and performance of particulate con-
trol equipment, and the methodology used to procure these data;
(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the particulate control
equipment and the impact of coal-to-oil conversions, sulfur and
ash content, fuel additives, sootblowing, base or peak load opera-
tions on equipment performance; and (3) the technical feasibility
and cost of installing particulate controls on existing and proposed
oil-fired systems.
                               iii

-------
CONTENTS


Abstract
List of
List of
Sections
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
Figures
Tables
Summary and Conclusions
Survey of Oil-Fired Combustion Systems Employing
Particulate Emission Control Devices
Control of Particulate Emissions from Oil-Fired
Combustion Systems
Cost and Effectiveness of Particulate Emission
Controls on Oil-Fired Boiler
References
Appendices
Page
iii
V
vi
1
6
16
46
53
56
 iv

-------
                                FIGURES

No^                                                              Page

1      Outline of Processing Procedure Used on NEDS data          12

2      Uncontrolled Electric Utility Emissions vs. Capacity       19

3      Filterable Particulate Emission Factors vs. Capacity       22
       for Uncontrolled Residual Oil-Fired Base Loaded
       Utility Boilers

4      Particulate Emissions Before and After an Electrostatic    27
       Precipitator for Base Loading Residual Oil-Firing
       Utility Boilers

5      Cumulative Particle Size Distribution of the Exit Gas      28
       from an Electrostatic Precipitator Used on a 365 MM
       Oil-Fired Boiler

6      Controlled and Uncontrolled Particulate Emissions for      36
       Residual Oil Burning Base Loaded Power Plant Boilers
       Operating at > 70 Mw Capacity (no additives employed)

7      Controlled Particulate Emissions vs. Ash Content for       37
       Residual Oil Burning Base Loaded Power Plant Boiler
       Operating at > 70 Mw Capacity

8      Particulate Emissions from Controlled Residual Oil-        41
       Firing Boilers With and Without Additives

9      Particulate Emissions from Uncontrolled Distillate         45
       Oil-Fired Gas Turbines

10     Controlled vs. Uncontrolled Particulate Emission from      47
       Residual Oil-Fired Boilers

11     Annual Particulate Emissions from Controlled and           48
       Uncontrolled Residual Oil-Firing Boilers

12     Annual Particulate Emission Reduction for Controlled       49
       Residual Oil-Firing Boilers

13     Stack Gas Flow Rate vs. Operating Capacity for Oil-        50
       Fired Utility Boilers

14     Total Erected Cost for Electrostatic Precipitators         52

-------
                                TABLES

No.                                                              Page

1      Industrial and Electric Utility Fuel Oil Consumption       7
       (For the Production of Heat and Power) by Geographic
       Region and State

2      Oil-Fired Combustion Systems with Particulate Emission     10
       Control Devices (Stack Test Data)

3      Size Breakdown of Controlled and Uncontrolled Electric     14
       Utility External Combustion Boilers Listed in NEDS
       That Satisfy More than 10 Percent of Their Fuel
       Demands with Oil

4      Estimated Annual Electric Utility Fuel Oil Consumption     15
       by Boiler Size for the U.S.

5      Typical Residual Oil Ash Analysis                          18

6      Emission Factors versus Size for Residual Oil-Fired        21
       Utility Boilers

7      Boston Edison Scrubber Tests - Mystic Station Boiler       25
       No. 6

8      Particulate Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Bitumi-      31
       nous Coal-Fired Boilers Greater than 100 MM Btu/hr

9      Averaged Results of Plume Opacity Tests Conducted on       39
       a 370 Mw Base Loaded Residual Oil-Firing Power Plant
       Boiler Using MgO Additives and a Mechanical Collector

10     Particulate Emissions from Peak Loaded Residual Oil-       43
       Firing Utility Boilers

11     Oil-Fired Combustion Systems with Particulate Emission     58
       Control Devices (NEDS)

12     Uncontrolled Oil-Fired Boiler Emissions (No Additives      68
       Employed)

13     Uncontrolled Oil-Fired Boiler Emissions (Additives         73
       Employed)
                               vi

-------
                               SECTION I
                        SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The combustion of residual and distillate oils in stationary boilers
represents an important source of fine particles in the atmosphere.
Utilities and industry are the principal consumers of residual oil for
electric power, heating and steam production whereas commercial and
domestic heating systems are the main users of distillate oils.

The quantity, type and size of particulate emissions from oil-fired com-
bustion operations are presumed to depend mainly upon the following
factors:
     •    Overall fuel consumption rate
     •    Ash and sulfur content of fuel
     •    Use of mineral fuel additives
     •    Combustion efficiency for fuel
     •    Plant age and operating procedures-archaic to modern
     •    Use and effectiveness of particulate control devices.

The resultant impact of these combustion operations upon any geographical
area must be assessed not only in terms of sources strength(s) but
also in terms of climatological and topographical factors that control
the meteorological transport of the particulates.

The first objective of this study was to provide a general listing of
oil-fired combustion facilities within the U.S.A. with respect to the
key parameters defining particulate emission levels.  This was accomplished
through analyses of data excerpted from:  (1) NEDS files prepared by EPA;

-------
(2) past and present stack sampling programs conducted by GCA/Technology
Division and other private agencies; and (3) stack test data made avail-
able by the Massachusetts Bureau of Air Quality.

A second objective of this study was to determine what degree of control
was now provided by various types of particulate collectors so that an
assessment of the feasibility of installing more and better control
devices might be made.  At this time, it appears that the necessity for
controlling particulate emissions from present or future combustion sys-
tems must be judged first upon best estimates of particle toxicity.
Secondary criteria should include how large a reduction in solids emis-
sions can be attained for any one type of oil-fired combustion unit
compared to the total emission potential for all classes of oil-fired
systems.  Additionally, the feasibility of regulating emissions from
oil-fired boilers must also be examined on a cost basis relative to the
selection of alternate methods of energy production.

CONCLUSIONS

General
     1.   NEDS data provide a useful information source from which
          parameters can be developed to assist in estimating par-
          ticulate emissions potential and emission control needs
          for large geographical areas.
     2.   Particulate emission rates based upon actual stack sampling
          indicate that use of EPA emission factors for stationary,
          oil-fired combustion systems in conjunction with commonly
          accepted efficiency values for electrostatic precipitators
          (or those suggested by the manufacturer) can lead to erro-
          neously low projections for emission rates.
     3.   The general scatter observed in the actual sampling data
          used in preparing this report indicates that considerably
          more than 100 samples are needed to establish precise
          estimates of current emissions and the feasibility of
          their control.

-------
Applications/NEDS Data
     1.   NEDS sources currently report emission data that, based
          upon estimated fuel consumption from independent surveys,
          represent about 75 percent of existing stationary oil-
          fired, external combustion boiler capacity in the U.S.A.

     2.   Boilers are grouped according to three fuel consumption
          classes (utility, industrial and commercial), rated
          capacity, fuel type and fuel usage.  Where multiple
          fuel usage (e.g., oil-coal or oil-gas) is indicated,
          one can establish emission statistics only on a yearly
          average basis.
     3.   Exclusion of multiple-fueled boilers from statistical
          averaging processes does not appear to bias NEDS data
          with respect to number of boilers versus size, boiler
          size versus use of control equipment, or boiler size
          versus estimated particulate emissions.

     4.   NEDS emission statistics for most boilers are based
          upon emission factors established by prior EPA studies
          and dust collector efficiency data either provided by
          the manufacturer or estimated by the user or polling
          group.  They may apply only to a single fuel type;
          e.g., coal, and to but one method of boiler operation;
          e.g., base load.  Few data reported in NEDS files are
          based upon current stack sampling carried out in
          accordance with compliance procedures.  Therefore
          NEDS emission statistics are essentially a reflection
          of existing emission factors and depict no new data.

     5.   Generally, NEDS data permit no evaluations of the
          effect of fuel additives, method of boiler operation
          and the performance potential of particulate control
          equipment.  The age of a boiler, which may have a
          significant impact on the emissions characteristics,
          can only be inferred indirectly on the basis of size.
Analyses of Field Measurements
     1.   Stack sampling measurements indicate that particulate
          emissions per 1000 gallons of fuel fired generally
          decrease as boiler size increases.  Emission levels
          were found to range from 13.1 to 6.9 lb/1000 gal. for
          boiler capacities of 1 to 500 Mw.  With regard to
          boiler size, EPA has proposed an average emission
          factor of 8 lb/1000 gal   (0.0533 Ib/MMBtu).

-------
 2.   A decrease in emission rate as a function of boiler
      capacity was also observed for systems using additives.

 3.   A decrease in particulate emission rate was noted
      for uncontrolled systems as well as controlled systems
      when boiler capacity was increased.
 4.   A reduced emission rate for large boilers is attributed
      mainly to the fact that boiler larger than 200 Mw in
      capacity are usually newer units with more sophisticated
      combustion control.

 5.   Electrostatic precipitators are by far the predominant
      collector types for control of emissions from oil-fired
      units.

 6.   Those precipitators designed expressly for oil-fired
      systems provide better collection than units designed '
      for coal-fired boilers and not modified for oil-firing.

 7.   Inertial collectors of the multicyclone type generally
      have little value as control units for oil-fired emis-
      sions except to capture gross particulate (> 10 ^m diameter)
      in the acid smut category.

 8.   Particulate emissions for oilฐfired systems with elec-
      trostatic precipitators appear to decrease slowly once
      a 300 Mw capacity is reached suggesting that a steady
      state discharge may be approached that depends upon;
      (1) the intensity and frequency of plate rapping and its
      effects upon dust reentrainment; and (2) the intensity,
      duration, and general programming of soot blowing
      operations.
 9.   Collection efficiencies for electrostatic precipitators
      will usually increase with inlet dust loading for a
      given boiler operation.  The reason for this behavior
      is that high loadings are usually associated with coarse
      particulates produced by:  (1) massive soot discharge
      resulting from poor combustion; (2) excessive soot
      blowing; or, (3) excessive use of coarse mineral additives.
10.   Current field sampling data (exclusive of NEDS sources)
      indicate that emission rates for boilers controlled by
      electrostatic precipitation average about 3.8 lb/1000 gal
      for units > 100 Mw capacity.  On this basis the
      "effective" efficiency for the ESP units is roughly
      50 percent or less for boilers that are well controlled
      from the combustion standpoint.
11.   Limited measurements indicate that use of fuel additives
      to regulate ash slagging and cold-end corrosion produced
      higher particulate emission.

-------
12.   Limited data indicate that wet scrubbing systems developed
      mainly for sulfur oxides removal provide high particulate
      collection.  Unfortunately, power requirements to achieve
      > 90 percent removal and the plume reheating necessary
      to provide for vapor plume rise and dissipation may exceed
      those for electrostatic precipitation.

13.   Limited tests indicate that normal variations in fuel
      oil sulfur and ash content exert no significant effect
      on particulate emission rates.  It is recognized, however,
      that any real emission variations that might have been
      attributable to sulfur content  could have been observed
      by variations in other system operating parameters.
      Further tests should be made to determine whether the
      components of the mineral ash, particularly catalyzing
      elements such as vanadium, may affect emissions rate.

-------
                              SECTION II
           SURVEY OF OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS EMPLOYING
                 PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES
The contribution of particulate emissions from oil-fired combustion
systems to total atmospheric loadings must be appraised within the con-
                                                       1 2
text of current fuel consumption policies.  In Table 1, '  a breakdown
of fuel usage is provided with respect to fuel type (distillate or re-
sidual) and plant operation (industrial or electrical power).  In 1971,
electric power generating utilities consumed approximately 396 million
                    3
barrels of fuel oil.   This was more than 1.5 times that consumed by
industry for the production of heat and power  while it was considerably
less than the combined domestic and commercial fuel oil consumption for
              4
the same year.   The terms domestic and commercial as used in this
report refer, respectively, to private residence and public buildings
and/or apartments.
Oil-fired electric utilities employ particulate emission controls far
more frequently than their industrial or commercial counterparts.  Use
of particulate control equipment on domestic combustion systems is
virtually unheard of.  For this reason, the primary focus of this study
has been upon power generating utilities.

The data presented in Table 2, Appendix A, Appendix B, and in other
sections of this report were obtained from a number of sources.  In
this report, the basis for particulate emission analyses was the stack
test data in Table 2 and Appendix B.  These are the data that are illus-
trated in various figures throughout the text.  The information used to

-------
Table 1.  INDUSTRIAL AND ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION (FOR THE PRODUCTION
          OF HEAT AND POWER) BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND STATE1'2
Geographic region and state
New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
TOTALS
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
TOTALS
East North Central
Illinois
Ind iana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
TOTALS
West North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Industrial3
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)

2,731.0
1,546.8
4,556.1
635.1
725.4
211.2
10,405.6

15,085.5
9,407.9
11,084.0
35,577.4

5,053.0
4,054.4
1,945.8
4,471.2
1,418.3
16,942.7

1,082.0
175.2
959.6
648.7
305.7
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)

7,297.5
9,190.8
7,370.4
2,620.8
1,317.0
419.8
28,216.3

13,765.5
11,044.0
15,581.4
40,390.4

4,073.4
5,404.3
2,574.4
1,760.1
1,059.7
14,871.9

352.9
220.3
1,847.8
325.7
122.9
Utilityb
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)

1.0
0.0
65.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
76.0

18.9
47.0
830.0
895.9

1,602.2
342.1
1,388.7
364.2
273.9
3,971.1

79.2
230.6
750.5
192.1
154.0
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)

29,753.0
4,713.3
45,050.0
1,725.7
2,419.4
0.0
83,661.4

34,376.6
92,390.9
14,582.8
141,350.3

6,825.1
0.0
6,957.5
1,186.1
2,534.4
17,503.1

0.0
781.5
841.3
830.2
203.7

-------
         Table 1 (continued).  INDUSTRIAL AND ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION (FOR THE PRODUCTION
                               OF HEAT AND POWER) BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND STATE1>2
Geographic region and state
North Dakota
South Dakota
TOTALS
South Atlantic
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virgina
TOTALS
East South Central
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
TOTALS
West South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
TOTALS
Industrial3
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)
109.4
47.6
3,328.2

784.0
13.9
3,974.4
4,225.8
2,450.3
3,405.5
3,552.4
4,444.6
730.5
23,581.4

1,634.3
351.0
477.9
972.4
3,440.6

338.2
1,473.5
31.9
690.2
2,533.8
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)
15.2
102.0
2,986.8

2,853.4
37.3
6,916.0
4,638.7
6,937.8
7,859.6
3,042.4
4,521.5
124.4
36,931.1

1,525.7
291.6
262.6
1,165.2
3,245.1

1,592.1
808.3
27.3
1,817.1
4,244.8
Utility15
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)
7.1
0.0
1,413.5

0.0
0.0
85.7
847.2
0.0
401.1
334.5
118.3
0.0
1,786.8

10.2
24.4
3,432.8
0.0
3,467.4

297.0
4,239.9
68.3
4,125.5
8,730.7
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)
0.0
277.0
2,933.7

589.1
5,309.0
59.622.3
3,245.0
25,079.6
3,588.8
2,446.5
20,465.5
2,105.5
122,451.3

0.0
0.0
1,541.9
0.0
1,541.9

1,058.5
2,369.1
49.3
1,679.9
5,156.8
oo

-------
  Table 1 (continued),
INDUSTRIAL AND ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION (FOR THE PRODUCTION
OF HEAT AND POWER) BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION AND STATE1,2
Geographic region and state
Mountain
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
TOTALS
Pacific
California
Oregon
Washington
TOTALS
Non-Contiguous U.S.
Alaska
Hawaii
TOTALS
U.S. TOTALS
Industrial3
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)
116.7
646.6
196.4
99.0
121.5
17.2
678.7
2,092.8
3,093.8
1,111.0
1,971.1
6,175.9
630.5
203.8
834.3
104,912.7
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)
54.5
1,197.8
58.2
157.8
20.0
15.9
95.5
1,599.7
1,309.8
2,066.1
3,572.1
6,948.0
355.0
820.3
1,175.3
140,617.4
Utility
Distillate
(1000 BBL/yr)
4,170.4
15.5
0.0
0.0
81.5
258.4
4.0
4,529.8
69.3
200.4
0.0
269.7
25,140.9
Residual
(1000 BBL/yr)
4,029.7
475.0
0.0
0.0
522.8
363.5
373.0
5,728.0
81,622.8
0.0
440.6
82,063.4
462,390.0
figures based on 1972 Census of Manufacturers; Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed in 1971  for the
Production of Heat and Power.
Figures based on FPC Form No. 423; Monthly Reports of Cost and Quantity of Fuels  for Steam Electric
Plant 1973.

-------
    Table  2.    OIL-FIRED  COMBUSTION  SYSTEMS  WITH  PARTICULATE  EMISSION
                  CONTROL  DEVICES  (STACK  TEST DATA)

Company MM
Coซpeny A





















Coapany B

Polaroid Corp.

Boston Edison










Hartford Electric light


United Illimlnatln,

Consolidated Edleon




Company C


















Coapsny D



PUnt nmme
I




















2
1

New Bedford

Mystic










Mlddletown


Bridgeport

Ravensvood
Astoria


























No.








































3
3
30
50
30
to
JO






















Boiler
(Mw)ซ
30
30
30
30
30
50
10
30
30
30
IB
IB
IB
18
18
IB
IB
20
40
10
10
600
70
B3
10
10
48
48
49
48
18
48
48
146
144
1S1
1*8
119
117
119
405
405
600
320
350
355
385
IBS
185
185
367
367
368
368
368
368
363
363
370
372
363
368
370
370
370
370
600
600
600
600
Sulfur
U>


0.87
0.93
0.89









0.86
1.18
1.13
1.00
1.00


1.00
1.00
1.00
0.70
0.70
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.15
2.10
1.89
2.0*
1.95
1.86
1.79
1.80
1.77
0.30
0.30
0.37
0.30
0.37
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50




0.50
0.70
1.00
2.70
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Anh
(I)

































0.09
0.10
0.07
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.02







0.28
0.21
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.16


0.10
0.20
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04

Additives
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
Yes
Ho
No
Ho
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yss
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yss
Yes
Yss
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yee
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
no
No
No
No
Yes
Te
Ye
te
Ye
Ye
Ye
Ye
No
No
No
No
Fuel
coneusiptlon
rate
(ซpM
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2870
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2100
2200
3200
900
900
35000
4640
5980
390
340
3600
3600 '
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
11256
9593
9268
8211
7800
7800
7800
26000
26000
17000
1*000
1*000
1*000
1*000





22560
22560
22560
22560
22620
22620
22040
23262
21687
21360




36425
36423
36423
36423
Part Iculete
evlealon
device
ESPซ
ESPC
BSPC
ESP*
ESPC
ESPC
ESPC
ESPe
ESPซ
ESI*
ESP*
ESP*
KF
ESP*
ESP5
ESP<=
ESr*
ESPe
ESPซ
ESP*
ESPซ
ESP"
Cyclone
Cyclona
ESP
ESP
ESP*
ESPซ
ESPC
ESP*
BSPC
ESP*
ESP<
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ISP
ESPซ
ESP*
UK
UP1
ISP*
UPc
isrc
ESP* a Cyclone
ESPฐ a Cyclone
ESP* a Cyclone
ESrd
ESP<1
ES1-J
ISPd
ESP
-------
 formulate Appendix A was obtained from the National Emissions Data
 System  (NEDS).  Since most NEDS data were computed on the basis of emis-
 sion  factors rather than actual stack measurements, the NEDS information
 has been used mainly to furnish system and operating parameters.  NEDS
 data  have not been used in subsequent analyses of emissions.  Procedures
 used  to process NEDS data are described below.

 Figure  1 illustrates the manner in which the data from NEDS were handled.
 Initially, a tape was received containing information for electric
 utility, industrial and commercial boilers firing oil, coal and natural
 gas.  Due to the nature of the retrieval program used to prepare this
 tape, the information was stored by fuel type rather than by source.
 This  created process complications because the fractions of oil coal, or
 gas consumed at multiple fuel use locations were often not clearly iden-
 tified.  A program was developed to extract the oil-fired system data
 from  the initial tape for both printout and storage on another tape.
 From  this second tape, those systems employing emission control equipment
 were  identified and printed.  Since many of the systems on the list of
 controlled oil-fired boilers also fired other fuels, it is necessary to
 identify and print a list of these multiple fueled systems.  Once iden-
 tified, a manual sorting process was employed to eliminate the multiple
 fueled  systems from the list of controlled boilers.  Further complica-
 tions arose when it was realized that some of the boilers which were
 thought to be fired solely by oil might also be fueled with wood, ba-
 gasse, coke, process gas, LPG, etc.  Due to the fact that these fuels
were  not included on the initial NEDS tape received by GCA, these mul-
 tiple fueled sources had to be manually identified by personnel at the
 NADB.  This permitted a listing of controlled boilers fueled solely by
 oil in Appendix A.

 The data presented in Table 2 include the results of stack tests pro-
vided by the Massachusetts Bureau of Air Quality Control and the results
 of emissions compliance tests performed by GCA/Technology Division at
 several oil-fired power plants.  Several large utilities also provided

                                11

-------
Extraction, 11 • ting and
tape • tor age of coo-
trolled and uncontrolled
coaBKrcial external com-
buattoa bolUrs firing
oil.


NEDS tape of control led
.tad uncontrolled elec-
tric. Industrial, and
lomnorclal external com-
bustion boilers firing
the following fuels :
1. Oil










Hating of controlled
electric, Industrial
and commercial external
firing oil.


Initial Identification
and Hating of multiple
fueled, controlled elec-
tric, industrial and
cooaerclal external
combustion boilera
firing oil










Manual elimination of
initially identified
multiple fueled, con-
dus trial and commercial
external combustion
boilera firing oil.


Secondary Identifica-
tion of multiple
fueled, controlled
electric, Industrial
and connerclal exter-
nal combustion boil-
ers firing oil.










Manual elimination of
aecondarlly identified
•ultlple fueled, coo-
dustrial and connerclal
external combustion
boiler firing oil.


Final formulation
of list of controlled
electric, industrial
and coooercial extcr-
al boilera fired
solely by oil.
   b. residual

2.  Coal
   a. anthracite
   b. bituminous
   c. lignite

3.  Natural gaa
       Figure 1.   Outline  of processing  procedure used on  NEDS  data

-------
results of stack measurements on their systems with the proviso, in
some cases, that their plants not be identified.

Table 3 was developed from the NEDS list of controlled and uncon-
trolled oil-fired external combustion boilers.  Only oil-fired elec-
tric utility boilers were considered since, as stated earlier, their
emissions are the primary concern of this study.   The hourly heat
input rate was calculated for these boilers by assuming continuous
operation.  Since some of these boilers were multiple fueled, only
those using more than 10 percent oil were used to formulate the table.
This procedure was followed in order to avoid including boilers that
use oil only for startup operations.  The total annual distillate and
residual fuel oil consumptions for the boilers used to develop Table
3 are 12,235,000 bbls and 363,735,000 bbls, respectively.  These
figures represent 48.7 and 78.7 percent of the total national distil-
late and residual fuel oil consumption by electric utilities (Table 1).
In GCA's estimation, the NEDS data presented in Table 3 provides a
representative cross section of oil-fired electric utility boilers.
In Table 4, the total national fuel oil consumption by electric util-
ities is apportioned using the categorical distribution of fuel oil
consumption presented in Table 3.

In both Tables 3 and 4, the boiler size category  of >1000 MM Btu/hr
appears while this size category does not appear  in the NEDS.  Boilers
in this category are usually relatively new power utility boilers.
Due to technological advances, these new boilers  have more sophisti-
cated combustion controls than older boilers that are generally smaller
in size.  It is GCA's contention that this additional boiler size cate-
gory will add valuable detail to this study, especially when consider-
ing the formulation of particulate emission factors.
                                13

-------
Table 3.   SIZE BREAKDOWN OF CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED ELECTRIC  UTILITY
            EXTERNAL COMBUSTION BOILERS LISTED IN NEDS  THAT  SATISFY MORE
            THAN 10 PERCENT OF  THEIR  FUEL DEMANDS WITH  OIL
                    Controlled electric utility oil-fired external combustion boilers
Distillate oil
Boiler size
categories
(MM Btu/hr*
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
Number
of boilers
range category
0
0
1
2
Annual distillate
fuel oil consump-
tion of boilers In
category (10OO gal)
0
0
17.573
88,034
X of total annual
distillate fuel oil consum-
and uncontrolled bollera
In all size range categories
0
0
3. It
17.1
Residual oil
Boiler size
(KMBtu/hr)
S (10-lMw)
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
Number
range category
2
2
135
159

fuel oil consump-
tion of bollera
category (1000 gal)
52
7.922
2.722,051
4,063,668

fuel oil consumption by
both controlled and un-
all alze range categories
0
0.1
17. S
26.6
                     Uncontrolled electric utility oil-fired external combustion boilers
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
15
7
47
3
1,582
3,370
282,102
121,191
0.3
0.7
54.9
23.6
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
25
134
339
84
6,375
210,628
3,310,050
4,956,136
0
1.4
21.7
32.4

-------
  Table 4.  ESTIMATED ANNUAL ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL OIL
           CONSUMPTION BY BOILER SIZE FOR THE U.S.
Boiler size
categories
(MM Btu/hr)
Annual distillate oil
consumption
(1000 gal)
Annual residual oil
consumption
(1000 gal)
Controlled boilers
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
0
0
35,901
180,562
0
19,420
3,456,828
5,165,821
Uncontrolled boilers
< 10
10 - 100
100 - 1000
> 1000
3,168
7,391
579,699
249,197
0
271,885
4,214,222
6,292,203
a n , MM Btu ^ , ^
Q A ... — 1 MT.T
hr
                        15

-------
                               SECTION III
                    CONTROL OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
                   FROM OIL - FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
FUEL AND EMISSION CHARACTERIZATION

Residual oil typically has an ash content of 0.1 percent  while bitu-
minous coal, which is the most widely used of all coals, may contain
anywhere from 3 to 20 percent ash.   The particulate emissions result-
ing from efficient coal combustion are composed almost entirely of
mineral and metallic oxides and a very small percentage of combustible
carbonaceous materials.  When residual oil combustion is highly effi-
cient, the resulting particulate emissions are constituted almost
entirely of inorganic ash which occurs as oxides, chlorides or sul-
fates. '   A typical residual fuel oil ash analysis appears in Table 5.
Residual oil combustion products, however, are more often found to
contain about 50 percent by weight of sooty organic material.  Fre-
quently this material consists of unburned carbonaceous solids which
tend to be sticky and hygroscopic.   The latter condition probably
arises from the presence of calcination products and condensed sulfuric
acid.
On a mass basis, the particulate emissions from an uncontrolled residual
oil-fired boiler are of the same order as those from a highly con-
trolled (> 95 percent removal efficiency) coal-fired boiler.  Stack
tests have indicated that between 85 and 90 weight percent of the
particles liberated by uncontrolled residual oil combustion are less
than 1 micron in diameter while usually less than 10 percent of those
                                 16

-------
                                                        5 9
liberated by coal combustion are in the < 1 um category.  '   Because
submicron particles are highly efficient light scatterers, uncontrolled
residual oil-fired boilers often have high plume opacities.  Hie new
source performance standards for oil-fired power plants not only require
that particulate emissions do not exceed 0.10 Ib/MM Btu but also that
plume opacity not be greater than 20 percent.    This particulate emis-
sion level excludes condensables.  It is unlikely that high efficiency
particulate collection equipment will be required for new oil-fired
utility boilers to comply with particulate emission regulations.  How-
ever, due to the submicron size of the particles emitted, relatively
efficient particulate collection equipment may be necessary in order to
improve plume appearance.  As well as reducing plume opacity, a high
efficiency collector reduces the chance of acid smut discharge during
sootblowing operations.    Smuts are created by the formation and/or
collection of sulfuric acid upon particle deposits which lie on fur-
                                     12
nace, duct, and stack liner surfaces.    The sulfuric acid dew point
of a stack gas increases with increasing sulfur trioxide and, to a
                                                    13
lesser extent, increasing water vapor concentration.    Generally
speaking, the higher the sulfur content of a fuel oil, the more SOo
                                                                    14
is formed, and subsequently, the higher the sulfuric acid dew point.

Smut buildup can occur on any cool boiler surface.  Periodically,
patches of agglomerated material become resuspended by vibrations and
aerodynamics and are carried up the stack.  Oftentimes, duct and stack
linings are insulated in order to keep their temperature above the acid
dew point.  Another acid smut reduction technique is to periodically
wash the stack interior.  This is usually accomplished by installing a
                                                             12
spray ring at the top of the stack and a drain at the bottom.    In
addition to being responsible for the formation of acid smut, SOo,
upon emerging from a stack, forms a fine aerosol mist and subsequently
causes increased plume opacity.
                                17

-------
              Table 5.  TYPICAL RESIDUAL OIL ASH ANALYSIS
                                                         8
Constituent
Iron
Aluminum
Vanadium
Silicon
Nickel
Magnesium
Chromium
Calcium
Sodium
Cobalt
Titanium
Molybdenum
Lead
Copper
Silver
Total
Weight %
22.99
21.90
19.60
16.42
11.86
1.78
1.37
1.14
1.00
0.91
0.55
0.23
0.17
0.05
0.03
100.00
EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILERS

In order to assess the effectiveness of particulate emission control
equipment for residual oil combustion, it is first necessary to estab-
lish the relationship between particulate concentration and boiler size
for uncontrolled effluents.  For reasons mentioned in Section II, this
study focuses on power plant boilers.  It is our impression that emis-
sions from industrial boilers are comparable to those from utility
boilers of a corresponding capacity.  In Figure 2, all particulate emis-
sion data that were compiled for uncontrolled, base loaded residual oil-
firing power plant boilers are presented.  Each point represents either
a single or the average of replicate boiler tests.  Replicate tests were
averaged to avoid assigning too much weight to the performance of any
one boiler.  In order to characterize these emission data, a linear re-
gression analysis was carried out.  In Figure 2, the dashed envelope lines
about the regression line represent the 50 percent confidence limits.
The regression line may be described by the following equation:
                                 18

-------
VO
                5
                5
                \r>
                UJ
                _J
                co
.30



.28



.26



.24



.22



.20


.16



.16



.14



.12



.10



.08



.06



.04



.02


 0
                                                               ENCF  ,
                                                                "tc  L/MIT
                                                 I
                                  100
                             200           300          400


                              BOILER OPERATING CAPACITY, Mw -
500
600
                         Figure 2.  Uncontrolled electric  utility emissions  vs.  capacity

                                     (no  additives employed)

-------
                   y  =  - (7.82 x 10~5)x + 0.0876                (1)
where y ป filterable participate emissions (Ib/MM Btu)
      x = boiler operating capacity (Mw).

The negative slope of the regression line indicates that an inverse
proportionality exists between participate release and boiler size.
Hie superior performance of large utility boilers is attributed to more
sophisticated combustion controls and properly functioning system com-
                                                               i
ponents.  Thus better regulation of excess air, flame temperature,
atomizing conditions and gas mixing patterns leads to more efficient
combustion and lower particulate emissions.  Equation (1) can be readily
modified to express emissions in terms of gallons of fuel consumed,
rather than the equivalent Btu rate.

                        y  =  - 0.0117 x + 13.1                    (2)

where  y = filterable particulate emission factor (lb/1000 gal)
       x = boiler operating capacity (Mw).

In Table 6, the emission factors predicted by Equation (2) for various
size utility boilers are contrasted with those reported by other sources.
A fuel input/boiler capacity conversion ratio of 9.4 —r	 : 1 Mw was
                                      is i fi
used in the preparation of this table.  '    The emission factors pre-
sented in Table 6 are plotted in Figure 3 to facilitate visual compari-
son.  As shown in Figure 3, the variable emission factor proposed by
GCA is greater than the MRI value when considering boilers of less than
270 Mw capacity and is greater than the EPA emission factor for boilers
smaller than 430 Mw.  The variable emission factor proposed here more
accurately depicts the actual performance of uncontrolled residual oil-
firing base loaded utility boilers.
                               20

-------
        Table 6.  EMISSION FACTORS VERSUS SIZE FOR RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS

Boiler capacity
rating
106 Btu
hr
10
100
1000
5000
Mw
1.06
10.6
106.0
530.0

Boiler fuel
consumption
(gal/hr)
66.7
667.0
6,670.0
33,300.0

Predicted emission factors
(lb/1000 gal)
Equation (2)a
13.1
13.0
11.9
6.9
MRI studyb
10
10
10
10
EPAC
8
8
8
8
Total emissions rate
calculation basis
(Ib/hr)
Eq. (2)
E.F.d
0.873
8.67
79.3
230.0
MRI
E.F.
0.666
6.66
66.6
333.0
EPA
E.F.
0.533
5.33
53.3
267.0
Emission factor by GCA analysis, Equation (2) and Figure 3.




Emission factor based on MRI study, Reference 9.




Emission factor from EPA document AP-42, Reference 17.
E.F. = emission factor.

-------
 => 2
 y ^
 ป- .0
 0ฃ —
 01 ป-
 -J U
 Sz
   UJ
14
13
12
11
10
 9
 8
 7
 6
 5
 4
 3
 2
 1
 0
                     GCA
            MRI
EPA
                100      200      300      400      500
                    BOILER OPERATING CAPACITY, Mw
                                                       600
Figure 3.  Filterable particulate emission factors vs. capacity for
           uncontrolled residual oil-fired base loaded utility
           boilers
                               22

-------
PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE ON RESIDUAL
OIL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
The forthcoming discussion deals mainly with electrostatic precipitators
since there are not as yet sufficient data on wet scrubbers and fabric
filters to establish reliable performance parameters.  A few comments
are made with respect to inertial collectors because they still remain
in some systems that were designed initially for coal combustion.

Inertial Dust Collectors

Centrifugal collectors (cyclones) are not effective in removing particu-
lates smaller than 5 microns in diameter.   Since it is the particles in
this size range that are the most effective light scatterers, a cyclone
will not appreciably reduce the opacity of a plume from a residual oil-
fired boiler.  Though ineffective on fine particles, cyclones may be
 ^                                                         12
effective in reducing emissions of agglomerated acid smut.

Cyclones generally have low maintenance and operational costs, but for
oil-fired boilers, their limited removal efficiency may not economically
justify the increased pressure loss.  It appears that cyclones would not
be effective in the reduction of plume opacities for subsequent compli-
ance with federal regulations.

Fabric Filters

Though relatively untried, baghouses have been shown to be effective in
the reduction of particulate emissions from oil-fired boilers.  As dem-
onstrated by the tests conducted by Southern California Edison, a bag-
house is capable of virtually eliminating visible emissions from an
oil-fired utility boiler.   They reported a particulate removal effi-
ciency of 98 percent with  moderate reductions of sulfur oxides also
noted.
                                23

-------
Though effective for particulate emission control, baghouses tend to
be troublesome from the standpoint of operation and maintenance.  The
two major drawbacks are high pressure drop and bag failure.  Baghouses
have a moderately high pressure drop that increases as the filter cake
builds up.  This necessitates periodic cleaning in order to remove the
filter cake and thus reduce the pressure drop.  Bag failures, which are
by far the worst problem, are oftentimes caused by bag collapse during
cleaning operations.  Wire cages, which prevent bags from collapsing
completely, are sometimes employed to prevent this type of failure.
Corrosion of cloth bags due to the acidity of the filter cake is another
cause of bag failure.  This problem is especially prevalent when temper-
                                             19
atures are below the sulfuric acid dew point.    Alkaline additives
have been employed in an attempt to reduce the hygroscopicity of the
filter cake, giving it better releasing qualities, and to lessen the
acidity of the cake, thereby reducing the rate of cloth bag deteriora-
tion.

Scrubbers

The use of scrubbers to remove SO- from boiler stack gases has been an
area of considerable research and debate.  Boston Edison has recently
completed a series of scrubber performance tests on Mystic Station
Boiler No. 6.  Results of these tests, which were performed on a residual
oil-firing base loaded utility boiler, are presented in Table 7.  A con-
version factor of 9.4 	—	 was used in the development of this
table.
A magnesium oxide additive was used with the oil in order to reduce
slagging and corrosion of boiler heat transfer surfaces.  This explains
the high inlet and outlet particulate loadings.  In tests 1, 2, and 4,
some of the stack gas bypassed the scrubber in order not to exceed the
control device's design capacity.  In test 3,  however, the scrubber was
                                  20
receiving the system s  full flow.
                                  24

-------
              Table 7.  BOSTON EDISON SCRUBBER TESTง
                        MYSTIC STATION BOILER NO. 6'
Performance factor
Sulfur content of fuel (wt 70)
Ash content of fuel (wt %)
Boiler operating capacity (Mw)
Inlet particulate loading
(Ib/MM Btu)
Outlet particulate loading
(Ib/MM Btu)
Particulate removal efficiency
(wt %)
Sulfur dioxide removal efficiency
(wt %)
Test number
1
2.15
0.09
146.0
0.277
0.085
69.5

92.7

2
2.10
0.10
144.0
0.171
0.085
50.5

91.4

3
1.89
0.07
151.0
0.281
0.106
62.4

93.4

4
2.04
0.07
148.0
0.108
0.059
45.7

89.2

During these tests, a magnesium oxide scrubbing solution was used to
remove S0~ and S0_, respectively, by forming MgSO, and MgSO,.   It
was found that a 4-inch pressure drop was sufficient to satisfactorily
remove sulfur oxides.  In order to realize higher particulate emission
reduction, the pressure drop would have to be increased.
Although scrubbers can be used successfully to remove particulate emis-
sions from oil-fired boilers, some potential problems must be faced and
rectified.  Since the stack gas is brought into contact with a cooler
liquid medium, the gas temperature is lowered and subsequently its buoy-
ancy is reduced.  This restricts upper atmosphere diffusion, thereby
increasing ground level concentration.  Moisture from the scrubbing solu-
tion is picked up by the stack gas and results in a visible water vapor
plume that eventually dissipates.  This visible plume, though innocuous,
often causes public concern.  It seems that in order to realize efficient
particulate removal, high pressure drops through the scrubber must be
maintained.  This in turn is responsible for high operational costs.
Finally, proper treatment of the scrubber solution presents a very real
                                21
ecological and economic problem.
                                 25

-------
 Electrostatic  Prccipitators

 Electrostatic  precipitators  are  the most  commonly  used  particulate
 emission control  devices  on  oil-fired boilers.  This can be  attributed
 partly to the  fact  that many utility boilers  that  were  at one  time
 burning coal and  abating  fly ash emissions with an electrostatic  preci-
 pitator have since  converted to  fuel oil  and  kept  their precipitators
 in operation.   In order for  these precipitators to operate efficiently,
 certain modifications must be made.


 Figure 4 presents the particulate  emission reductions that are typ-
 ically obtained on  oil-fired boilers employing electrostatic precipi-
 tators without  additives.  It is  obvious  that the  particulate emis-
 sion  values for the 48 Mw unit are quite  high, probably due  to im-
 proper boiler operation.  As a result, these  points have not been
 heavily weighted.   The average efficiency of  the units  shown in Figure
 2  is  43.5 percent.  This  figure  is lower  than would be  expected for
 precipitators designed especially  for oil since some of the units in
 the plot were designed for coal  firing and were never modified.

 In Figure 5 the cumulative particle size  distribution of the exit gas
 from  an electrostatic precipitator is presented.   This  precipitator
 was being used on a 365 Mw oil-fired utility  boiler.  The count median
 diameter was about  0.2 microns and approximately 93 percent of the
                  -                            22
 particles were  less than  1 micron  in diameter.

When designing an electrostatic precipitator  to control the particulate
 emissions  from oil-fired boilers,  the hygroscopicity, resistivity and
 size distribution of the particulate must be  considered.  Due to hygro-
 scopicity, solids build up in hoppers, on high tension electrodes, in-
 sulators  and collecting curtains are a problem.  These solids, when
 allowed  to contact  cool surfaces,  absorb moisture, becoming difficult
 to remove  and cause arcing and shorts.  These problems can be remedied
                                26

-------
 D
CD
  -28
 -.24
CO

O
ฃ-2ฐ
   .16
<
_J


p
Of


LU
CD

2-04
LU
  .08
                                                    A BEFORE ELECTROSTATIC
                                                       PRECIPITATOR

                                                    a AFTER ELECTROSTATIC
                                                       PRECIPITATOR
       o
      "o
                                           	^-W^-— PRECIPITATOR INLET
                                          	ago.	ZL"Z."H
                                              g9     .PRECIPITATOR
                100
          Figure 4.
                            200         300         400

                         BOILER OPERATING CAPACITY,  Mw
500
600
                     Particulate  emissions  before  and  after  an  electro-
                     static  precipitator  for  base  loading  residual oil-
                     firing  utility boilers

-------
M
00
             at
             UJ
             o

            '2

             >

             O

             2

             X
             to
             o:
             UJ
             2
             LU

             oc
   10




   20



   30


   40


   50


   60


   70



   80
CO
"j  90
u
                95
                96
             ฃ  99
               99.B
            Figure 5.
                                                        j	I
                                   .2        .3     .4    .5   .6   .7   .8  .9 1.0


                                           PARTICLE  DIAMETER, microns
                                                                        1.5
           Cumulative particle size distribution of the exit gas from an electrostatic

           precipitator used on a 365 Mw oil-fired boiler21

-------
by keeping deposition  surfaces hot and preventing the solids from
"setting up."  By locating the precipitator on the hot side of the air
preheater, ash buildup on high tension wires and collection curtains
is minimized.  Buildup on insulator bushings can be avoided by the use
of hot air ventilation.  Solids in hoppers can be kept mobile either
by heating the wall surfaces or using a wet bottom flushout system.

With respect to particulate emissions from oil-fired boilers, stack gas
temperature and sulfur content of the oil affect the resistivity of the
noncombustible portion of these solids; however, the balance of these
solids are composed of highly conductive combustible carbonaceous solids.
As a result of these carbonaceous solids, the resistivity of the partic-
                                                      7      9
ulate emissions is usually less than that for coal,  10  to 10  ohm-cm for
             9      13                 5 23
oil versus 10  to 10   ohm-cm for coal. '    In some cases, these solids
are so conductive that they do not retain a charge and subsequently pre-
vent the field from becoming saturated.  Another problem that has been
encountered is that these solids, upon deposition on collecting curtain
surfaces, sometimes lose their charge to the curtain and become reen-
trained in the gas stream.  The extremely fine size  of the particles
liberated by oil combustion make efficient collection by electrostatic
precipitation difficult.  Collection efficiency is improved through the
employment of high voltage, large collection curtains, lower superficial
                                      5 23
gas velocity and high retention times. '

Corrosion due to high dew point, reentrainment of collected particulate
matter and fire hazards due to the combustible solids in ash hoppers
are three problems that must also be considered.  Reentrainment of par-
ticulate matter can be abated by optimizing rapping  frequency and in-
tensity.  Problems associated with the hygroscopicity and combustibility
of the collected particulate matter can be eliminated with a fly ash
injection system that keeps hot gas going through the hopper.  The prob-
lem of solids combustion can also be combatted by using steam quenching
                                29

-------
devices that are activated by temperature.   Corrosion problems can be
eliminated by locating the precipitator on the hot side of the air
preheater and by heating precipitator surfaces.

COAL TO OIL CONVERSIONS

As mentioned previously, the particulate loading from an uncontrolled
oil-fired boiler are comparable to those of a highly controlled coal-
fired boiler.  In order for a particulate control device to perform as
well on an oil-fired boiler as on a coal-fired, certain modifications
are usually necessary.  Often times, even after modification, performance
cannot be duplicated.

Table 8 presents some representative particulate emission factors for
large uncontrolled coal-fired boilers that will be used throughout this
discussion.  The average values of 10 percent ash and 12,000 Btu/lb
heating value for bituminous coal were used in the development of this
table.  Due to the tangential firing pattern and high temperatures, cy-
clone pulverized coal boilers retain a higher percentage of the ash in
their furnaces and subsequently have lower particulate emissions.  This
particulate emission reduction is due to the contact between the molten
slag on boiler walls and the solids entrained in flue gas.  These emis-
sions, however, tend to be composed of smaller particles since it is the
larger particles that settle out in the furnace.

Inertial Collectors

The particulate emission control efficiency of a multicyclone is de-
pendent upon the size and density of the particulates in the gas stream.
On coal-fired cyclone furnaces the efficiency usually ranges from 30
to 40 percent, while on a pulverized unit it ranges from 65 to 75 per-
cent.    These range differences can be attributed to the fact that
                                30

-------
the mean particle diameter of the emissions from a cyclone furnace is
usually lower than that of the emissions from a pulverized unit.

  Table 8.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED BITUMINOUS
            COAL-FIRED BOILERS GREATER THAN 100 MM Btu/hr2
Boiler type
General pulverized
Cyclone pulverized
Particulate emissions
(Ib/ton of coal burned)
16Ab
2A
Particulate emissions
(Ib/MM Btu input)8
6.66
0.88
  ft
   Based on the average values of 10 percent ash and 12,000 Btu/lb.

   The letter A represents the ash content of the coal.
When these multi-cyclone efficiencies are superimposed upon the coal
emission factors in Table 8, particulate emission ranges of 1.66 to
2.33 Ib/MM Btu for pulverized units and 0.528 to 0.616 Ib/MM Btu for
cyclone furnaces are obtained.  The efficiency of cyclones on oil-fired
boilers, however, is appreciably lower than on coal-fired boilers since
the particulate emissions from a properly operated oil-fired boiler has
a smaller mean particle diameter.  GCA estimates that a maximum effi-
ciency of 40 percent might be obtained for small oil-fired boilers and
that this efficiency would decrease as the boiler size increased.
Though they are .not efficient in the reduction of fine particulate
emissions, mechanical collectors could help reduce acid smut emissions
since smut is composed of agglomerated solids and is usually large in
diameter.  When converting from coal to oil on a system already employ-
ing a centrifugal collector, the reduction of acid-smut emissions might
justify keeping the collector in operation if its resistance is less
than a few inches of water.
                                31

-------
 If  the  temperature  of the  combustion gas  is below  the  SO.  dew point,
 the hygroscopic!ty  and corrosiveness of the oil  ash  can cause centri-
 fugal collector  operational  and maintenance problems.   Buildup of
 cement-like  ash  on  tube and  hopper  surfaces results  in increased  pres-
 sure drop, as well  as corrosion and cleaning problems.  These problems
 can be  satisfactorily eliminated by frequent washing of the  collector and
 oil ash hopper.   Tube surfaces could be kept clean by  locating the  col-
 lector  on the hot side of  the air preheater.  This will usually keep
 these surfaces above  the SO- dew point.   However,  the  acid smut that is
 formed  and periodically liberated from air preheater surfaces would
 not be  controlled.

 Fabric  Filters

 Emission tests have been recently performed on two 80 Mw low sulfur
 anthracite coal-fired boilers using fabric filters.  These filters
 operated at  greater than 99  percent particulate  removal efficiency
                                                         ฃ
 having  a maximum  outlet loading of  0.047  Ib/MM Btu fired.  A pressure
 drop of approximately 3.0  inches of  H-0 was experienced and  no major
                                               24
 maintenance  or operational problems were  noted.

 As  mentioned in an  earlier section  of this text, fabric filters whose
 performance  was enhanced with alkaline additives were  used to control
 emissions from a  320  Mw residual oil-firing boiler.  These filters
 operated at  98 percent particulate  removal efficiency  and  SO- reduc-
 tions were also noted.   As a result of this reduction  of particulate
 and S0ป emissions,  plume opacity was virtually eliminated.   An alka-
 line additive was used to  neutralize SO-  in the  flue gas,  reduce  the
 hydroscopicity of the particulates  and to improve  the  cleanability  of
 the bags.  Pressure drops  as high as 9.5  inches  of H-0 and deteriora-
                                                                         18
 tion of the  bags  due  to the  acidic  nature of the solids were encountered.
* GCA in subsequent stack tests has obtained loadings that are consistently
more than an order of magnitude lower at somewhat higher pressure drops
(4 to 5 inches of H20).
                                 32

-------
The results of the two aforementioned test programs as well as those of
                 25
other researchers   indicate that for fabric filters the magnitude of the
average outlet particulate concentration is nearly independent of the
inlet dust concentration.  Thus, an order of magnitude rise in the in-
let loading may result in a corresponding rise in collection efficiency
                                                                        25
but a negligible change in the mass or size of the discharged particles.
In regard to coal-to-oil conversions, an appreciable change in the par-
ticulate concentration at the outlet of the baghouse would not be ex-
pected.  However, due to the hygroscopic nature of the oil ash and the
corrosiveness of acid smut, operational and maintenance problems could
be encountered.  Difficulties with bag cleaning and bag deterioration
due to these troublesome solids can be reduced through the use of an
alkaline additive.  Increased pressure drop as a result of this fuel
conversion would result in increased operational costs.

Scrubbers

When applied to 170 Mw bituminous coal-fired boilers, scrubbers have
demonstrated the capability of removing an average of 96 percent of
the particulate and subsequently reducing emissions to 0.050 Ib/MM
          26
Btu fired.    A pressure drop of 20 in. H^O was experienced, however.
The results of a recent scrubber test on a 155 Mw residual oil-fired
boiler showed that when operating at a 4-inch pressure drop, particu-
                                                                 20
late removal efficiencies averaging 57 percent could be achieved.
Since this scrubber was installed primarily to remove sulfur oxides,
a high pressure drop was not necessary.  If this pressure drop were in-
creased, a corresponding increase in removal efficiency could be ex-
pected.

Electrostatic Precipitators

When applied to cyclone-fired, coal-burning boilers, electrostatic pre-
cipitators have demonstrated particulate collection efficiencies

                                 33

-------
 ranging  from 65  to 99.5 percent.  On general pulverized coal boilers, con-
 trol efficiencies are usually between 80 and 99.5 percent.    When a
 coal-fired boiler with an electrostatic precipitator is converted to
 oil with the precipitator unmodified, particulate control efficiency
 will usually fall in the 45 percent range.  If the precipitator is
 modified, however, control efficiencies approaching 90 percent can be
 realized.   The  following discussion deals with the problems and some
 rectifying modifications that should be considered when converting
 from coal to oil-firing on precipitator controlled boilers.
Compared  to coal fly ash, the solids emitted by fuel oil combustion
are more  hygroscopic, have a high combustible content and have a lower
resistivity.  The lower resistivity of the particulate matter from oil-
firing is due to the highly conductive nature of the carbonaceous por-
tion of these solids.  Compared to the effect of these conductive car-
bonaceous solids, sulfur content of the oil and stack gas temperature
have an insignificant effect on the resistivity of these solids.

The solids liberated by oil combustion are much smaller than those
from coal combustion.  As a result, collection efficiency usually drops
considerably upon conversion from coal to oil.  This efficiency can be
improved  by enlarging collection curtains, employing higher voltages,
lowering  superficial gas velocity and increasing retention time.

The hygroscopicity of the particulate matter causes a solids buildup
on high tension electrodes, insulators, and collection curtains.  When
allowed to cool, these solids absorb moisture, become difficult to re-
move and  cause arcing and shorts.  By locating ".he precipitator on the
hot side  of the air preheater, solids accumulation is reduced on high
tension wires and collection curtains.  Buildup on insulator bushings
can be prevented by using hot air ventilation.  Hopper plugging can be
avoided by either heating the hopper or employing a wet bottom system.
Injection of hot precipitated solids back into.a boiler is a technique
that has  been used to alleviate the handling and disposal problems asso-
ciated with this material.5'22
                                34

-------
The high combustible content of the participates resulting from oil-
firing presents a potential fire hazard in collection hoppers.  This
problem can be remedied by using steam quenching devices that are acti-
vated by temperature sensors or by using fly ash reinjection.  Corrosion
problems associated with high sulfuric acid dew point temperatures can be
reduced by locating the precipitator upstream of the air preheater.  Reen-
trainment of collected particulate matter can be reduced by optimizing
rapping intensity and frequency as well as employing a low superficial
gas velocity.
EFFECTS OF SULFUR AND ASH CONTENT OF FUEL OIL ON PLUME OPACITY,
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
Stack sampling data from power plant boilers operating at a capacity
greater than or equal to 70 Mw were used to establish relationships
between particulate emission rates and fuel ash content as well as
between particulate emission rate and fuel sulfur.  This boiler size
range was chosen in order to limit the variability of the data due to
improper operation or differences in operating methods.  Boilers em-
ploying additives were not included in Figure 6, however, due to a
limited data base, they were included in Figure 7.

A graphing of particulate emissions versus fuel sulfur content, Figure 6,
shows too broad a point scatter to propose any relationship.  It has been
postulated that increased sulfur can lead to increased S0_ adsorption,
and hence a greater mass accumulation on sampling filters.  The net re-
sult would appear as an increased solids emission rate.  Figure 7 illus-
trates no positive correlation between fuel ash content and particulate
emissions.   The lack of correlation is partly due to the fact that the
organic material may constitute a large fraction of the total emissions.
In addition,  variable additive injection rates will also conceal any
effects due to oil ash content alone.
                                 35

-------
ON
              .18
           3

          CO
          to
          Z
          O
          CO
          to
UJ



ID
U



a.

UJ
__i



UJ
 .14



 .12



 .10



.08



.06



.04



.02
                              o
                              o
                             0.5
                                  o
                                  o
                                             8
                                                         P - UNCONTROLLED
                                                            BOILERS

                                                         X-BOILERS  CONTROLLED
                                                            BY  ELECTROSTATIC
                                                            PRECIPITATORS
                                               CONTROI  1 ED  BOILERS
                                                               2.0
                                                                           2.5
               Figure  6.
                   1.0            1.5

            PERCENTAGE OF SULFUR IN  OIL

Controlled  and uncontrolled particulate  emissions for residual oil
burning base loaded power plant boilers  operating at > 70 Mw
capacity (no additives  employed)

-------
   .18
                                                                    X	BOILERS CONTROLLED
5
   .16
   .14
5  .10
LU
LLJ
<  .08
Z)
u
ฃ  .06

LLJ
ฃ.04

LLJ
t:  .02
                                             BY ELECTROSTATIC
                                             PRECIPITATORS
                                         A	BOILERS CONTROLLED
                                             BY CYCLONES
                                         D-—BOILERS CONTROLLED
                                             BY SCRUBBERS
                                        ("*) -BOILERS  EMPLOYING
                                        ^^  ADDITIVES
ฎ                                ฉ
                       ฉ
                                                               I
                                 0.1                           0.2                          0.3
                                 PERCENTAGE  OF ASH  IN OIL
    Figure  7.  Controlled particulate emissions vs. ash content for residual oil burning base
              loaded power plant  boiler operating at > 70 Mw capacity

-------
Sulfates  (measured as SO.) have been noted to constitute approximately
35 percent of the filterable solids generated by the combustion of high
sulfur  (> 2.5 percent) residual oil in large utility boilers using
                               22 27
magnesium oxide fuel additives.  '    As a result of using this addi-
tive, most of the sulfate was present as MgSO, with a small fraction
occurring as HปSO, (sulfuric acid).  If no additive were used, the
total sulfate catch would probably decrease due to SO, penetrating the
filter,  and the sulfate that was captured would probably occur as sul-
furic acid.

Since the increase in filterable particulate emissions as the sulfur
content of an oil increases is partly due to the formation of sulfates,
some sulfur trioxide and sulfate removal will be realized when particu-
late control equipment is used.  This has been demonstrated during
                                                 18
the use of fabric filters on an oil-fired boiler.    One might make a
general statement that the removal of sulfur trioxide and sulfates
emitted from oil-fired systems is roughly proportional to the removal of
particulates from the flue gas.  If a piece of control equipment is located
on the cold end of the air preheater,  this removal will be further en-
hanced  through the reduction of acid smut emissions.

In addition to contributing to mineral sulfate formation, sulfur tri-
oxide forms sulfuric acid mist which is partially responsible for plume
opacity.  Table 9 presents the results of some plume opacity tests con-
                                                                    22
ducted on a 370 Mw boiler using additives and an inertial collector.     It
can be readily seen that as the sulfur content of the fuel increases, par-
ticulate emissions,  sulfur trioxide concentration and plume opacity
also increase.  The  increase in plume opacity can be attributed to
the increase in emissions of both particulate and sulfuric acid mist.

Reports that mechanical collectors do not noticeably reduce plume
opacity are entirely consistent with the inability of these devices
to efficiently remove the submicron sized particles that cause plume
        f\t\                                  f\f\                   I Q
opacity.    Both electrostatic precipitators   and fabric filters

                                 38

-------
have been shown capable of virtually eliminating the plume opacity
resulting from residual oil combustion.  If the gas temperature is
allowed to fall below the dew point, high sulfur oil can cause damage
to baghouse structures and filter media.  On the other hand, as the
sulfur content of an oil increases, the conductivity of the particu-
late emissions increases, thus improving electrostatic precipitator
            28
performance.    Based upon their potential for removing both particu-
lates and sulfur oxides, scrubbers seem capable of satisfactorily
reducing plume opacity.  The vaporization of scrubber water and cool-
ing of stack gas, however, creates a low level vapor billow of reduced
buoyancy that can generate public complaints despite the fact that it
                          21
will eventually dissipate.
  Table 9.  AVERAGED RESULTS OF PLUME OPACITY TESTS CONDUCTED ON A
            370 MM BASE LOADED RESIDUAL OIL-FIRING POWER PLANT
            BOILER USING MgO ADDITIVES AND A MECHANICAL COLLECTOR22
Sulfur content
of fuel oil
fired
(7. wt)
0.48
0.70
1.05
2.70
S02
emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.452
0.642
0.848
2.577
Particulate
emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.048
0.046
0.052
0.080
so3
concentration
(ppm)
3.09
4.83
5.92
14.90
Plume
opacity
2.5
3.3
7.1
36.9
ADDITIVES AND THEIR IMPACT ON PARTICULATE EMISSION
CONTROL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
The fouling and corrosion of high temperature waterwall, superheater
and reheater surfaces along with low temperature gas passes and air
heaters is a common problem when firing residual oil.  Magnesium and
calcium additives are commonly used to improve boiler heat transfer
characteristics and reduce corrosion problems.  Heat transfer is im-
proved by the conversion of low melting point ash components which
adhere to heat exchanger surfaces into high melting point, powdery
                                 39

-------
                                                    30
compounds that can be easily removed by sootblowing.    Low temperature
corrosion is caused by SO  reacting with water in the vapor phase to
form sulfuric acid mist which condenses on boiler surfaces whose tem-
peratures are below the dew point.  Additives reduce this corrosion by
                                               29
coupling with sulfur trioxide to form sulfates.    Concurrently, reduc-
tion of the sulfur trioxide concentration also reduces the sulfuric
acid dew point of the flue gas such that less H9SO,  will condense on
                       30
heat transfer surfaces.
By virtue of the fact that they are ash-forming substances, fuel addi-
tives increase the particulate emissions from oil-fired boilers.  In
order to estimate the contribution of fuel additives to total particulate
emissions, the following simplifying assumptions have been made: (1)
150,000 Btu/gal oil, 8 Ib/gal oil, 0.1 percent ash in oil, 200 ppm
Vanadium in oil, (2) magnesium oxide additive dosing rate of 1.5 pounds
of magnesium per pound of vanadium, (3) upon combustion, the additive
is completely converted to magnesium sulfate, (4) half of the solids
liberated via combustion (including MgSO,) become particulate emissions
while the remaining half are retained in the boiler, and (5) excluding
the contribution made by the MgSO, , equal masses of combustible solids
and ash solids are liberated via combustion.  Based upon these simplifying
assumptions we find that particulate emissions increased from 0.053
Ib/MM Btu to 0.094 Ib/MM Btu due to the use of a magnesium oxide additive
and that this additive was responsible for 43.6 percent of the total
particulate emissions.

If one assumes that the efficiencies of the electrostatic precipita-
tors used to control particulate emissions from oil-fired systems are
essentially constant, the higher effluent concentrations (roughly
twice as large) shown in Figure 8 for systems using additives are
readily explained.  The data in Figure 8 further suggests that the use
of an alkaline additive does not alter significantly either the resis-
tivity or the size properties of the precipitated dust.
                                40

-------
 3

CO
UJ
UJ
    0.18
   0.16
_Q

~~>  0.14
CO
Z
O
Co   0.12
V)
    0.10
D  0.08
u
<.  0.06


UJ

co  0.04

oe.
UJ

5  0.02
  CONTROLLED SYSTEMS
* USING ADDITIVES

0 CONTROLLED SYSTEMS

  NOT USING ADDITIVES
             —4
                100        200        300       400

                     BOILER OPERATING  CAPACITY, Mw
          500
600
  Figure 8.  Particulate emissions from controlled residual oil-firing boilers

           with  and without additives

-------
PARTICULAR EMISSIONS FROM OIL-FIRED BOILERS DURING
SOOTBLOWING OPERATIONS
Sootblowing in boilers is usually accomplished via one of the following
two techniques:   (1) sequential cleaning of internal surfaces starting
first at the hot  end of the boiler and gradually working toward the
cold end, or (2)  simultaneous cleaning of all heat transfer surfaces.
Large utility boilers usually employ the first technique on a continuous
basis.  When the  cold end of the boiler is being cleaned, particulate
emissions are heaviest due to the entrainment of coarse accumulated
solids from air preheater surfaces.

The second sootblowing technique is employed mainly by industrial
and small utility boilers.  In these cases, sootblowing consists of
brief intermittent cleanings typically occurring once every 8 hours
for periods of 10 minutes or less.  During these short sootblowing
periods, particulate emissions have been reported to be as much as
                                                       31
40 times greater  than those for non-cleaning intervals.

During sootblowing operations, particle size and gas stream loadings
are greater than  during normal operation due to the dislodgement of
agglomerated solids from internal boiler surfaces.  Since these par-
ticles are considerably larger in diameter than those emitted during
normal operation, the use of simple inertial control devices will collect
a large fraction  of these emissions on a mass basis.  If particulate
control equipment is not employed, a visible plume will always result
during sootblowing operations.
EFFECTS OF PEAKING OPERATIONS ON THE CONTROL OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED BOILERS
Variations in consumer power demands are often handled by peaking boilers
which typically operate between 60 and 100 percent of their design capac-
ity.  Table 10 presents the results of load variance tests performed on

                                 42

-------
250 and  600 MM peaking  utility boilers employing  fuel  additives  and
controlled by electrostatic precipitators.   The precipitator  used with
the 250  Mw boiler was originally  designed  for coal  firing but had been
modified for oil firing.   The absolute amount of  particulates dis-
charged  from the 250 Mw system increased with load  level except  that
the emission at 44 percent load was greater  than  at full load (possibly
due to poorly regulated  combustion).
  Table  10.   PARTICULATE  EMISSIONS FROM PEAK LOADED RESIDUAL OIL-
              FIRING UTILITY  BOILERS
Load (%)
Particulate
emissions (Ib/MM Btu)
Excess air at point
of sampling (70)
250 Mw design capacity using additives and ESP-^ปa
44
52
64
84
100
0.0473
0.0118
0.0141
0.0178
0.0197
38.3
27.3
20.8
15.5
15.8
600 Mw design capacity using additives and ESP16>b
60
70
80
90
100
0.0029
0.0056
0.0065
0.0071
0.0054
111.4
120.9
10.7
18.7
4.2
 Originally designed for coal but later modified for oil.
l^
 Designed for coal and left unmodified.

The precipitator used with the 600 Mw system was designed for coal
firing and had been left unmodified.  The 600 Mw system appeared to
discharge the same total amount of solids over the load level range
                                43

-------
70 to 100 percent.  Ihe very low emission at 60 percent load is not
readily explained.  Generally, inspection of Table 10 indicates that
the larger boiler produces a proportionately cleaner effluent.  Actu-
ally, it would appear that the 600 Mw system discharges less particulate
on an absolute basis than the 250 Mw boiler.

Gas turbines used in conjunction with base loaded boilers are also used
to handle variations in power demand.  Depending on the power demand,
these turbines operate at one of the following output levels: (1) spin-
ning reserve, (2) base loaded, and (3) peak loaded.  The data analyzed
by GCA indicates that the particulate emissions from gas turbines burn-
ing distillate oil decrease as turbine loading increases.  This can
generally be attributed to more efficient fuel combustion.

In Figure 9, particulate emissions from gas turbines have been charac-
terized individually since each turbine exhibited unique emission charac-
teristics.  Since distillate oil is inherently low in ash and sulfur,
gas turbine particulate emissions are relatively low and are composed
mainly of combustible solids.  Because gas turbines usually burn dis-
tillate oil, emission control equipment is almost never required.
                                44

-------
   0.07
   0.06
CO


g  ฐ-
to
   0.04
2  0.03




i  0.02
CO
<
Of.
0.01
ฃ    o
                             i   i   i
                                               I
I   I
       3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13  14 15 16 17  18 19 20 21 22 23

                    TURBINE OPERATING  CAPACITY,Mw
   Figure 9.  Particulate emissions from uncontrolled distillate

              oil-fired gas turbines^?, 33
                                45

-------
                              SECTION IV
            COST AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICULATE EMISSION
                     CONTROLS ON OIL-FIRED BOILER
The forthcoming discussion centers upon electrostatic precipitators since
they are the most common of all devices used on oil-fired boilers.  Fig-
ure 10 characterizes the emissions from controlled and uncontrolled oil-
fired boilers based upon the empirical data that were collected during
this study.  The boilers used to construct this figure were not utilizing
additives.  These data indicate that the effluent quality improves as
the boiler size increases irrespective of whether particulate control
apparatus is used, presumably due to better combustion as a result of
more sophisticated combustion controls.

On the basis of continuous operation, annual particulate emissions versus
boiler capacity are plotted in Figure 11 for controlled and uncontrolled
systems.  As for Figure 10, additives were not employed by these boilers.
The annual particulate emission reduction achieved by the employment of
control equipment is illustrated in Figure 12,

Based upon an analysis of stack test data, Figure 13 indicates the aver-
age stack gas flow rates that can be expected from oil-fired utility
boilers.  GCA has elected to represent this curve by the following two
linear equations:

                            when P < 200
                                 Q = 2300P                         (3)
                               46

-------
   0.18
   0.16
:ฃ  0.14

1/1




Q  0.12
10
   0.10
   0.08
u
< 0.06
UJ


m 0.04

<
Oฃ

LU


5 0.02
                                             Uncontrolled
Controlled
                 100
          200       300        400        500



                BOILER  OPERATING  CAPACITY, Mw
600
          Figure 10.   Controlled vs.  uncontrolled particulate emission  from

                       residual oil-fired boilers

-------
CO
to
to
UJ

5
_j
ID

-------
JQ
   1.6
5  1.4
z
O
    1.2
ฃ  i.o
   0.8
   0.6
3  0.4
ฐ- 0.2



I  o
                 100         200         300        400

                BOILER OPERATING CAPACITY, Mw
500
      Figure 12.   Annual  particulate emission reduction for

                  controlled  residual oil-firing boilers
                             49

-------
11


10


 9
IO
'o
 u.
 <  6
 cc

 8.
 O
                 CURVE BEST REPRESENTING THE DATA

                 TWO-PART LINEARIZATION OF DATA
              100       200        300        400
                     BOILER OPERATING CAPACITY , Mw
                                                    500
600
    Figure 13.  Stack gas flow rate vs. operating capacity for
                oil-fired utility boilers
                               50

-------
                     when P > 200
                          Q = 1412.5 P + 177,500                   (4)

where Q = flue gas flow rate (SCFM)
      P = boiler capacity (Mw).

Based upon the stack gas flow rates from Figure 13 and recent cost
     5 34
data, '   Figure 14 presents the erected costs for both new and modi-
fied electrostatic precipitators as a function of boiler size.  Total
erected cost is the fixed capital investment necessary to either build
a new electrostatic precipitator or to modify an existing installation.
This investment is composed of both direct costs (materials, including
duct work) and indirect costs (construction and installation labor and
engineering services).  The cost data to determine erected costs was
obtained from engineering design cost estimates provided by the Research
Cottrell Company.  In generating these cost estimates, the following
ESP parameters were used:
                    1,000,000 ACFM
                    0.5 % Sulfur
                    300ฐ F Stack gas temperature.

It was found that for systems with stack gas flow rates in excess of
250,000 ACFM the erected costs were $6.70/ACFM for ESP's designed
specifically for oil and $2.35/ACFM for coal-to-oil conversion.  Oper-
ating costs for electrostatic precipitators are about $0.03 per year
per ACFM and maintenance costs range from $0.02 to $0.03 per year
per ACFM.5
                               51

-------
    10




    9





    8
o
 o
 x  7

 •ป*•



 H-  6
 to

 O
 U

 Q  5
 LU
 t—
 u
DESIGNED FOR OIL
                             COAL TO  OIL CONVERSION
                 100         200        300


                         BOILER CAPACITY, Mw
                            400
500
 Figure 14.  Total erected cost  for electrostatic  precipitators5'34
                               52

-------
                               SECTION  V

                               REFERENCES
 1.  Fuels and Electric Energy Consumed.  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce>
     Census of Manufacturers,  1972.

 2.  Monthly Reports of Cost and Quality  of Fuels  for  Steam  Electric
     Plants.   Federal  Power  Commission, (F.P.C. Form No.  423), 1973.

 3.  Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Department  of
     Commerce, 1973.

 4.  United States Energy Facts Sheets; by States  and  Regions.
     Department of the Interior, 1971.

 5.  State of the Art: Oil Fired Precipitator  Applications.  Research-
     Cottrell, Inc., Air Pollution Control Division.

 6.  Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse as a Fuel.  CCA/Technology
     Division.

 7.  Atmospheric Emissions from Fuel Oil  Combustion, An Inventory Guide.
     U.S. Department of Health, Education and  Welfare,  1962.

 8.  Air Pollution Engineering Manual.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency

 9.  Particulate Pollutant System Study.  Midwest Research Institute,
     1971

10.  Standard for Particulate  Matter. Federal  Register, Dec.  1971,
     paragraph 60.42.

11.  Walker,  A.B. Status of  Technology  for Control of  Pollutants from
     Fossil Fuel Fired Power Plants. Cottrell  Environmental  Systems,
     Inc.

12.  Pinheiro, G. Precipitators for  Oil - Fired Boilers.  Power
     Engineering, April 1971.

13.  Strauss. Industrial Gas Cleaning.  1966.

                                 53

-------
14.  Tankha.   Try Fabric Dust - Collectors  on Small Boilers.  Power,
     August 1973.

15.  Exhaust  Gases from Combustion and  Industrial Processes.  Engineering
     Science, Inc.,  1971.

16.  Personal Communications.  Frank Govan, York Research  Corporation,
     Stamford, Conn.,  June 1974.

17.  Compilation of  Air Pollutant  Emission  Factors.   U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Second Edition,  AP-42, 1973.

18.  Bagwell, F.A.,  L.  F. Cox and  E.  A. Pirsh.  Design  and Operating
     Experience; A Filterhouse Installed  on an Oil Fired Boiler.
     Journal  of the  Air Pollution  Control Association.  Vol.  19, No. 3,
     March 1969.

19.  Billings, C. E. and J.  E. Wilder.  Handbook of Fabric Filter
     Technology.  Contract No. CPA-22-69-38.   GCA Corporation, Bedford,
     Mass.  (December 1970).  Document  PB 200-648, National Technical
     Information Service, U.S. Dept.  of Commerce, Springfield, Va.  22151.

20.  Personal Communications.  James Burns, Boston Edison  Co., June 1974.

21.  Bagwell, F.A. and R. G. Velte.   New  Developments in Dust Collecting
     Equipment for Public Utilities.  Journal of the  Air Pollution
     Control  Association.  Vol  21,  No. 12, Dec. 1971.

22.  Confidential Communications.   March  1974.

23.  Personal Communications.  Research Cottrell.   September  1974.

24.  Janoso,  R. P.  Baghouse Dust  Collectors  on a Low Sulfur  Coal Fired
     Utility Boiler.  Pennsylvania Power  and  Light Company.   (Presenta-
     tion at  the 67th Annual APCA Meeting)  June 1974.

25.  Dennis,  R., G.  A. Johnson, M. W. First,  and M. W.  Silverman.   How
     Dust Collectors Perform.  Chem.  Eng. 59, 196.   1952.

26.  Scrubber Test Summary; Cherokee No.  3.   Public  Service Company of
     Colorado,  June and August 1973.

27.  Field Measurements File.  GCA/Technology Division.   1969.

28.  A Manual of Electrostatic Precipitator Technology.  Southern
     Research Institute.  1970.

29.  A Review Study  of Fire-Side Corrosion  In Utility and  Industrial
     Boilers.  Combustion Engineering Inc., 1966.
                                 54

-------
30.  Babcock and Wilcox.  Steam: Its Generation and Use.  1972.

31.  Emissions from Oil-Fired Boilers.  E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.
     Wilmington, Delaware.  1971.

32.  Relationship of Particulate Emissions Versus Partial to Full Load
     Operations for Utility-Sized Boilers.  York Research Corporation.
     1973.

33.  Personal Communications. Consolidated Edison Company.  March 1974.

34.  Personal Communications. Research Cottrell Company.  May 1974.
                                 55

-------
                             SECTION VI

                             APPENDICES
                                                                 Page

Ao  Oil-Fired Combustion Systems with Particulate Emission        57
    Control Devices (NEDS)

B.  Uncontrolled Oil-Fired Boiler Emissions                       67
                               56

-------
APPENDIX A
  57

-------
            Table 11.  OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS WITH PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES (NEDS)







If
z
10
10
2 j
23
48
48
48
48
48
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20







X
c
3
U
860
1160
1700
3360
1660
1660
2500
2500
2500
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
265
425
425
425
565

565
705
705
705
705
705
705
705
2280
277
277
277
645
645
645
645
645
645
645






0
c
o.
1
2
U
3
I
1
3
3
3
6
f,
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
15
15
15
7
7
7
8
8
12
12
12
17
17
2
18
18
18
I
I
1
1
1
1
I






a
4J
c
I
I
1








2
• 3
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
4
5
6
1
2
3
5
10
4
6
7
13
14
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7





0
X
0
o
Elec
Indu
Indu
Indu
Indu
Indu
Indu
Ind
Ind
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Ele
Elec
Elec
Elec
Eloc
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
Elec
El*ct
EUct
Elect






i*
3
U
i
469
28
80
192
217
464
141
198
391
763
1475
3522
175
175
196
196
219
219
383
560
564
664
769
1143
201-
888
888
—
—
.-
385
445
4640
602
602
1132
176
176
176
170
413
413
413






hi
U
to
11
100-1000
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100- 1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000






0
a.
**
0
2
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Re sld
Re sld
Re sid
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Res Id
Re sld
Re sld
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res id
Res Id
Re sld
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Res Id
Re sld
Re sld
Re sld
Re sld
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Re sld
Res Id
Resld
Rz.id



U
c
•1

I
w
3 *>
IM j
In
1.0
_
1.0
0.7
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
o.<<
0.9
0.9
0.9
0
0
0
0.9
0.9
1.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0






c
0
c
o ^
I* M
!e
0
—
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
g

Q."p

is
U
0 O
16,632
4,314
3,500
10,046
5,869
23,535
8,580
11,583
22,730
39,871
74,714
162,465
2,970
2.970
5,750
5,750
5,350
5,350
14,790
18,145
16,737
18,081
26,769
51,745
96,467
28,883
28,203
—
—
—
12,941
12,362
143,447
24,000
24,700
52,900
3,885
3.885
3,528
3, 528
17,094
18,816
16,080









009
008
007
006
009
009
007
007
007
012
012
012
012
012
012
012
012
012
012
009
009
009
012 •
u!2
012
012
012
008
003
008
012
012
009
009
009
009
008
008
008
008
Oil
Oil
008

0
3
^
*;

•
^
o
U
V
V)
.
-
000
000
.
-
.
.
.
030
030
030
-
.
.
.
-
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
—
—
-
—
—
030
030
—
006
006
006
_
—
-'
—
008
003
—

!?
g
s
%

0
*0
c
o
0
20
78.5
93
50
64
64
87
87
87
60
60
75
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
33.3
30
30.5
33
30
33
33.6
33.6
90
80
90
60
60
20
85
85
85
85
85
85
85
95
9^
Ml

|
m "8
"e 5
*8
f
•3
3!
!ป
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
j
j
j
3
3
3
)
3
3
3
3

0
U
•;ฃ
••* 9
ti O

,|
| :
&.-•
132
44
43
60
28
61
195
195
173
64
119
162
4
4
23
23
13
13
59
48
47
50
74
145
257
77
75
1
27
1
21
20
574
14
15
32
—
—
—
—
-

~
?!
HI
-*ป<,-.
hi O hi >•


lps
11 S S
3sl2
67
50
40
116
67
271
99
133
261
159
299
650
12
12
23
23
21
21
59
73
67
72
111
207
3-6
116
113
—
—
—
50
49
574
96
99
212
16
16
14
14
68
, *
*
-I
W hi *
||l


ฃ.ฃ )*"•

' 2 •ฃ
So ป-
J m ซ ฐ
U ฐ -5 **
53
11
3
58
24
97
13
17
34
64
120
162
5
5
9
9
9
9
24
48
47
50
74
!4'.
-ป•-ซ
77
}'j
—
—
—
20
20
459
14
15
32
2
2
2
2
3
4
10
tjl
oo

-------
     Table  11  (continued).  OIL-FIRED  COMBUSTION SYSTEMS WITH PARTICULATE  EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES (NEDS)
VO







u
4
u
tn
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
26
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
.31
31
11
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39







X
c1
u
140
140
140
140
140
369
1291
1291
1291
1798
2121
2121
2121
4280
660
660
660
660
660
1380
1380
2240
2240
2240
2240
3060
3060
3060
4900
4900
4900
4900
4900
1660
2360
2360
6000
7160
7160
7160
7160
7160
7160






9
ซj
a.
4
4
21
21
21
26
194
194
194
39
61
61
61
38
3
3
3
3
3
16
16
22
22
23
23
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
3
U
11
3
4901
4901
4902
4902
4902
4902






o
w
c
o
•ป
6
8
3
4
5
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
4
5
6
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
6
1
3
4
5
6
2
1
2
1
13
14
1
2
3
4






i
X
w
1*
ซ*
1
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
Elect
KlfCt
Elect
Elect
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele r
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele c
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
Ele t
EU t
EU t
EU t
EU t


X
AJ
a
o.
*
c
to
m i*
'1
14 44
v to
?i
ซ O
2
2
707
825
825
179
700
700
1120
218
2200
2200
5600
404
630
630
630
630
1595
750
750
1513
1513
630
630
973
973
1125
743
728
728
644
1032
1850
752
752
730
1123
1130
281
281
337
337



X
i


w
3
u
ca
I
< 10
< 10
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000






ซl
X
u
ซl
ฃ
Re. Id
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Re. id
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resid
Resid
Resld
Resid
Resld
Resid
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Res Id
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Re . Id
Reild
Re aid
Re lid
Re .Id
Re. id
Re. id
Re fid
Redd
Re. id
Ro.id
ปซ.ld
Reild





44
B
O
4J
c
0
t. --V
3 4J

if
3 0
i* U
4J C
1* O
O. ฐ
xง
i. -<
g "
ฃg
on
Oil
012
009
009
008
Oil
Oil
Oil
008
012
012
012
Oil
012
012
012
012
Oil
010
010
010
010
010
010
008
008
Oil
010
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
009
009
008
008










_
^
_
_
0*0
000
600
000
000
000
000
000
-
_
_
—
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
-
—
-
-
—
-
-
_
—
Oil
—
—
Oil
Oil
Oil
—
—
—
—


JJ
gv
-* X
u
B
ซl
u
IM
u
I
u
95
95
84
65
65
90
35
35
35
94
35
35
35
97
95
95
95
95
97
90
90
97
97
95
95
86
86
90
90
83.4
83.4
88
82.2
98.5
85
85
96.2
96
96
76.5
76.5
85
85



•5
o
.c
w
1
J5
ซJ

w
B
ft!
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
1



oป
u
• .-v
"a JK
-ซ ซ
ซ> c
h O
n
4J w
(. •ป
O ซi
n
0
0
18
59
61
1
82
83
147
2
271
281
497
33
6
6
6
6
9
66
66
7
7
5
5
25
25
26
15
20
19
16
42
7
27
27
13
18
18
9
9
7
7
c
"• O
o •* *
U 01
C —•
0 B
u t.
ฃ ฃc
O u X
own
J3 C C
— O
C 3 **
— a; i*
woo
-* > w
E ป ซ
51 -O **
0
0
112
168
174
13
125
128
229
33
417
433
765
1
115
115
115
115
312
69
69
227
227
109
109
179
179
246
148
120
112
137
232
445
182
182
336
152
152
13
13
2
2


7!
0
V
ฃ
u
00
C
r.
3
t>
u
11
ซ -o >*ซ
0
0
18
59
61
I
82
83
149
2
271
282
497
0
6
6
6
6
9
9
7
7
7
5
5
25
25
25
15
20
19
16
41
7
27
27
13
6
6
3
3
0
0

-------
Table 11 (continued).  OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS  WITH PARTICULATE  EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES  (NEDS)








•
4*
M
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
41
41
42
42
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
6
31
7
7
7
7
16
20
20
20
20
21
21
21








X
 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1OOO
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
> 1000
100-1000
> 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
—
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000






•
ft
**
1
Redd
Re* Id
Redd
Re* Id
Re* id
Redd
Ret Id
Re* Id
Redd
Redd
Re* Id
Redd
Re Did
Re ltd
Re* Id
Redd
Reild
Redd
Redd
Re* Id
Re* Id
Re* Id
Redd
Redd
Redd
Redd
Reild
Redd
Dllt
Dl*t
Reild
Re* Id
Redd
Reild
Redd
Re • Id
Redd
Redd
Redd
Re* Id
Uild
Redd






4J
g
u
9 O
3 tf
m *^
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.4
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.4
0.8
0.8
0.8






S
u
ฐ?
Is
0
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



•


n
Is

Is
h. **
32,349
32,349
39,338
39,338
72.064
11,378
11,378
37,928
44,909
44,909
44,909
44,909
2,549
2,549
3.642
3,642
22.201
21,483
22,806
22,806
47,158
S4.285
65,373
101,854
42,231
44,449
70,316
92,215
17,573
53,400
5,642
2,400
6,700
3,850
175
1,030
1.030
1,030
13,500
4,800
4,800
4,800










009
009
008
008
009
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
008
Oil
Oil
008
008
012
OO4
012
012
004
004
004
012
009
Oil
009
009
009
009
008
Oil
Oil
Oil
005
007
008
007
m

V •**

U ~*
~* o
•V U
x
ss
1:
• ~e
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
—
—
—
—
010
010
010
010
—
—
—
—
000
_
—
—
—
012
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
030
—
—
—
_
—
_
—
—
—
- —
—



S~"






93
93
96
96
76
85
85
85
99.2
99.2
99.2
99.2
85
85
85
85
40
40
85
85
70
80
70
70
87.2
87.2
85.5
92
85
90
21
25
63
25
80
92
92
92
85
85
75
85



g
• -g
Is
• 8
jg
9 *•*
3 9
44 v4
M ซJ
ฃ:
3








3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3



2
||

* I
•g S
s :
is
25
25
17
17
184
20
20
56
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
54
52
14
14
56
43
78
122
22
23
41
30
79
21
51
21
29
33

1
1
1
23
12
12
12
*o •*
• ปซ •

• B -4
- ซ < —
M O ft X
V -4 O
• g a"~
| ; 8 S
"• Ti a •
u • -0 •*
129
129
157
157
288
46
46
152
180
180
180
180
10
10
15
15
89
86
91
91
189
217
752
1171
486
511
109
1060
202
614
65
28
77
44
2
12
12
12
155
55
55
55
„!
o •
1M •
W •"*
c a
0 < .— ป
k* O, **
v 3 x
a** oc •
;sg
0 " ^
S !S
-4 > U
a ซ •
9
9
6
6
69
7
7
23
0
0
0
0
2
, 2
2
2
53
52
14
14
57
43
226
351
57
60
117
85
30
61
51
21
29
33
0
1
1
1
23
8
14
14

-------
Table 11 (continued).  OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS WITH PARTICIPATE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES (NEDS)







•
ซ
w
CO
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
23
2J
23
23
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31







X
M
O
u
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
140
140
140
187
1278
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1291
1798
1700
1700
1700
3360
4620
4780
4780
300
660
3260
3260
3260
4120
4900
4900






a
44

B*
26
26
26
26
39
39
44
48
48
49
50
56
1
1
1
24
31
58
58
58
58
58
58
79
79
234
234
27
11
11
11
3
3
13
13
14
7
7
7
7
11
5
5






0
u
e
o
B.
1
2
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
3
4
6
1
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
4
5
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
3
1
16
17






I
a
H
0
*4
O
CO
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus






b
ฃ
3
U
CQ
|

13
13
• 13
13
44
4A
14
7
8
125
5
76
5
41
5
75
38
41
41
80
152
123
95
12
12
150
144
20
170
170
170
192
65
60
60
168
148
72
6
4
182
7
7



fr
a
0
Sฃ
t* 4J
ซ CQ
?ฃ
00 ^
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
< 10
< 10
100-1000
< 10
10-100
< 10
10-100
< 10
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
< 10
< 10
100-1000
< 10
< 10






1
w
1
b.
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Re Bid
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld






I
3?
^ซ
.CO ^
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5






U
S
c
o *~>
u *
SK
< C.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0



4W
9
it
I
*J •*ป>
ft*
.5
is
u
S3

250
250
250
250
1,410
1,410
200
20
288
3,360
60
250
12
441
19
2,800
135
809
809
1,559
2,944
3,305
2,569
173
173
2,519
2,414
916
7,400
7.400
7,400
10,046
2.380
3,880
3,880
7,200
600
3,600
34,000
1,700
7,500
300
300

ซ

S
•O
O
* G
o
•1

' B
V
on
on
on
on
010
010
004
Oil
Oil
008
Oil
008
Oil
010
010
008
008
013
013
013
013
013
013
018
018
008
008
005
007
007
007
006
008
008
008
010
008
008
008
008
008
002
002








g
10 V
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—


ft
0 ~
•-4 >ป
c
9
•)
- I*
ง
u
95
95
95
95
90 -
90
60
95
75
75
95
99.3
95
99
99
17.8
95
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
40
40
30
30
58.6
93
93
93
50
75
75
75
99
78
87
85
86
88
85
85
85



I
•g
ฃ
8
0
<*4
U
1
•
•
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3





3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3




c to
0
g
|
ซ
•)
"s
Oฃ 41
3
3
3
3
16
16
2
2
—
9
1
3
—
5
—
27
2
7
7
18
34
29
22
1
1
20
19
4
6
6
60
7
11
11
1
15
5
59
27
10
0
0
0
-S
O -<
V H •
w *• •
sst
9 U V
- €ป<~
ซ ฃ2~
hi O U X
a. v BO •
•o'Sg
*g 5-
* B - ^
.— i -* e *•>
3 ป U O
w • -ซ *j
ซ-< -H >  •
U ** "O *•
3
3
3
3
16
16
2
2
3
39
1
3
0
5
0
32
2
9
9
18
34
38
30
2
2
29
28
11
85
85
85
116
27
45
45
83
7
41
391
196
86
3
3
g
"J
ซ
B
o
S^
Ifi
si
•  u
*l •
•o-
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
7
7
14
26
29
22
1
I
20
19
4
6
6
6
58
7
11
11
1
2
5
59
27
10
1
1

-------
     Table  11  (continued).  OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS WITH PARTICUIATE  EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES (NEDS)
S3




s
ซJ
m
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
34
34
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
39
41
41
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
16
16
16




x
8
g
u
4900
4900
4900
5440
5440
5440
5440
5660
5660
2560
2560
516
516
516
516
516
720
720
1660
2360
4700
4700
6000
6000
60
320
720
720
720
720
720
720
720
340
780
780




e
•
a.
5
5
5
17
17
17
17
3
3
6
6
10
10
10
10
10
36
36
12
30
21
21
41
50
2
9
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
105
30
30




a
3
2
18
19
20
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
1
2
44
45
1
1
1
3
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
4
1
2



S.
x
u
0
o
•a
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
x
u
u
U
!L
0 a
SI
7
7
7
50
30
18
12
120
120
334
334
100
100
100
201
56
83
83
275
490
177
200
432
553
108
4
112
112
112
195
195
195
195
15
—
~

x

^
3
i
< 10
< 10
< 10
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
< 10
100-1000
10O- 1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
—
~




X
ซJ
1
Resld
Resld
Resld
Be sld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resid
Resld
Resid
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Resld
Plsc
Dlst
Dlst



U
U
1?
3 H
01 *-*
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.8
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
0
0.2
™



8
V
I-.
it
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

ซJ
•
0
o
II
Is
ซ o
•300
300
300
598
1,195
358
239
500
1,700
12.453
12.351
5,317
5,317
5,317
11.712
438
1,716
1,716
13,860
25.300
4,800
4,800
21,623
2,592
2,042
55
4,845
4,845
4,845
6,715
8,116
8.116
8,116
12
30
~




Primary p
emission
002
002
002
001
001
001
001
005
005
007
007
001
001
001
001
001
008
008
007
Oil
008
008
009
004
002
060
007
007
007
007
007
007
007
018
001
001
w
u
9 *ซ
a ซ
I 2
II
U
Secondary
emlss ion

_
_
-
_
_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
—
—
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
000
000

_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-

s
g

g
u
85
85
85
97
97
97
97
60
60
95
95
98
98
98
98
98
85.4
85.4
95
86.5
87.8
87.8
65
98
96
0.6
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
62.5
99.5
98.1

g
11
ll
3 a
0* ซ
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

u
•Sfe
u ^
•P4 •
U Z
h O
S.Z
Reported
emissions
0
0
0
2
4
1
1
2
7
7
7
61
61
61
135
5
1
I
8
39
7
7
87
0
1
1
9
9
9
12
15
15
15
0
0
16
.2
S
u
ฃ
Mi
Cslculsti
emissions
device u<
fsctor (1
3
3
3
7
14
4
3
6
20
143
142
61
61
61
135
5
20
20
159
291
55
55
249
30
23
1
56
56
56
77
93
93
93
0
0
0
V

ฃ
, ซ"i
Calculate
emlsaloni
device ui
factor (1
i
i
i
0
0
0
0
2
8
7
7
1
1
1
3
0
3
J
8
39
7
7
87
1
I

9
9
9
12
15
15
15
o
o
0

-------
Table 11 (continued).  OIL-FIRED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS WITH PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL DEVICES (NEDS)









5
23
23
23
34
34
39
39
21
21
21
21
21
21
22
41
41
20
20
20
31
31
34









X
i
U
2360
2360
2360
940
2060
4840
4840
80
80
80
80
1160
1160
1291
320
320
45
45
45
2240
2240
120








Q
e
a
a.
5
*J
5
57
53
5
5
2
2
13
13
18
18
36
36
43
35
35
35
29
29
18








a
Point 1
3
4
5
1
1
2
4
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
I







S.
X
hi
4>
o
CO
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Indus
Coame
Conme
Coame
Coame
Coame
Coame
Coame
Conme
Coame
Coarae
Comet
Conme
Conine
Coame
Coame







^
k
S
ea
166

197
3
10
139
139
30
30
10
4
101
18
50
75
178
63
63
63
12
1
2



X



...
<=
II
100-1000
100-1000
100-1000
< 10
< 10
100-1000
100-1000
10-100
10-100
< 10
< 10
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
100-1000
10-100
10-100
10-100
10-100
< 10
< 10








•1
Cb
X
1
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Res Id
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls
Dls






4J
0
H
o
U
•2?
3 H
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.8
2,0
2.0
0.9
0.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
O.I
0.1







g
ซ
U ซ>
le
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0




•
g

\l
0 ซ*
ง0
w
il
9700
9700
11000
40
5
2069
4645
1050
1050
315
125
1263
222
2028
726
1501
2370
2370
2370
250
7
36

ซ


* -S
JS ^
3 ฃ
U C
hi O
ฃ =
II
007
007
007
002
008
004
004
004
004
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
001
003
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
Oil
002

ti
U

ฃ
^

1
C
Seconds:
emlsslo
000
000
000
—
—
—
..
_
-
—
_.
_
„
000
000
000
—
_
-
—
—
-


i*"V







94.5
94.5
94
85
90
95
95
90
90
99
98
99
99
40
90
70
90
90
90
46
46
80





13
u
8
-
Pirtlcu
estliut
3
3
3
3
3





















^
X

c
o
•t
c
Report*
emlปlo
5
5
6
0
0
I
2
12
12
4
1
15
3
14
0
5
18
18
18
1
0
0
-S

41 •ป

g
< —
U X
||

41 h.
1 J.2
73
73
83
0
0
16
35
12
12
4
1
15
3
23
8
17
27
27
27
3
0
0
c

ซ O ซ

g g

U X
II
3 *^
S 0
II
4
4
5
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
14
1
5
3
3
3
2
0
0

-------
                         Legend to Table 11.

                 EQUIPMENT IDENTIFICATION CODES FOR
              PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONTROL EQUIPMENT

Identification Number    Control Device/Method^

      000                No equipment
      001                Wet scrubber - high efficiency
      002                Wet scrubber - medium efficiency
      003                Wet scrubber - low efficiency
      004                Gravity collector - high efficiency
      005                Gravity collector - medium efficiency
      006                Gravity collector - low efficiency
      007                Centrifugal collector - high efficiency
      008                Centrifugal collector - medium efficiency
      009                Centrifugal collector - low efficiency
      010                Electrostatic precipitator - high efficiency
      Oil                Electrostatic precipitator - medium efficiency
      012                Electrostatic precipitator - low efficiency
      013                Gas scrubber (general, not classified)
      014                Mist eliminator - high velocity
      015                Mist eliminator - low velocity
      016                Fabric filter - high temperature
      017                Fabric filter - medium temperature
      018                Fabric filter - low temperature
      019                Catalytic afterburner
      020                Catalytic afterburner with heat exchanger
      021                Direct flame afterburner
      022                Direct flame afterburner with heat exchanger
      023                Flaring
      030                Discontinued; previously meant that no fuel was
                         used with a sulfur content over that specified
                         on the coding sheet
      039                Catalytic oxidation - flue gas desulfurization
      040                Alkalized alumina
      041                Dry limestone injection
      042                Wet limestone injection
      043                Sulfuric acid plant - contact process
      044                Sulfuric acid plant - double contact process
      045                Sulfur plant
      046                Process change
      047                Vapor recovery system (including condensers,
                         hooding, and other enclosures)
      048                Activated carbon adsorption
      049                Liquid filtration system
      050                Packed-gas absorption column
      051                Tray-type gas absorption column
      052                Spray tower (gaseous control only)
      053                Venturi scrubber (gaseous control only)

Efficiency:  High (95-99+), medium (80-93),  low (80).


                                 64

-------
                   Legend to Table 11.
               STATE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
State                   Number

Alabama                   01
Alaska                    02
Arizona                   03
Arkansas                  04
California                05
Colorado                  06
Connecticut               07
Delaware                  08
District of Columbia      09
Florida                   10
Georgia                   11
Hawaii                    12
Idaho                     13
Illinois                  14
Indiana                   15
Iowa                      16
Kansas                    17
Kentucky                  18
Louisiana                 19
Maine                     20
Maryland                  21
Massachusetts             22
Michigan                  23
Minnesota                 24
Mississippi               25
Missouri                  26
Montana                   27
State             Number

Nebraska            28
Nevada              29
New Hampshire       30
New Jersey          31
New Mexico          32
New York            33
North Carolina      34
North Dakota        35
Ohio                36
Oklahoma            37
Oregon              38
Pennsylvania        39
Puerto Rico         40
Rhode Island        41
South Carolina      42
South Dakota        43
Tennessee           44
Texas               45
Utah                46
Vermont             47
Virginia            48
Washington          49
West Virginia       50
Wisconsin           51
Wyoming            - 52
American Samoa      53
Guam                54
Virgin Islands      55
                            65

-------
                        Legend to Table 11.

                    EMISSION ESTIMATION METHODS

Code   Description of Method
 0     Not applicable (if emissions are negligible)
 1     Stack-test results or other emission measurements
 2     Material balance using engineering knowledge and past
       experience
 3     Emissions calculated using EPA emission factors
 4     Guess
 5     Alternative emission factor (other than EPA)
 6     New installation
 7     Out of business
                                 66

-------
APPENDIX B
   67

-------
                             Table 12.  UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS
                                        (NO ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
oo
Company Name
Boston Edison Co.


































Plant
L Street




N. Boston



Kneeland St.




Mlnot St.


Edgar Station

















Boiler
No.
68
74
75
75
76
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
6
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
15
40
75
40
40
354
380
361
380
55
55
55
55
55
25
25
25
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
Fuel Rate
(BPM
790
3,300
5,350
3,300
3,300
26,400
26,400
26,400
26,400
3,500
3,500
3.500
3,500
3,500
1,600
1,600
1,600
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
Sulfur.
(%)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.25
0.50
2.25
0.50
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.17
2.34
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Ash
(7.)
...
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
• 	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
...
...
...
	
	
	
	
	
...
Emissions
(ib/rc: stu)
0.0391
0.1923
0.0675
0.1546
0.1521
0.0529
0.0653
0.0319
0.0309
0.0600
0.0490
0.0128
0.0335
0.012
0.0218
0.0256
0.060
0.131
0.136
0.0590
0.0967
0.0872
0.0825
0.0930
0.0777
0.0631
0.0431
0.0517
0.0519
0.0554
0.0505
0.1150
0.0475
0.0394
0.0682

-------
                        Table 12 (continued).
UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS
(NO ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
VO
Company Name
Boston Edison Co.
























Company A






Plant
Edgar Station
(cont)












Mystic Station










1
2





Boiler
No.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
4
5 & 6
5 & 6
5 & 6
11 & 12
11 C. 12
11 & 12
Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80 '
80
80
80
80
80
50
50
50
50
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
20
15
15
15
20
20
20
Fuel Rate
(gph)
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
6,000
3,500
3,500
3,500
3,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,250
800
800
800
1,200
1,200
1,200
Sulfur
(7.)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.4
2.34
2.34
1.00
1.00
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
—
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
Ash
(7.)
__.
	
	
	
	
	
—
—
—
	
...
	

	
	
	
—
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
. —
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
Emissions
(Ib/XM Btu)
0.0828
0.0675
0.0568
0.0781
0.0689
0.0567
0.0701
O.C409
0.0530
0.0494
. 0.267
0.111
0.10
0.0485
0.167
0.244
O.C465
0.1057
0.0263
0.0935
O.C646
0.0406
0.1225
0.131
0.106
0.042
0.1172
0.1053
0.0785
0.0308
0.0489
0.0518

-------
Table 12 (continued),
UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS
(NO ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
Company Name
Dupont
Bethlehem Steel


Borden Chemical





Company B






Bralntree Elec.





Eastman Gelatin











Plant
Chestnut Run
East Boston


Leotninster





1






Allen St. Sta





Peabody











Boiler
No.
_.
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
5
6
2 & 3
2 & 3
2 & 3
4 & 5
4 & 5
4 & 5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
10
<5
<5
<5
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
25
25
30
30
30
80
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Fuel Rate
(gph)
475
160
160
160
500
500
500
500
500
500
1,300
1,750
1,600
1,950
1,800
2,050
6,150
1,150
1,200
1,170
1,170
1,220
1,190
500
500
500
530
530
530
570
570
570
530
530
530
Sulfur
(7.)
2.19
	
	
...
	
	
	
1.01
1.03
1.54
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
0.89
0.84
0.88
0.89
0.92
0.85
	
...
	
	
	
	
1.11
1.11
	
0.89
0.89
0.89
Ash
(%)
0.06
	
	
	
—
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
0.03
0.038
0.035
	
...
—
	
	
—
0.044
0.044
—
0.043
0.043
0.043
Emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.0549
0.067
0.036
0.033
0.21
0.10
0.099
0.070
0.074
0.052
0.093
0.046
0.040
'0.103
0.159
0.085
0.088
0.1240
0.0556
0.0594
0.0654
0.0458
0.0445
0.158
0.084
0.084
0.162
0.195
0.162
0.079
0.124
0.105
0.067
0.067
0.086

-------
Table 12 (continued),
UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS
(NO ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
Company Name
Eastiran Gelatin
(cont)






General Dynamics


Plymouth Rubber



Howard Johnsons

Harvard Medical


Monsanto

Univ. of Mass.
Montreal Urban
Conn.
(EPA-RTP has
data)








Plant
Peabody







Quincy


Canton



Wollaston

Boston


Everett

Amherst
Industrial











Boiler
No.
5
5
5
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3







1 & 2
1 & 2
2
3
4
2
2
8
• -
—
..
—
.-
—
—
—
--
--
--
--
Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
10
10
10
25
25
25
20
20
10
10
10
5
5
5
5
<5
<5
5
5
5
5
5
10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
13
13
13
12
12
12
Fuel Rate
(gph)
540
540
540
1,400
1,400
1,400
1,050
• 1,050
600
600
600
300
300
300
300
100
100
300
300
300
460
460
650
130
120
115
125
90
90
730
740
730
660
670
665
Sulfur
(X)
0.93
0.93
0.93
1.07
1.07
1.07
1.04
1.04
1.0
1.0
1.0
	
...
	
	
...
	
	
	
...
0.45
0.45
1.05
	
	
	
—
—
	
	
—
—
	
...
...
Ash
(%)
0.034
0.034
0.034
0.052
0.052
0.052
0.030
0.030
	
	
	
	
	
...
	
...
	
	
	
...
	
	
0.30
	
	
	
—
...
	
—
	
	
...
	
...
Emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.052
0.050
0.104
0.117
0.100
0.208
0.145
0.123
0.102
0.082
0.073
0.0232
0.0456
0.0376
0.0441
0.106
0.145
0.065
0.029
0.032
0.067
0.046
0.0724
0.031
0.030
0.026
0.057
0.071
0.043
0.078
0.060
0.054
0.058
0.039
0.058

-------
                          Table  12 (continued).
UNCONTROLLED OIL  FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS
(NO ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
-vl
N5


Company Name
Montreal Urban
Concn. (cont)






Plant







Boiler
No.
„
—
--
—
—
--
Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
12
12
12
13
13
13

Fuel Rate
(gph)
690
700
680
720
710
710

Sulfur
(7.)
...
	
...
	
	
...

Ash
(7.)
...
...
...
	
...
	

Emissions
(Ib/KM Btu)
0.061
0..062
0.063
0.055
0.040
0.041
                                     Emission measurements made  upstream of control equipment
Polaroid

Boston Edison
Con Edison




New Bedford

Mystic
Ravens wood
Astoria



1
2
3
30
30
40
50
50
5
5
50
. 600
350
355
385
320
390
340
3,600
57,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
19,000
0.70
0.70
2.40
0.30
0.37
0.30
0.37
0.30
...
...
—
0.02
	
	

...
0.0917
0.1429
0.2242
0.0202
0.0261
0.0231
0.0218
0.0163

-------
                   Table  13.  UNCONTROLLED  OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS  (ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
Company Name
Braintree Electric








Company A








HELCO


Plant
Potter Station








1


3



4

Middle town


Boiler
No.
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
1 & 2
1 & 2
1 & 2
8
8
10
10
7
7



Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
20
20
20
12
12
12
5
5
5
25
25
25
20
20
10
10
20
20
119
117
119
Fuel Rate
(Rph)
1,150
1,140
1,120
680
680
680
460
440
440
1,670
1,670
1,670
1,080
1,080
450
450
1,100
1 , 100
1,625
7,625
7,625
Sulfur
(%)
0.79
0.89
1.04
0.92
0.90
0.85
0.88
0.89
0.92
0.39
0.41
0.44
	
	
	
	
	
	
1.95
1.86
1.79
Ash
(%)
_ _ _
	
	
	
—
	
0.047
0.059
	
0.045
0.047
0.042
	
	
	
__.
	
.__
0.09
0.07
0.07
Emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.0544
0.0746
0.0710
0.2295
0.0925
0.1218
0.1008
0.1313
0.1414
0.0292
0.0466
0.0481
0.044
0.044
0.075
0.068
0.068
0.048
0.070
0.057
0.067
u>

-------
Table 13 (continued).   UNCONTROLLED OIL-FIRED BOILER EMISSIONS (ADDITIVES EMPLOYED)
             Emission measurements made upstream of control equipment
Company Name
Boston Edison







Company C








Plant
Mystic
















Boiler
No.
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6









Boiler
Capacity
(Mw)
40
40
40
40
146
144
151
148
185
185
185
367
367
370
372
363
368
Fuel Rate
(gph)
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
11,260
9,595
9,270
8,210
11,800
11,800
11,800
22,000
22,000
22,040
23,260
21,690
21,360
Sulfur
(%)
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.15
2.10
1.89
2.04
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.45
2.45
	

	
___
Ash
(%)
___
	
	
	
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.07
	
	
	
0.28
0.28
0.15
0.16
0.15
0.16
Emissions
(Ib/MM Btu)
0.345
0.238
0.1823
0.1138
0.2780
0.1717
0.2819
0.1087
0.2243
0.1632
0.3500
0.1500
0.0824
0.1141
0.0918
0.1448
0.1197

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (I'lcase rcthl /H&inictioiis on the reverse before camptctinx)
 i. REPORT NO.
  EPA-450/3-74-063
 _1	
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
   Particulate  Emission Control Systems  for Oil-Fired
   Boilers
 7. AUTHOR(S)

   J. SAHAGIAN,  R.  DENNIS, N.  SURPRENANT
                                                           8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
                                                           !3. REPORT DATE
                                                                 December 1974
                                  6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   GCA Corporation/Technology Division
   Burlington  Road
   Bedford, Massachusetts
                                                            10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                   11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                               No.  68-02-1316
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
                                                            13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
   U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711
                                        Final  Report
                                   14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
        The  results of this study  have  been reported in three  sections:  (1) a
   listing of  oil-fired combustion units  including their  size,  fuel  rate and
   composition,  type and performance  of particulate control  equipment, and the
   methodology used to procure these  data; (2) an assessment of the  effective-
   ness of the particulate control  equipment and the impact  of  coal-to-oil
   conversions,  sulfur and ash content, fuel  additives, sootblowing, base or
   peak load operations on equipment  performance; and  (3)  the  technical feasibility
   and cost  of installing particulate controls on existing and  proposed oil-
   fired systems.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
  Air Pollution
  Boilers
  Residual  Oil
  Electrostatic  Precipitators
  Baghouses
Multiple  Cyclones
                                              b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution  Control
Stationary  Sources
Particulates
                                                                         c. COSATI Field/Group
                                                    13B
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
      Unlimited
                                              19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                                  Unclassified
                                                21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                    81
                     20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                         Unclassified
                                                22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                               n 3

-------