United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-89-13
May 1989
Air
Overview of the
Regulatory Baseline,
Technical Basis, and
Alternative Control Levels
for Nitrogen Oxides (NC
Emission Standards for
Small Steam Generating
Units
-------
EPA-450/3-89-13
OVERVIEW OF THE REGULATORY BASELINE,
TECHNICAL BASIS, AND ALTERNATIVE CONTROL
LEVELS FOR NITROGEN OXIDES (NOX) EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR SMALL STEAM GENERATING UNITS
Emission Standards Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
May 1989
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended
to constitute endorsement or recommendation of use. Copies of the report are
available through the Library Service Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, or from National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
Virginia 22161.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY 2
3.0 NATURAL GAS NOY EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES 3
A
3.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS 3
3.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA) 6
3.3 OTHER NOX CONTROLS 7
4.0 DISTILLATE OIL NOY EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES. ... 14
A
4.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS .... 14
4.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA) 17
4.3 OTHER N0y CONTROLS 17
A
5.0 RESIDUAL OIL NOY EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES 24
A
5.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS 24
5.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA). . . . . 27
5.3 OTHER NOY CONTROLS 27
A
6.0 . COAL NOX EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES 32
6.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS 32
6.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA) 35
6.3 OVERFIRE AIR PORTS (OFA) 36
7.0 REFERENCES 37
ill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3-1 NOY EMISSIONS DATA ON NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS AT
BASELINE AND LOW EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS . . 4
3-2 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS-FIRED SMALL BOILERS 5
3-3 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
THE NATURAL GAS-FIRED SMALL BOILERS USING LEA 8
3-4 NOY EMISSIONS DATA ON SMALL NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) HEAT
INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT FLUE GAS
RECIRCULATION (FGR) 9
3-5 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS
OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRE AIR PORTS 11
«
3-6 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR
LESS USING STAGED COMBUSTION BURNERS (SCB) 13
4-1 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR
LESS AT BASELINE AND LOW EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS 15
4-2 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
UNCONTROLLED DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED SMACL BOILERS 16
4-3 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
THE DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS USING LEA .... 18
4-4 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR)
HEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT FLUE
GAS RECIRCULATION (FGR) 19
4-5 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) HEAT
INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRE AIR
PORTS (OFA) 21
4-6 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR
LESS USING STAGED COMBUSTION BURNERS (SCB) 22
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGŁ
5-1 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR
LESS AT BASELINE AND LOW EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS 25
5-2 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
UNCONTROLLED RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED SMALLABOILERS 26
5-3 COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOY EMISSIONS FOR
THE RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS OSING LEA 28
5-4 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR)
HEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT FLUE
GAS RECIRCULATION (FGR) 29
5-5 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM
GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS
OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRE AIR PORTS (OFA). . . 31
6-1 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM COAL-FIRED BOILERS RATED AT 29 MW
(100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS AT BASELINE AND LOW
EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS 33
6-2 NOY EMISSIONS DATA FROM COAL-FIRED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
(FBC) BOILERS RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR)
OR LESS AT BASELINE CONDITIONS 34
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an overview of the emission data and technical
basis for nitrogen oxides (NOX) new source performance standards (NSPS) for
small boilers. Small boilers are defined as industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units having a heat input capacity of 29 MW
(100 million Btu/hour) or less.
A number of NOX control techniques were considered for the purpose of
evaluating alternative NO emission standards for small boilers. Detailed
A
discussions of the design and operating principles of each of these control
techniques can be found in: Technology Assessment Report For Industrial
Boiler ADD! 1 cations; NO Combustion Modification (i.e., NO,, ITAR).1
x x
This report is organized according to the major fossil fuel types
combusted in small boilers. A summary of key assumptions and conclusions is
presented in Section 2.0. Available NO emissions data and the results of
the technical analyses for natural gas-fired boilers are presented in
Section 3.0. Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 contain similar discussions for
distillate oil, residual oil, and coal combustion, respectively.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
Only a small number of State and local agencies currently regulate NO
emissions from small boilers. Consequently, the regulatory baseline
emission level for small boilers is represented by NOX emissions from boilers
operating without any NO controls.
A
Available NO test data on small boilers show that NO emissions vary
A A
considerably for these boilers operating with or without NO control.
However, in many cases, these data are insufficient to analyze or explain the
reasons for this variability. Where sufficient data were available,
regression analysis was employed to develop equations predicting NO
emissions as a function of key operating parameters affecting NO emissions
A
(e.g., boiler load, excess 02 level, combustion air temperature, and fuel-
bound nitrogen content). These regression equations, however, do not explain
the high degree of scatter in the data and, as a result, do not predict NO
A
emissions with any degree of accuracy. Consequently, neither controlled nor
uncontrolled NO emission levels can be determined for small boilers. As a
A
result, an insufficient technical basis is available for developing an NSPS.
-------
3.0 NATURAL GAS NOX EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The NOX control techniques for which data are available include low
excess air (LEA), flue gas recirculation (FGR), overfire air ports (OFA), and
staged combustion burners (SCBs). These controls represent the techniques
considered to be both commercially available and applicable to small boilers.
Two other NO control techniques having limited applicability to small
A
boilers are selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR or ammonia injection). These technologies have been applied
to some small boilers operating in California to meet stringent NOX emission
limits in that State. Cost analyses, however, indicate that both SCR and
SNCR technologies are expensive control options for small boilers (i.e., in
3 4
excess of $4,000/ton). ' Thus, these two technologies were not considered
further.
3.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The regulatory baseline is defined as the uncontrolled NOW emission
x •
level because of the virtual absence of State and local regulation of NO
emissions from small natural gas-fired boilers. Regulatory baseline NO
emission data from tests conducted on 14 small natural gas-fired boilers
ranging in heat input capacity from 2.3 to 26 MW (8 to 88 million Btu/hour)
can be found in Table 3-1. In addition to the NO emission data, this table
presents boiler data for each boiler tested.
As shown by this table, baseline NOX emissions from these boilers were
highly scattered, ranging from 30.5 to 132 ng/J (0.071 to 0.307 ID/million
Btu). In an attempt to reduce this scatter, regression analysis was employed
to explain the variability in NOV emissions as a function of boiler load
7
(i.e., heat release rate), excess 02 level, and combustion air temperature.
To evaluate the adequacy of these regression equations for predicting NOX
emissions from small boilers, the actual baseline NOX emission data in
Table 3-1 were compared to the baseline NO emissions predicted by the
regression equations. This comparison of actual and predicted baseline NO
emission values is presented in Table 3-2.
-------
TABLE 3-1. NO EMISSION DATA ON NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29
MU (100 MILLION BTU/UOUR) OR LESS AT BASELINE AtlD LOW EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS
Boiler Data
Full load
Boiler
heat ra^east rate, capaglty.
Boiler
I.D.
3-2
4-4
5-248-1
26-1
Site 6
1-1
1-2
1-3
5-716-3
10-4
19-2
9-BC-l
28-1
38-2
Boiler
type
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
WT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
UT, PKG
kJ/m -sec
(10 Btu/ft -hr)
479 (152)
743 (236)
479 (152)
340 (108)
NR (HR)
214 (68)
214 (68)
230 (73)
HR (NR)
290 (92)
211 (67)
221 (70)
246 (78)
265 (84)
MU (10 Btu/hr)
heat Input
3.8 (13)
7.3 (25)
2.9 (10)
6.7 (23)
2.3 ( 8)
11 (36)
11 (36)
11 (38)
9.1 (31)
22 (75)
6.5 (22)
22 (75)
26 (88)
16 (56)
Average
test
load.
percent
SO
70
80
96
33
80
59
80
65
82
93
79
41
89
Stack 0 ,
percent
baseline/
controlled
8.0/3.6
6.8/4.8
11.0/5.5
7.2/2.7
8.3/7.2
4.5/1.9
4.7/2.2
4.S/2.7
5.8/4.1
5.2/3.9
3.2/2.0
3.3/2.6
5.7/3.7
3.2/1.9
Combustion air
temperature ,
°C (°F>
AmbC
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
204 (400)
168. (335)
288 (550)
Teat
NO emissions
l5/10 Btu
baaellne/
controlled
0.122/0.080
0.132/0.111
0.076/0.072
0.071/0.093
0.105/0.072
0.101/0.079
0.101/0.095
0.117/0.094
0.097/0.079
0.127/0.132
0.075/0.066
0.307/0.294
0.257/0.202
0.268/0.222
Data
, CO emissions,
NOx reduction.
percent
34
16
*d
(31)"
31
22
6
19
19 d
(4)d
12
4
21
17
ppm g 3X02
baseline/
controlled
13/0
KR/NR*
0/145
15/59
28/117
6/114
10/67
0/0
0/0
0/42
10/71
0/20
0/21
0/0
Boiler
efficiency,
percent
baseline/
control
NR/84
80/NR
NR/NR
82/84
NR/NR
NR/NR
NR/79
78/79
NR/NR
80/NR
80/NR
NR/79
83/85
81/82
f
Reference
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.FT " flretubei UT - vatertubei and PKC - packaged.
NO emlaalona were measured by Thermo Electron Chemlllumlneacent analyzer. All teat* were abort-term (<3 houra) except at Site 6.
performed on the boiler at Site 6. To convert to ng/J, multiply emlaalona In lb/10 Btu by 430.
°Amb - ambient temperature (assume 27°C (80°F)J.
Numbers In parenthesis Indicate a NO emission Increase from baseline using LEA.
_NR • not reported.
Test results from Reference 5 alao reported In Reference 1. •
30-day teats were
-------
TABLE 3-2. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOV EMISSIONS
X
FOR UNCONTROLLED NATURAL GAS-FIRED SMALL BOILERS
Boiler
I.D.
3-2
4-4
5-248-1
26-1
1-1
1-2
1-3
10--4
19-2
9-BC-l
28-1
38-2
Actual
0.122
0.132
0.076
0.071
0.101
0.101
0.117
0.127
0.075
0.307
0.257
0.268
NO emissions
flb7mmion Btu)
Predicted
0.151
0.178
0.177
0.161
0.128
0.120
0.131
0.142
0.127
0.204
0.178
0.261
Percent
deviation
-24
-35
-133
-126
-27
-19
-12
-12
-69
33
31
3
aPercent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual NO
emissions.
-------
As shown in Table 3-2, the deviation between the actual and the
predicted baseline NOX emission levels ranges from 33 to -133 percent. These
large deviations indicate that, even after the regression equations are
employed, a great deal of scatter remains. As a result, these regression
equations cannot be used to predict baseline NOX emissions from small natural
gas-fired boilers with any degree of accuracy. Consequently, it is not
possible to establish a NOX emission level representative of small natural
gas-fired boilers under baseline (i.e., uncontrolled) conditions.
3.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA)
(
With LEA, the combustion air flow to the boiler is reduced to near the
minimum amount needed for complete combustion. The level to which the excess
air can be lowered is usually limited by the onset of excessive carbon
monoxide (CO) and smoke formation due to incomplete combustion. As discussed
in the NOX ITAR, LEA primarily reduces thermal NOX emissions. For
this reason, LEA is most effective in reducing NOX emissions from the
combustion of low nitrogen bearing fuels such as natural gas and distillate
oil.
Two general approaches are used for LEA control. One uses an 0~ trim
system on a conventional burner/boiler unit; the other uses an LEA-designed
burner along with an 0- trim device. Natural gas-fired boilers can typically
operate using either LEA control system at excess air levels near 10 percent
(2 percent 02 in the flue gas) while maintaining safe boiler operation and
satisfactory combustion conditions.
Low excess air controls can be applied to all small boilers equipped
with forced draft burners. For boilers equipped with atmospheric burners,
LEA cannot be used since excess air levels cannot be controlled; boilers
containing these burners are typically cast-iron units. However, some larger
cast-iron boilers can be equipped with forced draft burners and, therefore,
could use the LEA control technique.
Emission test data from application of LEA control on small natural
gas-fired boilers may also be found in Table 3-1 for the same 14 small
natural gas-fired boilers discussed in Section 3.1. Like the uncontrolled
NO emission data, LEA-controlled NO emissions from these boilers were
-------
highly scattered, ranging from 28.4 to 126 ng/J (0.066 to 0.294 Ib/million
Btu). The negative NOX reductions for two boilers presented in Table 3-1
indicate the LEA-controlled NOX emissions for these two units were actually
higher than the uncontrolled NOX emissions.
Regression analysis was employed to explain the variability introduced
into these data by operation of these boilers under different conditions. A
comparison of actual and predicted NOX emissions using the regression
equations developed for this analysis is presented in Table 3-3. As shown in
the table, the deviation between the actual and predicted NO emissions
A
ranges from 33 to -123 percent. As explained above, these large deviations
between the actual and predicted NO emission levels indicate that the
regression equations are not reliable predictors of LEA-controlled NO
emissions from these boilers. As a result, it is not possible to establish
NOX emission levels representative of LEA-controlled small natural gas-fired
boilers, nor is it possible to predict the NO reduction performance of LEA
on these boilers.
3.3 OTHER NOX CONTROLS
3.3.1 Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)
In an FGR system, a portion of the flue gas is recycled from the stack
to the burner windbox. Upon entering the windbox, the gas is mixed with the
combustion air prior to being fed to the burner. For this reason, FGR has
been applied primarily to boilers firing low nitrogen bearing fuels (i.e.,
natural gas and distillate oil).
Flue gas recirculation systems are commercially available for small
boilers ranging between 1.5 and 29 MW (5 and 100 million Btu/hour) heat input
capacity, although no FGR systems have been installed to date on cast-iron
boilers.
Table 3-4 presents NOX emissions data from nine short-term tests
conducted on five natural gas-fired boilers, operating both with and without
FGR, ranging from 6.5 to 16 MW (22 to 56 million Btu/hour) heat input
capacity. This table also provides boiler data for each boiler tested.
-------
TABLE 3-3. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR
THE NATURAL GAS-FIRED SMALL BOILERS USING LEA
Boiler
I.D.
3-2
4-4
5-248-1
26-1
1-1 .
1-2
1-3
10-4
19-2
9-BC-l
28-1
38-2
Actual
0.080
0.111
0.072
0.093
0.079
0.095
0.094
0.132
0.066
0.294
0.202
0.222
NOV emissions
nbxmmion Btu)
Predicted
0.135
0.169
0.161
0.140
0.114
0.108
0.122
0.136
0.119
0.197
0.167
0.242
Percent
deviation
-69
-53
-123
-50
-44
-14
-29
-3
-80
33
17
-9
aPercent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual NO
emissions.
8
-------
TABLE 3-4. NO EMISSION DATA ON SMALL' NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS
RATED AT 29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/BOUH) HEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING
WITH AND WITHOUT FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION (FGR)
Boiler Boiler
I.D. type*
*3 WT, PKG
. 15 UT, PKG
D[ 16 UT. PKG
[ 16 WT, PKG
fECCC WT, PKG
LECCC WT, PKG
[Loc.19 WT, PKG
Loc.19 WT, PKG
Loc.19 WT, PKG
Boiler Date
Full load
beat release
rjt«.
kJ/m -sec
(10 Btu/ft -hr)
NR (HR)
299 (95)
28? (91)
287 (91)
NR (NR)
NR (NR)
211 (67)
211 (67)
211 (67)
T«»t Data
Boiler
capacity.
10 Btu/hr
heat Input
13 (43)
16 (56)
13 (45)
13 (45)
9.1 (31)
9.1 (31)
6.5 (22)
6.5 (22)
6.5 (22)
Percent
FGR
12
16
10
14
22
26
17
20
20
Average
test
load,
percent
93
60
100
100
39
30
79
80
83
Stack 0 ,
percent
baseline/
controlled
2.1/2.0
3.6/3.1
2.3/1.7
2.3/1.5
3.1/2.6
3.5/1.2
3.2/3.3
3.2/3.2
3.2/2.5
Combustion
air
temperature
°F
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
Amb
HO emissions
lB/10 Btu
, baseline/
controlled
0.102/0.036
0.078/0.027
0.079/0.040
0.079/0.030
0.056/0.022
0.069/0.016
0.110/0.032
0.110/0.029
0.110/0.027'
t
NO reduction,
percent
65
65
49
62
61
77
71
74
75
CO emissions.
ppm 8 3X 02
baseline/
controlled
0/57
182/85
NR/NR
NR/NR
20/20
10/55
19/16
19/20
19/16
Boiler
efficiency,
percent
baseline/
controlled
84/84
NR/NR
84/84
84/84
NR/NR
NR/NR
78/79
78/79
78/78
Reference
10,11
12
10,13
10,13
14
14
15
15
15
WT - watertubei PKG - packaged.
Brackets Indicate that tests were conducted on same boiler but at different operating conditions.
Mass percent of flue gas reclrculated to boiler.
NR - not reportedi and Amb - ambient temperature (assume 27 C (80 F)).
NO emissions were measured by Thermo Electron Chemllumlnescent analyzeri all tests were short-term (<3 hours). To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions
ln'lb/10 Btu by 430.
Test results from References 14 and 15 are also presented In Reference 1.
-------
Table 3-4 shows that the five boilers were operated at a variety of
loads and excess 0* levels and that they have varying amounts of flue gas
recirculated to the boiler. This resulted in NOX emission reductions ranging
from 49 to 75 percent and FGR-controlled NOX emissions ranging from 6.9 to 17
ng/J (0.016 to 0.040 Ib/million Btu). Regression analysis, employed to
explain the variability in these data by operation of these boilers under
different conditions was unsuccessful. Thus, it was not possible to develop
equations from these data to predict NO emissions from small natural
^
gas-fired boilers using F6R. Further, it is not possible to establish NO
^
emission levels representative of small natural gas-fired boilers using FGR,
nor is it possible to predict the NO reduction performance of FGR on these
boilers.
3.3.2 Overfire Air Ports (OFA1
With OFA, conventional burners are used to introduce the fuel and
sub-stoichiometric quantities of combustion air (known as primary air) into
the boiler. The remaining combustion air (known as secondary air) is
introduced downstream of the burners approximately one-third of the length of
the furnace through overfire air ports. As discussed in the NOV ITAR, both
1
thermal and fuel NO emissions are reduced using this technique. For this
reason, this technique is effective in reducing NO emissions from boilers
A
firing any fossil fuel.
Overfire air systems are commercially available for boilers with heat
input capacities greater than about 7.3 MW (25 million Btu/hour); they are
generally not commercially available for smaller size boilers.
Table 3-5 presents NO emissions data from short-term NO tests
conducted on three small natural gas-fired boilers operating with and without
OFA systems. These boilers, rated from 6.5 to 16 MW (22 to 56 million
Btu/hour) heat input capacity, operated at different loads and excess 02
levels. OFA-controlled NOX emissions ranged from 31 to 61 ng/J (0.073 to
0.142 Ib/million Btu) and the NO emission reduction achieved by OFA ranged
A
from 13 to 31 percent for the three boilers.
Such a limited data base does not permit regression analysis to be used
to develop equations predicting NO emissions. Consequently, it is not
10
-------
TABLE 3-5. NO EMISSION DATA FROM NATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW
(100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS OPERATING
WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRE AIR PORTS (OFA)
•
Boiler
I.D.
19-2
38-2
Loc. 38
Boiler Data
Full load
heat release
rate,
2
kJ/m -sec
a 3 2
Boiler type (10 Btu/ft -hr)
WT, PKC 211 (67)
WT, PKC 265 (84)
WT, PKC 265 (84)
Boiler
capacity.
MW (10 Btu/hr)
heat Input
6.5 (22)
16 (56)
16 (56)
.
Average
test
load.
percent
83
89
88
Stack 0 ,
2
percent
baseline/
controlled
3.2/1.5
1.9/3.2
1.6/3.2
Test Data
HO emissions,
Combustion air lb/10 Btu NO
x
temperature, baseline/ reduction.
o o b
C ( F) controlled percent
Amb0 0.084/0.073 13
c
NR 0.268/0.073 73
d d
NR 0.206 /0.142 31
CO
emissions,
ppm 8 31 O
2
baseline/
controlled
0/185
0/28
140/122
Boiler
efficiency.
percent
baseline/
e
controlled Reference
NR/NR 5
82/80 5
81/81 15
WT • watertubet PKC - packaged.
b
NO emissions were measured by Thermo Electron Chemllumlnescent analyzer. All tests were short-term (<3 hours). To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions
In lb/10 Btu by 430.
c o o
Amb - ambient temperature (assume 27 C (80 F)]i NR - not reported.
s~
d
Estimate only, only NO values assume HO Is SZ of the total (only NO was measured).
x 2
Test results from References 5 and 15 are also presented In Reference 1.
-------
possible to establish NOX emission levels representative of small natural
gas-fired boilers using OFA, nor is it possible to predict the NOX reduction
performance of OFA on these boilers.
3.3.3 Staged Combustion Burners (SCBs)
As the name implies, staged combustion burners, also known as "low NO
^
burners," reduce NOX formation by allowing combustion in stages. The staging
technique is similar to that of the OFA system except that the combustion
staging is achieved by the burner rather than through the use of OFA ports.
One type of SCB stages the fuel, others stage the combustion air to achieve
staged combustion. The NO ITAR describes the various types of SCBs
available for small boilers. As with OFA, both thermal and fuel NOX
emissions are reduced using SCBs. For this reason, this technique is
effective in reducing NO emissions from boilers firing any fossil fuel.
Staged combustion burners are commercially available in the small boiler
size category for boilers with heat input capacities greater than 7.3 MW (25
million Btu/hour). Another type of SCB, called the radiant or ceramic fiber
burner, emits low NOX emissions by combusting gaseous fuels without flame.
Ceramic fiber burners for very small natural gas-fired firetube boilers are
.currently available at the 1.5 MW (5 million Btu/hour) size or less.
Table 3-6 presents NO emission data from short-term tests conducted on
three natural gas-fired boilers using SCBs, rated between 18 and 31 MW (63 to
106 million Btu/hour) heat input capacity. Nitrogen oxides emissions ranged
from 30 to 39 ng/J (0.07 to 0.09 Ib/million Btu). Baseline test data were
not available for these boilers without combustion staging. Consequently,
the reduction in NO emissions achieved by SCBs on each of those boilers
cannot be determined. As mentioned above for OFA, such a limited data base
does not permit the use of regression analysis. Thus, equations predicting
NOX emissions from small natural gas-fired boilers using SCBs could not be
developed. Further, it is not possible to establish NO emission levels
representative of small natural gas-fired boilers using SCBs, nor is it
possible to predict the NOX reduction performance of SCBs on these boilers.
12
-------
TABLE 3-6. HO EMISSION DATA FROM HATURAL GAS-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MM
(100 MILLION BIU/HOUR) OR LESS USING STAGED COMBUSTION BURNERS (SCB)
Boiler Data
Boiler
I.D.
CA
13
Site 5
Boiler type
XT,
UT.
WT,
PKG
PKG
PKG
Full load
heat release
raj.
kJ/m -sec
(10 Btu/ft -hr)
NR (NR)
227 (72)
NR (HR)
i
Boiler
capacity,
MU (10 Btu/hr)
heat Input
18 (63)
22 (75)
31 (106)
Average
test
load,
percent
40
86
44
Stack 0 ,
percent
baseline/
controlled
NAC/4.0
NA/4.3
NA/5.8
Combustion air
temperature,
o o
C ( F)
Amb°
Amb
Amb
Test Data
NO emissions,
fb/10 Btu
baseline/.
controlled
HA/0.090
NA/0.070
NA/0.089
CO emissions,
ppm 8 3X 02
baseline/
controlled
HA/NRC
NA/744
HA/82
Boiler
efficiency,
percent
baseline/
controlled
HR/NR
NA/HR
NA/NR
Reference
19
20
21
UT " watertubei PKG - packaged.
NO^ emissions were measured by Thermo Electron Chemllumlnescent analyzer. All tests were short-term (<3 hours) except for Site 5. Thirty nine day
continuous emissions testing was performed at Site 5. To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions In lb/10 Btu by 430.
CHA - not available) Amb " ambient temperature [assume 27°C (80°F)]| HR - not reported.
Thl* test was demonstrated Intentionally at the lowest possible NO emissions for this boiler. However, this CO emissions level met the CO regulation
of the county's air pollution control district. *
-------
4.0 DISTILLATE OIL NOX EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The NO controls for which emission data are available include LEA, FGR,
OFA, and SCBs. The operating principles, applicability, and commercial
availability of these techniques for distillate oil-fired boilers are the
same as for natural gas-fired boilers discussed above.
4.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The regulatory baseline is defined as the uncontrolled NO emission
level because of the virtual absence of State and local regulation of NOX
emissions from small oil-fired boilers. Regulatory baseline NO emission
data from tests conducted on six small distillate oil-fired boilers, ranging
in heat input capacity from 3.8 to 11 MW (13 to 38 million Btu/hour), can be
found in Table 4-1. Emission data were collected from one boiler using three
different oil atomization techniques. Table 4-1 also presents boiler data
for each boiler tested.
Table 4-1 shows that uncontrolled NO emissions from the boilers were
A
highly scattered, ranging from 42.1 to 96.3 ng/J (0.098 to 0.224
Ib/million Btu). In an attempt to reduce this scatter in the data,
regression analysis was employed to explain the variability in NO emissions
^
as a function of boiler load (i.e., heat release rate), excess 0- level,
22
combustion air temperature, and nitrogen content of the oil. The boilers
at sites #3-2 and #4-4 were deleted from the analysis due to lack of data on
fuel nitrogen content.
A comparison of actual NO emissions and predicted NO emissions using
the regression equations developed from this analysis is presented in
Table 4-2. As shown in the table, the deviation between the actual and the
predicted NO emissions ranges from 26 to -47 percent. These large
deviations indicate that, even after the regression equations are employed, a
great deal of scatter remains in the data. As a result, these regression
equations cannot be used to predict NO emissions from these boilers with any
degree of accuracy. Further, it is not possible to establish a regulatory
baseline NOX emission level representative of small distillate oil-fired
boilers.
14
-------
TABLE 4-1. NO EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MU
(100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS AT BASELINE AND LOU EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS
•oiler Dete
full laed
beet celeeee toilet
cete. ceaeoltr. fuel
•olloc
1.0
1-2
4-4
1-1
•lt-1
e
(Steeei)
1»-1
(Ale)*
• 1»-1
(Hecb)*
Loo. 1*
1-1
I
leileelon
b
•oiler
»!»•
ft
ft
irr. no
HI. no
HI. no
HI. no
HI, no
HI, no
."'•'-I
(10 Itu/ft -
47* (112)
141 (214)
114 (*•)
ail (47)
ait (*?>
an (*?)
ail («?)
aio (?i)
teete were conducted on tbe
ft > flcetuboi Wt - wetectubei PIG
c"°. -us
In lb/10
d
•A - not
e
Ions wore meai
•tu by 410.
cvellobloi HR
•uced by them
- not reportei
1
10 Itu/hr
be) beet Input
1.1 O»
7.1 (21)
11 (>»)
».« (22)
«.4 (22)
«.4 (22)
«.4 (22)
11 (>•>
nltcofei
peccen
•A
•A
0.0*1
0.00*
0.00*
0.00*
0.004
0.04S
eone boiler operetta*- with
- pecke*e.
> llectron Cb*allu»liu»cent
li AMb • evblont
tMMM
••P*
A**re*c Iteck 0 .
teet percent
», loed. beeeltne/
t percent controlled
M 1.4/1.4
47 1.2/2.7
SO i. 2/1.1
00 4.1/1.*
10 4.1/2.1
«» 4.2/J.7
•1 1. a/1.1
?* s.»/a.o
.three typee of oil etoBUl
enelyiet. Ml te«t§ were
ce |e»une a? C (10 f)| .
I.«t
CeeAuetlon •> ealeelon
elc ' te/10 Itu
teevecetuce, beeellne/
0^ 0 «
C ( »> controlled
teb' O.aai/0.1»7
Ae. 1. 224/0. IM
Aek 0.1M/0.1U
Je») O.OM/O.OM
Aab 0.114/0. US
A>* 0.107/0.10}
Ae* 0.114/0.121
177 (110) 0.1M/0.114
itlon (I.e.. «tee», etc, end
•bort-tem (<1 houri). to c
Dete
• .
00 emleetone,
pp. • 11 0
•O ceduotlon, beeellne/*
percent controlled
11
17>
11
10
7
a
i*
is
•echenlcel).
lotmct to n*/J,
0/J
n/nt
n/n
0/4t
0/0
o/p
4/101
0/1?
•ultlply ealii loo.
•oiler
PH OBleelane, efficiency.
lb/10 • Itu percent
beeelln* beiellne/
controlled controlled Reference
0.04/R n/M 1
o.oi/n oi/n s
n/n n/n s
Em/o.04 n/oi i
n/n i4/n i
n/m n/«4 i
0.0*/0.04 12/01 11
o.4/n 01/11 i
•
to convert to nffJ, Multiply eeUeeteae In lb/10" Itu by 410.
lest ceeulte I roe) teferencee 3 end 11 eco
-------
TABLE 4-2. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS FOR
UNCONTROLLED DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS
Boiler
I.D.
1-2
19-1 (Steam)3
19-1 (Air)a
19-1 (Mech)a
Loc. 19
1-3
Actual
0.136
0.098
0.134
0.107
0.154
0.158
NO emissions
H bfinilllon Btu)
Predicted
0.161
0.126
s
0.126
0.130
0.114
0.232
Percent b
deviation
-18
-29
6
-22
26
-47
Indicates type of oil atomization. Mech - mechanical.
Percent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual NO
emissions.
16
-------
4.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA)
Emission test data from application of LEA control on small distillate
oil-fired boilers may also be found in Table 4-1 for the same six small
distillate oil-fired boilers discussed in Section 4.1. Like the uncontrolled
NOX emission data, LEA-controlled NOX emissions were highly scattered,
ranging from 37.8 to 84.7 ng/J (0.088 to 0.197 To/million Btu). The NOX
emission reductions also varied considerably (from 2 to 19 percent).
As with the uncontrolled NOX emission data, regression analysis was
employed to explain the variability introduced into the data by operation of
23
these boilers under different conditions. A comparison of actual NOX
emissions and predicted NOX emissions using the regression equations
developed from this analysis is summarized in Table 4-3. As shown in the
table, the deviation between the actual and the predicted NO emissions
ranges from 36 to -40 percent. These large deviations between the actual and
predicted NO emissions indicate that the regression equations are not
reliable predictors of LEA-controlled emissions from these boilers. As a
result, it is not possible to establish NO emission levels which are
^
representative of small distillate oil-fired boilers using LEA, nor is it
possible to predict the NOX reduction performance of LEA on these boilers.
4.3 OTHER NOX CONTROLS
4.3.1 Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)
Nitrogen oxides emissions data from tests conducted on two distillate
oil-fired boilers operating with and without FGR are summarized in Table 4-4.
One boiler was rated at 7.3 MW (25 million Btu/hour) heat input capacity and
the other boiler was rated at 16.4 MW (56 million Btu/hour) heat input
capacity. This table also provides boiler data for each boiler tested.
Table 4-4 shows that the two boilers were operated at different loads
and excess 0- levels and that they have different amounts of flue gas
recirculated to the boilers. This resulted in FGR-controlled NO emissions
ranging from 17.6 to 65.4 ng/J (0.041 to 0.152 To/million Btu). Such a
17
-------
TABLE 4-3. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS
FOR THE DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS USING LEA
Boiler
I.D.
1-2
15M a
(Steam)3
19-1
(Air)a
19-1 a
(Mech)a
LOG. 19
1-3
Actual
0.118
0.088
0.125
0.105
0.125
0.134
NOV emissions
Mb/million Btu)
Predicted
0.142
0.119
0.106
0.110
0.080
0.187
Percent .
deviation
-20
-35
16
-5
36
. -40
Indicates type of oil atomization. Mech » mechanical.
Percent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual
NO emissions.
18
-------
TABLE 4-4. NO EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED
x
AT 29 MU (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) HEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT
FLUE GAS RECIRCULATION (FGR)
loiter Data
Pull load
heat releeee
»t..
•oiler loiter kJ/B -eeo
I.D. type (10 Itu/ft -hr)
13 HT. PEC 29t (»3>
Loc. It HT. PEG 211 (•»
loiter
capacity, Puet
Ml (10 Itu/hr) nitrogen. Percent
noet Input percent . PCR
4
1* (it) MA 10
t.l (22) 0.004 21
Te«t Data
Average Itack O , CoMbuatlon K> ealealone, 00 eaUaelona.
teit , percent air lb/10 Itu ppa I SI O
load, beaelloe/ teayereture, baaellne/ HO reduction. beaellne/
percent controlled P controlled percent controlled
'd
100 3.3/1.4 teb 0.115/0.152 11 20/24
11 1.2/0.1 A*b 0.154/0.041 M 4/46
PM OBlealona
lb/10 Itu
percent
beeellne/
controlled
4
m/m
O.Oe/0.01
•oiler
efficiency
percent
baaellne/
controlled Reference
m/n 12
12(12 15
HT - vetortubei PEC - packaged.
Percent of flue gae •*•• reclrculeted to bolter.
kX> eoilealana vere Beaaured by The no Electron Cheallualneacent analyaer. Alt teeta Here abort-tana (<1 houra). To convert to ng/J, oultlply oBtaela
ln'lb/10 Itu by 410.
•A - not
flo convert to ng/J. Multiply oBlaalona In Ib/io" Itu by 410.
Teat reeulta froa Reference 13 ere eleo preeented In Reference 1.
evelleblei tmb » ••blent teerieteture IMIUM 27 C (10 f))l O - not reported.
-------
limited data base does not permit the use of regression analysis to develop
equations predicting NO emissions from small distillate oil-fired boilers
using FGR. Consequently, it is not possible to establish NOX emission levels
representative of small distillate oil-fired boilers using FGR, nor is it
possible to predict the NOX reduction performance of FGR on these boilers.
4.3.2 Qverfire Air Ports (OFA1
Table 4-5 presents NO emission data from tests conducted on one small
distillate oil-fired boiler operating with and without OFA and rated at 6.5
MW (22 million Btu/hour) heat input capacity. This table also provides
boiler data for this boiler. This boiler emitted 53.8 ng/J (0.125
Ib/million Btu) of NOX during OFA operation and 66.2 ng/J (0.154 Ib/million
Btu) of NOX during baseline testing, resulting in a 19 percent reduction in
NO emissions over baseline. As mentioned above for FGR, such a limited
data base does not permit the use of regression analysis. Thus, equations
predicting NO emissions and NO emission reductions from small distillate
A ' A
oil-fired boilers using OFA cannot be developed. Further, it is not possible
to establish NOX emission levels representative of small distillate oil-fired
boilers using OFA, nor is it possible to predict the NO emission reduction
^
performance of OFA on these boilers.
4.3.3 Staged Combustion Burners (SCBs)
The results of a single NOX test on one small distillate oil-fired
boiler rated at 22 MW (75 million Btu/hour) heat input capacity using a
staged combustion burner are presented in Table 4-6. Emissions of NO
measured from this boiler were 47.3 ng/J (0.110 Ib/million Btu) during low
NOX operation. Baseline test data were not available for this boiler
operating without combustion staging. Consequently, the reduction in NO
^
emissions achieved by SCBs on this boiler cannot be determined. As mentioned
above for both FGR and OFA, such a limited data base does not permit the use
of regression analysis. Thus, equations predicting NOX emissions from small
distillate oil-fired boilers using SCBs could not be developed. As a result,
20
-------
TABLE 4-5. HO EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MU
x
(100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) HEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING
WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRB AIR PORTS (OFA)
•oll«c Data
Full laed . taller
beet roloeee toiler Averefe Steek O , Canbuetlan NO eeileelane. CO ooUeelon*. PH eeUeelane, efficiency,
2 • ft ft
rete. cepoclty. Fuel te«t percent elr lb/10 Itu pp> « II O lb/10 Itu percent
taller teller kJ/« ->ea Ml (10 Itu/hr) nUroieo. loed. beeellne/ tanpereture. . be«ellne/ W reduction. beeellno/ betellne/ beiellne/
eJ2 oo bi d e
1.0. type (10 Itu/ft -br) beet Input percent percent controlled C ( ») controlled percent controlled controlled controlled Reference
INi '
I—•
Loo. 1* HI. PIG 211 (el) e.S (22) 0.00* tl 1.2/1.1 JU1> 0.15t/0.12S 19 «/29 0.Oft/0.01 I2/1J 15
^ 01 - pec e«e . . >
M eeilitlani were oeeiured by Tbereu Electron Cbeeillueilneecent enelyter. All teete vera ehart-ten (lon< In lb/10 Itu by »JO.
e
Teet reeulte from Reference 15 ere presented In Reference 1.
-------
TABLE 4-6. NO EMISSIONS DATA FROM DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT
*
29 MW (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS USING STAGED COMBUSTION BURNERS (SCB)
ro
ro
Boiler Data
Full load
heat release Boiler Average
rate, capacity, teat
Boiler kJ/m -aec MW (10 Btu/hr) load.
a 3 2
I.D. Boiler type (10 Btu/ft -hr) heat Input percent
13 WT, PKG 227 (72) 22 (75) 84
Teit Data
Boiler
Stack 0 , NO emissions, CO emissions, efficiency,
2 x 6
percent Combustion air lb/10 Btu ppm g 31 O percent
baseline/ temperature, baseline/ baseline/ baseline/
o b
controlled F controlled controlled controlled
HA 11.9 AmbC MA/0. 110 HA/91 NR/NR°
Reference
24
WT - watertubei PKG - packaged.
tf
NO emissions were measured by Thermo Electron Chemlluminescent analyzer. All teata were short-term (O hours). To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions
« 6
In lb/10 .Btu by 430.
c o o
NA - not available) Arab - ambient temperature [assume 27 C (80 F)]i HR - not reported.
-------
it Is not possible to establish NO emission levels representative of small
distillate oil-fired boilers using SCBs, nor is it possible to predict the
NO emission reduction performance of SCBs on these boilers.
23
-------
5.0 RESIDUAL OIL NOX EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The NO controls for which emission data are available include LEA, FGR,
and OFA. No emission data are available for SCBs operating on these boilers.
The operating principles, applicability, and commercial availability of these
techniques for residual oil-fired boilers are the same as for both natural
gas and distillate oil-fired boilers discussed above.
5.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The regulatory baseline is defined as the uncontrolled NO emission
level because of the virtual absence of State and local regulation of NOX
emissions from small residual oil-fired boilers. Regulatory baseline NO
^
emission data from tests conducted on 14 residual oil-fired boilers, ranging
in heat input capacity from 2.6 to 29 MW (9 to 100 million Btu/hour) can be
found in Table 5-1. This table also presents"ooiler data for each boiler
tested.
Table 5-1 shows that uncontrolled NO emissions from these boilers were
highly scattered, ranging from 86 to 276 ng/J (0.2 to 0.64 Ib/million Btu).
In an attempt to reduce this scatter, regression analysis was employed to
explain the variability in NOX emissions as a.function of boiler load (i.e.,
heat release rate), excess 02 level, combustion air temperature, and nitrogen
content of the oil.25 Three boilers (#24-TV, ECCC, and #28-1) were deleted
from the analysis because of lack of data on either heat release rate or fuel
nitrogen content.
A comparison of actual NO emissions in Table 5-1 and predicted NO
A ^
emissions using the NOX regression equations developed from this analysis is
summarized in Table 5-2. As shown, the deviation between actual and the
predicted NOX emissions ranges from 38 to -58 percent.. As with other fuels,
these large deviations indicate that, even after the regression equations are
employed, a great deal of scatter remains in the data. As a result, these
regression equations cannot be used to predict NO emissions from these
A
boilers with any degree of accuracy. Consequently, it is not possible to
establish a baseline, or uncontrolled, NO emission level which is
A
representative of small residual oil-fired boilers.
24
-------
TABLE i-1. NO EHISSIOHS DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MU
x
(100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS AT BASELINE AND LOU EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS
toller
1.0.
21-1
24-TV
21-1
2-4
16-2
Loo. 1*
r l"1 .
l(Staeei)
I '"'.
(Air)
19-2
20-4
ICCC ,
26-1
17-2
Loc. 11
11-2
•
toller
type
rt
n
n
HI, ri
HI, PKC
vr. no
HI. PKC
HI, PKC
VI. PKC
vr. PKC
vt, no
vr, nc
HI. PKC
vr. PKC
vr. PKC
n - flretubei HI • w
c
NO eeilaalona were Mai
ln"lb/10 Itu by 410.
m • nrft reportedi Art
CatlaMte only, NO vein
To convert to n|/J. a»il
toller Data
Pull load
beat releaae
ret..
kJ/a -aeo
(10 Itu/ft -br)
41* (111)
NB (KB)
140 (lOt)
111 (SI)
111 (IS)
211 (67)
211 (67)
211 (67)
211 (67)
412 (117)
KR (HI)
246 (71)
111 (101)
26} (It)
26} (14)
itertubei PKG • pac
lured by The row Ilec
lea eaauM NO la SI
.tlply eeilaalona In
rencea S. 14. and 1}
Teat Data
toller
capacity, fuel
10 ttu/hr nitrogen.
beet Input percent
2.6 (9) 0.27
1.1 (11) 1.10
6.7 (21) 0.01
24 (II) 0.11
24 (II) 0.29
6.S (22) 0.2S
6.S (22) 0.44
6.S (22) 0.44
6.S (22) 0.14
29 (100) 0.17
9.1 (11) 0.1*
26 (II) Ht
IS (SO) 0.10
11 (S6> 0.14
16 (S6) 0.4*
Averate
teat
load.
percent
96
104
94
to
11
•0
11
tl
11
64
71
41
11
IS
•1
boiler operetlnt with too typea of o
kaiedi and H - field erected.
tron CheeUlueUneacent analyaer. All
o o
Stack O ,
percent
beaellne/
controlled
S. 4/1.9
1.2/1.*
4.9/1.1
5.7/1.4
4.9/1.7
2.9/1.6
4.0/2.6
4.4/2.1
1.1/0.9
S. 7/4.0
1.5/1.6
S.l/4.9
4.1/1.1
1.1/0.*
1.0/1.6
11 atceiltatli
Cortuatloa NO eotlaalona,
air fb/10 Itu
toayeraturo, beaellne/
°C (°P) controlled"
Art' 0.111/0.12*
Art 0.219/0.221
Art 0.211/0.201
Art • 0. 641/0. S72
Art 0.2S6/0.216
Art 0.271/0. 1*1
Art 0.4S9/0.41I
Art 0.414/0.166
Art 0. 217/0. IS9
Art 0. 1*1/0. 1S6
Art 0.200/0.14S
174 (145) 0.261/0.211
110 (210) 0.251/0.210 .
lit (210) O.lle'/O.lO}*
1S7 (US) 0.419/0.112
MI ayateau (I.e., ateao> and air)
00 eeilaalona,
pp. • 11 0^
NO reduction, baaellne/
percent controlled
It
S
1
11
t
11
)
It
27
11
21
12
1
21
21
ct to n|/J,
21/21
0/111
11/21
0/0
0/0
4/111
0/90
o/ra
1*/SI
0/12
<10/<10
0/4}
0/0
22/6}
0(120
eultlply Million!
PM eeilaalona,
lb/10 Itu
baael Ine
f
controlled
m/m
0.09/Mt
o.ot/m
n/im
mt/n.
0.01/0. 01
0.01/Mt
*R/m
ta.io.it
0.09/Ht •
HI/0
m/m
o.u/m
0.1S/0.11
o.u/m
toller
efficiency,
percent
beaellne/
controlled
ti/m
ts/m
16/17
m/ti
*S/tl
•1/14
14/1}
15(1}
6516
M/m
m/m
•6/17
. i}/m
•5/16
•7/17
mm •
Reference
S
}
s
s
s
is
s
s
)
}
14
}
}
IS
s
UKB (•••IOTV Ml 1. |eu V|| .
of the total (only NO vea aieaaured).
lb/10 Itu by 410.
ere alio preaented In Reference 1.
-------
TABLE 5-2. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS
FOR UNCONTROLLED RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS
Boiler
I.D.a
23-1
26-1
2-4
16-2
Loc. 19
19-1 a
(Steam)3
19-1 a
(Air)a
19-2
20-4
37-2
Loc. 38
38-2
Actual
0.389
0.213
0.641
0.256
0.278
0.459
0.436
0.217
0.398
0.251
0.386
0.419
NOV Emissions
rib/fall ion Btu)
Predicted
0.392
0.217
0.395
0.355
0.290
0.429
0.433
0.217
0.431
0,397
0.266
0.500
Percent^
deviation
-1
-2
38
-39
-4
6
1
0
.-8
-58
31
-19
Indicates type of oil atomization.
Percent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual NO
^
emissions.
26
-------
5.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA)
Emission test data from application of LEA control on small residual
oil-fired boilers may also be found in Table 5-1 for the same 14 small
residual oil-fired boilers discussed in Section 5-1. Like the uncontrolled
NO emission data, LEA-controlled NOX emissions were highly scattered,
ranging from 62.4 to 246 ng/J (0.145 to 0.572 Ib/million Btu). The NOX
emission reductions also varied considerably (from 5 to 28 percent).
As with the uncontrolled NO emission data, regression analysis was
employed to explain the variability Introduced into the data by operation of
26
these boilers under different conditions. A comparison of actual NOX
emissions and predicted NOX emissions using the regression equations
developed from this analysis is summarized in Table 5-3. As shown in
Table 5-3, the deviation between the actual and the predicted NO emissions
ranges from 35 to -69 percent. As explained above, these large deviations
between actual and predicted NO emissions indicate that the regression
equations are not reliable predictors of LEA-controlled NOX emissions from
these boilers. As a result, it is not possible to establish NO emission
levels representative of small residual oil-fired boilers using LEA, nor is
it possible to predict the NOX reduction performance of LEA on these boilers.
5.3 OTHER NOX CONTROLS
5.3.1 Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR1
Nitrogen oxides emissions data, from tests conducted on two residual
oil-fired watertube boilers, one operating with, and the other without FGR
are summarized in Table 5-4. One boiler was rated at 9.1 MW (31 million
Btu/hour) heat input capacity while the other boiler was rated at 6.5 MW (22
million Btu/hour) heat input capacity. Table 5-4 also provides boiler data
for both boilers.
Table 5-4 shows that the two boilers operated at different loads and
excess 02 levels and that they have varying amounts of flue gas being
recirculated to the boilers. This resulted in FGR-controlled NOX emissions
ranging from 48 to 83 ng/J (0.112 to 0.193 Ib/million Btu). Such a limited
27
-------
TABLE 5-3. COMPARISON OF ACTUAL AND PREDICTED NOX EMISSIONS
FOR THE RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED SMALL BOILERS USING LEA
Boiler
I.D.a
23-1
26-1
2-4
16-2
Loc. 19
IS~1 a
(Steam)3
19-1 a
(Air)a
19-2
20-4
37-2-
Loc. 38
38-2
Actual
0.328
0.201
0.572
0.236
0.193
0.438
0.368
0.159
0.356
0.230
0.305
0.312
NOV Emissions
Hbftnillion Btu)
Predicted
0.372
0.181
0.374
0.342
0.270
0.413
0.415
0.179
0.412
0.389
0.211
0.469
Percent b
deviation
-13
10
35
-45
-40
6
-13
-13
-16
-69
31
-50
Indicates type of oil atomization.
Percent deviation - (actual - predicted NO emissions) * 100/actual
NO emissions.
28
-------
TABLE 5-4. NO EMISSION DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MW
X
(100 MILLION BID/HOUR) BEAT INPUT OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT FLUE CAS RECIRCULATIOH (FGR)
lollar Data
Bollar lollar
,1.0. type
Ib
ECCC WT.PIC
ECCC UT.PKC
Loc. 19 WT.PIC
full load
rata,
,J"2"'S
(10 Itu/ft -tat
HR* (HR)
MR (HR)
211 (67)
capacity.
Ml (10 Itu/br)
haat Input
».l (11)
9.1 (11)
a. 5 (22)
fual
nitrogen.
parcant
' 0.1*
0.19
0.25
taat
Parcant load,
c
FOR parcant
7 67
19 67
25 11
parcant
baaallna/
controllad
4.4/4.5
4.4/2.0
1.1/1.1
air lS/10 Btu
temperature. baaallne/
o o d
C ( f) controlled
A»b* 0.161/0.157
teb 0.161/0.112
Job 0.278/0.191
ppa « M 0
HO reduction, baaallna?
•
percent controlled
1 20/20
10 10/145
11 4/90
lb/10 Itu
baaallne/
controlled
IR/NR
m/m
0.08/0.08
Boiler
percent
baaallna/
controlled
HR/KR
NR/HR
81/82
Reference
14
14
15
UT • vatartuba, PKC • packagad.
b
Nultlpla taata fan conducted on tha aaaa Dollar but at dlffarant oparatlng conditions.
f\>
«> c
Parcant of flua (aa aaaa raclrculatad to bollar.
d
HO anlailona vara aiaaaurad by Ibanao Blactron Chaaillualnaacant analyaar. All tatta Kara ahort-tan ( not raportadi Aab > aablant taap«r>tura (aaauaa 27 C (80°V)|.
f 6
To convart to ng/J, ultlply aalaalona In lb/10 Itu by 410.
latt raaulta fro* Rafaranca 14 and 15 ara alao praaantad In Rafaranca 1.
-------
data base does not permit the use of regression analysis to develop equations
predicting NO emissions from residual oil-fired small boilers using FGR.
n
Consequently, it is not possible to establish NOX emission levels
representative of small residual oil-fired boilers using FGR, nor is it
possible to predict NOX reduction performance of FGR on these boilers.
5.3.2 Overfire Air Ports (OFA1
Table 5-5 presents NOX emission data from tests conducted on four small
residual oil-fired boilers operating with and without OFA and ranging in heat
input capacity from 6.5 to 16 MW (22 to 56 million Btu/hour).
Table 5-5 shows that OFA-controlled NO emissions were also highly
scattered, ranging from 60.6 to 105 ng/J (0.141 to 0.245 ID/million Btu).
Furthermore, reductions in NO emissions ranged considerably, from 24 to 47
A
percent. As mentioned above for FGR, such a limited data base does not
permit the use of regression analysis. Thus, equations predicting NO
emissions and NOX emission reductions from small residual oil-fired boilers
using OFA cannot be developed. Consequently, it 1s not possible to establish
NO emission levels representative of small residual oil-fired boilers using
A
OFA, nor is .it possible to predict the NO emission reduction performance of
A •
OFA for these boilers.
30
-------
TABLE 5-5. NO EMISSIONS DATA FROM RESIDUAL OIL-FIRED STEAM GENERATORS RATED AT 29 MU
(100 MILLION BTU/UOUR) OR LESS OPERATING WITH AND WITHOUT OVERFIRE AIR PORTS (OFA)
Roller Boiler
•
[19-2 UT.FKG
19-2 UT.PKC
Loc. 19 UT.PKG
18-2 UT.PKC
Loe. IB UT,PKG
UT - vatartuba, PKG
b
c
NO •nlssloni ware i
M 6
•million! In lb/10
d
Amb • anblant teutei
foliar Oat*
Full laid
rate,
kJ/B -eec
211 (67)
211 (67)
211 (67)
265 (84)
265 (84)
• packaged.
Masured by Tharn
Btu by 410.
Teat Data
Boiler
capacity, Fual te«t parcant air < lb/10 Itu . ppa 8 11 O lb/10 Ktu p«rc (22) 0.44 , 79 1.1/2.4 tab 0.278/0.194 10 4/24 0.08/0.07 81/81 15
16 (56) 0.49 80 1.0/2.9 157 (315) 0.419/0.222 47 0/55 0.11/0.14 87/87 5
16 (56) 0.11 81 2.9/1.1 118 (280) 0.186 /0.24i* 17 22/62 0.1J/0.12 85/8} 15
.
a Electron Chaallualnaicant analytar. All teata were aaauuw NO I* 51 of tb« total (only NO vaa neaauced).
x 2
I 6
To convert to ng/J, multiply emission* In lb/10 Btu by 410.
S and IS *r« also presented in Reference I.
-------
6.0 COAL NOX EMISSIONS AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The NOX controls for which emission data are available include LEA and
OFA. Except where noted, the operating principles, applicability, and
commercial availability of these control techniques are the same as those
discussed above for natural gas- and oil-fired boilers.
6.1 REGULATORY BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS
The regulatory baseline is defined as the uncontrolled NOX emission
level because of the virtual absence of State and local regulation of NO
A
emissions from small coal-fired boilers. Regulatory baseline NOX emission
data from tests conducted on 11 small coal-fired boilers, ranging in heat
input capacity from 16 to 29 MW (56 to 100 million Btu/hour), can be found in
Table 6-1. Spreader, underfeed, overfeed, and vibrating grate stokers are
represented. In addition to presenting NO emission data, this table
^
presents data for each boiler tested.
As shown in this table, NOX emissions from these boilers were highly
scattered, ranging from 98 to 273 ng/J (0.229 to 0.635 Ib/million Btu).
Regression analysis, employed to explain the variability in the data caused
by operation of these boilers under-different operating conditions (i.e.,
boiler load, grate heat release rate, excess air level, and fuel moisture and
33 34
nitrogen contents), was unsuccessful. ' Thus, regression equations
relating NO emissions from small coal-fired boilers to various boiler
operating conditions could not be developed and, as a result, it is not
possible to establish an uncontrolled NO emission level representative of
small coal-fired stoker boilers.
Table 6-2 presents uncontrolled NOX emission data from tests conducted
on three Fluidized Bed Combustion (FBC) boilers, ranging in heat input
capacity from 14.7 to 28.4 MW (50 to 97 million Btu/hour). As shown in Table
6-2, NO emissions from FBC boilers varied as much as those from the spreader
stoker boilers, ranging from 181 to 327 ng/J (0.42 to 0.76 Ib/million Btu).
Regression analysis, employed to explain the variability in the data caused
32
-------
TABLE 6-1. NO EMISSION DATA FROM COAL-FIRED BOILERS RATED AT 29 MU (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR)
X
OR LESS AT BASELINE AMD LOU EXCESS AIR CONDITIONS
Boiler
I.D.
121-2
• 21-1
Sit* G
Sit* C
Sit* F
su* r
Fairmont 11
Fairmont 13
15-32-10
15-12-13
Sit* I
Sit* I
Sit* J
SU* K
DM- Stout 12
Boiler
c
type
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
UFS
UFS
OFS
OFS
OFS
OFS
VGS
Boiler Data
Full load
grate heat
r*l*aa* rat*.
kJ/o -..o
1 2
(10 Btu/ft -hr)
1.484 (471)
1.421 (451)
2,249 (714)
2,249 (714)
2,167 (688)
2,167 (688)
*
NR (MR)
MR (NR)
1.449 (460)
1,449 (460)
1,188 (377)
1,188 (377)
1.244 (39i)
1,276 (405)
NR (NR)
Teat Data
Boiler
capacity.
(10 Btu/hr)
h*at Input
18 (63)
28 (94)
29 (99)
29 (99)
29 (98)
29 (98)
29 (100)
29 (100)
22 (75)
22 (75)
28 (93)
28 (93)
21 (77)
18 (63)
16 (56)
Moisture
In
fuel,
Height
percent
2.1
1.6
4.1 .
4.8
1.1
4.7
7.1
14.2
10.3
10. 5
1.1
2.1
1.1
6.5
21.5
Fuel
nitrogen.
percent
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.5
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.6
0.9
Average
teat
load.
percent
81
84
99
99
75
75
75
76
77
77
104
102
100
101
57
Stack O ,
2
percent
baseline/
controlled
8.0/5.8
7.8/5.5
7.2/5.0
7.5/4.0
8.9/7.8
9.9/6.2
8.0/6.5
8.0/7.0
6.6/4.9
10.1/8.0
8.1/5.0
7.7/5.9
9.1/7.5
7.9/7.0
9.1/5.2
NO
•
emissions
lb/10 Btu
baaellne/
d,g
controlled
0.615/0.452
0.614/0.491
0.540/0.412
0.572/0.401
0.468/0.441
0.454/0.312
0.506 /0.405
I I
0.481 /0.418
0.164/0.263
0.411/0.161
0.400/0.281
0.229/0.211
0.151/0.316
0.124/0.310
0.277/0.209
NO
X
reduction.
percent
29
21
24
10
5
11
20
11
28
17
29
8
10
4
25
CO emissions
ppm
« 11 0
baseline/
controlled
15/42
122/104
NR/NR .
NR/HR
146/117
119/96
47/155
81/75
0/0
0/0
NR/NR
NR/NR
NR/NR
119/118 ' 0
10/111
PM
emission*
lb/10 Btu
baseline/
controlled
HR/0.55
0.24/NR
h
6.1 /NR
h
4.8 /NR
NR/NR
NR/NR
1.8/2.6
h h
2.8 12.6
NR/NR
1.1/NR
h
1.0 /NR
h
1.4 /NR
NR/NR
h h
71 /0.69
0.72/0.56
Reference
5
5
27
27
28
28
29
29
5
5
10
30
31
12
29
All boilers used no air preheat.
Brackets Indicate multiple parametric teats were conducted on each boiler.
c
^SS - spreader stoker i UFS - underfeed stokeri OFS - overfeed stokeri and VGS - vibrating grate stoker.
NO^ emissions were measured by Thermo Electron Chemlluolnescent Analyser. All testa Her* abort-tern «1 hours). To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions
In lb/10 Btu by 430.
•
NR • not reported. ' .
Estimate onlyi NO values aasume NO Is 5X of the total (only NO was measured).
To convert to ng/J, multiply emissions In lb/10 Btu by 430.
h
^PM emissions «er* taken from Inlet to the FM control device (uncontrolled emissions).
Test results from References 5 and 27 to 10 are also presented In Reference I.
-------
TABLE 6-2. NO EMISSION DATA FROM COAL-FIRED FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION (FBC) BOILERS
RATED AT 29 KU (100 MILLION BTU/HOUR) OR LESS AT BASELINE CONDITIONS
u>
Boiler
I.D.
1:
B
C
C
C
Boiler
b
Type
Pkg. Sb
Pkg. Sb
Pkg. Bb
Pkg. Bb
Pkg. Bb
Pkg. Bb
Boiler
sice, MU
6
(10 Btu/hour)
heat Input
26.4 (90)
26.4 (90)
28.4 (97)
14.7 (SO)
14.7 (50) '
14.7 (50)
Weight
percent
nitrogen
In coal
f
NA
NA
NA
1.06
0.97
NA
Coal
moisture.
weight
percent
HA
NA
NA
6.4
6.8
NA
Average
test load.
percent
59
70
72
72
66
56
Stack
0 ,
2
percent
6.0?
6.7*
6.7
10.5
11.1
11.6
NO
X
emissions.
6 c
lb/ 10 Btu
0.76
0.42
0.56
0.62
0.60
0.70
CO
emissions.
ppm
585
160
NA
453
507
1,007
PM
emissions.
6 c
lb/10 Btu
NA
NA
0.02
NA
NA
NA
Emission
test method
d
(test duration)
CEM (16)
CEM (8)
NO : EPA- 7 (3 hrs)
X
PM: EPA-5 (3 hrs)
CEM (7.5)
CEM (15 hrs)
CEM (5 hrs)
Reference
35
35
36
37,38
37,38
37,38
Brackets Indicate multiple parametric tests were conducted on each boiler.
b
Pkg. Sb - packaged staged bedi and Pkg. Bb « packaged bubbling bed.
c
Multiply emissions by 430 to convert to ng/J.
d
CEM • certified continuous emission monltori and EPA - EPA reference methods. The number In parenthesis represent the number of days unless
otherwise specified.
e
Excluded emission data on staged combustion test.
NA - not available.
Excess 0 measured at the Inlet of the baghouse. (
2
8
-------
by operation of these boilers under different conditions, was also
unsuccessful. Consequently, it is not possible to establish an uncontrolled
NO emission level representative of small FBC boilers.
^
6.2 LOW EXCESS AIR (LEA)
The operating principles of LEA are the same as those discussed in
Section 3.2 for natural gas-fired small boilers. For small coal-fired
boilers, LEA is achieved by design and adjustment of the combustion air
delivery system. Typical stack Og levels for small stoker boilers without
LEA are about 6 percent 0- (40 percent excess air) on newer units and about 5
39 40
percent 0« (30 percent excess air) when LEA is applied. ' Small FBC
boilers are typically designed to operate at minimum excess 0, levels ranging
41
from 3 to 4.5 percent 02 (15 to 25 percent excess air).
Small coal-fired boilers are generally balanced draft units, with both
forced draft (FD) and induced draft (ID) fans. Often, these units control
combustion air flow based on furnace pressure. The FD fan damper
automatically adjusts.to changes in furnace pressure, and the ID fan tracks
the FD signal. By including an $2 trim system, better 0^ control can be
obtained in the boiler under extreme load variations.
Emission test data from application of LEA control on small coal-fired
stoker boilers may also be found in Table 6-1 for the same 11 small
coal-fired stoker boilers discussed in Section 6.1. Like the uncontrolled
NOX emission data, LEA-control1ed NOX emissions were,highly scattered,
ranging from 90 to 211 ng/J (0.209 to 0.491 Ib/million Btu). The NOX
emission reduction achieved by LEA also varied substantially, ranging from 4
to 31 percent.
As with the uncontrolled NO emission data, regression analysis,
employed to explain the variability in the data caused by operation of these
boilers under different conditions was unsuccessful. Consequently, it is not
possible to establish NOX emission levels which are representative of small
coal-fired stokers using LEA.
Emission data are not available on small coal-fired FBC boilers using
LEA. Consequently, NOX emission levels cannot be established for small FBC
boilers using LEA.
35
-------
6.3 OVERFIRE AIR PORTS (OFA)
The mechanism by which NOX emissions are reduced using OFA is the same
for coal-fired boilers as that discussed earlier for natural gas- and
oil-fired boilers. Coal-fired stoker boilers achieve partial staged
combustion by the nature, of their design. Part of the fuel is combusted on
the grate while the rest is burned in suspension above the grate. Combustion
air can be split and introduced both below the grate and above the grate
through OFA ports. Many stoker boilers have OFA ports as smoke control
devices. Therefore, the location of the OFA ports in the boiler may not be
at the optimum location to achieve the greatest NOX reductions.
Nitrogen oxides emissions from FBC boilers can also be reduced further
by staging of the combustion air. A substoichiometric amount of air is
introduced through the fluidizing air (primary air) Injection point. The
balance of the air needed to achieve adequate combustion efficiency 1s added
above the bed. This allows, combustion to be completed in the freeboard zone
(i.e., space between the top of the fluldized bed and boiler outlet).
Performance data on NO emissions are not available on small coal-fired
A
stoker boilers using OFA. However, NOX emission data are available from the
FBC boiler at site A reported in Table 6-2 using OFA. During a 2-day OFA
test, NOX emissions averaged 258 ng/J (0.6 Ib/million Btu). This compares
with average NO emissions of 378 ng/J (0.88 1 fa/mill ion Btu) obtained for
A
this boiler during 2 days of operation without OFA immediately following the
42
staged combustion test.
Because OFA emissions testing was conducted on only one boiler, such a
limited data base does not permit the use of regression analysis to develop
equations predicting NO emissions from small FBC boilers using OFA.
rt
Consequently, It is not possible to establish NOX emission levels
representative of small- coal-fired boilers using OFA, nor is it possible to
predict the NO reduction performance of OFA on these boilers.
36
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Lim, K.J., et al. (Acurex Corporation). Technology Assessment Report
for Industrial Boiler Applications: NO Combustion Modification.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-600/7-79-178f. December 1979.
497 p.
2. Memorandum from Stackhouse, C.W., Radian Corporation, to Small Boiler
Docket. August 18, 1987. 58 p. State and Local Regulatory Practices
for Small Boilers.
3. Jones, G.O. and K.L. Johnson (Radian Corporation). Technology
Assessment Report for Industrial Boiler Applications: NO Flue Gas
Treatment. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection^ Agency.
Washington, DC. Publication No. EPA-600/7-79-178g. December 1979. pp.
4-1 to 4-35.
4. Statewide Technical Review Group. Technical Support Document for
Suggested Control Measures for the Control of Emissions of Oxides of
Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters (Draft). California Air Resources Board
and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Sacramento, CA.
March 1987. pp. 102 to 104, and 105 to 108.
5. Hunter, S.C., et al. (KVB Engineering Incorporated). Field Testing:
Application of Combustion Modifications to Control Pollutant Emissions
from Industrial Boilers - Phase I and II (Data Supplement). Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
NC. Publication No. EPA-600/2-77-122. June 1977. 643 p.
6. Carter, W.A. and H.J. Buening (KVB Engineering Incorporated).
Thirty-Day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers. Site 6: Gas-Fired
Firetube Boiler. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. Publication No. EPA-600/7-81-095b. May 1981. pp. 3,
12, 13.
7. Memorandum from Wertz, K. and K. Johnson, Radian Corporation, to
Stevenson, W.H., EPArSDB. May 19, 1986. 13 p. Natural Gas Regression
Analysis.
8. Reference 1. pp. 2-3 and 2-4.
9. Reference 1. pp. 2-43 to 2-47.
10. Buening, H.J. (KVB Engineering Incorporated). Testing of Low-NO
Combustion Retrofit - Boiler No. 3. Prepared for IBM, Incorporated.
San Jose, CA. Report No. KVB71-60451-2008. January 1985. pp. 3 and 4.
37
-------
11. Memorandum from Copland, R., EPA:SDB, to Stevenson, W.H., EPArSDB. July
30, 1986. Technical note summarizing NO test for IBM boilers No. 3 and
No. 6 with flue gas recirculation (FGR) systems.
12. Letter and attachments from Pinker, R.A., Energy Systems Associates, to
Wisinski, P., Cleaver-Brooks. November 26, 1984. Results from
Performance Test California Milk Producers Boiler No. 5, October 30-31,
1984.
13. Letter and attachments from Carter, W.A., KVB Engineering Incorporated,
to Gary M., IBM. September 1, 1983. Results from performance test
after retrofitting boiler No. 6 with flue gas recirculation.
14. Cichanowicz, J.E. and M.O. Heap (Ultrasystems, Incorporated). Pollutant
Control Techniques for Package Boilers: Phase I Hardware Modifications
and Alternate Fuels. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
.Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. Contract No. 68-02-1498. November
1976. p. 35.
15. Carter, W.A., et al. (KVB Engineering Incorporated). Emission Reduction
on Two Industrial Boilers with Major Combustion Modifications. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
NC. Publication No. EPA-600/7-78-099a. June 1978. 167 p.
16. Waibel, R. and 0. Nickeson. Staged Fuel Burners for NO Control. John
Zink Company. Tulsa, OK. (Presented at the International Flame
Research Foundation 8th Members Conference. Noordwijkhout, the
Netherlands. May 28-30, 1986.)
17. Reference 1. pp. 2-49 to 2-60.
18. Kesselring, J.P. and W.V. Krill (Alzeta Corporation). Firetube Boiler
Fiber Burner Development Program - Phase I. Prepared for the Gas
Research Institute. Chicago, IL. GRI Contract No. 5082-231-0684.
November 1984. p. 76.
19. Letter and attachments from Jones, L., EPA:SOB, to Ourkee, K., EPA:ISB.
February 23, 1983. Tests of Low NO Burner Performance.
20. Crosby, K.J. (Chemecology Corporation). Field Data Source Test on
Boiler #3. Prepared for San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control
District, San Joaquin County, CA. Report No. 1880. July 16, 1984.
21. Carter, W.A. and H.J. Buening (KVB Engineering Incorporated).
Thirty-Day Field Tests of Industrial Boilers. Site 5: Gas-Fired Low
NO Burner. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. Publication No. EPA-600/7-81-095a. May 1981.
pp. 3, 12 to 14.
38
-------
22. Memorandum from Wertz, K. and K. Johnson, Radian Corporation, to
Stevenson, W.H., EPA:SOB. May 19, 1986. 26 p. Fuel Oil Regression
Analysis.
23. Reference 22.
24. Crosby, K.J. (Chemecology Corporation). Field Data Source Test on
Boiler 13. Prepared for San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District, San
Joaquin County, CA. Report No. 1880. July 16, 1984.
25. Reference 22.
26. Reference 22.
27. Langsjoen, P.L., et al. (KVB Engineering, Inc.). Field Tests of
Industrial Stoker Coal-Fired Boilers for Emissions Control and
Efficiency Improvement - Site G. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association. Washington, DC. Publication No.
EPA-600/7-80-082a. April 1980. pp. 10, 11, 13.
28. Langsjoen, P.L., et al. (KVB Engineering, Inc.). Field Tests of
Industrial Stoker Coal-Fired Boilers for-Emissions Control and
Efficiency Improvement - Site F. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, and the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association. Washington, DC. Publication No.
EPA-600/7-80-065a. March 1980. pp. 8, 9, 11.
29. Maloney, K.L., et al. (KVB Engineering, Inc.). Low-Sulfur Western Coal
Use in Existing Small and Intermediate Size Boilers. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Publication No.
EPA-600/7-78-153a. July 1978. pp. 106, 111, 113, 224, 230, 231, 242.
30. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - RTP, Office of Research
and Development. Problem-Oriented Report: Field Tests of Industrial
Stoker Coal-Fired Boilers for Emissions Control and Efficiency
Improvement - Site I. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
.Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. IERL-RTP-1069. May 1980. pp. 8 to
10.
31. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - RTP, Office of Research
and Development. Problem-Oriented Report: Field Tests of Industrial
Stoker Coal-Fired Boilers for Emissions Control and Efficiency
Improvement - Site J. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. IERL-RTP-1070. May 1980. pp. 8 to
10.
39
-------
32. Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - RTP, Office of Research
and Development. Problem-Oriented Report: Field Tests of Industrial
Stoker Coal-Fired Boilers for Emissions Control and Efficiency
Improvement - Site K. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. IERL-RTP-1071. May 1980. pp. 9,
11, 12.
33. Keller, L.E., et al. (Radian Corporation). Regressions for NO
Emissions from Coal-Fired Spreader Stoker Industrial Boilers. Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
NC. Contract No. 68-02-3058. August 31, 1982. 118 p.
34. Memorandum from Kwapil, W.D., Radian Corporation, to Stevenson, W.H.,
EPA:SOB. June 1, 1983. 8 p. Regression Analyses of Mass-Feed Boiler
NO Emission Data.
^
35. Peduto, E.F., Jr., et al. (GCA Corporation). Continuous Monitoring of
Wormser Fluidized Bed Combustor. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA Contract No.
68-02-2693. June 1984. 184 p.
36. Interpoll, Inc. Results of the November 13, 1985, Participate, SO-, NO
and CO Emission Compliance Test on the Fluidized Bed Boiler at the SOHIO
Refinery in Lima, OH. Report Number 5-2121. November 27, 1985. 7 p.
37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Statistical Analysis of Emission
Test Data From Fluidized Bed Combustion Boiler at Prince Edward Island,
Canada. Publication No. EPA-450/3-86-015. December 1986. pp. 3-1 to
3-10.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fluidized Bed Boiler Emission
Test Report, Canadian Forces Base, Summers1de, Prince Edward Island,
Canada. EMB No. 86-SPB-2. May 1987. Appendix B.
39. Burklin, C.E. and G.O. Jones (Radian Corporation). NO Emission Control
Technology Update. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6558 WA 31. January 20, 1984.
p. 5-21.
40. Reference 1. pp. 2-27 to 2-29.
41. Young, C.W., et al. (GCA Corporation). Technology Assessment Report for
Industrial Boiler Applications: Fluidized-bed Combustion. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. Publication
No. EPA-600/7-79-178e. November 1979. p. 88 and 175.
42. Reference 35. p. 1.
43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information Document
for Small Boilers (BID); Publication No. EPA 450/3-86.
40
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-89-13
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Overview of the Regulatory Baseline, Technical Basis,
and Alternative Control Levels for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Emission Standards for Small Steam Generating Units
5. REPORT DATE
May 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
}. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4378
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/Q4
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides a summary of the technical data used in developing proposed
new source performance standards (NSPS) for small industrial-commercial-institutional
steam generating units (small boilers). The report focuses on nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions from boilers firing coal, oil, and gas with heat input capacities of 100
million Btu/hour or less. Conclusions are drawn from the data regarding the per-
formance of technologies available to reduce NOX emissions. Alternative control
levels are then chosen based on the conclusions drawn from the data.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Standards of Performance
Steam Generating Units
Industrial Boilers
Small Boilers
Air Pollution Control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Ttlis Report/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«». 4—77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1, REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Sot subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, mid volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall cany a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g.. Jan- of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHORIS)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe. J. Robert Doe. etc.}. List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hircarchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGi-NCY CODE
Insert appropriate code.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of. ('resented at cnnfereiuv "I.
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or leaf factual summary of the most significant information contained in (lie report. II the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper auihori/.cd terms that identity the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI MELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the (962 OOSATI Suhjeu Category List.. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignments) will be specific discipline, urea of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary I iekl/(iroup assignments that will follow
the primary, posting) s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. & 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
71. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) (R«v.n«)
------- |