EPA-600/2-76-046b
 March 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
          PRELIMINARY EMISSIONS  ASSESSMENT  OF
CONVENTIONAL  STATIONARY  COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
                               Volume II  •  Final Report
                                  Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
                                       Office of Research and Development
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

 Research reports.of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
 Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
 categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
 environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
 planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
 The five series are:

     1.    Environmental Health Effects Research
     2.    Environmental Protection Technology
     3.    Ecological Research
     4.    Environmental Monitoring
     5.    Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

 This report  has  been assigned to  the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
 demonstrate  instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
 environmental degradation from point  and non-point sources of pollution. This
 work provides the new or improved technology required for the control  and
 treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
                     EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and approved for publication.  Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policy of the Agency,  nor does mention of trade
names or  commercial products  constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                   EPA-600/2-76-046b
                                   March 1976
     PRELIMINARY EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT OF

 CONVENTIONAL STATIONARY COMBUSTION  SYSTEMS

           VOLUME II-FINAL REPORT
                      by

Norman Surprenant,  Robert Hall,  Steven Slater,
Thomas Susa, Martin Sussman,  and Charles Young

           GCA/Technojogy Division
               6CA  Corporation
        Bedford, Massachusetts   01730
       Contract No.  68-02-1316, Task  11
               ROAP  No.  AAU-002
          Program Element No.  EHB525
    EPA Project Officer:  Ronald  A. Venezia

 Industrial Environmental Research.Laboratory
   Office of Energy,  Minerals, and Industry
       Research Triangle  Park, NC 27711
                 Prepared for

     U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      Office of Research and Development
            Washington, DC  20460

-------
                               ABSTRACT

The report gives results of a preliminary emissions assessment of the
air, water, and solid waste pollutants produced by conventional station-
ary combustion systems.  It gives results in four principal categories:
utilities (electric generation), industrial (steam generation, space
heating, and stationary engines), commercial/institutional (space heat-
ing and stationary- engines), and residential (space heating).  For each
principal combustion system category, it gives:  process types and oper-
ating efficiencies, fuel consumption, pollutant sources and characteris-
tics, major research and development trends, fuel consumption trends,
and technical areas where emission data are incomplete or unreliable.
It also gives the pollutant emissions from applicable unit operations
for each of 56 source classifications, using a uniform combustion source
           t
classification system.  It identifies major gaps in available data re-
garding the population and capacity of combustion systems, application
of control measures, fuel composition, and other parameters which sig-
nificantly influence pollutant characteristics and emission rates.
                                 iii

-------
                               CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Abstract

List of Figures

List of Tables                                                     xv

Acknowledgments                                                    xxiv

Sections

I      Introduction and Summary                                 '   1

           Program Overview                                        1

           Emission Summaries                                      4

           Conclusions                                             13

           Report Organization                                     16

           Primary Dat? Sources                                    19

               Federal Power Commission Data Files and
               Publications                                        20

               National Emission Data System                       21

               Other Data Sources                                  22

           Quality of Emission Estimates                           23

           Combustion System Classification                        26

           References                                              _.-
                                 iv

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)




Sections                                                           Page




II     Utilities:  Electric Generation                             34




           Size of Industry, Sources of Energy, Fuel Consumption   36




           Population and Characteristics of Combustion Equipment  47




               Coal-Fired Boilers                                  47




               Oil- and Gas-Fired Boilers                          56




               Solid Waste-Fired Boilers                           62




               Internal Combustion                                 63




           Emission Sources and Unit Operations                    64




               Air Emissions                                       66




               Water Effluents                                     67




               Solid Waste                                         71




               Thermal and Noise Pollution                         71




           Flue Gas Emissions                                      76




               External Combustion                                 77




               Internal Combustion                                 126




           Ash Handling Emissions                                  132




               Ash Generated                 '                      132




               Disposal Methods                                    133




               Properties of Discharge Waters                      136




               Leachates from Ponds and Landfill                   139




               Air Emissions from Landfill                         140




           Cooling System Water Wastes                             142




               Thermal Discharge                                   144

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)




Sections



                                                                   149
               Wastewater Discharge




               Environmental Impacts of Recirculative Cooling

               Systems                                             *~



                                                                   1 66
           Other Wastewater Emissions
               Boiler Water Treatment




               Boiler Slowdown



                                                                   1 R7
               Equipment Cleaning Wastes                           i01




           Fuel Storage and Handling Emissions                     197




               Coal Storage Requirements                           197




               Coal Pile Drainage




               Air Emissions                                       201




           Flue Gas Desulfurization                                203




               Sludge Composition and Emissions                    203




               Disposal Methods                                    204




               Utilization                                         208




               Air Emissions from Scrubbers                        209




               Other Processes for SO  Removal                     209




           Solid Waste Combustion




               Properties of the Fuel                .
               Emissions                                           220




           References                                              224



III    Industrial Combustion Sources                               0_0
                                                                   Zoo



           Data Sources                                            „
                                 vi

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)




Sections                                                           page




           Fuel Consumption                                        241




           Population and Characteristics of Combustion Equipment  244




               Coal-, Oil-, and Gas-Fired Boilers                  244




               Solid Waste-Fired Boilers                           246




               Internal Combustion                                 248




           Flue Gas Emissions                                      249




               External Combustion                                 250




               Internal Combustion                                 260




           Ash Handling Emissions                                  267




               Ash Generated                                       268




               Wastewater Emissions                                269




               Air Emissions                                       269




           Cooling System Water Wastes                             271




           Other Wastewater Sources                                271




               Boiler Feedwater Treatment                          274




               Boiler Slowdown                                     278




               Equipment Cleaning Wastes                           280




           Fuel Storage and Handling                               282




               Wastewater Emissions                                282




               Air Emissions                                       282




           Solid Waste Combustion




               Bagasse Combustion                                  285




               The Incineration of Municipal Refuse                286
                                 vii

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)



Sections


                                                                   992
               The Supplemental Firing of Industrial Wastes


                                                                   292
               Wood Wastes as a Fuel


                                                                   294
           References


                                                                   299
IV     Commercial/Institutional Combustion Sources


                                                                   299
           Combustion Equipment and Fuel Usage                      7



           Emission Sources



           External Combustion System Emissions                    304



           Internal Combustion System Emissions                    313



           Ash Handling                                            317



           Cooling Systems                                         318



           Other Wastewater Sources                                319



           Coal Storage                                            319



           References                                              320



V      Residential Combustion Sources                              322



           Number and Characteristics of Boilers                   323



           Flue Gas Emissions                                      324



           Other Emissions                                         334



           References                                              335



VI     Trends in Fossil Fuel Consumption                           333



           Electric Generation                                     -/2



               Fuel Use Trends                                     „,«



               Trends in Boiler Population
                                                                   349
                                viii

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)



Sections                                                           Page



           Industrial                                              352



               Fuel Use Trends                                     352



               Trends in Boiler Population                         354



           Commercial/Institutional                                355



               Fuel Use Trends                                     355



               Trends in Boiler Population                         357



           Residential                                             357



           Significance of Trends                                  358



           References                                              361



VII    On-Going and Planned Activities                             363



           Combustion                                              366



           Flue Gas Emissions - General                            372



           Flue Gas Emissions - Particulates                       377



           Flue Gas Emissions - Sulfur Oxides                      380



           Flue Gas Emissions - NO                                 383
                                  x


           Flue Gas Emissions - Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide   392



           Flue Gas Emissions - POM                                394



           Flue Gas Emissions - Trace Elements                     397



           Ash Handling                                            403



           Cooling Systems                                         409



           Boiler Water Treatment and Operation                    423



           Fuels and Fuel Storage and Handling                     427
                                ix

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)



Sections                                                           —®—


                                                                   433
           Flue Gas Desulfurization



           Particulate Control Devices



Appendices



A      Form 67:  Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality

       Control Data for the Year Ended December 31, 1972           456
B      Fuel Consumption by Major Use Categories and Location
480
C      Trace Element Content of Ash Collected by Use Category

       (Tons/Year) and of Fuels                                    489



D      Air and Water Quality Standards                             495



           Air Pollutants                                          495



               Standards                                           495



           Water Pollutants                                        495



               Standards                                           495



               Organic Pollutants                                  499



           Solid Waste Pollutants                                  499



           Other Pollutants                                        507



               Thermal Water Pollution                             507



               Effects of Thermal Pollution                        507



               Noise                                               509



           Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam Electric

           Power Generating



           References



E      Combustion Classification System                            597

-------
                         CONTENTS (continued)




Appendices                                                         Page




F      Conversion Factors                                          526




           Capacity, Energy, Force, Heat                           526




           Flow                                                    527




           Length, Area, Volume                                    527




           Mass, Pressure, Temperature, Concentration              528




G      Major Acronyms Used in This Report                          529
                                  xi

-------
                                 FIGURES
No.                       "                                         Page

1     Geographical Distribution - Electric Utility Fuel
      Consumption - 1973                                           45

2     Geographical Distribution - Electric Utility Coal
      Consumption - 1973                                           46

3     Emission Sources:  Coal-Fired Steam-Electric Power Plants    65

4     Water  Flows for a Typical 1000 MW Power Plant at Full
      Load                                                         68

5     Total  Particulate Emissions From Dry-Bottom Pulverized
      Coal-Fired Units                                             88

6     Particulate Emissions From Wet-Bottom, Pulverized
      Coal-Fired Units                                             89

7     Particulate Emissions From Cyclone Units                     89

8     Particulate Emissions From Spreader Stoker-Fir~.d Units       90

9     Particulate Emissions From Stoker-Fired Units (Except
      Spreader Stokers)                                            90

10    Control Device Efficiencies for a Variety of Industrial
      Particulates                                                 94

11    Control Device Efficiencies for Recent Field Test Results
      of Coal-Fired Boilers                                        95

12    General Range of Furnace-Exit-Gas Temperature for Dry Ash
      and Slag-Tap Pulverized Coal-Firing                          ^(34

13    Test Data of NO  Emissions From Coal-Fired Utility Boilers   105

14    Test Data of NO  Emissions From Oil-Fired Utility Boilers    1Q7
                                 Xll

-------
                           FIGURES (continued)


No.                                                                Page

15    Test Data of N0x Emissions From Gas-Fired Utility Boilers    108

16    Benzo(a)pyrene Emissions From Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
      Heat-Generation Processes                                    112

17    Nomograph for Computing Cooling Tower Slowdown and Makeup
      Requirements                                                 157

18    Cooling Tower Drift Fallout                                  160

19    Drift Deposition Rates From Wet Cooling Systems as a
      Function of the Distance Downwind Under (a) Slightly
      Unstable Atmospheric Conditions - Ambient Temperature
      of 7.2°C, Relative Humidity of 95 Percent; and (b)
      Neutral Atmospheric Conditions - Ambient Temperature of
      7.2°C, Relative Humidity of 95 Percent                       161

20    Drift Deposition Rates for Two Eliminator Systems and
      Two Sets of Atmospheric Conditions:  (a) Duplex Eliminator,
      Stable, 90 Percent Relative Humidity, 2.5 mph Wind; (b)
      Duplex Eliminator, Unstable, 60 Percent Relative Humidity,
      10 mph Wind; (c) Sinusoidal-Wave Eliminator, Stable,
      90 Percent Relative Humidity, 2,5 mph Wind; and (d)
      Sinusoidal-Wave Eliminator, Unstable, 60 Percent relative
      Humidity, 10 mph Wind                                        162

21    Geographical Distribution of Potential Adverse Effects From
      Cooling Towers, Based on Fog, Low-Level Inversion and Low
      Mixing Depth Frequency                                       165

22    Water Consumption Versus Temperature Range of Cooling Water
      Source                                                       167

23    Water Consumption Versus Wet Bulb Temperature                167

24    Water Consumption Versus Relative Humidity                   167

25    Typical Steam-Electric Plant Boiler Water Cycle              172

26    General Boiler Feedwater Treatment Scheme                    176

27    Schematic Diagram of Zeolite Softening Process               180

28    Schematic Diagram of Condensate Polishing System             185
                                 xiii

-------
                           FIGURES (continued)
No._

29    Technologies for the Removal of Sulfur Dioxide From
      Stack Gas                                                    212

30    Monthly Cost of Fossil Fuels Delivered to U.S. Steam-
      Electric Utility Plants, 25 MW or Greater

31    Total Installed Gas 'Turbine Generating Capacity in the U.S.  345

32    Map of the Coal-Producing Districts of the United States     347
                                 xiv

-------
                                TABLES

No.                                                                Page

1     Fuel Consumption, Conventional Stationary Combustion
      Systems                                                      6

2     Major Emissions from Conventional Stationary Combustion
      Systems                                                      7

3     Magnitude of Air Emissions from Conventional Stationary
      Combustion Sources Compared to All Man-Made and Natural
      Emissions in the U.S.                                        9
                            N
4     Trace Element Air Emissions:  Percent of Total from
      Conventional Stationary Combustion System Categories         11

5     Trace Elements in Solid Waste (Ash.) :  Percent of Total
      Generated by Conventional Stationary Combustion System
      Categories                                                   12

6     Directory of Major Tables of Emissions                       17

7     Emission Estimate Quality and Frequency Factors              27

8     Combustion System Classification Table                       28

9     Selected Combustion Systems Emphasized in this Program       29

10    Utility Fossil-Fueled Electricity Production - Source
      of Energy                                                    37

11    Fossil-Fueled Electric Utility - Capacity, Fuel Con-
      sumption, and Production, 1971 - 1974                        40

12    Electric Utility Fuel Consumption, 1974                      48

13    Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers - 1972                   49

14    Summary:  Coal-Fired Utility Boilers - 1972                  54

15    Summary:  Pulverized Coal-Fired Utility Boilers - 1972       55
                                 xv

-------
                          TABLES (continued)

No._

16    Oil-Fired Electric Utility Boilers - 1972                    57

17    Gas-Fired Electric Utility Boilers - 1972                    58

18    Dual-Fired Electric Utility Boilers - 1972                   59

19    Summary:  Utility External Combustion:  Oil - Distribution
      of Firing Patterns and Capacities, %                         61

20    Summary:  Utility External Combustion:  Gas - Distribution
      of Firing Patterns and Capacities, %                         61

21    Applicability of Unit Operations to Air, Water, and Solid
      Waste Pollutants                                             66

22    Wastewater Effluent Guidelines and Standards - Steam
      Electric Generating Point Source Category                    70

23    Important Aspects of Water Wastes                            72

24    Trace Element Concentrations in Waste Streams                73

25    Ash Pond Overflow                                            75

26    The Electric Utility Industry's Contribution to Air
      Pollutant Emissions                                          76

27    Stack Emissions from the Generation of Electricity
      by External Combustion                                       78

28    Emission Factors for Electric Generation External
      Combustion                                                   85

29    Particulate Emission Factors for Coal Combustion
      Without Control Equipment                                    9J_

30    Total Mass Efficiency of Particulate Control Devices
      in Coal-Fired Utility Boilers                                92

31    Fine Particulate Efficiency of Particulate Control
      Devices in Coal-Fired Utility Boilers                        93

32    Efficiencies of Particulate Control Device in Oil-
      and Gas-Fired Utility Boilers
                                xvi

-------
                          TABLES (continued)

No.

33    NO  Test Data from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers                100
        X

34    NOX Emissions from Coal-Fired Utility Boilers Without
      Control and at Full Load - Test Data Summary                 103

35    Total POM Emissions, Mitre Estimate                          113

36    Summary of Available PPOM Data                               114

37    Minor and Trace Elements in Coal                             117

38    Elemental Concentrations in NBS Coal (SRM1632)               120

39    Elemental Concentrations in NBS Fly Ash (SRM1633)            121

40    Disposition of Minor and Trace Elements During Combustion    122

41    Trace Element Stack Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants   125

42    Emissions from the Generation of Electricity by Internal
      Combustion                                                   127

43    Emission Factors for Internal Combustion Emission
      Estimates, Table 42                                          131

44    Ash Handling Emissions:  Electric Utilities, 1974            134

45    Comparative Ash Production and Utilization                   135

46    Ash Collection and Utilization, 1971                         137

47    Properties of Ash Pond Discharge Waters                      138

48    Trace Element Concentrations in Ash Pond Liquor              139

49    Power Plant Coal Ash Compositions              •              141

50    Selected Trace Elements in Ash                               141

51    Summary of Environmental Considerations and the Potential
      Impact of Wet Cooling Systems                                143

52    Characterization of Cooling Systems in the U.S. - 1972       145
                                xvii

-------
                          TABLES (continued)

No.

53    Thermal Discharges to Water from Power Plant Cooling
      Systems                                                      14b

54    Chemicals Used in Recirculative Cooling Water Systems        152

55    Cooling Tower Corrosion and Scale Inhibitor Systems          153

56    Typical Cooling Tower Additive Systems

57    Relative Atmospheric Impact of Various Recirculative
      Cooling Systems

58    Design and Operational Characteristics of Wet Cooling
      Systems Affecting Drift Rates                                158

59    Atmospheric Variables and Characteristics Affecting
      Dispersion and Deposition of Drift                           159

60    Salt Deposition Rates                                        163

61    Boiler Feedwater Requirement and Use of Feedwater Treating
      and Conditioning Chemicals - 1971 U.S. Fossil-Fueled
      Steam-Electric Poxjer Plants                                  168

62    Utility Boiler Water Quality                                 169

63    Chemical Coagulants                                          177

64    Boiler Feedxrater Treatment Wastes:  Electric Utilities -
      External Combustion                                          182

65    Boiler Slowdown Volume and Composition                       188

66    Equipment Cleaning Wastewater Volume                         189

67    Equipment Cleaning Wastewater Characteristics:  Electric
      Generation - External Combustion                             190

68    Electric Utility:  Fuel Storage and Handling Emissions,
      1974                                                         198

69    Composition of Drainage from Coal Piles                      200

70    Effluents from Limestone Scrubbers                            204
                                xviii

-------
                          TABLES  (continued)

No^                                                                Page

71    Composition of Pond Liquor  (Closed Loop Operation)           206

72    Summary of TCA Limestone Sludge Liquor Metal Analysis
      (Open Loop Operation), TVA  Shawnee Power Station             207

73    Comparison of Trace Elements Analyses Between Raw Sludge
      and Leachate from this Sludge After Chemical Conditioning
      by Fixation                                                  207

74    Potential Product Applications                               210

75    Area Required for Disposal  of Ash, Sludge and Products
      from a 100,000 MW System -  20 Years' Operation               210

76    Summary Description of Flue Gas Desulfurization Processes    213

77    Performance Summary of Operational Scrubber Units            215

78    Planned or Existing Refuse  to Energy Systems                 217

79    Distribution by Source of Dry Organic Waste                  218

80    Physical Composition of Typical Municipal Refuse             218

81    Chemical Composition of Prepared Municipal Refuse            219

82    Emission Data:  Coal and Refuse Firing                       221

83    Particulate Emission Data,  Mean and Standard Deviation       222

84    Total Stack Emissions for the Union Electric Plant           223

85    Industrial Fuel Consumption, 1973                            243

86    Total Capacities of Industrial Boilers, 1973                 245

87    Number and Size of Industrial Boilers, 1973                  245

88    Industrial Boiler Capacity  and Fuel Consumption by
      Combustion System, 1973                                      247

89    Industrial Internal Combustion - Fuel Consumption            249

90    The Industrial Combustion Source Contribution to Air
      Pollutant Emissions                                          250
                                 xix

-------
                          TABLES (continued)

 No.                                                                Pag

 91     Flue  Gas  Emissions  from Industrial External Combustion-      251

 92     Emission  Factors  for Table 91                                258

 93     Flue  Gas  Emissions  from Industrial Internal Combustion       261

 94     Emission  Factors  for Table 93                                266

 95     Ash Handling  Emissions:  Industrial Combustion, 1973         270

 96     Industrial  Cooling  Tox^er Water Quality                       272

 97     Industrial  Cooling  System Waste Water                        273

 98     Industrial  Boiler Feedwater Specifications                   276

 99     Industrial  Boiler Feedwater Treatment Wastes, 1973           277

 100    Industrial  Boiler Slowdown, 1973                             279

 101    Industrial  Equipment Cleaning Waste Water, 1973              281

 102    Industrial  Coal Handling Emissions, 1973                     283

 103    Typical Industrial  Wastes With Significant Fuel Value        285

 104    Total Stack Emissions from Bagasse Burning Facilities        286

 105    Planned or  Existing Refuse to Energy Systems                 287

 106    Air Emissions from  Refuse Incinerators                       289

 107    Emission  Factors for Municipal Incinerators                  290

 108    Total Stack Emissions for Burning Municipal Refuse           290

109    Air Classified Refuse Ash Composition                        291
110   Total Stack Emissions for Burning Waste Fuels in
      Petroleum Refineries                                          997

111   Total Stack Emissions for Burning Wood Wastes                 293
                                 xx

-------
                          TABLES  (continued)

^.                                               -                 Page

112   Commercial/Institutional Fossil Fuel Consumption, 1973       300

113   Commercial/Institutional Boilers Included in the NEDS
      System                                                       302

114   Estimated Commercial/Institutional Fuel Consumption by
      Boilers as a Function of Size                                302

115   Commercial/Institutional Fuel Use, 1973                      303

116   Flue Gas Emissions  from Commercial/Institutional External
      Combustion, 1973                                             305

117   Emission Factors  for Table  116                               312

118   Emission Factors:   Oil-Fired and Gas-Fired Commercial/
      Institutional Boilers                                        313

119   Air Emissions from  Commercial/Institutional Internal
      Combustion, 1973                                             314

120   Emission Factors  for Table  119                               317

121   Estimated Emissions from Commercial/Institutional
      Ash Handling, 1973                                           318

122   Commercial/Institutional Emissions from Coal Storage, 1973   319

123   Residential Fuel  Use, 1973                                   322

124   Sales of Domestic Oil Burners by Type                        323

125   Distribution of Sizes of Domestic Oil-Fired Equipment        324

126   Flue Gas Emissions  from Residential Combustion, 1973         325

127   Emission Factors  for Table  126                  '             332

128   Comparison of Emission Factors for Residential
      Combustion Units                                             333

129   Fuel Consumption  Trends:  Stationary Combustion Sources      341

130   Summary of Electric Utility Fuel Consumption Trends
      to 1985                                                      343
                                 xxi

-------
                          TABLES (continued)

 No..                                                               IM

 131   Western  Coal Consumption and Supply                          348

 132   Average  Properties of Coal Reserve Base                      349

 133   Electric Utility Fuel Consumption Trends to 1985             350

 134   Detailed Industrial-Fuel Consumption Trends to 1985          352

 135   Commercial/Institutional Fuel Use Trends, 1973-1985          356

 136   Residential Fuel Use Trends, 1973-1985                       358

 137   Summary  of Personal Communications                           365

 138   On-Going and"Planned Activities:  Combustion                 368

 139   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       General                                                      373

 140   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       Particulates                                                 379

 141   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       sox                                                          381

 142   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       N°x                                   ,                       384

 143   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide                             293

 144   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       POM                                                          395

 145    On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Emissions -
       Trace Elements

 146    On-Going and Planned Activities:  Ash Handling

147    On-Going and Planned Activities:  Cooling                    ,1
148   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Boiler Water Treatment
      and Operation
                                                                   425
                                xxii

-------
                           TABLES (continued)
No.
                                                                   Page
149   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Fuels and Fuel
      Handling                                                     428

150   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Flue Gas Desulfurization   434

151   On-Going and Planned Activities:  Particulate Control
      Devices                                                      447

152   Electric Utility Fuel Consumption by State                   481

153   Industrial Fuel Consumption by State                         483

154   Commercial/Institutional Fuel Consumption by State           485

155   Residential Fuel Consumption by State                        487

156   Electric Generation:  Ash Trace Elements                     490

157   Industrial:  Ash Trace Elements                              491

158   Commercial:  Ash Trace Elements                              492

159   Residential:  Ash Trace Elements                             493

160   Trace Elements in Fuel, 1974                                 494

161   Ambient Air Standards                                        496

162   Promulgated New Source Performance Standards - Power Plants  497

163   Emission Standards for New Coal-Fired Power Plant in
      the Western United States                                    498

164   Tabular Summary of Water Quality Criteria                    500

165   Overview of Combustion Classification System                 524

166   Example of Combustion Classification System for Electric
      Generation, External Combustion                              525
                                xxiii

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the technical guidance of the following Environ-
mental Protection Agency personnel:  Dr. Ronald Venezia, U.S.  Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Mr. Dennis Canon, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
Oregon; Mr. Clyde J. Dial, Mr. Victor Jelen and Mr.  Guy Nelson, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio; and Mr. Don Gilmore, Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada.   In
addition, the authors acknowledge the contributions  and technical guidance
of Dr. Leonard M. Seale, General Manager, GCA/Technology Division, in
the development of this document.  Members of the GCA/Technology Division
Staff who provided assistance were:  Dr. Donald Durocher,  Mr.  Lawrence
Gordon, Ms. Martha Fabuss, and Mr.  Robert Engelman.
                                xxiv

-------
                                SECTION I
                        INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The overall objective of this project was to prepare a preliminary emis-
sion assessment of conventional stationary combustion sources.  The word
'conventional is meant to indicate technology which is currently in use
and which is based on common fossil fuels; i.e., coal, oil, natural gas,
or solid wastes such as those derived from agricultural, forestry or
municipal refuse.  Emissions from nuclear energy or systems such as fluid-
ized bed combustion, magnetohydrodynamics, fuel cells, etc., which are
currently being developed, have not been included.

The emission of pollutants to air and water and the generation of solid
waste by conventional stationary combustion systems were assessed in this
program.  The assessment was confined to emissions resulting from opera-
tions and processes at the combustion site and did not include remote
effects such as those arising from mining and transportation.

Four principal categories of conventional stationary combustion systems
were considered:
    o   Utilities - electric generation
    •   Industrial - steam generation, space heating, and
                     stationary engines (direct heating and
                     chemical conversion were excluded)
    o   Commercial/Institutional - space heating and
                                   stationary engines
    •   Residential - space heating.
                                  1

-------
The principal combustion categories were further divided into subcategories
according  to a classification scheme based on fuel type, combustion unit
type,  firing technique, thermal rate, fly ash reinjection,  and application
of control measures or devices.  A total of 56 of the combustion system
subcategories were selected for emphasis in the contract investigations.
These  subcategories were chosen for study because preliminary analyses in-
dicated that:  they are now, or potentially could be in the future, the
largest sources of pollutant emissions; and they represent  the most widely
used systems included in the classification scheme.

Emission estimates for these selected systems were calculated and are
presented, on a unit operations basis, in a series of emission summary
tables.  The tables are supplemented by text which presents the methodolo-
gies used  to derive the emissions, and analyzes the extent  and quality of
available  data.  Each principal category - electric utilities, industrial,
commercial/institutional, and residential - is treated in a separate sec-
tion.  Trend information and a discussion of on-going and planned activi-
ties dealing with emissions from conventional stationary sources are
presented  in the final two sections of this document.

The data presented in the emission summary tables are national estimates
and provide guidelines for determining the magnitude of the air, water
and solid waste problems associated with the conventional stationary com-
bustion sources and their pertinent unit operations.  Emission streams
will exhibit plant-to-plant variations due to such factors  as the type of
fuel used, boiler type and load, plant operational practices, etc.

The major unit operations or processes that were utilized as the basis for
summarizing air and water emissions and solid waste are:
    •   Flue gas emissions
    •   Ash handling
    •   Cooling systems
    •   Water treatment
    •   Fuel handling
    •   Flue gas desulfurization.

-------
The major pollutants  for which  emission  estimates have been derived are:

    •   Air:      Particulates
                  Sulfur oxides  (SOX)
                  Nitrogen  oxides  (NO  )
                  Hydrocarbons  (HC)
                  Carbon monoxide  (CO)
                  Trace elements (28 elements)
                                                *
                  Benzene soluble  organics  (BSO)
                  Particulate polycyclic  organic matter (PPOM)
                    Benzo(a)pyrenes  (BaP)
                  Polyhalogenated  hydrocarbons  (PHH)
                    Polychlorinated biphenyls  (PCB)
                    Polybrominated biphenyls  (PBB)
                  Radioactive elements

    «   Water:    Total solids  (TS)
                  Suspended solids (TSS)
                  Dissolved solids (TDS)
                  PH

                  Trace elements

    •   Solid:    Bottom ash
                  Fly  ash
                  Desulfurization  solids

                  Trace elements.
The  emission  estimates  presented  in  the  emission summary tables were based
on a survey of  daca  existing  in the  literature and information supplied
through  contact with members  of industrial,  governmental, and academic
laboratories.   A major  use  of these  estimates will be to develop a pre-
liminary priority ranking of  the  selected combustion systems based on the
total emissions of these systems  for the pollutants noted above.   To
assist in the development of  the  priority ranking, fuel consumption and
composition data by  state and/or  region, by  the four principal combustion

.categories, were developed.
XA list of  acronyms  used  in  this report is presented in Appendix G.

+This priority  ranking activity is being conducted for the EPA, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, by Monsanto Research Corporation, Day-
ton, Ohio,  under Contract No.  68-02-1404, Task Order No. 18.

-------
In addition to providing estimates of emissions from conventional sta-

tionary combustion- sources, the contract effort involved development of

the following data:

    •   State-of-the-art developments in combustion technology
        with respect to efficiency and pollutant generation.

    •   The number, type, location, and size of the combustion
        systems within the United States based upon the selected
        combustion classification system.

    »   Trends in fuel consumption and boiler design and their
        impacts on emissions.

    •   The extent and quality of available emission data.

    •   Identification of the major gaps in available pollu-
        tant data with respect to:  types of combustion sys-
        tems, unit operations within combustion systems, fuel
        composition, and other parameters which can affect the
        composition and quantity of pollutant emissions.

    •   Identification of current and planned activities as-
        sociated with emissions from conventional stationary
        combustion sources.
These data were deemed to be essential for a comprehensive assessment of
the environmental impact of conventional combustion systems. • Although
the work described in this report is only a first step toward obtaining

the information necessary for such an overall assessment, it enumerates
the major gaps in the data base and allows decisions to be made concerning
the additional work required to fill the data base gaps.


EMISSION SUMMARIES


The following discussion summarizes the contribution of the combustion

sources to total national emissions and also provides an overview of th

relative contributions of each of the four principal combustion svst
categories.

-------
Fuel consumption by the principal categories of combustion sources is
shown in Table 1.  Coal accounted for approximately 26 percent of the
combustion-released energy generated, but, based on emission data presented
later in this report, produced approximately 90 percent of the particulate,
75 percent of the S0x> 50 percent of the N0x, and 80 percent of most
trace elements emitted to the atmosphere by the combustion systems con-
sidered in this study.  Coal furnished 55 percent of the energy used
by the combustion-based electric utilities, 10 percent of the industrial
stationary combustion energy, and only 3 percent and 2 percent of the
combustion released energy used in commercial and residential sources,
respectively.  Natural gas was the primary fuel (greater than 65 percent
of the total) in both the industrial and residential sectors.   Gas rep-
resented 47 percent of the fuel used; the only major air pollutant pro-
duced from this fuel was NO  , representing 27 percent of the total.
                           X

Major emissions to air and water and solid waste generated by the four
principal categories are presented in Table 2.  Total emissions are pre-
sented along with the percentage contribution of the principal categories.

Electric generation is the principal source of the criteria and trace air
pollutants from conventional stationary combustion systems.  The major
source of carbon monoxide and organics is residential combustion, suggest-
ing that residential units burn fuel incompletely, and that efforts to im-
prove the combustion efficiency of those myriad small sources are needed.
Although representing only 2 percent of the fuel consumed by residential
sources, coal is the major source of these emissions.

Emissions of polycyclic organic matter (POM) and polyhalogenated biphenyls
(PHB) have not been extensively measured.  POM emissions, on the basis of
limited testing, are largely due to incomplete combustion, and as a re-
sult are attributable principally to low efficiency residential heating
units.  Only one reference reported data for emissions of polychlorinated

-------
          Table 1.  FUEL CONSUMPTION, CONVENTIONAL STATIONARY COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
                                     (1012 Btu/year)a

External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Residual
Distillate
Natural gas
Internal combustion
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Total
Utilities
(1974)
14,798
8,502
8,264
38
WO
3,039
2,901
138
3,257
589
312
277
15,387b
Industrial
(1973)
8,540
1,370
1,320
10
40
1,700
1,270
430
5,200
2,760
360
2,400
11,300C
Commercial
(1973)
4,450d
156
101
55
2,379
1,269
1,110
1,914
50
25
25
4,500d
Residential
(1973)
8,057e
192
115
75
2
2,280
0
2,280
5,450
0
0
0
8,057e
Total
35,845
10,220
9,800
178
242
9,398
5,440
3,958
15,821
3,399
692
2,702
39,244
 Although  it  is  EPA's  policy to  use  the metric system for quantitative
descriptions,  the  British system is  used  in  this  report because the data
were originally  reported  in British  units.   Readers who are more accus-
tomed  to metric  units  may use the table of conversions, Appendix F.

 Solid Refuse  fuel provided < 0.005  percent  of this total.
                 TO                            1 *?       '
°Includes  20 x 10    Btu of bagasse and 250 x 10    Btu of wood as fuel.

 Includes  1 x 10    Btu of wood as fuel.

elncludes  135 x 1012 Btu  of wood  as  fuel.

-------
              Table 2.    MAJOR  EMISSIONS  FROM  CONVENTIONAL  STATIONARY  COMBUSTION  SYSTEMS

Electric Generation
Industrial
Conancrc ial/
Institutional
Residential
Total, 10 ton/yr
Air
Partic-
ulates,
X
63.8
28.3
4.9
3.0
7,060
SOX,
X
72.5
14.5
6.7
6.3
22,100
NOX,
%
64.8
24.7
7.3
3.2
10,950
nc,
Z
34.0
22.3
12.2
31.5
353
CO,
X
33.6
14.9
7.7
44.7
1,070
Organics3
BSD,
X
8.8
20.0
16.0
55.2
125
PPOH,
X
0.3
0.5
0.2
99.0
4.14
BaP,
7.
0.2
1.3
0.4
98.1
0.40
Water
Total
solids,
X
94
6
< 1
NIL
5,000
Dissolved
solids,
Z
94
6
< 1
NIL
3,700
Waste heat,
X
80
20
< 1
NIL
7.9 ic 1015 Btu/yr
Solid waste
Total
ash,
X
87
10
1
2
54,000
Fly
ash,
Z
94
6
< 1
0
36,000
Desulfur-
ization
solids,
X
94
6
0
0
3,500
aBSO - Benzene soluble organics
 PPOM - Partlculate  polycycllc organic material
 BaP - Benzo(a)pyrene
 Does not include emissions of polyhalogenated biphenyls.
 Total estimated emissions of polychlorinated biphenyls baaed on a single emieaion measurement
 la -10 Cons per year from coal-fired utility boilers.'

-------
 biphenyls  (PCB)  from combustion.   The average emission rate from a
 125 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler was 0.8 mg/10  Btu.  Assuming the
 same  emission rate for all coal-fired boilers, the total PCB emissions
 from  coal  would  be 7.5 tons/year.  No data were found for emissions of
 polybrominated biphenyls  (PBB) from coal, and no data were found for any
 polyhalogenated  hydrocarbon (PHH) emissions from oil or gas.  Because of
 the known  toxicity of these compounds and their persistence in the en-
 vironment,  further work is necessary to identify the contribution of all
 combustion sources to existing environmental levels.

 The largest contributions to the burden of suspended and dissolved solids
 discharged to water (approximately 5 million tons/year from all stationary
 combustion sources) result from water used for coal ash handling".  Ash
 handling waste water contains an estimated 2.3 million tons of solids,
 largely in dissolved form.  Waste water from boiler feedwater treatment
 is also a  significant contributor from the utility sector because of
 stringent  boiler water quality requirements.  Over 90 percent of the water
 pollutants resulting from stationary combustion are a by-product of
 electric utilities.

 Ash production is approximately 54 million tons/year, with electric
 utilities  contributing 87 percent of the total and with coal ash con-
 stituting  the major solid waste material.

 In order to  place conventional stationary combustion source emissions  in
 perspective, Table 3 summarizes the air emissions of the criteria pollu-
 tants from the combustion sources considered in this study along with
 other man-made and natural sources of emissions in the United States.
 Conventional stationary combustion sources are seen to be the largest
 emitters of  sulfur oxides and major emitters of airborne particulates
and nitrogen oxides, whereas their contribution to hydrocarbon  and  car-
bon monoxide emissions is of minor significance.

-------
                Table 3.   MAGNITUDE  OF AIR EMISSIONS  FROM  CONVENTIONAL  STATIONARY COMBUSTION SOURCES
                            COMPARED TO ALL MAN-MADE AND NATURAL  EMISSIONS IN  THE  U.S.3
Source
Nature1"
Stationary
Combustion
Transportation
Industrial
Processes
Miscellaneous
Total
Participates
106
ton/yr
Uc
7.1
0.8
14.4
12.8
35.1
% of
total
U
U
U
U
U
U
Z of
man-made
-
20.4
2.3
40.5
36.4
100.0
Sulfur oxides
10*
ton/yr
4.2
22.1
1,1
7.5
0.4
35.3
Z of
total
11.9
62.6
3.1
21.3
1.1
100.0
Z of
man-made
-
71.0
3.5
24.2
1.3
100.0
Nitrogen oxides
106
ton/yr
U
11.0
11.2
0.2
2.4
24.8
Z of
total
U
U
U
U
U
U
% of
man-made
-
44.3
45.2
0.8
9.7
100.0
Hydrocarbons
106
ton/yr
30.7
0.4
19.8
5.5
11.2
67.6
% of
total
45.5
0.5
29.3
8.1
16.6
100.0
% of
man-made
-
1.0
53.7
14.9
30.4
100.0
Carbon monoxide
106
ton/yr
NONE
1.1
111.5
12.0
26.1
150.7
Z of
Cotal
0
0.7
74.0
8.0
17.3
100.0
Z of
man-made
-
0.7
74.0
8.0
17.3
100.0
\o
            Estimates for combustion sources studied in this program were developed by GCA, other emissions
           based on Robinson and Robblns  and Walther.

            Natural emissions estimated by multiplying  total natural emissions by the ratio of U.S. to global land surface areas.
            U - Unknown.

-------
Trace  element emissions to air from all fuels are summarized in Table 4.
Electric  generation by stationary combustion is again the source of most
of  these  emissions, largely as a result of the combustion of coal.  Al-
though not  shown by the table, only cadmium, cobalt, copper, nickel, and
vanadium  of  the 28 trace elements tabulated are produced in appreciable
quantities  by burning oil.  Analysis of the available emission- data indi-
cates  that  approximately 50 to 80 percent of the combustion source emis-
sions  of  these elements are attributable to oil combustion.

Sources of  trace metal element emissions to water are ash pond discharge,
cooling tower waters, and waste water from boiler water treatment pro-
cesses.   Because of differences in system design and operating practicest
trace  element emissions to water exhibit large variability.  Because of
this variability, and the lack of sufficient emissions data, it has not
been possible to compile trace element data for water in a manner similar
to  that presented in Table 4 for air.  However, it is estimated that over
95  percent  of trace metals from combustion sources (and over 90 percent of
organic compounds), are the result of electric utility operations.  The
utility industry is estimated to contribute 14 percent of the total na-
tional discharge of metals, including 50, 14, 10 and 21 percent of chro-
mium,  copper, iron, and zinc discharged by industries designated as major
water  pollutant sourcen by EPA.

Electric  coal-fired utilities are the principal source of solid waste
trace  elements.   The predominant sources of solid waste trace elements
are bottom ash,  fly ash, and solids produced by SO- recovery systems
whose combined production is now approximately 54 million tons per year.
This value will increase with increasing coal consumption and will in-
crease several fold if predictions concerning flue gas desulfurization
utilization are realized.   The trace element content of collected ash is
summarized in Table 5.
                                  10

-------
Table 4.  TRACE ELEMENT AIR EMISSIONS: PERCENT OF TOTAL FROM CONVENTIONAL
          STATIONARY COMBUSTION SYSTEM CATEGORIES

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/Institutional
Residential
Total, tons/year
Sb
87
10
3
0.05
59
As
90
8
2
0.06
3,300
Ba
88
9
3
0.1
3,050
Be
89
9
2
0.06
260
Bi
91
7
2
0.05
110
B
90
9
1
0.05
5,500
Br
84
13
2
1
6,700
Cd
61
21
18
0.007
330
Cl
83
13
2
2
710,000

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/Institutional
Residential
Total, tons/year
Cr
84
11
5
0.1
1,800
Co
63
23
14
0.3
510
Cu
72
16
12
0.07
2,800
F
83
13
2
2
37,000
Fe
77
20
3
0.2
170,000
Pb
92
7
1
0.05
1,300
Mn
89
10
1
0.5
5,100
Hg
81
14
3
2
59
Mo
74
16
10
0.05
692

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/Institutional
Residential
Total, tons/year
Ni
60
21
19
0.02
8,100
Se
85
13
2
1
870
Te
90
9
1
0.07
31
Tl
90
9
1
0.06
10
Sn
75
13
12
0.1
130
Ti
89
9
2
0.06
62,000
U
86
10
4
0.05
1,700
V
63
20
17
0.02
11,000
Zn
89
10
1
0.1
2,300
Zr
78
20
2
0.2
2,300

-------
                      Table 5.  TRACE  ELEMENTS  IN  SOLID  WASTE  (ASH):  PERCENT OF TOTAL GENERATED
                                BY  CONVENTIONAL STATIONARY  COMBUSTION SYSTEM CATEGORIES

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/Institutional
Residential
Total, tons /year
Sb
80.7
16.4
1.3
1.6
170
As
88.9
8.9
0.9
1.6
13,500
Ba
83.2
13.2
1.4
2.2
17,600
Be
83.1
12.5
1.8
2.6
812
Bi
84.3
13.3
0.8
1.6
349
B
84.6
12.8
1.1
1.6
17,900
Br
0
0
0
0
0
Cd
82.6
14.1
1.4
1.9
121
Cl
0
0
0
0
0
Cr
75.1
11.7
5.4
7.8
5,550
N5

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/ Institutional
Residential •
Total, tons/year
Co
69.3
8.9
8.2
13.7
2,120
Cu
77.6
12.1
4.1
6.2
4,720
F
0
0
0
0
0
Fe
86.9
8.8
1.8
2.5
1,510,000
Pb
80.9
14.6
1.8
2.6
2,790
Mn
97.7
1.2
0.6
0.4
13,800
Hg
77.9
20.2
1.8
0.1
7
Mo
80.0
13.0
2.6
4.6
1,280
Ni
80.8
12.0
2.9
4.3
5,180

Electric Generation
Industrial
Commercial/Institutional
Residential
Total, tons/year
Se
76.0
22.1
1.0
1.0
408
Te
83.7
13.1
1.2
1.9
99
Tl
83.4
12.6
1.7
2.4
34
Sn
76.1
12.5
1.4
9.9
383
Ti
83.1
12.8
1.7
2.4
197,000
U
84.5
12.9
1.1
1.6
4,970
V
83.6
13.1
1.3
'2.0
9,320
Zri
82.6
12.8
1.8
2.8
7,600
Zr
85.5
11.1
1.4
2.1
19,000

-------
CONCLUSIONS


The following text highlights some of the major conclusions which we have

drawn from the results of this study.  In general, the conclusions and

interpretations apply to national emission levels; on a local level, any

of the combustion categories considered may present a serious environmental-

problem due to variations in fuel type, size, operating practices, weather
patterns, geology, hydrology, and population density.

    •   Coal combustion is the largest contributor to the air,
        water, and solid waste burden generated by stationary
        combustion sources.

    o   The electric utility sector generates the largest per-
        centage of most air, water, and solid waste pollutants.
        The large amount of fuel consumed by the utility sector,
        and specifically the very large amounts of coal burned,
        accounts for this pollutant production.

    •   Industrial steam generation, space heating, and sta-
        tionary engine operation are less significant as pollu-
        tant sources than the electric utility sector,  One
        reason is the extensive use of natural gas.

    •   Commercial/institutional and residential combustion
        systems are negligible contributors to the total burden
        of water and solid waste pollutants.  They contribute
        negligible amounts of trace elements and only minor
        amounts of particulate, SOX, and NOX emissions to the
        environment.  Coal-fired residential combustion sys-
        tems are, however, the principal sources of organic
        emissions.  Within the stationary combustion sources,
        residential systems are also a large source of hydro-
        carbon and carbon monoxide emissions.


The following discussion provides more extensive interpretations of the

results of this study and specifically enumerates those areas which rep-

resent the major data gaps applicable to emissions from conventional

stationary combustion systems.  A number of general needs are presented

first, followed by a listing of areas requiring further study which are

specific to air and water emissions and to the generation of solid waste.
                                 13

-------
On the basis of the preliminary emissions assessment
completed in this program, it is apparent that  a need
exists for further development and analysis of  the
data base including:  a compilation of critically
reviewed and acceptable data; a means of storing and
retrieving these data through the development of a
computerized data handling system relating combustion
systems and pollutants; and the development df  software
to evaluate the ramifications and significance  of trends
in fuel consumption and boiler design in order  to ade-
quately assess the environmental impact of stationary
conventional combustion sources.  The Source Test Data
System (SOTDAT) could conceivably be used as a  central
depository for source test data and its subsequent anal-
ysis for air emissions, but some modification of the
system is needed to insure adequate description of the
source.

Additional research should be conducted on combustion
systems utilizing control practices and fuels that are
representative of the existing situation or which can be
expected to increase in prominence in the future.  These
investigations should follow the recommendations which are
forthcoming from the priority ranking efforts currently
being undertaken by Monsanto Research Corporation based
on the data base compiled under this contract effort.
This approach is important because numerous past pro-
grams, such as some dealing with trace element  emissions
to the air, have dealt with systems that are nonrepre-
sentative of existing combustion sources and/or their
control equipment.

Greater effort should be expended to coordinate research
activities within and between government agencies, in-
dustrial, academic and trade organizations to insure that
appropriate personnel are cognizant of activities in the
areas of combustion source emissions.

Research directed to emissions of particulates, SO . NO
                                              7    J   "W* *
and trace elements should concentrate on coal combustion
by electric utilities.  Secondary efforts should be
directed towards coal combustion by the industrial sector.

The importance of trace element emissions from conven-
tional stationary combustion systems cannot be precisely
defined.  Comparison of concentrations produced  to in-
dustrial TLV's indicate that for most elements  the concen-
trations produced are well below the TLV values  and  the
emissions should not be particularly hazardous.  However,
a very large population is exposed and some  trace elements


                          14

-------
    produced by combustion tend to concentrate on the surface
    of fine particulates.  In addition trace elements may
    catalyze atmospheric reactions.  Investigations of trace
    element emissions should continue.

•   Fine particulate and vapor phase emissions and control
    measures should be investigated with emphasis on coal
    combustion by electric utilities.  Scrubber efficiencies
    should be determined for vapor phase trace elements and POM.

«   Emission factors for polycyclic organic matter, halogens
    and SC>3 should be developed for all sectors because of
    the large uncertainties in the available data.  Efforts
    should initially be concentrated on the residential sector
    as this sector produces most of the organics and may pro-
    duce large amounts of 503.  Coal combustion should receive
    major attention for POM.  Oil combustion may contribute
    relatively high amounts of 803 and sulfuric acid due to
    the presence of vanadium catalysts.

•   Efforts should be made to improve the efficiency of com-
    bustion of small residential and commercial burners to
    reduce emissions, particularly polycyclic organic emissions.

•   Air emissions from flue gas desulfurization units should
    be evaluated for sulfates, fine particulates, and trace
    metals.

•   Emission factors and control measures for NOX emissions
    from stationary internal combustion engines should be
    further developed.

•   Water emission research and development efforts should be
    directed primarily towards the electric utility sector
    with secondary efforts directed to the industrial sector.
    Efforts should also concentrate on coal combustion.

•   A better definition of the electric utility and industrial
    sector water handling practices should be undertaken.
    Information in these areas has been difficult to obtain.
    Federal Power Commission data have been useful for the
    electric utility sector, but the data should be subjected
    to further analysis.  Data on the practices of the in-
    dustrial sector are particularly poor and should be improved.
    The National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit System
    should be examined in detail as a potential source of addi-
    tional information on both electric utility and industrial
    practices.  State agencies may also be able to provide
    detailed data.
                             15

-------
    •   Ash pond effluents should be characterized with regard to
        total and suspended solids, including composition of trace
        elements, organic, and organometallic compounds.  Control
        methods should also be investigated.

    •   Cooling water practices and effluent concentrations in the
        industrial sector should be defined.

    •   The potential contribution of flue gas desulfurization.
        processes to water emissions should continue to receive
        strong emphasis.

    •   Product recovery of coal ash (fly ash, bottom ash, and
        boiler slag) should be implemented to an increased extent.

    •   Ash handling practices of electric utilities and indus-
        trial combustion sources should be examined and the
        extent of control determined.

    •   The chemical composition (metals and organics) of coal
        and ash should be studied in more detail with greater
        emphasis on sampling and analytical procedures.  In
        addition, although the amount of ash from residual oil
        is very small, the amount and composition should be
        investigated as no data are presently available.

    •   Methods for disposal of desulfurization wastes should be
        further investigated.  Control measures, such as pond
        liners and stabilizers, should also be investigated.
REPORT ORGANIZATION


The emission summary tables contained in this report provide estimates
of air, water, and solid waste emissions from the unit operations of
combustion systems.  While these tables may be found by referring to
the Table of Contents, access to this data may be more readily obtained
by the use of Table 6, Directory Of Major Tables Of Emissions.


For the most part, the data presented in the summary emission tables  deal
with national averages or ranges based on the best available information.
While national figures cannot be related to individual plants,  they do
indicate the relative importance of various emission streams.   The  dis-
cussion accompanying the tables presents information on emissions,  a  review

                                 16

-------
Table 6.  DIRECTORY OF MAJOR TABLES OF EMISSIONS

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
3.0.00.0.0 COTinerclal/Institutional
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3,2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
4.0.00.0,0 Residential
Air pollutants
Stack
emissions
Table/page

27/78
42/127

91/251
93/261

116/305
119/314
126/325
Ash
hand I ing
Tablc/p.-igu

44/134
-

95/270
-

121/318
-
-
Cooling
Table/page

60/163
-

—
-

-
-
-
Fuel
handling
Table/page

68/198
-

102/283
-

122/319
-
-
Water pollutants
Ash
bond! ing
Table/page

44/134
47/138
48/139
-

95/270
-

121/318
-
-
Cooling
Table/page

52/145
-

97/273
-

-
-
-
Fuel
handling
Table/page

68/198
69/200
-

102/283
-

122/319
-
-
Boiler
blowdcwn
Table/page

65/188
-

100/279
-

-
-
-
Other
Table/page

64/182
66/189
67/190
-

99/277
101/281
-

-
-
-
Solid waste
Ash
Table/page

44/134
-

95/270
"

121/318
-
-

-------
of pertinent literature, analysis of the data presented  in  the  literature,
and conclusions and recommendations of a general nature  based on  these
data.

This report first presents, in Section II, a description of emissions
from the electric utility industry.  The population of boilers  in this
classification is presented as a function of boiler size, firing  method,
and boiler type.  Most of the information here was extracted from a
Federal Power Commission (FPC) Form 67 data tape provided by the  FPC,
and supplemented by data from the National Emission Data System (NEDS)
data file and other sources.  Section II also presents a detailed dis-
cussion of the unit operations and processes associated  with emissions
and provides estimates of emissions from these processes in the form of
summary tables with attendant discussions.

Sections III, IV, and V present information concerning industrial, com-
mercial/institutional, and residential combustion sources used  for steam
generation and space heating.  Industrial and commercial/institutional
fuel consumption for stationary engines is also included.  The  discussions
in these sections follow the same format used for the electric  utility
industry in Section II.  Large industrial boilers are very  similar to
utility boilers, but certain unit operations are not applicable to the
smaller combustion sources.  In addition, these smaller  sources generally
do not employ waste treatment and emission control devices.

Section VI discusses trends in fuel consumption and boiler  design and
their anticipated effect on emissions.  Finally, Section VII reviews
on-going or planned activities associated with combustion sources and
their pollutant streams.  This information was developed from three
principal sources:  (1) a list of presently funded EPA programs;  (2) a
review of the technical literature including computerized  literature
searches conducted by the National Technical Information Service and  the
Smithsonian Science Information Exchange Service; and (3)  by contact with
organizations and individuals active in the combustion area.

                                 18

-------
Throughout the report, and in the Appendices, fuel consumption and fuel
properties (e.g., ash content, chemical composition, etc.) have been
provided by state and region.  This breakdown will help to define the
potential air, water, and solid waste emissions by location and combus-
tion category.  Situations where data are missing or of questionable
value have been noted.  A ranking scheme has been devised to indicate
the quality of existing data from various emission streams.

PRIMARY DATA SOURCES

As noted previously, this emission assessment has been based on a survey
of the available technical literature supplemented by contact with
governmental, industrial and other information sources concerned with
various aspects of emissions from conventional combustion sources.  Con-
tact has been made with individuals associated with the,Environmental
Protection Agency, the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research
and Development Administration, the Bureau of Mines, the Federal Power
Commission and other governmental agencies.  Industrial trade groups
such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Electric Power Research
Institute, the American Boiler Manufacturers Association, the National Coal
Association, and the National Ash Association have also been contacted.
Finally, major government contractors have been utilized.as sources of
recent and current information.  In our survey of available literature
we have been assisted by the many individuals and associations enumerated
above and by the use of literature searches conducted by such organizations
as the National Technical Information Service and the Smithsonian Science
Information Exchange Service.  As anticipated, most of the pertinent
literature concerning emissions emanates from the Environmental Protection
Agency and other government agencies, although the larger industrial and
trade organizations have also sponsored ir- -estigations of direct relevance
to combustion system emissions..  The primary sources of electric utility
industry data are the Federal Power Commission and the National Emission
Data System.  NEDS is also a source of information for industrial and
                                 19

-------
and commercial/institutional combustion sources, although the coverage of
these areas is relatively incomplete.  Other data sources,  the American
Boiler Manufacturers Association, Bureau of Mines, and the  Bureau of
Census identify sales and fuel consumption figures which have proven to
be useful in appraising practices in the nonutility area.  Again, other
industrial organizations, largely under EPA sponsorship, have analyzed
the available data, and their contributions were useful in  the compila-
tion of this document.

The major data sources which were used in the preparation of this report
are discussed below.

Federal Power Commission Data Files and Publications

A primary source for information on the electric utility industry is the
Federal Power Commission . (FPC).   The report entitled,  Steam-Electric Plant
Air and Water Quality Control Data for the Year Ended  December 31, 1972,
published by the FPC in March 1975,  contains summary  data  on such sub-
jects as fuel consumption, fuel quality, emissions, ash and sulfur collec-
tion and disposal, types of cooling, cooling water use, and chemical addi-
tive use (water) .  The data are presented by State and Air  Quality Control
Region or Water Resource Region, as well as 696 individual  plants.  The
primary limitation of the summary document is the lack of individual boiler
data.  Capacity and/or fuel use associated with specific furnace types,
firing patterns, boiler sizes, and boiler ages are not presented.

To supplement the above FPC publication we developed a program to survey
FPC magnetic storage tapes containing FPC Form 67 information represent-
ing the year 1972.  These forms (see Appendix A) were collected  from
individual electric generating plants throughout the United States whose
cumulative fuel consumption was 97 percent of all combustion  fuels used
for electric generation.  Although the information represents the best
utility data available, errors exist in the tape, reflecting  the inherent
                                 20

-------
human error in both filling out the FPC Form 67 by the many utility
personnel involved, and in translating this information to the magnetic
tape.  Time did not permit a more detailed examination of the tape and
possible resolution of discrepancies.  In general, it is felt that the
information obtained from the FPC represents an accurate portrayal of
the utility industry.  Fuel consumption data for utilities were updated
through information available from the FPC and the Bureau of Mines.

National Emission Data System

The National Emission Data System (NEDS) has on file extensive data on
air pollution from electrical power generation via combustion.  Data
for individual plants in this file include boiler capacity and type, fuel
characteristics and consumption, control equipment type and efficiency,
stack parameters and emission estimates.  The data are presented for
different years from 1970 through 1973, depending on the state, but
most data are from 1972 or 1973.  The NEDS system is designed to include
data on essentially all the significant oil-, coal-, and natural gas-fired
electric generation units, especially sources with the potential to emit
over 100 tons per year of any of the criteria pollutants.  The plant
size corresponding to this emission rate depends on the fuel type, operat-
ing hours, ash content, and sulfur content, but generally encompasses
coal-fired plants larger than 4 MW.  Because plants above 25 MW capacity
generate all but a few percent of the electricity in the United States,
the NEDS system should include data on all significant electric genera-
tion emissions sources.  The quality of the NEDS data, however, varies
from state to state and in some states it is lacking; for example, almost
no data are available for New York.  Access to NEDS files has been diffi-
cult because of computer problems, although NEDS has been utilized to pro-
vide information for anthracite-fired and lignite-fired boilers in this
study.  The NEDS system also contains some data for industrial and com-
mercial sources.  However, many of these sources are too small to be in-
cluded in the NEDS data bank.  Estimates from data in the 1972 National
Emission Data Report6 indicate that only 60 percent of the industrial

                                 21

-------
 fuel use and 20 percent of the commercial fuel use are included in the
 NEDS point  source data bank.  Individual studies conducted by other EPA
 contractors have provided much of the information used to compile esti-
 mates of boiler populations, operating characteristics, and emissions
 presented in this report for these nonutility categories.

 Other Data  Sources

 Other data  sources used in this study include articles in the technical
 journals and reports sponsored by governmental and industrial organiza-
 tions.  These articles and reports are too numerous to mention here,  but
 are referenced through the report.

 Air emissions have thus far received the most attention in the literature,
 although information concerning water and solid waste treatment is be-
 coming increasingly available.  Water and solid waste effluent streams
 are more difficult to analyze due to the large plant-to-plant variations
 in cooling water, ash handling, and water treatment practices.  This
 variation is exhibited in the FPC data base dealing with such effluent
 streams.

 The most comprehensive information on water and solid waste effluent is
 at present on file with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
 tem (NPDES).  The wastewater pollutants specified in permit applications
 to this program include more pollutants than those specified in present
 proposed federal effluent guidelines for electric utilities.  This NPDES
 data base is not fully computerized and is, therefore, difficult to sur-
vey.  One attempt has been made, however, for the EPA Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials where data have been assembled to varying degrees
of completeness for specific waste stream effluents, based on a sampling
of about 66 percent of all coal-fired utility plants."^  This reference
has been used extensively in this document.
                                 22

-------
The industrial, commercial/institutional, and residential sectors have
received less attention in the technical literature than the electric
utility area.  Combustion units used in the former are smaller than those
used by electric utilities although they are more numerous.  Information
on fuel consumption by industrial users for 1973 is available from the
Bureau of Mines for each state.  Commercial/institutional and residential
fuel consumption data for- some fuels also are available from the Bureau
of Mines.  The 1972 Census of Manufacturers provides data from which
commercial and residential fuel use can be estimated.  Again many EPA
sponsored programs consider industrial, commercial and residential fuel
combustion installations as well as electric generation facilities.
Trade organizations, such as the National Oil Fuel Institute, have provided
data on sales and system characteristics of small boilers and furnaces.

QUALITY OF EMISSION ESTIMATES

The extent and quality of the available data base generally decrease as
one progresses from the electric utility sector to the residential sector.
Although the data in the electric utility area are more extensive than
the other categories, there are still significant data gaps especially
with regard to water and solid waste pollutants.  Moreover, very little
is known about trace metal and organic air emissions from utility boilers,
while data on criteria pollutant emissions exhibit appreciable variability.
Differences in fuel; boiler load, design and age; control device per-
formance and operating parameters; and other factors contribute to varia-
tions in air emissions data.  Since not all of the factors contributing
to emissions are well understood or definable, it is not possible to pre-
dict with accuracy the performance of individual boilers.  While certain
generalizations concerning emissions can and have been made (i.e., emis-
sion factors), extended sampling programs are required to adequately
determine individual boiler emissions.  National average data, if based
on a suitably large and representative sampling of boilers, can, however,
be used to define areas where additional R&D activity is needed.
                                 23

-------
The problem of relating national averages to individual  plant  performance
is particularly difficult for water and solid waste pollutants due  to  the
large variations in plant design and operating practices.   The quantity
and quality of available data are also less than that  available for air
emissions.  With the exception of the limited amount of  data available
from the FPC for utilities, tne data base is not centralized and compila-
tion of the data will require an extensive effort.   Detailed definition
of the volume and composition of wastewater effluents  and  solid waste
leachates is lacking.  In the case of solid waste leachates, particularly,
an appreciable time period may be required to determine  their  extent and
impact.  Moreover, the extent and the impact of water  and  solid waste
pollutants will depend not only on plant practices  (fuel,  boiler type  and
size, etc.) but on local conditions such as soil properties, meteorology,
land and water availability, etc.

Air and water quality and solid waste disposal regulations require  that
all new plants meet certain discharge requirements. Existing  plants
will also be required to meet state regulations and proposed Federal
Performance Water Quality Standards as required by Public  Law  92-500,  the
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  As these  regulations
become effective, it will be possible to define regulated  effluents for
nonexempt sources in a more meaningful manner.

To provide a meaningful index of the realiability of the information pre-
sented, the following data quality factors have been assigned  to each
category of emissions:
                                 24

-------
                Quality
                factor
             for emission
              estimates
                  A
                  D
                  E
                                        Definition
Very good - highest confidence.
Error probably 10 percent.
Data well accepted and verified.

Good - Reputable and accepted.
Error probably 25 percent.

Fair - Error probably 50 per-
cent.  Validity may be uncer-
tain due to method of combining
or applying data.

Poor - Low confidence in data.
Error probably 100 percent.
Validity questionable or uncer-
tain due to method of combining
data.
Very poor - Validity of data un-
known or uncertain due to method
of combining data.  Error probably
within or around an order of
magnitude.
These data quality factors are evaluations based on the source of the

data, the amount of data available, the accuracy of the measurements,

and variations arising from differences in operating practices in different

plants, regions, and industries.   They help to differentiate between

results based on comprehensive field measurements and crude estimates

based on limited data.


An emission estimate quality factor of A has been assigned to emissions of

pollutants such as SO  where a high, degree of correspondence between fuel

sulfur content and SO  has been demonstrated for most fuel boilers and oper-

ating conditions.  An exception is the high alkali content lignite fuels

which retain variable amounts of sulfur in the ash.  A quality factor of B

has been assigned to emissions such as particulate and NO  emissions from
                                                         •tfc
utility boilers, where the data base is reputable and extensive but
                                 25

-------
 subject  to  variation due to differences in boiler design, load, efficiency,
 age,  estimates  of control device efficiency and other factors.  A factor
 of  C  reflects a more limited data base.  Inadequate analytical methods or
 definition  of operating practices and procedures may be the principal
 cause or contribute to this rating.  Ratings of D or E were assigned for
 other reasons as well; for example, a quality factor of E has been assigned
 to  trace element emissions.  Although some of the recent data is of good
 or  excellent quality, the amount of data is limited.  The extension of
 this  data to all plants to arrive at national estimates is questionable.
 Similarly a rating of E has also been assigned to organic emissions for
 a number of reasons:  a lack of data; uncertainties in data due to ana-
 lytical  methods; an inadequate understanding of the ratio of vapor phase
 to  particulate  emissions; and inadequate coverage of combustion systems.

 In  order to"assess the impact of reported emissions, regardless of data
 quality,  frequency factors have been developed.  These factors range
 from  0 to 1 with a value of 1 indicating a continuous emission stream.
 A value  of  1 has been assigned, for example, to stack emissions from
 utility  boilers whereas a factor of 0.003 has been assigned to utility
 equipment cleaning indicating that cleaning occurs once a year on the
 average.  The factors are provided for use with the models now under
 development by Monsanto Research Corporation to assess the priority of
 the selected combustion systems.  Table 7 presents our summary appraisal
 of  the data quality and frequency factors for individual waste emission
 sources.

 COMBUSTION  SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION

 In order  to effectively organize the various combustion systems and re-
 port associated emissions, a classxfied index for combustion systems has
 been developed and is summarized in Table 8.  The majority of tabular data
 presented in this report are arranged according to this classification
 system.   It is anticipated that this system will assist in the future
computerization of these data.  Table 9 lists the combustion systems
                                 26

-------
  Table 7.   EMISSION ESTIMATE  QUALITY AND FREQUENCY FACTORS
-
Fuel and boiler data
Fuel consumption
Combustion unit population
Combustion unit characteristics
Control devices
Emissions data
Flue gas emissions
Particulates
Fine participates
SO*
NO,
EC
CO
PPOM
PHH
Trace elements
Internal combustion
Air emissions '
Ash handling
Air emissions
Pond discharge
Amount
Composition
Solid waste
Amount
Composition, major elements
Composition, trace elements
Cooling systems
Water discharge
Volume
Composition
Thermal
Air emissions
Other wastewater sources
Boiler water treatment
Volume
Composition
Boiler blowdown
Volume
Composition
Equipment cleaning
Volume
Composition
Fuel handling
Air emissions
Coal pile drainage
Volume
Composition
Utilities

A
A
A
A


B(l.O)
D(l.O)
A(l.O)
B(l.O)
D(l.O)
B(l.O)
E(l.O)
E(l.O)
E(l.O)

B(0.2)

E(l.O)

B(l.O)
E

A(l.O)
A
E


A(l.O)
C
A(l.O)
C(l.O)


D(l.O)
C

E(0.5)
D

DC0.003)
C

E(l.O)

C(0.2)
C
Industrial

B
D
B
C


C(0.8)
D(O.S)
A(0.8)
B(0.8)
D(0.8)
C(0.8)
E(0.8)
E(0.8)
ECO. 8).

B(0.25>

E(0.8)

E(0.8)
E

B(0.8)
A
E


E(0.8)
C
E(0.8)
E(0.8)


E(0.8)
D

E(O.l)
E

D(O.OOl)
C

E(0.8)

C(0.2)
C
Commercial/
Institutional

B
D
B
HA8


D(0.5)
D(0.5)
A(0.5)
C(0.5)
D(0.5)
CfO.5)
E(0.5)
£(0.5)
E(0.5)

B(0.25)

NA

NA
NA

3(0.5)
B
E


NA
NA
NA
NA


NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

E(0.5)

C(0.2)
C
Residential

B
D
B
NA


C(0.4)
C(0.4)
A(O.A)
C(0.4)
D(0.4)
C(0.4)
E'JO.4)
E(0.4)
E(0.4)

NA

NA

NA
NA

BC0.4)
B
Z


NA-
NA
NA
NA


NA
SA

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA

NA
NA
*NA - Not applicable.
                             27

-------
                                           Table 8.   COMBUSTION SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION TABLE'
Row
0
1



2


3

4



5

6


7


6


9




x
Column 1
Function
All
Utilities:
Electric
generation

Industrial


Commercial

Residential



Hlxed
function














Hone/other
Column 2
Combustion
All
External



Internal:
All

Internal:
Gas turbine
Internal:
Recipro-
cating


•














Hone/other
Column 3
Fuel,
2-diglt designation
00 All
10 Coal: .total

11 Coal:
bituminous

12 Coal:
anthracite
13 Coal:
lignite
20 Petroleum:
total

21 Residual oil

22 Distillate oil
23 Crude oil
24 Kerosene
25 Diesel
26 Gasoline

30 Gas: total
31 Natural
32 Process
33 LPG

40 Refuse: total
41 Bagasse
42 Wood /bark
43 Other
None/other
Column 4
Furnace type
All
Pulverized:
dry bottom


Pulverized:
wet bottom

Cyclone
,
Stoker: All



Stoker:
overfeed
Stoker:
•spreader

Stoker:
underfeed









None/other
Column 5
Firing
All
Tangential



All other
than
tangential
Front
or back
Opposed



Vertical















None /other
Column 6
Thermal rate,
105 Btu/hr
All
>5000



1500-5000


500-1500

100-500





<100














Column 7
Fly ash
reinjection

With



Without

























Column &
Particulate
control
All
ESP



ESP: dry


ESP: wet

Cyclone:
ESP


Cyclone

Wet
scrubber

Fabric
filter




Other




Hone
Column 9
S02
control
All
Limes Cone


,
Lime


Double
alkali
Kagnesiua



Cot-Ox

Wellnan-Lord


Citrate


Dry
absorption

Other




Hone
Colun .1 13
NO,
control
All
Staged firing

i

'jt>v excesi air


Flue gas
reclrculatioa
U-0 injection



Reduced air
preheating









Other




None
10
CO
       *1.1.10.2.1.3 Denoted an electric utility, external combustion, coal-fired, pulverized vat botton, tangentially-fired boiler of 500-1500 «H Btu/hr ctpicit?.

-------
Table 9.  SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS EMPHASIZED  IN THIS PROGRAM
o
System No.




1
2
3
- 4

5
6
.
7
8
9
10


11
12

13
14

15
16
17
Classification
code
- 1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.13.1.0
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
1.1.40.0.0
Combustion system
Electric Generation
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
All Stokers
Lignite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Refuse
3The systems numbered in this column will be used in the priority
ranking study being conducted by Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, Ohio, under Contract No. 68-02-1404, Task Order No.  18.
                               29

-------
  Table 9 (continued).   SELECTED COMBUSTION  SYSTEMS EMPHASIZED
                        IN THIS PROGRAM
System No.
Classification
     code
     Combustion system
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25

    26

    27
    28
    29
  1.2.00.0.0
  1.2.20.0.0
  1.2-.30.0.0
  1.3.00.0.0

  1.3.20.0.0
  1.3.22.0.0
  1.3.30.0.0
  1.4.00.0.0

  1.4.20.0.0
  1.4.22.0.0
  1.4.30.0.0
  2.0.00.0.0
  2.1.00.0.0
  2.1.10.0.0
  2.1.11.0.0
  2.1.11.1.0
  2.1.11.2.0
  2.1.11.3.0
  2.1.11.4.0
  2.1.12.0.0
  2.1.12.4.0
  2.1.13.0.0
  2.1.13.6.0
  2.1.20.0.0
  2.1.21.0.0
  2.1.21.0.1
  2.1.21.0.2
  Internal Combustion
    Petroleum
    Gas
  Internal Combustion/
  Gas Turbine
    Petroleum
      Distillate Oil
    Gas
  Internal Combustion/
  Reciprocating Engine
    Petroleum
      Distillate Oil
    Gas
Industrial
  External Combustion
    Coal
      Bituminous
        Pulverized Dry
        Pulverized Wet
        Cyclone
        All Stokers
      Anthracite
        All Stokers
      Lignite
        Spreader Stokers
    Petroleum
      Residual Oil
          Tangential Firing
          All Other
                               30

-------
Table 9 (continued).  SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS EMPHASIZED
                      IN THIS PROGRAM
System No.

30
31

32
33
34



•

35
36


37
38




39
40
41

42
Classification
code
2.1.22.0.0
2.1.22.0.1
2.1.22.0.2
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.30.0.1
2.1.20.0.2
2.1.40.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
2.2.20.0.0
2.2.30.0.0
2.3.00.0.0
2.3.20.0.0
2.3.22.0.0
2.3.30.0.0
2.4.00.0.0
2.4.20.0.0
2.4.22.0.0
2.4.30.0.0
3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.12.4.0
Combustion system
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Waste
Internal Combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
Petroleum
Distillate Oil
Gas
Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
Petroleum
Distillate Oil
Gas
Commercial/ Institutional
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Anthracite
All Stokers
                             31

-------
Table 9 (continued).  SELECTED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS EMPHASIZED
                      IN THIS PROGRAM
System No.




43
44
-
45
46

47 •
48


49
50



51
52
53

54
55

56
Classification
code
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
3.1.20.0.0
3.1.21.0.0
3.1.21,0.1
3.1.21.0.2
3.1.22.0.0
3.1.22.0.1
3.1.22.0.2
3.1.30.0.0
3.1.30.0.1
3.1.30.0.2
3.1.40.0.0
3.2.00.0.0
3.2.20.0.0
3.2.30.0.0
4.0.00.0.0
4.1.00.0.0
4.1.10.0.0
4.1.11.0.0
4.1.12.0.0
4.1.13.0.0
4.1.20.0.0
4.1.22.0.0
4.1.30.0.0
4.1.40.0.0
4.1.42.0.0
Combustion system
Lignite
All Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Refuse
Internal Combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Residential
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Distillate Oil
Gas
Refuse
Wood
                            32

-------
which have been selected for emphasis in this program.  These systems
will be subsequently assigned priorities utilising the emission estimates

provided in subsequent sections of the report and priority analyses being
conducted by Monsanto Research Corporation.


REFERENCES
1.  Cowherd, C., M. Marcus, C. Guenther and J. Spigarelli.  Hazardous
    Emission Characteristics of Utility Boilers.  Midwest Research
    Institute.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No.
    EPA 650/2-75-066.  Research Triangle Park, N.C. July 1975.

2.  Robinson, E. and R. C. Robbins.  Sources, Abundances and Fate
    of Gaseous  Atmospheric Pollutants.  Stanford Research Institute.
    Menlo Park, California.  1968.

3.  Walther, E. C.  A Rating of the Major Air Pollutants and Their
    Sources by  Effect.  JAPCA.  22(8).  May 1972.

4.  Development Document  for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
    Source Performance Standards  for the Steam-Electric Power
    Generating  Point Source Category.  U.S. EPA Report No. 440/l-74-029a.
    October, 1974.

5.  Steam-Electric Plant  Air and  Water Quality Control Data for the Year
    Ended December 31, 1972.   Federal Power Commission.  March 1975.

6.  1972 National Emission Report (NEDS).  U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency.  Pub. 450/2-74-012.   Research Triangle  Park, N.C.  June 1974.

7.  Hittman Associates, Inc.   Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and
    Cost of Energy Supply and  End Use, Volume I, NTIS Report No. PB-234 784,
    November 1974.
                                  33

-------
                               SECTION II
                     UTILITIES:  ELECTRIC GENERATION

Most of the electric power generated in the United States  is produced in
steam plants using fossil fuels and high speed turbines.   In 1974 these
plants delivered on the average 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity for
10,400 Btu supplied by the fuel.   The modern electric utility boiler
operates at pressures of 2,500 to 4,000 psi, and delivers  superheated
steam (with waterwall tubes, superheating and heat recovery accessories)
at a temperature of 1,000 F or higher.

Electric utilities must provide service on demand.  Because system load
varies with time, significant portions of system capacity  are unused much
of the time.  External combustion systems (i.e., fossil-fuel boilers)
provide most of the base and intermediate load capacity.   Base units
operate almost continually with an annual load factor of about 80 per-
cent with shutdown resulting only for maintenance, refueling and repairs.
Intermediate load requirements are usually met by older, less efficient
fossil fuel units.

Peak load facilities must be capable of rapid startup and  shutdown.  This
type of service is most suitable for internal combustion systems; i.e.
gas turbines.  However, while internal combustion systems  represent about
20 percent of capacity they account for only about 4 percent of the elec-
tric utility energy production.

Electric generation plants are designed to meet the specific needs  of  the
utility in the most economical fashion.  The cost of electricity will

                                 34

-------
depend principally on the capital equipment, fuel, and operating and
maintenance costs.  Because the cost of the fuel consumed throughout the
life of a generating plant is a significant part of the generating cost,
the availability and price of the fuel and the unit efficiency of the
plant are of paramount importance in the selection of plant equipment.
Coal, despite its many drawbacks, is more often used by utilities than the
other two fossil fuels, oil and natural gas, because of its general
abundance and low cost.  Therefore, for reasons of economics, there is
a trend to boilers of larger sizes since the efficiency increases, while.
the unit investment and other costs decrease, as the size increases.  For
this reason, in the case of coal-fired units, the older, smaller stoker
furnaces have been largely replaced by larger pulverized coal or cyclone
furnaces.  Both the pulverized and cyclone furnaces can burn almost any
type of coal.  While the cyclone furnace is most suitable for the com-
bustion of the lower grade subbituminous and lignite coals, its use in
new plants will be virtually eliminated because its NO  emissions exceed
                                                      X
those specified by New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

The combustion of coal is more difficult than the combustion of other
fossil fuels.  Its use involves equipment for:  handling, size reduction,
ash disposal, dust control, and sootblowing.  Coal combustion accounts
for the major portion of air, water, and solid waste emissions from the
electric utility industry.

Natural gas is the easiest fuel to burn and eliminates the need for fuel
storage, ash handling, sootblowing, and particulate and S0? control
equipment.  Oil has many of the desirable characteristics of natural gas.
However, high sulfur, sodium, and vanadium content oils require provision
for removal of deposits by water washing of heat transfer surfaces and
sootblowing.  Emission control equipment may also be required for some
units and fuel oils, due to NSPS and other more stringent regulations.
                                 35

-------
 Other  fuels are used to only a minor extent by the electric utility in-
 dustry.  The burning of municipal refuse as a supplement to coal, although
 highly publicized, is now being practiced at only one utility, the Union
 Electric Meramac Plant in St. Louis County.  This source produced less
 than 0.01 percent of the total electrical energy generated in the United
 States in 1974.  Bagasse and wood are utilized in certain parts of the
 country by industry to produce both steam and electricity, principally
 for on-site use.

 This section on utilities combustion is divided into 10 major subsections.
 The following subsection is an overview of the industry which provides
 information on the size of various facilities, the types of fuels used
 and the consumptiqn rates of these fuels.  The next subsection discusses
 external and internal combustion units and includes information on the
 number and characteristics of these units.  Unit operations or processes
 which are sources of emissions to air, water, and land are defined in the
 third subsection and emissions from specific unit operations including
 stack emissions, ash handling emissions, cooling system water wastes,
 other wastewater emissions, fuel storage and handling emissions and flue
 gas desulfurization wastes are discussed in" the next subsections.

 SIZE OF INDUSTRY, SOURCES OF ENERGY, FUEL CONSUMPTION

 Approximately 1,900 x 10  MWh of electrical energy was generated in the
 United States during 1974, ' • of which approximately 1,800 x 10  MWh,
 or 95 percent, was generated by utilities for general consumption.  Indus-
 trial on-site production of electricity (see Section III) has remained
 stable at approximately 100 x 10  MWh per year since 1965. *
Fossil fuel, nuclear fuel, and hydropower are the primary energy sources
used to produce electricity.  During 1974, fossil fuels produced 79 per-
cent of the total electricity generated, while hydropower and nuclear  fuel
produced 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.   Seventy-seven percent
                                 36

-------
of installed generation capacity was driven by steam prime movers; 9 per-
cent by internal combustion, and 14 percent by hydropower.  Refuse is
also burned in small amounts to produce electricity  and is considered
later in this section of the report.

Fossil fuel consumption for electricity production increased 5 to 9 per-
cent per year in the period 1968 to 1973 with a total increase to 43 per-
     2 4
cent. '   However, from 1973 to 1974 fossil fueled electric production
decreased 3.5 percent, due primarily to the sharp increase in energy
costs, energy conservation efforts, the recession, and also as a result
of increased production from nuclear fuel and hydropower.   Table 10 indi-
cates that over the past 7 years coal has been the predominant fossil
fuel.  Oil's share-of the electric utility market has more than doubled
since 1968, from 9 to 22 percent while both coal and gas have decreased
slightly.
        Table  10.   UTILITY  FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRICITY  PRODUCTION -  '
                   SOURCE OF ENERGY
                               (percent)

Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Year
1968b
63
9
28
1969b
60
12
28
1970b
56
14
29
1971°
53
18
29
1972C
53
21
27
1973°
55
22
23
1974C
55
22
23
       Totals may not add due to rounding.
       References 2 and 4.
      'See Table 11.
In 1974, 54 percent of the fossil fuel consumed was bituminous coal,
0.25 percent anthracite, 1.3 percent lignite, 23 percent natural gas,
19 percent residual oil, and 2.9 percent distillate oil.  The bituminous
coal category includes 10 to 15 percent subbituminous coal.   Included in
the natural gas category are less than 0.6 percent "combined" coke oven
gas, refinery gas, and blast furnace gas.  The use of liquified natural
                                 37

-------
gas and synthetic natural gas was essentially zero.   All heavy oils were
included in the residual oil category and consisted  of 0.6 percent
No. 4, 1.5 percent No. 5, 95.5 percent No. 6, and 2.4 percent crude.  •
Distillate oil consisted primarily of No. 2 fuel oil, and less than 10
percent kerosene and jet fuel.  Approximately 96 percent of the consumed
fuels were burned in external combustion systems and 4 percent in internal
combustion systems.  A small undetermined amount of  fuel was burned in
combined cycle plants consisting of gas turbines followed by waste heat
boilers.

External combustion systems (boilers) produced 1419  x 10  MWh of elec-
tricity in 1974 from an installed capacity of 337,000 MW for an unusually
low yearly average load factor of 48 percent.  In previous years the load
factor was 50 to 55 percent.  Comparison of the fuel consumed to the
electricity produced yields a 1974 heat rate of 10,420 Btu/kWh,  equiv-
alent to a heat-to-electricity efficiency of 33 percent.
Internal combustion systems consist of gas turbines and reciprocating
engines burning distillate oil and natural gas.  A few gas turbines are
designed to burn residual and/or crude oil-after pretreatment  but no
such fuel use was reported for 1974.   Fuel used by internal combustion
systems was only 3.8 percent of the electric utility total and consisted
of almost equal amounts of distillate oil and natural gas.  Gas turbines
consumed seven times as much fuel as reciprocating engines.  The pre-
dominant turbine fuel was distillate oil while the predominant recipro-
cating engine fuel x^as natural gas.  Internal combustion systems are
 Heat rate is a term used in the utility industry to identify the amount
of heat (Btu) consumed in the generation of 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity.
The heat rate for a 100 percent efficient system would be 3,413 Btu/kWh.
However, 100 percent efficiency is theoretically impossible.  Theoretical
ultimate efficiency of a thermal power plant (the Carnot efficiency)  oper-
ating with 1050°F steam (the current maximum steam temperature) and  60°F
cooling water is 66 percent.-"-^
                                 38

-------
used primarily for peaking, emergency, and reserve power, and therefore
had a low yearly average load factor of only 10 percent during 1974.
Their heat rate of 14,750 Btu/kWh is higher than that of external com-
bustion systems; they are operated at an average efficiency of only
23 percent.

During 1974, the Union Electric Meramac Plant in St. Louis County was
                                                       o
the only utility burning refuse to produce electricity.   Its capacity
                      Q
was 12.5 tons per hour  and if operated at a 50 percent yearly load
factor produced about 0.066 x 10  MWh of electricity.

Table 11 summarizes fuel consumption and generation capacities of all
types of combustion-based electric utilities for the years 1971 through
1974.  This table was developed primarily from FPC data presented in
weekly issues of the Federal Power Commission News. ' '    Additional
data sources were used to determine system capacities for the 1971 .to 1973
period '  and for 1974.    The generating capacity of external combustion
systems by fuel type was estimated by assuming that capacity was propor-
tional to the electricity produced.  This is equivalent to assuming that
each system had the same yearly load factor.  The electricity generated
by external combustion systems was calculated from heat rate data (Btu/
kWh) for each fuel.    The fuel consumed, system capacity, and electricity
generated by internal combustion systems were available directly from FPC
data,  '   and estimates of capacity by fuel type were made in the manner
discussed in Table 11.

Fuel consumption data by state and system type are presented in detail in
Appendix B.  Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution of utility fuel
consumption.  Most of the fuel (75 percent) is consumed in the eastern
half of the United States with Texas (8.4 percent) and California (6.0
percent)  also consuming large quantities.  Electric utility coal con-
sumption is presented in Figure 2.  Coal consumption is concentrated in
the eight-state region of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
                                 39

-------
Table 11.
FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRIC UTILITY - CAPACITY,  FUEL
CONSUMPTION, AND PRODUCTION,  1971 - 1974



1.0.00. Electric generation



1.1.00. External combustion



1.1.10. External combustion;
coal


1.1.11. External combustion;
bituminous


1.1.12. External combustion;
anthracite


1.1.13. External combustion;
lignite




Year
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971

Capacity,
MW
380,000
356,000°
322,000°
297,600°
337,000b
318,000°
294,000°
275,600°
198,300e
184,5006
163,400e
152,700e
192-,600e
178,900e
159,700e
149, 700^
880e
780e
830e
880e
4,670e
3,840e
2,780e
2,0206
Fuel
consumed ,
1012 Btu
15,387d
15,928d
I4,968d
13,872d
14,798d
15,396d
14,439d
13,458d
8,502d
8,668d
7,830d
7,299d
8,264h
8,450*
7,657X
7,161i
38j
37j
40j
. 42j
200k
181k
133k
96k
Electricity
generated,
106 MWh
1459. Ob
1520. Od
1411. Od
1305. Od
1419. Od
1468. Od
1375. Od
127 7. Od
835. Of
851.0
769. Of
712. Og
812. Ot
830. O1
752. Ot
698. .0'
3.7'
3.6'
3.9t
4.1s
19. 7C
17. 8t
13.1t
9.4'
                          40

-------
Table 11 (continued).
FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRIC UTILITY - CAPACITY, FUEL
CONSUMPTION, AND PRODUCTION, 1971 - 1974

1.1.20.



1.1.21.



1.1.22.



1.1.30.



1.2.00.




1.3.00.




External combustion;
petroleum


External combustion;
residual oil


External combustion;
distillate oil


External combustion;
gas


Internal combustion;
all fuels



Gas turbines ;
all fuels





Year
1974
1974
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972

1971
1974
1973
1972

1971

Capacity ,
MW
66,700e
65,300e
54,200e
46,300e
63,600e
62,500e
52,700e
45,700e
3,010e
2,890e
l,490e
580e
72,0'00e
69,200e
76,500e
76,600e
43,300b
37,8001
32.7001
1
26,500
i
32,900
'27,9001
i
21,800
Fuel
consumed ,
10-^ Btu
3,039d
3,285d
2,758d
2,321d
2,901h
3.1391
2.6821
2.2911
138h
1461
761
301
3,257h
3.4431
3,8s!1
3.8681
589h
5321
5291
1
413
515h
i
4581
4521
1
340
Electricity
generated,
106 MWh
281. Om
303. Om
255. Om
216. On
268. 0*
290. 0*
248. Qt
213. 0C
12.7*
13, 4C
7.0'
2.7fc
305.0°
321.0°
350.0°
357. 0P
39. 6q
35. 7m
36. 2m
TO
28.4
33. 4q
1
29.5
29. 51
1
22.1
                                41

-------
Table 11 (continued).
FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRIC UTILITY - CAPACITY, FUEL
CONSUMPTION, AND PRODUCTION,  1971 - 1974

1.3.20.



1.3.30.



1.4.00.



1.4.20.




1.4.30.



Gas turbines ;
oil fueled


Gas turbines;
gas fueled
•

Reciprocating engines;
all fuels
'

Reciprocating engines;
oil fueled



Reciprocating engines ;
gas fueled



Year
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971
1974

1973
1972
1971
1974
1973
1972
1971

Capacity,
MW
21,400s
18,400s
17,600s
11 ', 300s
16,900s
14,500s
10,300S
10,500s
4,960b
4.9101
4.8001
4,670*
1,780U

1,760U
1,940U
1,690U
3,180U
3,150U
2,860U
2,980U
Fuel
consumed,
1012 Btu
286h
2541
2831
1751
229h
2041
1691
1651
74r
741
771
731.
26r

*u
3ll
. 36*
48r
48l
46*
471
Electricity
generated,
106 MWh
18. 7t
17. 5C
18. 6*
11.5*
14.7s
13. Oc
10. 9s
10. 6C
6.2r
6.21
6.71
6.31
2.2t
f-
2.2C
2.7s
2.31
4.0t
4.0t
4.0t
4.0t
                                42

-------
  Table 11 (continued).  FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRIC UTILITY - CAPACITY, FUEL
                         CONSUMPTION, AND PRODUCTION, 1971 - 1974

a                                                                       *
 Equivalent consumption of individual fuels in units of mass or volume may
be calculated from the following heating values:

     Bituminous coal - 22.4 x 106 Btu/ton, 1971-197313
                       21.9 x 106 Btu/ton, 19745

     Anthracite coal - 26.0 x 106 Btu/ton9

        Lignite coal - 16.0 x 106 Btu/ton9

        Residual oil - 147,000 Btu/gal1A

      Distillate oil - 140,000 Btu/gal

         Natural gas - 1,022 Btu/ft3 5'9

 Reference 11.
f>
 References 15 and 16.

 Data represent the sum of the subcategories and agree with data in
references 1, 2, 4, 5,. 6, and 10.
Q
 The capacity of systems associated with any particular fuel is variable
as evidenced by past coal-to-oil conversions and the present oil-to-coal
conversions.17  jn addition, many plants burn both natural gas and oil.
The external combustion system capacity associated with each fuel was
assumed to be proportional to the electricity, generated.

 Calculated from the coal used and an average heat rate of 10,176 Btu/kWh.

"Calculated from the coal used and an average heat rate of 10,252
Btu/kWh.I3

 Reference 6.

 References 4 and 18.

 References 6 and 19-

 References 18 and 20.

 References 10 and 21.
                                                                          "t *3
"Calculated from the oil used and an average heat rate of 10,826 Btu/kWh.

                                                                          13
"Calculated from the oil used and an average heat rate of 10,884 Btu/kWh.

°Calculatcd from the gas used and an average heat rate of 10,847 Btu/kWh.
                                   43

-------
 Table 11  (continued).  FOSSIL-FUELED ELECTRIC UTILITY - CAPACITY, FUEL
                        CONSUMPTION, AND PRODUCTION, 1971 - 1974


pCalculated from the gas used and an average heat rate of 10,733 Btu/kWh.

 The 1974 heat rate was assumed to be the same as 1973.

 1974 data in reference 6 did not provide a breakdown of internal com-
bustion systems between turbines and reciprocating engines.   The capacity
of reciprocating engines was essentially the same during 1973 and 1974
so it was assumed that they used the same amount of fuel.  The remainder
was assigned to the turbine category.

 Turbine capacity by fuel type was assumed to be proportional to the
amount of fuel used although many turbines burn both oil and gas.

 Electricity generated by fuel type was assumed to be proportional to
the fuel used; i.e.., within certain fuel groups the efficiency is not
affected by fuel type.

 Reciprocating engine capacity by fuel type was assumed to be propor-
tional to the fuel used.
                                 44

-------
NUMBERS ON MAP   ^x^
DENOTE PERCENT OF TOTAL
UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION
     1-5%
          Figure 1.  Geographical distribution  -  electric utility fuel  consumption - 1973

-------
NUMBERS ON MAP
DENOTE PERCENT OF  TOTAL
UTILITY COAL CONSUMPTION

 [   1< I %    58 PERCENT OF COAL IS
            CONSUMED IN THE  8 STATE
     I  «=«/   REGION WITHIN THE  CROSS-HATCHED
       5/°   AREA.
        Figure  2.   Geographical distribution - electric utility coal  consumption -  1973

-------
Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee, where 58 percent of the coal is
consumed.  Oil consumption  (see Appendix B) is concentrated in states
along the eastern seaboard  including the New England, Middle Atlantic •
and South Atlantic regions  where a total of 72 percent of the oil is
consumed.  Fifty-three percent of the gas is consumed in the West South
Central Region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas).

POPULATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT

The boiler classifications  included in the emission summary tables, and
their associated fuel use,  are presented in Table 12.  The data in this
table were derived from the previously discussed fuel use data and from
boiler population and characteristics described in detail in the follow-
ing subsections.  Boiler population and characteristics were based pri-
marily on computer surveys  developed by GCA of individual boiler data
reported to the Federal Power Commission and stored on magnetic tape,
(Form FPC-67 is presented in Appendix A).  All steam-electric plants of
25 MW or greater capacity, which used 97 percent of the fuel consumed
                                                                22 23
by steam-electric plants, were required to complete Form FPC-67.  '
The data gathered from these forms were the most recent and comprehensive
on utility boilers.  FPC data for 1973 should be available late in 1975.

The following four subsections briefly describe coal-, oil- and gas-,
and solid waste-fired boilers, and internal combustion engines.  Data
are presented on furnace type, firing pattern, size, and fly ash rein-
jection practices.  In addition, methods and data sources used to develop
the detailed boiler characteristics are discussed.

Coal-Fired Boilers

A detailed description of coal-fired boilers for the year 1972 is pre-
sented in Table 13, based on computer surveys developed by GCA of indi-
vidual boiler data reported to the Federal Power Commission on Form FPC-67
                                 47

-------
Table  12.  ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION, 1974
Classifi-
cation
system
number
1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.2.0
i:i.l2.3.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0..0
1.1.13.1.0
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
1.1.40.1.1
1.2.00.0.0
1.3.00.0.0
1.3.20.0.0
1.3.30.0.0
1.4.00.0.0
1.4.20.0.0
1.4.30.0.0
Combustion system
category
Electric Generation
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Lignite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firicg
All Other
Refuse
Internal Combustion
Turbine
Petroleum
Gas
Reciprocating
Petroleum
Gas
1012 Btua
15.387
14,798
8,502
8,264
5,971
1,118
1,118
57
38
13
0
0
25
200
120
30
30
20
3,039
2,901
1,128
7,773
138
54
84
3,257
791
2,466
0.6
589
515
286
229
74
26
48
        aConversion factors from Btu to other units
        are presented in Appendix F.
                        48

-------
                                Table  13.  COAL-FIRED  ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS - 1972C
VD

1.1.10.0.0 Coal
1.1.10.1.0.0.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.10.1.1.0.0 Tangential
1.1.10.1.1.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.1.1.0.2 Without fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.1.1.1.2 >5000 106 Btu/hrf
1.1.10.1.1.2.2 1500-5000
1.1.10.1.1.3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.1.1.4.2 <500
1.1.10.1.3.0.0 Front
1.1.10.1.3.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.1.3.1.1 >SOOO 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.1.3.2.1 1500-5000
1.1.10.1.3.3.1 500-1500
1.1. 10. 1.3. A.I <500
1.1.10.1.3.0.2 Without fly ash reicjection
1.1.10.1.3.1.2 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.1.3.2.2 1500-5000
1.1.10.1.3.3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.1.3.4.2 <500
1.1.10.1.4.0.0 Opposed
1.1.10.1.4.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.1.4.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.1.4.2.1 1500-5000
1.1.10.1.4.3.1 500-1500
1.1.10.1.4.4.1 <500
1.1.10.1.4.0.2 Without 'fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.1.4.1.2 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.1.4.2.2 1500-5000
1.1.10.1.4.3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.1.4.4.2 <500
1.1.10.2.0.0.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.10.2.1.0.0 Tangential
Number
of
boilers
1,082'
594
234
0
234
20
84
105
25
306
1
1
0
0
0
305
3
32
121
149
54
1
1
0
0
0
53
14
19
2
18
175
31
Capacity
103
ton coal/hr
60.26
38,93
20.89
0
20.89
6.44
9.46
4.55
0.44
10.95
0.23
0.23
0
0
0
10.72
0.79
2.84
5.06
2.04
7.02
0.23
0.23
0
0
0
6. 86
3.87
2.61
0.14
0.24 .
8.34
2.60
.'
MM
139,420
91,480
49,630
0
49,630
12,840
24,380
11,230
910
23,330
680
680
0
0
0
22,650
1,920
6,920
10,420
3,390
18,790
680
680
0
0
0
18,110
10,370
6,890
360
490
20,750
7.UO
Coal burned
103
ton/yr
314,220
207,140
109,840
0
109,840
21,300
58.170
28,500
1,870
61,450
1,530
1,530
0
0
0
59,920
4,850
18,210
30,190
6,670
35,850
590
590
0
0
0
35,260
18,700
15,020
900
640
38,810
13,520
1012 b
Btu/yrb
7,039
4,640
7,460
0
2,460
427
1,303
638
42
1,376
34
34
0
0
0
1,342
109
408
676
149
870
13
13
0
0
0
790
419
336
20
14
869
303
Load
factor
59.5
60.7
60.0
0
60.0
37. 8e
70.2
71.5
48.6
64.0
75.2
75.2
0
0
0
63.8
70.5
73.3
68.1
37.4
58.3
29.0
29.0
0
0
0
58.7
55.2
65.7
73.4
30.9
53.1
59.4
Design
heat rate,
Btu/kWd
9,670
9,540
9,430
0
9,430
ll,230e
8,700
8,420
10,830
,10,600
7,650
7,650
0
0
0
10,600
9,170
9,180
10,830
13,450
8,370
7,650
7,650
0
0
0
8,490
8,360
8,490
9,000
10,820
9,000
8,150
Capacity
average
acc,c
years
12
10
9
0
9
1
9
18
28
16
2
2
0
0
0
16
4
9
19
30
.5
1
1
0
0
0
5
1
6
14
41
13
6

-------
                          Table 13  (continued).  COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS -  1972*

1.1.10.2.1.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.2.1.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.2.1.2.1 1500-5000
1.1.10.2.1.3.1 500-1500
1.1.10.2.1.4.1 <500
1.1.10.2.1.0.2 Without fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.2.1.1.2 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.2.1.2 2 1500-5000

1.1.10.2.1.3.2 500-1500
1.1. 10. 2.1. A. 2 <500
1.1.10.2.3.0.0 Front
1.1.10.2.3.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.2.3.0.2 Without fly ash reinjection
1.1. 10. 2. 3. 1.2 ^5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.2.3.2.2 1500-5000
1.1.10.2.3.3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.2.3.4.2 <500
1.1.10.2.4.0.0 Opposed
1.1.10.2.4.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.2.4.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.2.4.2.1 1500-5000
1.1.10.2.4.3.1 500-1500
1.1.10.2.4.4.1 <500
1.1..10.2.4.0.2 Without fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.2.4.1.2 --5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.2.4.2.2 1500-5000
1.1.10.2.4.3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.2.4.4.2 <500
1.1. 10. 3.x. 0.0 Cyclone
1.1.10.3.0.0.1 With fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.3.0.1.1 >5000 10° Btu/hr
1.1.10.3.0.2.1 1500-5000
1.1.10.3.0.3.1 500-1500
1.1.10.3.0.4.1 <500
Number
of
boilers
2
0
0
0
2
29
6
5
9
9
125
0
125
0
16
50
59
19 .
3
0
3
0
0
16
0
9
1
6
68
21
3
11
7
0
Capacity
io3
ton coal/hr
0.02
0
0
0
0.02
2.58
1.58
0.48
0.35
0.17
4.13
0
4.13
0
1.53
1.72
0.88
1.61
0.42
0
0.42
0
0
1.19
0
1.09
0.03
0.06
7.33
2.36
0.84
1.17
0.35
0
MW
30
0
0
0
30
7,110
4,520
1,310
880
400
9,320
0
9,320
0
3,800
3,270
2,250
4,290
1,100
0
1,100
0
0
3,190
0
3,100
46
44
16,620
5,540
1,940
2,890
710
0
Coal burned
IO3
ton/yr
90
0
0
0
' 90
13,430
6,930
2,780
2,520
1,200
18,420
0
18,420
0
9,620
7,340
1,460
6,870
930
0
930
0
0
5,940
0
5,750
100
90
39,090
12,650
3,290
6,360
3,000
0
1012 b
Btu/yr
2
0
0
0
2
301
155
62
56
27
413
0
413
0
215
164
33
154
21
0
21
0
0
133
0
133
2
2
875
283
74
142
61
0
Load
factor
46.0
0
0
0
46.0
59.5
50.2
65. 8e
82.6
80.7
51.0
0
51.0
0
71.9
48.8
19.0
48.7
25.0
0
25.0
0
0
57.1
0
60.0
36.5
'16.4
60.8
61.1
44.5
62.3
97. le
0
Design
heat rate,
Btu/kWd
16,670
0
0
0
16,670
8,120
7,810
8,240
8,860
9^500
9,910
0_
9,910
0
9,000
11,770
8,760e
8,410
8,640
0
8,640
0
0
8,340
0
7,900
15,220
31,820
9,880
9,550
9,740
9,030
11,130
0
Capacity
average
aEe,c
years
31
o-
0
0
31
6
2
9
15
JLJ
19
21
0
21
0
14
22
32
5
4
0
4
0
0
6
0
4
20
33
8
8
3
9
15
. 0
Ul
o

-------
                     Table 13  (continued).  COAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY BOILERS -  1972a



1.1.10.3.0.0.2 Without fly ash reinjection
1.1.10.3.0.1.2 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.3.0.2.2 1300-5000
i. 1.10. 3.0. 3.2 500-1500
1.1.10.3.0.4.2 '500
1.1.10.4.0.0.0 All stokers-
1.1.10.4.0.1.0 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.10.4.0.2.0 1500-5000
1.1.10.4.0.3.0 500-1500
1.1.10.4.0.4.0 <500
1. x. xx. x. x. x. x Other

Number
of
boilers
47
6
17
19
5
189
0
1
11
177
56
Capacity

3
10
ton coal/hr
4.97
1.80
2.26
0 83
0.09
2.13
0
0.07
0.44
1.62
3.54

HW
11,080
•3,720
5,640
1 640
50
2,750
0
80
570
2,100
7,850
Coal burned

3
10
ton/yr
2fr, 440
10,200
11,790
4110
340
3,500
0
410
240
2,850
25,680
1 2
10 b
Btu/yr
592
228
264
92
8
78
0
9
5
63
575


Load
factor
60.7
64.9
59.6
56 8
43.5
18.8
0
69.9
6 3
20.1
82.8

Design
heat rate,
Btu/kUd
10,050
10,810
8,970
11 280
25,000
17,310
0
18,750

17,290
10,100
Capacity
average
age,c
years
8
5
6
16
20
37
0
9
44
38
14
aBased on 1972 FPC data, Form 67, which includes 97 percent of the utility industry.
Based on an average heating value of 22.4 x 10° btu/ton.
cCalculated data points. Capacity average a
£ (Capacity x age)
6 I Capacity

 Calculated from the capacity data.




eData points of doubtful validity.




 Size is based on maximum fuel input rate.

-------
and stored on magnetic tape.  The totals reported in Table 13 are within
                                     13 24 25
the ranges reported by other sources.  '  '

The total number of coal-fired utility boilers, in the FPC data, was
1082 compared to 1500 reported to be in the National Emission Data Sys-
                o /
tern (NEDS) file.    The difference in the number of boilers may be due
to the fact that NEDS includes boilers of a lower size limit, and that
nonutility electric generation boilers are also included in the NEDS sys-
tem.  The average load factor of 59.5 percent is slightly higher than
the utility industry average of 52 percent for 1972.    During 1972 the
reported coal-fired utility boiler heat rate was 10,176 Btu per kWh,
compared to the GCA calculated design heat rate of 9670 Btu per kWh based
on FPC data.  The.capacity average age  of coal-fired utility boilers at
the end of 1972 was calculated to be 12 years.
While the data totals in Table 13 compare favorably with other data
sources, as previously discussed, a few individual points appear to
be questionable.  For example, the load factor of 97.1 percent for the
category 1.1.30.3.0.3.1 is unreasonable.  These problems arise from dif-
ficulties encountered in processing the FPC magnetic tape because data
had been coded in inconsistent formats.  For instance, some boilers were
reported as groups (2A/2B), and capacity was reported in different for-
mats (500, 300/200, 250 each) from plant to plant.  Time constraints did
not permit all the above situations to be interpreted manually or by
computer processing.   Generally the results are considered to provide an
accurate and detailed picture of the utility industry as it existed in
1972.
 Capacity average age = I (capacity x age)ll capacity.
                                 52

-------
The boiler data presented in Table 13 are summarized by major subcate-
gories in Table 14.  The unknown category in the latter table contains
boiler types that did not fit the FPC categories (for instance, pulver-
ized vertically-fired) as well as boiler types that were miscoded.  Data
from the "unknown" category were apportioned to the other boiler types
to obtain the final figures presented in Table 14.  Almost 70 percent
of the capacity consisted of pulverized dry bottom boilers, about 16 per-
cent were pulverized wet, and 13 percent were cyclone boilers.  Stoker-
fired boilers comprised a large segment of the boilers by number "(18 per-
cent) but only a small segment by capacity (2.2 percent).  In addition,
stoker-fired boilers were very old with an average age of 37 years com-
pared to the overall average boiler age of 12 years.  Boilers above
5,000 x 10  Btu/hr were very new (2 years old), and compared to the
number of boilers  (5.2 percent) burned a large fraction of the fuel
(23 percent).

Pulverized coal-fired boilers burned 85 percent of the coal consumed by
the electric utilities.  Pulverized coal is burned by vertical, tangential,
                                                                           24
front or back and opposed firing.  Few utility boilers use vertical firing.
Data in Table 13 show that 50 percent of the pulverized coal-fired boiler
capacity used tangential firing, and 32 percent used front firing.  Only
18 percent used opposed firing but these were the largest and newest
boilers and represent a design trend.  As shown in Table 15, only 1.3
percent of these boilers (by capacity) used fly ash reinjection.

The boiler distribution presented in Tables 13, 14, and 15 is for all
coal-fired boilers.  Anthracite coal is most commonly burned in industrial
                                                           9
and commercial boilers with stationary or traveling grates.   Anthracite
is not burned in spreader stokers because of its high ignition temperature.
It may be burned as pulverized coal, although because of ignition prob-
     Q
lems,  this practice is limited to only a few plants in eastern Penn-
sylvania.  Boilers burning anthracite are all dry bottom due to the very
                                                       O "7
high ash softening temperature, commonly above 2,900 F.    We estimate
                                 53

-------
                    Table  14.   SUMMARY:   COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS - 1972C

Boiler type
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
Stoker
Boiler size,
106 Btu/hr
>5000
1500-5000
500-1500
<500
Number of boilers,
percent of total

57.8
17.2
6.6
18.4

5.2
19.2
31.8
43.9
Capacity,
percent of total

, 69.5
15.8
12.6
2.2

27.5
38.8
23.8
9.9
Coal burned,
percent of total

71.8
13.5
13.5
1.2

23.2
44.6
27.1
5.0
Capacity average
age, years

10
13
8
37

2
8
19
33
aSummary of data  in Table  13.

b     ,                  E  (Capacity x  age)
 Capacity average age 	Z  Capacity'

-------
                        Table 15.  SUMMARY:  PULVERIZED COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS - 1972°

Fly ash rein j action
With
Without
Firing pattern
Tangential
Front
Opposed
Number of boilers,
percent of total

9
91

34.5
56.0
9.5
Capacity,
percent of total

1.3
98.7

49.8
31.9
18.3
Coal burned,
percent of total

1.3
98.7

50.2
32.5
17.4
b
Capacity average
age, years

4
10
m
8
15
4
Ui
           Summary of data in Table 13.
           Capacity average age
E (Capacity x age)
    I Capacity

-------
that anthracite boilers are 65 percent stokers and 35 pulverized dry
based on a recent count of NEDS data.

Lignite is burned in all boiler types.  Although in the  past  lignite was
burned in small stokers, there has been a recent shift to large pul-
                                 28
verized and cyclone type boilers.   We were able to identify most  of
                                                           13 23
the large boilers burning lignite through available FPC  data   *  and
estimated a distribution of 60 percent pulverized dry, 15 percent pul-
verized wet, 15 percent cyclone and 10 percent stokers.

Bituminous coal-fired boiler characteristics were determined  from the
overall coal-fired boiler characteristics by subtracting the  lignite
and anthracite boiler characteristics.  As expected, the characteristics
of bituminous coal-fired boilers were  similar to all coal-fired boilers,
since bituminous coal represents 97 percent of the coal  burned.  The
following is the calculated bituminous coal-fired boiler distribution:

                                              Percent of
                  Furnace type          bituminous coal  burned
           1.1.11.1.0  Pulverized dry             72.3
           1.1.11.2.0  Pulverized wet             13.5
           1.1.11.3.0  Cyclone                   13.5
           1.1.11.4.0  All Stokers                0.7

Oil- and Gas-Fired Boilers

A similar analysis of the FPC magnetic tape was performed for oil- and
gas-fired utility boilers.  Boilers were classified as oil-fired if greater
than 85 percent of the fuel was oil; gas-fired if greater than 85 per-
cent of the fuel was gas; and if neither of the above conditions applied,
the boiler was classified as dual-fired.  The results are presented in
Tables 16, 17, and 18, and represent 72 percent of the oil consumed at
                                 56

-------
          Table  16.  OIL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY  BOILERS  - 1972*

1.1.20.0.0.0 Petroleumb
1.1.20.0.1.0 Tangential
1.1.20.0.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.20.0.1.2 1500-5000
1.1.20.0.1.3 500-1500
1.1.20.0.1.4 <500
1.1.20.0.2.0 All othersd
1.1.20.0.3.0 Front or back
1.1.20.0.3.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.20.0.3.2 500-5000
1.1.20.0.3.3 500-1500
1.1.20.0.3.4 <500
1.1.20.0.4.0 Opposed
1.1.20.0.4.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.20.0.4.2 1500-5000
1.1.20.0.4.3 500-1500
1.1.20.0.4.4 <500
1.1.20.0.9.0 Other
1.1.20.0.9.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.20.0.9.2 1500-5000
1.1.20.0,9.3 500-1500
1.1.20.0.9.4 <500
Approximate
number
of ,
boilers
537
98
4
24
64
6
439
393
1
12
84
198
16
0
10
1
5
30
0
3
5
22
Fuel consumed,
1012 Btu/yr
Oil
1365.4
651.5
85.5
262.8
298.3
4.9
713.9
546.2
9.2
98.7
268 . 8
169.5
111.8
0.0
99.7
4.4
7.7
55.9
0.0
28.5
11.9
15.5
Coal
1.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Gas
16.2
11.1
9.8
6.8
3.0
0.5
5.1
4.5
0.0
0.0
3.5
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
o.o.
0.0
0.3
Total
1382.8
663.5
86.3
296.6
302.2
5.4
719.3
550.9
9.2
98.7
272.5
170.5
112.1
0.0
99.7
4.4
8.0
56.3
0.0
28.5
11.9
15.8
Capacity
average
age,c
years
1A
10
4
5
17
18
13
20
1
20
20
24
4

3
2
19
12

4
29
23
 Based on a GCA summary  of  data  reported to the FPC on Form  67.  GCA defined oil-
fired boilers  as those boilers that derived greater than 85  percent of their heat
input from oil.

bThis table does not include all oil as some is burned in gas-fired boilers, dual-
fired boilers  and some is not included on FPC Form 67.
"Capacity average  age  =
£ (Capacity x  age)
    £ Capacity
 All boilers  not  tangentially-fired.
                                   57

-------
          Table 17.   GAS-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY  BOILERS  - 1972°

1.1.30.0.0.0 Gasb
1.1.30.0.1.0 Tangential
1.1.30.0.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.30.0.1.2 1500-5000
1.1.30.0.1.3 500-1500
1.1.30.0.1.4 <500
1.1.30.0.2.0 All othersd
1.1.30.0.3.0 Front or back
1.1.30.0.3.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.30.0.3.2 500-5000
1.1.30.0.3.3 500-1500
1.1.30.0.3.4 <500
1. 1.30.0. A. 0 Opposed
1.1.30.0.4.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.30.0.4.2 1500-5000
1.1.30.0.4.3 500-1500
1.1.30.0.4.4 <500
1.1.30.0.9.0 Other
1.1.30.0.9.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1.30.0.9.2 1500-5000
1.1.30.0.9.3 500-1500
1.1.30.0.9.4 <500
Approximate
number
of
boilers
560
76
8
34
30
4
484
420
2
41
154
223
56
9
33
8
6
8
0
0
4
4
Fuel consumed,
e 1012 Btu/yr
Oil
54.3
9.2
0.0
3.8
5.0
0.4
45.1
31.1
0.0
10.5
13.1
7.5
14.0
0.4
8.2
0.4
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Coal
4.9
2.2
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
2.7
2.2
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
Gas
2495.0
620.2
83.3
330.5
196.8
9.6
1844.8
1138.7
69.6
391.8
447.6
229.7
718.8
82.6
533.7
19.9
82.6
17.3
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.9
Total
2554.2
631.6
83.3
334.3
204.0
10.0
1922.6
1172.0
69.6 "
402.3
462.2
237.9
733.0
83.0
541.9
20.3
87.8
17.6
0.0
0.0
16.7
0.9
Capacity
average
agc,c
years
9
7
1
5
14
15
10
13
3
1
17
26
5
2
5
12
17
19


20
8
 Based on a GCA summary of data reported to the  FPC on Form 67.  GCA defined gas-
fired boilers  as those boilers that derived greater than 85 percent of their heat
input from gas.

 This table does not  include all gas as some Is  burned  in  oil-fired boilers, dual-
fired boilers  and some is not included on FPC Form 67.
"Capacity average  age =
I (Capacity x  age)
    I Capacity
 All boilers  not  t.-.ngentialJy-fired.
                                      58

-------
          Table  18.  DUAL-FIRED ELECTRIC UTILITY  BOILERS  - 1972*

1.1. xx. 0.0.0 Dual-firedb
1.1. xx. 0.1.0 Tangential
1.1. xx. 0.1.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1. xx. 0.1. 2 1500-5000
1.1. xx. 0.1. 3 500-1500
1.1. xx. 0.1. 4 <500
1.1. xx. 0.2.0 All others'1
1.1. xx. 0.3.0 Front or back
1.1. xx. 0.3.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1. xx. 0.3. 2 500-5000
1.1. xx. 0.3. 3 500-li>00
1.1. xx. 0.3. 4 <500
1.1. xx. 0.4.0 Opposed
1.1. xx. 0.4.1 >5000 106 Btu/hr
1.1. xx. 0.4. 2 1500-5000
1.1. xx. 0.4. 3 500-1500
1.1. xx. 0.4. 4 <500
1.1. xx. 0.9.0 Other
1.1. xx. 0.9.1 >500U 106 Btu/hr
1.1. xx. 0.9, 2 1500-5000
1.1. xx. 0.9. 3 500-1500
1.1. xx. 0.9. 4 <500
Approximate
number
of ,
boilers
270
37
3
3
26.
5
233
182
0
26
58
98
33
3
9
18
3
18
0
0
13
5
Fuel consumed,
1012 Btu/yr
Oil
537.2
99.7
17.9
20.6
61.2
0.0
437.5
340.5
0.0
239.5
67.0
34.0
90.5
18.9
61.9
6.7
3.0
6.5
0.0
0.0
6.1
0.4
Coal
128.8
43.5
0.0
0.0
40.4
3.1
85.3
56.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
39.0
2.5
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
26.8
0.0
0.0
24.3
2.5
Gas
' 685.8
144.8
49.3
14.8
78.9
1.8
541.0
352.6
0.0
176.3
119.7
56.6
164.1
39.0
101.1
14.8
9.2
24.3
0.0
0,0
23.4
0.9
Total
1351.8
288.0
67.2
35.4
180.5
4.9
1063.8
749.1
0.0
415.8
203.7
129.6
257.1
157.9
163.0
24.0
12.2
57.6
0.0
0.0
53.8
3.8
Capacity
average
age,c
years
13
8
1
5
17
22
14
16

10
19
27
6
1
5
34
31
19


19
13
aBased on a GCA summary  of data reported to the FPC on Form 67.  GCA defined dual-
fired boilers as those boilers that derived less than 85 percent of their heat
input from a single fuel.
 This table does not  include fuel burned in boilers  classified as coal-,  oil-, or
gas-fired.
°Capacity average age
I (Capacity  x  age)
    £ Capacity
 All boilers  not  tangcntially-fired.
                                     59

-------
steam-electric plants and 83 percent of the gas consumed.  Therefore,
the tables should be representative of the utility industry with the
exception that possibly a large number of small boilers are not included.
                                       i
The data in Tables 16, 17, and 18 show that about 70 percent of the oil
burned in steam-electric boilers was burned in boilers classified as
oil-fired, while most of the remaining was burned in dual-fired boilers.
There was a large difference in ages of oil-fired boilers between .the less
than 500 x 10  Btu/hr groups and each of the other larger size groups.
Oil-fired boilers below 500 x 10  Btu/hr had an average age of 28 years
while larger boilers had an average age of 14 years.  Boilers using
opposed firing, although burning only a small fraction of the total oil,
were the newest oil-fired boilers.  Table 13 previously indicate'd that
the newest coal-fired boilers also use opposed firing.

Table 19 is a summary of the relative amounts of oil burned by firing
pattern and capacity and include's gas- and dual-fired boilers as well as
oil-fired boilers.  The table shows that 39 percent of the oil is burned
in tangentially-fired boilers, and 47 percent is burned in front- or
back-fired boilers.  The table also shows that 80 percent of the oil is
burned in boilers in the size range 500 to 5,000 x 10  Btu/hr.  In the
generation of the emission summary tables we assumed that'distillate and
residual oil-fired boilers had the same characteristics.
The boiler sizes and firing methods used for burning gas are similar to
those burning oil.  The newest boilers are the largest boilers and in
general use opposed firing.  Table 20 is a' summary of the relative amounts
of gas burned by firing pattern and capacity and includes oil- and dual-
fired boilers as well as gas-fired boilers.  The table shows that 24 per-
cent of the gas is burned in tangentially-fired boilers and 47 percent
in front- or back-fired boilers.  The largest amount of gas (49 percent)
is burned in the 1,500 to 5,000 x 10  Btu/hr size range.
                                 60

-------
Table 19.  SUMMARY':  UTILITY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION:
           DISTRIBUTION OF FIRING PATTERNS AND
           CAPACITIES, %
  OIL -
Firing pattern
  1.1.20.0.0.0  Petroleum
                                 i
  1.1.20.0.1.0  Tangential
  1.1.20.0.2.0  All other (except tangential)
  1.1.20.0.3.0  Front or back
  1.1.20.0.4.0  Opposed
  1.1.20.0.9.0  Other
Size
  1.1.20.0.0.0  Petroleum
  1.1.20.0.0.1  >5000 106 Btu/hr
  1.1.20.0.0.2  1500-5000
  1.1.20.0.0.3  500-1500
  1.1.20.0.0.4  <500
   100.0
    38.9
    61.1
    46.8
    11.1
     3.2

   100.0
     6.7
    42.6'
    38.0
    12.7
Table 20.  SUMMARY:  UTILITY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION:
           DISTRIBUTION OF FIRING PATTERNS .AND
           CAPACITIES, %
  GAS -
  Firing pattern
    1.1.30.0.0.0  Gas
    1.1.30.0.1.0  Tangential
    1.1.30.0.2.0  All other  (except tangential)
    1.1.30.0.3.0  Front or back
    1.1.30.0.4.0  Opposed
    1.1.30.0.9.0  Other

  Size
    1.1.30.0.0.0  Gas
    1.1.30.0.0.1  >5000 106 Btu/hr
    1.1.30.0.0.2  1500-5000
    1.1.30.0.0.3  500 x 1500
    1.1.30.0.0.4  <500
100.0
 24.3
 75.7
 46.8
 27.6
  1.3

100.0
 10.5
 48.6
 28.9
 12.0
                          61

-------
 Solid  Waste-Fired Boilers

 The  primary  solid waste  fuels are bagasse, wood bark and municipal  refuse.
 Bagasse,  a sugar cane waste material, is used in Hawaii, Florida and
 Louisiana to produce steam and electricity, primarily for on-site use.
                                                                        29
 Some electricity produced by bagasse may be sold to electric utilities,
 however there are no known utility boilers burning bagasse.  Similarly
 wood bark wastes are also used to generate electricity for on-site  use
 in the lumber and paper  industries, however, there are no utility" users
 of wood bark in the Northwest   and no known utility users in other parts
               *
 of the country.

 The  only  utility now burning refuse is the Union Electric Meramac Plant
 in St. Louis  County.  Currently Union Electric has the capability to use
 refuse for 10 percent of the fuel requirement in a 125 MW («1250 Btu/hr)
       Q
 boiler.   The boiler is a pulverized coal tangentially-fired unit with an
                                                            Q
 electrostatic precipitator to control particulate emissions.   The  refuse
 is air classified and metals are removed before it is fired at a rate of
               o
 12.5 tons/hour.   At a 50 percent load factor (typical of the utility
                                                 12
 industry) Union Electric would only burn 0.5 x 10   Btu/year of refuse.
 Therefore, at the present time refuse represents an -insignificant part of
                                                   12
 the total utility energy requirement of 15,400 x 10   Btu/year.  Union
Electric  is expanding its refuse combustion capability to 8000 tons/day
 (all the  recoverable refuse generated in the St. Louis area)31 and  there-
fore refuse combustion by the utility sector may be more significant in
the future.   Full utilization of solid waste (both municipal and agri-
cultural)  could supplement the national energy supply by 1*.5 to 6 per-
cent.    Further discussion of refuse combustion is presented later in
this  section  of the  report.
 See Section III for a discussion of bagasse and waste bark/wood combustion.

                                 62

-------
Internal Combustion

Internal combustion engines are usually  grouped into two classes:  gas
turbines and reciprocating engines.  They are used extensively in the
United States for peaking, emergency, and reserve electric generation.
Some smaller electric utilities use gas  turbines for base load also.  The
average yearly load factor is about 10 percent for internal combustion
engines used in electric generation.  Fuel use by internal combustion
engines is only about 4 percent of the electric utility total.

The basic gas turbine consists of a compressor, a combustor and a tur-
bine.  The compressor supplies air at high pressure to the combustor.
Fuel is mixed with the air in the combustor and burned.  The combustion
products are then expanded through the turbine to drive a rotor and gen-
erate electricity.  A variety of advanced models have evolved from the
simple gas turbine, and are classified into three general types of oper-
ating cycles:  simple open cycle, regenerative open cycle, and combined
cycle.  In the simple open cycle the hot gas discharged from the turbine
is exhausted to the atmosphere.  In the  regenerative open cycle the gas
discharged from the turbine is passed through a heat exchanger to pre-
heat the combustion air.  Preheating the air increases the efficiency
of the turbine, but also increases the amount of nitrogen oxides formed
in the combustor.  In the combined cycle the gas discharged from the
turbine is used as auxiliary heat for a  steam cycle.  The combined cycle
system offers a great increase in the combined efficiency of the overall
       33
system.

Gas turbines can use a variety of fuels, but the fuel used cannot form
ash or contain dust or uninhibited vanadium which erode the turbine
blades.3   A few gas turbines are designed to burn treated residual oil
                                          6                            12
but no such fuel use was reported in 1974.   Gas turbines used 286 x 10
                    12                 5
Btu oil and 229 x 10   Btu gas in 1974.
                                 63

-------
The FPC has compiled detailed data on gas turbines that consumed 90 per-
cent of the gas turbine fuel in 1972.  Based on these data the average
plant size of 299 plants was 82 MW (1230 x lO6 Btu/hr).  There were 989
units with an average capacity of 27 MW (405 x 10  Btu/hr).    The aver-
age gas turbine heat rate was 15,400 Btu/kWh corresponding to an effi-
ciency of 22 percent.
Reciprocating engines fall into two main types, four-cycle and two-cycle.
They may be further classified as spark engines, which use a spark plug
to ignite the air-fired mixture, and diesel engines, in which the air is
compressed until it reaches the ignition point of the injected fuel.  In
the reciprocating engines the fuel is combusted in a cylinder closed by
a piston.  The expanding combustion gases push against the piston, which
transfers the motion to a rotating shaft.  The fuels used in reciprocating
                                                 12
engines include primarily distillate oil (26 x 10   Btu/yr) and natural
            12
gas (48 x 10   Btu/yr).  The average reciprocating engine heat rate is
12,000 Btu/kWh corresponding to an efficiency of 29 percent.
EMISSION SOURCES AND UNIT OPERATIONS

A large number of processes (or unit operations) utilized in the generation
of steam and/or electricity generate emissions in the form of air, water,
or solid waste pollutants.  The typical operations and emission sources
in a coal-fired electric power plant are presented in Figure 3.  A coal-
fired power plant involves the most unit processes and emission points,
therefore many of the processes and emission points in Figure 3 are not
applicable to gas- or oil-fired boilers and most are not applicable to
internal combustion engines.  The waste streams' emanating from the indi-
vidual unit process sources depicted in Figure 3 have been combined and
are treated in this report in accordance with the unit operations pre-
sented in Table 21.
                                 64

-------
Ui
                                                                                            /'AIR EMISSIONS"'*',
,'AIR EMISSIONS^   ,'"ViR EMISSIONS'*,
«...T— -'   *—f«^
                                                                 AIR EM_ISSjON


                                                                 .SOOTJILOWER
                                                                  STEAM "1
        'WASTE WATER TO  N
         ASH  HANOLINS     |
                                                                                                             V SYSTEM
COAL
STORAGE *" r>R

COAL
EPARATION

(LEACHATE^ t
CHEMICALS
RAW WATER^ WATEft FEED*

...1... •
' WASTE WATER x,
1


,
' WASTE



'
RALIZEH
,
WATCH*

fUEL k.
COMB'N AIR__^.

<
\
t
\
i


STEA
GENERA'
eoiLE

	 FLUE GASES j
" . STEAM -fcT"~T
R ^ 	 	
X.
'BLOW OOWNN,

BOTTOM
ASH
ASH
HANDLING
SYSTEM
CONDENSATE WATER ,
CONOENSEf
(AIR EMISSIONS^,
.WATER v ,
1 *
in . • -i«i |
1 	 *( SOLID WASTE'S"** '
                                                                                                              ONCE THROUGH
                                                                                                              COOLING  WATER
                                                                                                           RECiaCULATING  COOLING WATER
                                                                                                 DISCHARGE TO
                                                                                                                  f AIR EMISSIONS \
                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                \ WATER BODY * \  COOLINO TOWER
                                                              IWASTE WATER
                                                              s
                                                                   1...,    -
MAKE-UP ~L
                                                                                                            ,
                                                                                                      WATCH  I

                                                                                                                 BLOW DOWN
                            Figure  3.   Emission sources: coal-fired steam-electric power plants

-------
               Table 21. ' APPLICABILITY OF UNIT OPERATIONS
                          TO AIR, WATER, AND SOLID WASTE
                          POLLUTANTS
Unit operation
Flue gas emissions
Ash handling
Boiler blowdown
Equipment cleaning
Water treatment
Fuel handling
SO- scrubbing
Cooling systems
Air
X
0
NA
0
NA
.0
NA
X
Water
NA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solid waste
NA
X
0
0
0
0
X
NA
                Note:  X  Source
                      0  Minor source
                      NA Not applicable

Air Emissions

Air emissions from electric power plants arise from a number of sources,
but primarily from the combustion furnace stack, which is usually fitted
with an emission control device.   The influence of control device per-
formance on the quantity of particulate and/or SO- emissions is predom-
inant.  Emissions and control device performance are affected by fuel,
boiler type, sulfur content, load factor, etc.  The principal particulate
control device used by the industry is the electrostatic precipitator.
Low sulfur fuels decrease the efficiency of precipitators and the use
of these fuels has hastened the development of hot side and wet wall pre-
cipitators and other approaches to control of stack emissions.

Other sources of air pollution are emissions from ash handling, cooling
tower drift or spray, and fuel storage, handling, and preparation equip-
ment and operations.  These sources of air emissions are considered to be
relatively minor and primarily of local or in-plant importance.  However,
as will be discussed in subsequent sections, very little quantitative
                                 66

-------
information is available  in  these areas, and additional investigations
are recommended.

Water Effluents
                                       I

The wastewater streams associated with coal-fired utility plants are
schematically presented in Figure 4.  The volumes presented are typical
for a 1000 MW coal-fired  plant but are subject to substantial plant-to-
plant variations.   '

Waste waters produced by  a steam electric power plant result from a
number of on-site operations.  Some wastes are discharged continuously
while other wastes  are produced intermittently on a fairly regular basis,
such as daily or weekly.  Other wastes are also produced intermittently,
but at less frequent intervals and are generally associated with the shut-
down or startup of  a boiler  or generating unit.  Additional wastes exist
that depend on climatological or other factors, an example of which is
coal storage pile drainage.

Waste water is discharged continuously by cooling water systems, ash
handling systems, wet scrubber flue gas cleaning systems, and boiler
feedwater treatment and is discharged intermittently, on. a regular basis,
by treatment operations such as boiler blowdown and boiler system equip-
ment cleaning.

Once-through cooling systems use large volumes of water and potentially
cause thermal pollution,  stream depletion, and contamination of downstream
waters with additives used to prevent fouling of condenser surfaces.  Cool-
ing towers emit moisture  and heat to the atmosphere as well as spray con-
taining corrosion inhibitors and algicides that are added to the recircu-
lating cooling water.  Cooling tower blowdown, which is discharged to con-
trol dissolved and suspended solids concentration in the cooling water, adds
to the wastewater stream  as shown in Figure 4.  Cooling tower designs
                                 67

-------
co
                (WITH COOLING\
          22,930 \       TOWER/
         769,000/W,TH

                I THROUGH
                \COOLING
                                80
                                            BOILER
                                          10
                                          20
                                                            SLOWDOWN
                                      10
                                                 [ (FLUE GAS)
                                4000
                                           FLUE  GAS
                                         DESULFURiZATION
                                         2000
                                20
            METAL
           EQUIPMENT
            CLEANING
100
                                1450
            OTHER
          LOW- VOLUME
            SOURCES
                                      50
          BOTTOM  ASH
           TRANSPORT
                               3300
            FLY ASH
           TRANSPORT
                                      100
                               14,000
            COOLING
             TOWER
                               760,000 ^
                                          CONDENSERS
                              4000
                                                              20
50
                                                              2000
                                                               500
                                                              5000
                                                               1600
                                                                         _50_
                                                                         ASH  SETTLING
                                                                             BASINS
                                                             SLOWDOWN  200
                                      GLAND AND
                                    MISC. LOSSES
                                                                                                                 10
                                                                      SOOT
                                                                    BLOWERS
                                                                                                20
                                                          9240
                                      OVERFLOW
                                     TREATMENT
9240
                                                                                                      DRIFT
                                                10
                                                                                                    EVAPORATION 13,690
                                              760,000
                                Figure  4.   Water flows for  a typical 1000 MW power plant
                                             at  full load (All flow  values  in 103  gpd)

-------
are being studied at TVA plants, Battelle Memorial Institute, and EPA.
The trend is toward the use of wet-dry  combination and dry cooling sys-
tems in order to reduce water  throughput and mitigate water pollution.

Ash handling wastes constitute a large  portion of total utility"effluent
waste water.  This waste stream can significantly contaminate receiving
waters if not first discharged to a sedimentation or neutralization basin.
Seepage and leaching from, ash sedimentation basins are potential sources
of ground water pollution but can be. completely controlled by installing
proper bottom materials.  Ash handling  requirements are minimal for oil-
and gas-fired boilers.  Oil-fired plants generate less than 2 percent as
much ash per pound of steam as coal-fired plants.  Gas-fired plants are
essentially ash free, and the ash handling water requirement is extremely
low.

Flue gas desulfurization processes will be an important source of waste
water in the future as the use of wet scrubbers becomes more extensive.

The wastewater volumes from boiler blowdown, coal drainage, ash landfill
leaching, equipment cleaning, and boiler water treatment are relatively
small.  They may contribute, however, to the discharge of hazardous
components  (PCB, oil or grease, low or  high pH water, vanadium, nickel,
etc.) that require further processing to reduce effluents to acceptable
levels.
   i
The major effluent water pollutants are considered in the Proposed Federal
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam-Electric Power Plants (see
Table 22).  In addition, permit applications required under the NPDES
permit program often specify maximum effluent concentrations of hazardous
pollutants not considered by the proposed standards and require reductions
corresponding to state regulations.  Each source is considered separately,
and the extent of reduction depends upon the hazardous effects on the  re-
ceiving water and the waste treatment method used.
                                 69

-------
                  Table  22.  WASTEWATER EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND  STANDARDS  -  STEAM  ELECTRIC
                                GENERATING POINT SOURCE  CATEGORY3
Proalncnt
Vast* S treaty
Affected

f eedvattr
treatment

Equipment
cleaning
bloudovn



Fuel Handling
A*b Bundling

Cooling
Concentration
All values in mg/l
Cffluent
Clia racier in tica
PH
PCB's
Effluent
Characteristics
TSS
Oil and Gieane
Copper
Iron


Effluent
Characteristics
TSS
Oil and Crease

Characteristics
Free Available C!
Zn
Cr
P!
B?T,b BAT.C
and NS
6-9
0


Averopc Dally Discharge for
Maximum daily discharge 30 Consecutive D;iys
BPT
100
20
1
1
BAT flew Source S?T BAT New Source
100
JO
1
1
100 30 30 30
20 15 15 15
1111
1 11 1
HPT BAT
Low Volume anJ Ash Low Volume and Fly
Transport Ash Sluicing
Haxlmuro
Dally
100
20
Average Dally Maximum Average Daily
for 30 days Daily for 30 Day«
30 100 30
15 20 15 •
Maximum
Concentration
BPT r.,
0.5 0
IT NS
5 0.5
Average Maximum Dally
Concentration Discharge
BIT BAT NS BPT BAT NE
0.2 0.2 0.2 Ko
1,0 detect-
' - 0.2 able
* 5.0 aaounc
New source
Bottom Ash Bottoo Ash Fly Ai»i
Transport Low Volume Transport Transport
Maximum Average Dally Maximum Average Dally Kaxlsua Average Daily
Daily for 30 Days Daily for 30 Days Daily for 30 days
8 2.4 100 30 5 1.5 0
1.6 1.2 20 15 1 O.JS . 0
Average Daily Discharge
for 30 Consecutive Days
BPT BAT NS
No
- 1.0 detece-
0.2 able
• 5*0 asount
*Stea> Electric Tower Generating Point Source Category --Effluent Guidelines and Standards.
Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 196. October 8, 1974.

kBest practicable control technology currently available.

eBeet available control technology economically achievable.

'MV •cure*.

-------
 Table 23 is a summary of the potential water pollution effects related
 to steam-generation power plants.  Wastewater volumes are presented for
 all fossil-fueled plants and separated for coal-fired plants because this
 sector produces the largest portion of waste water.  Continuous flow quan-
 tities are shown in order to provide a basis for comparing individual
 waste sources.

 A variety of trace elements dissolved in water are emitted from stationary
 combustion facilities and related processes.  Table 24 is a listing of
 trace element concentrations measured in various effluent streams and is
 compiled from a variety of studies.  »  '»   ~     Table 25 is extracted
                           O£
 from a recent EPA document   and shows net discharge of pollutants emitted
 from ash settling pond overflow.  The positive and negative values are
 referenced to the make-up water used for sluicing the ash to the settling
 pond.  It is difficult to determine absolute values for overflow concen-
 trations due to variation in ambient make-up water quality and degree of
 reuse of contaminated sluicing water.

 Solid Waste

 Solid waste pollutants are generated by ash disposal.  In addition, SO^
 scrubbing systems will Dresent a major solid waste disposal problem if,
 in the future, flue gas scrubbing becomes widely adopted.  Approximately
 80 percent of the fly ash and bottom ash collected becomes landfill that
' may pollute water and soil by leaching'and runoff and by erosion of land-
 fill surfaces.  At present only a small percentage of fly ash (-20 per-
 cent) finds its way into applications other than landfill.  Studies on
 the expanded utilization of ash, currently produced at 50,000,000 tons
 annually, need to be encouraged.

 Thermal and Noise Pollution

 The major source of thermal water pollution is the boiler water cooling
 system, particularly in the case of once-through systems.  Power plant

                                  71

-------
                                      Table  23.    IMPORTANT ASPECTS  OF  WATER  WASTES



Wast e general ine
process
Ash
hand 1 Ing




Cooling
Once-through
Fresh
S.i line
Rpcirculatlve
fuel
hand I tng

Ao 1 1 er f eedvA tcp
treat toe n t



toller
Mnurtnim
owoovn



Equipment
cleaning






Duration
flow
Continuous





Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Intermittent



Cone l>n\jou8



Intermittent




Infrequent -
once/2 years



W.T.I I'w.itcr flow quantities

All boilrrs
9
gal/yr
280*





33.000d
16,000
J.JOO
7.9c.e


B AC




6.6=




2.2«




Tut.il
rn\ 1 Ic
r> o 1 1 u s ,
10* ton
2400







27}
670







5.6




130




Co.il- 1 ir.-il
bul l«-rs
io9
1 U
r.al/yr
2SO<





23,000d
1,000
2,700
7.9C'°







3. 8"




J.JC




Total
sol ids ,
10' ton
2100







140
670







3.2




77







trp'rl .ml
ch.ir.-u-tcr istlcs
TS - JOO-J500 mg/«.
OrR.inlcs




AT - +15°F,
Tree Cl rc.ttdu.-tl -
0,1-1.0 niR/l

rs -
i yio-/t5,noo niR/t,
AcIUUy -
TS — 30 000 ifiB/C

3,000 i»R/«


5rft tna t <
— ju mr;/ tf
Alk.il Inlty -
10-100 me/'


TS - 14,000 nig/l.
Hardness -
4,000 iag/1.





A'.'..., i.,,.,l'n'b
ariMi-nl i-ffiTts
Pc«.ilM<- I..", ri'tliu-tion;
tMrhlU 1 ty , and odor;
Inter tVrrnr c wl th
w n t c r r o i P ^ f •

D.O. n-Jurtl'm renulting
In fifth kills and low-
err'l capacity foe nat-


Hny.int'; to fMi and 1m-
p.i 1 1 mt-nt of u.i if r for
rccic.it l"u.il .-ind con-
Mi^ipt i vc ti'it*^ po^ftibie
H.O. rvitucllon.
TOS-. » f. . . rp( uctlon;
turbidity, .ind odor;
w.il ;-r reuse .

Tutrophlr.ition and
solids scd [mentation.



Possible 0.0. reduction;
production of color.
turbidity, and odor;
interference with
w,itcr reuse.




of h i z a r d
The rju.iiuUy of flow and solids
convent ion-il ponding and lagoon-
Inp, of ash vistes, the solids
reduced. The average effluent
TSS Is 100 cg/l.c
Significant haz.ird with both sy§-
ter.s. The large flow quantity
is the major cause of the ad-


Minor ambient hazards for prcp-
erlv coHt'Cifd and ttr.itej w.nt*
flows. Shock effects roy be
systtrs and/or prolonged rainfall.

w.itcr, but It is considerably cor«
taentatlcn combined vlth a Jov flow
volusc gtvc rise to an overall
The fbn^ph.ite ccncentratirn is well
nuisance al g.il blooms. The effect
my be particularly severe In In-
pounded w.iters. The low flow
quant ity rcl icves the situation.
The extreme tnf regency of discharge
transforms this into a problea of
controlling in t era It tent, but »ub-"
ctantial, shock effects in the
anbient water.
"fair, C. M.,  J.  C. Grytr, D.  A.  (Ikun.  WJUT Pur I flcal Inn nml M.i-itp Uiilcr Trratnent nnd  Utnpos.il:   Volume II of Wat«r «nd Uaicc Water Engineering.
John Viley and Sons.  19<>8.

k>:cC3uhey, P.  II.  Engineering  M]n.ip,i;nent of Water Quality. flcGr.w-lltll Book Co.  19*8.

CDevelopnent Docuncnt for Effluent Limitations Guidelines ami New Source Performance Standards for  «he Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category.   U.S. EPA Report No.  EPA-440/l-/4-029a.  October 1974.

dStej» Electric Plant Air end  Water Quality Data.  Suumary Report TPC-S-239.

*Edl«on Electric  Institute. A Suiaury of the Proce»se» Involved and Ihe Cheolcal DUchargei Asuoclated with the Electric Utility Industry.

-------
OJ
                         Table 24.  TRACE  ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE STREAMS
                                                   (ing/*)

Ash pond liquor
Ash sluice ponds
Ash sluicing water0
Bottom ash sluice water
Bottoa ash sluice water
Economizer ash sluice water
Scrubber liquid
Scrubber liquid6
Coal pile drainage8
Cooling tower blowdown6
Al


9.2
1.69
2.31
0.57
0.03-0.3
4.8
825-1200
2.27
Sb
0.015

0.004
0.034
0.041
0.021
0.09-2.3
0.04

0.023
As
0.01

<0.0001
0.006
0.004
0.001
<0. 004-0. 3
0.001

0.003
Ba
0.07

<0.60
<0.5
0.5
<0.5

0.48

0.50
BP
0.002

<0.002
0 . 002
0.001
0.003
'0.002-0.14
0.002

0.004
B
0.5
< 100 -1600
0.5
0.25
2.46
2.41
8-46
2.9

0.27
Cd
0.01

<0.002
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.004-0.11
0.007

0.001
Ca


114
45
785
46
520-3000
910

140
Cl


14.9
15.7
27.7
17.2

27.9
20-480
25
Cr


<0.05
<0.05
<0.05

0.01-0.5
0.14
0-16
<0.06
Co


<0.003
0.004
0.005
0.003
0.10-0.7
0.011
0.025

Cu


0.022
0.011
0.024
0.008
<0. 002-0. 2
0.048
1.6-3.9
0.25

Ash pond liquor3
Ash sluice ponds
Ash sluicing waterc
Bottom ash sluice water
Bottom ash sluice water
Economizer ash sluice water
Scrubber liquid
Scrubber- liquid
Coal pile drainage8
Cooling tower blowdown
F


0.70
0.25
16.2
0.023

20.0

0.91
Fe


0.01
2.25
0.31
1.38
0.02-8.1
0.71
0.4-2.0
1.14
Pb
0.01

0.006
0.024 •
0.007
0.025
0.01-0.4
0.023

0.016
Mg


15.7
25.8
67.7
24.1
3-2750
61.7
90-180
36.4
Hn
0.075

0.016
0.055
0.77
0.096
0.09-2.5
0.88

0.10
«B
•cO.OOl

<0.0004
<0.0004
0.0005
0.0005 .
0.0004-0.07
0.0007

0.0005
Mb


0.015
0.016
0.055
0.012
0.91-6.3
0.015

0.05 '
M
in NH3

0.1-2.0








N
in NOX

0.1








Ni

0.015
<0.02
0.001
0.015
0.007
0.05-1.5
0.015

0.005
P

0.1-0.6






P. 2-1. 2

K






5.9-32



Se
0.035

0.004
0.001
0.031
0.001
<0. 001-2. 2.
0.12

0.004

-------
       Table  24  (continued).
TRACE  ELEMENT  CONCENTRATIONS IN  WASTE  STREAMS
            (mg/£)

Ash pond liquor
Ash sluice ponds
Asn sluicing vaterc
Bottom ash sluice water
Bottom ash sluice water
Economizer ash sluice water
Scrubber liquid
Scrubber liquid6
Coal pile drainage8
Cooling tower blowdown
Si






0.2-3.3



Ag


<0.0002
<0.0002
0.0004
<0.0002
0.005-0.6
0.0005

0.0004
Na .






14-2400

160-1260

S


108
73
765
77

860

2700
Sulftte
S03"






1-3500



Sulfnte
so4-






720-10,000

130-20,000

Sn






3.1-3.5



Ti


<0.1.
<0.1
0.1

-------
                                                             Table  25.    ASH POND  OVERFLOW
Ui
Plant
code
3412
3-'. 16
3404
3402
3401
3405
1703
1720
1710
1722
1709
1711
1711
1711a
3936
3936
3936a
3927
•2616
1308
1729
1718
3930
3930
39JOa
1825
1825
1825
1825
1825a
3920
1816
2608
0111
4704
2119
2119
21193
0107
3514
1716
1716
1716a
Plant capacity
HW
1114.5
740
300
308
31
116.2
766
J178
1162
1232
690


1179


1036
1469
933
732
186
1042


500




1304
544
600
510
1300
823


2558
568
2152


676
MWHr/day
13,205
10,525
5,420
4,965
865
1,629
6,288
16,155
3,164
15,563
0,706


21,872


18,908
21,705
14,276
12,050
2,978.
13,855


3',816



.
24,813
7,695
10,149
7,550
18,169
9,874


31,458
5,741
11,315


11,092
Fuel
c - coal
0 - Oil
c/o
c
c/o
c/o
c
c/o
c
c
c/o
c
o


c
"

c
c
c
c
c
c/o


c




c
c
c
c
c
c


c
c
-


c
Flov
1000 Rpd
5,170
3,460
675
720
2,412
4.8
6,000
13,000
720
26,nOO
1,000
8,600
700
9,300
1,000
6,000
7,000
1,400
4,200
4,000
480
14,000
4,000
1,000
5,000
9,800
3,200
1,600
30
14,630
7,200
1,000 .
1,500
' 7,338
4,076
10,74.8
21,725
32,473
720
2,870
500
150
650
Al
0.075
-
_
-
_
-
-
0.011
-
0.15
0.1
0
-0.145

-
.
-
0.153
1.67
-
-
i.:<50
0.021
0.021

-
-
-
-

-
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.30
-
-0.22
0.1
-0.12
Cr
-0.113
0
_
0.01
_
0.139
0.00001
-0.014
-
-
-
0
-0.03

0.0005
0.007

f .011
-
-
-
0.001
-
-

0.080
0.004
0.007
0.005

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
-

Cu
-0.001
0
-
-0.006
_
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
-
„

-
~
-
0.005
-
-
-0.037
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

0.06
-
-
-

Fe
-0.479
0.045
-
-4.6
-
-
_
0.6
-
0.28
0.001
0
-0.252

0.034
0.040

0.099
1.770
-
-0.593
-0.387
-
-

0.02
0.09
0.032
0.098
0.141
-
-
-
0.44
2.694
-
-

0.15
-
-
-

Mu
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
0.0002
-
*
-
-
_
-
0.076
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-0.02
0.102
-
-

-
-
- ,
-

MB
156
-
-
-11
-
-
-
18
-
25
-
-3
10

15
14

21
0.1
-
-
-2
-
-

0
12
11
12

-
-
-
-3.8
-1.9
-
-

-
10
6
18

Hg
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0002
-
-
_


_

-
-
-
-0.002
-
-
-

-
-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-
-

0

-
-

Na
0
-4
-
-
52
-1609
-
982
-
26
-
-3
173

30
32

73
14
-
-
3
92
88

27
23
18
37

-
-
23
-
-
-
-

-
-
-45
-136

Nl
-0.054
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.01
-
-
_

-
~

0.011
-
•
-
-
0.015
0.008

-
-
-
-

-
•
-
-
-
-
-

-
-•
-
-

Zn
-0.014
0.162
0.00013
-
0.17
0.117
0
-0.073
-
0.03
0.011
-
-
-
0.009
0.009

0.003
-
-0.01
-
0.03
0.003
0.013

0.07
-0.007
-0.006
0.001

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.05
-
0.12
-0.02

P
-
-
0
0
-
-0.5
-0.33
-0.7
-
-0.09
-1.19
-0.7
-

0.1
0.2

0.14
0
0.26
0.08
-0.05
. -
-

-
-
-
-

-0.09
0.41
-0.06
-
-
-
-

-
-
-0.23
-0.23

                     aDcvelopnent Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Steam Electric Power
                     Generating Point Source Category.  U.S. EPA.  Report No. 440/l-74-029a.  October, 1974.

-------
noise is attributable to many sources but arises mostly from cooling
tower draft fans and from the sootblower, pressure reducing, and con-
tinuous blowdown valves.  Methods of reducing noise levels to acceptable
values are available.

FLUE GAS EMISSIONS

The electric utility industry is a major contributor to the burden of air
pollutant emissions to the environment.   Based on this report, the in-
dustry's contribution to the "man-made"  criteria pollutant discharges to
air are as shown in Table 26-  The majority of air pollutant emissions
from the electric utility industry are from the combustion stack.   Total
nationwide emission estimates of particulates (including < 3 micron
diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, polycyclic organic matter, and trace elements are pre-
sented in the following sections for both external and internal combus-
tion sources.
              Table 26.   THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY'S
                         CONTRIBUTION TO AIR POLLUTANT
                         EMISSIONS


Pollutant
Particulate
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Percent of
U.S. total
man-made
emissions
13
52
29
0.3
0.2
Percent of
stationary
combustion
source emissions
64
73
'65
34
34
                                76

-------
External Combustion

The generation of electricity by utilities via external combustion
accounts for 13 percent of total particulates, 52 percent of sulfur
oxides, 26 percent of nitrogen oxides, 0.2 percent of hydrocarbons,
and 0.2 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from all man-made sources.
It accounts for 64 percent of total particulates, 72 percent of sulfur
oxides, 59 percent of nitrogen oxides, 24 percent of hydrocarbons, and
25 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from the conventional stationary
combustion systems considered in this study.

Detailed emission estimates for the United States are presented in
Table 27.  The estimates -of criteria pollutants are based on the
                         9
EPA-NEDS emission factors  listed in Table 28 and the methods described
in the notes following Table 27.  Trace element and polycyclic organic
matter emissions were estimated by GCA as presented in Table 27 and as
described in the notes following Table 27.

To obtain state emission estimates for purposes of assigning priorities
to the various combustion systems it will be necessary to prorate the
nationwide values by multiplying by the ratio of the fuel consumption
in a state (ton/year) to the fuel consumption nationwide (ton/year).
Fuel consumption estimates by state are provided in Appendix B.  Addi-
tional data on trace element content are provided in Appendix C.  As a
further aid to assigning priorities, frequency factors have been assigned
to all combustion systems.  These frequency factors are required inputs
to the priority model now being developed by Monsanto Research Corporation.

In the subsections that follow, each pollutant listed above is discussed
in detail.  The discussions include general reviews and analyses of per-
tinent literature and specific reviews of the data sources used to esti-
mate nationwide emissions.
                                 77

-------
Table 27.
STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coal
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite0
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignited
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil6
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil£
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Gas8
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Partlculatesi
103 tons/yr
Total
4,500
4,500
4,400
4,300
3,500
500
250
76
21
17
0
0
3.8
82
50
13
11
8.4
78
74
29
45
3.9
1.5
2.4
16
3.9
12
<3,h
1,600
1,600
1,500
1,500
1,200
180
100
12
6.5
6.0
0
0
0.53
30
18
4.6
5.7
1.2
71
67
26
41
3.6
1.4
2.2
14
3.5
11
Cases ,
103 tons/yr
SCx
16,000
16 ,000
'14,000
14,000
10,000
1,900
1,900
99
41
15
0
0
26
120
74
19
19
12
1,500
1,500
570
890
16
6.1
9.6
0.95
0.23
0.72
NOV
Jv
7,100
6,500
4,700
4,600
2,400
760
1,400
20
12
4.6
0
0
7.1
72
• 42
10
16
3.8
810
770
180
590
41
9.6
32
960
120
840
1IC
120
85
64
57
41
7.6
7.6
1.2
0.098
0.008
0
0
0.09
6.2
3.7
1.0
0.93
0.63
19
18
7.2
11
0.99
0.38
0.61
1.6
0.39
1.2
CO
360
270
210
200
140
26
26
2.6
1.2
0.26
0
0
0..95
6.9
3.7
1.0
0.93
1.3
30
' 28
. 11
17
1.5
0.58
0.90
27
6.6
20.5
Organics,
tons/yr
BSD
11,000
11,000
10,000
9,700
7,000
1,300
1,300
58
50
15
0
0
35
250
150
40
38
25
300
300
130
170
14
6
8
360
90
270
PPOM
11
11
10
10
7.3
1.3
1.3
0.06
0.05
0.015
0
0
3.035
0.25
15
4.0
3.8
2.5
0.3
0.3
0.13
0.17
).014
J.006
).008
0.35
0.09
0.27
BaP
O.S
0.8
0.75
0.73
0.52
0.1
0.1
0.006
0.004
0.001
0
0
0.003
0.02
0.01
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.02
0.02
0,008
0.012
0.001
0.0004
0.0006
0.03
0.008
0.022
                      78

-------
Table 27 (continued).
STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coalk
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1"
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized tfut
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oilp
1.1.21.0.1 Tangenticl Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oilq
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All other
1.1.30.0.0 Gasr
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All other
Trace elements,-'
tons/yr
Sb
51
51
48
48
35
6.3
6.3
0.33
0.04
0.01
0
0
0.03





2.9
2.9
1.1
1.8
ND
NO
ND



As
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
2,200
410
410
21
3.7
1.3
0
0
2.4





22
22
8
13
0.16
0.04
0.12
.


Ba
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,000
1,400
270
270
14
13
4.5
• o
0
8.3
650
390
97
97
65
48
48
19
29
ND
ND
ND



Be
230
230
220
220
160
30
30
1.5
1.1
0.38
0.
0
0.71
0.71
0.43
0.11
0.11
0.07
6.8
6.8
2.6
4.2






Bi
98
98
98
93
67
13
13
0.64
0.04
0.01
0
0
0.03
5.0
3.0
0.75
0.75
0.5










B
5,000
5,000
5,000
4,900
3,500
660
660
34
0.37
0.13
0
0
0.24
130
77
19
19
13
8.0
8.0
3.0
5.0






Br
5,600
5,600
5,600
5,600
4,000
760
760
39
1.5
0.51
0
0'
0.95
0.57
0.36
0.08
0.08
0.06
12
12
4.8
7.5
0.04
0.01
0.03



Cd
200
200
54
54
39
7.3
7.3
0.38
0.05
0.02
0
0
0.03





150
150
57
89
ND
ND
ND



Cl
590,000
590,009
590,000
560,000
400,000
76,000
76,000
3,900
2; 200
770
0
0
1,400
25,000
15,000
3,800
3,800
2,500
1,200
1,200
450
710






Cr
1,500
1,500
1,400
1,300
930
180
180
9.3
44
15
0
0
29
13
7.7
1.9
1.9
1.3
130
130
50
80
ND
ND
ND



                            79

-------
Table 27 (continued)
STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION
ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3
OF

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coalk
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite"
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oilp
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil"
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Gasr
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Trace element! ,J
tons/yr
Co
320
320
160
140
100
19
19
1.0
13
4.6
0
0
8.5
5.5
3.3
0.82
0.82
0.55
160
160
63
98






Cu
2,000
2,000
1,300
1,200
860
160
160
8.2
27
9.6
0
0
18
26
15
3.9
3.9
2.6
720
720
280
440
0.08
0.032
0.048



F
31,000
31,000
31,000
31,000
22,000
4,100
4,100
210
160
56
0
0
100





0.29
0.29
0.11
0.18






Fe
131,000
131,000
131,000
130,000
93,000
18,000
18,000
930
1,000
350
0
0
650





520
520
200
320






Pb
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
860
160
160
8.3
4.6
1.6
0
0
3.0
28
17
4.1
4,1
2.8
2.9
2.9
1.1
1.8






Mn
4,500
4,500
4,500
4,300
3,100
590
590
29
5.1
1.8
0
0 '
3.3
170
100
26
26
17
12
12
4.4
7.2
0.020
0,008
0.012



Hg
48
48
47
47
34
6.3
6.3
•0.33
0.40
0.14
0
0
0.26





1.4
1.4
0.6
0.8
ND
ND
ND



Mo
510
510
350
340
240
46
46
2.4
3.7
1.3
0
0
2.4
4.9
2.9
0.73
0.73
0.49
160
160
64
100






Ni
4,900
4., 900
1,300
1,300
930
180
180
9.3
18
6.4
0
0
12
8.7
5.2
1.3
1.3
0.87
3,600
3,600
1,400
2,200
ND
ND
ND



Se
740
740
730
730
520
99
99
5.1
0.20
0.07
0
0
0.13





9.9
9.9
3.9
6.0
ND
ND
ND



                           80

-------
Table 27 (continued).
STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coalk
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12..0.0 Anthracite™
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oilp
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distill* ».s Oilq
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Gas'
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Trace Clement* ,3
tons/yr
Te
28
28
28
28
20
3.8
3.8
0.20
0.04
0.01
0
0
0.03















Tl
9.3
9.3
9.3
9.3
6.7
1.3
1.3
0.064
0.04
0.01
0
0
0.03















£r\
100
100
98
88
63
12
12
0.64
0.37
0.13
0
0
0.24
10
5.5
1.4
1.4
0.92
6.4
0.08
0.032
0.048
6.4
2.5
3.9



Ti
55,000
55.000
55,000
55,000
39,000
7,400
7,400
380
220
77
0
0
140





390
390
150
240






U
1,500
1,500
1,400
1,400
1,000
190
190
9.9
0.11
0.04
0
0
0.07





100
100
39
60






V
6,700
6,700
2,600
2,600
1,900
350
350
18
5.7
2.0
0
0
3.7
32
19
4.8
4.8
3.3
4,100
4,100
1,600
2,500
ND
NO
ND



Zn
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,400
270
270
14
12
4.2
0
0
7.8
5.8
3.5
0.86
0.86
0.58
5.6
5.6
2.2
3.4
ND
ND
ND



Zr
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,700
1,200
230
230
12
-6.8
2.4
0
0
4.4
100
60
15
IS
10










                            81

-------
      Table 27' (continued).  STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
                             ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3

Q
 Values in the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmosphere
from conventional stationary combustion sources in the United States.
An entry of "MD" signifies that a trace element has not been detected
when measured' .and an entry left blank signifies that no information is
available.  Tftte emission factors used for this table are given in Table 28.

 The consumption data for bituminous coal were obtained from reference 6.
The breakdown of the boiler population used was:  pulverized dry bottom
72.3 percent, pulverized wet bottom 13.5 percent,  cyclone boilers' 13.5 per-
cent, and spreader stokers 0.7 percent.  The particulate control efficien-
cies and the percentage of boilers using controls  were multiplied and sub-
tracted from unity to obtain the fractions of the  total particulates that
escape.  For pulverized units this escape number is 0.11, for cyclone
units 0.35, and for stokers 0.30.

The sulfur content of bituminous coal was 2 percent and the ash- content was
13.85 percent, according to reference 23.

cAnthracite coal consumption data were taken from references 6 and 19.  The
breakdown of the boiler population used was:  pulverized dry 35 percent and
stoker 65 percent.  The particulate control efficiencies and the percentage
of boilers using controls were multiplied and subtracted from unity to ob-
tain the fractions of particulates that escape.  For anthracite coal this
escape number was estimated to be 0.40 based on age and control efficiency
data, using reference 6.  The sulfur content of anthracite coal was
1.0 percent and the ash content was 10 percent, using reference 23.

 The consumption data for lignite were obtained from references 18 and 20.
The breakdown of the boiler population was:  pulverized dry 60 percent,
pulverized wet 15 percant, cyclone boiler 15 percent, and stoker 10 per-
cent.  The particulate control efficiency and the percentage of boilers
using control equipment were multiplied and subtracted from unity to
obtain the fractions of particulates that escape.   For lignite this
escape number is 0.20, based upon analysis of data from reference 23.
The sulfur content of lignite was 0.66 percent and the ash content
9.6 percent, using reference 23.

eThe consumption figures for residual oil were -taken from reference  6.
The breakdown of the boiler population was:  38.9 percent tangential
firing and 61.1 percent for all others.  Sulfur content was 1 percent
using reference 6.  The particulate control escape number was 0.90.

 The consumption data for distillate oil were taken from reference  6.  The
breakdown of the boiler population was 38.9 percent tangential  firing and
61.1 percent for all others.  The particulate control  escape number  was 0.9J
                                  82

-------
     Table 27 (continued).  STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
                            ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3

%atural gas consumption data were obtained from reference 6.   The boiler
population was:  24.3 percent for tangential and 75-7 percent  for all other
boilers.  The particulate control escape number is 1.0 as particulate con-
trol devices are not used on gas-fired boilers.

"Emissions of  <3 micron particles for coal were calculated by multiplying
total particulate emissions by 0=35 for pulverized dry units,  0.35 for
pulverized wet units, 0.52 for cyclones, and 0.14 for stokers as. given in
Table 29-  For oil and gas, emissions of <3 micron particles were
assumed to be 90 percent of the total particulate emissions as given in
Table 30.

•'•Emissions of BaP were calculated from 1974 consumption data from reference
6 and emission factors from reference 37 °  The emissions of particulate
polycyclic organic matter (PPOM) were based on the ratio of PPOM to BaP
found in organic emissions from utility boilers.  The emissions of benzene
soluble organics (BSO) were based on the ratio of BSO to PPOM found in or-
ganic emissions of utility boilers.                   '
     amount of each trace element i emitted to the atmosphere was calcu-
lated as follows:

     (1)     The amount of i in the fuel, A^, was

                            A£ = C^ X F£


            where C. = concentration of i in the fuel, ppm


                  F. = yearly consumption of fuel, tons/year


            If A. was calculated on a regional basis, results were summed
            to the national level.

     (2)     The amount emitted to the atmosphere, E^, was

                            E. = A^ x f ^

            where f-; = estimated fraction of i emitted to the atmosphere.
            See Table 41 for values of f±.  For oil fi was assumed to
            equal 1.

kData for coal were available for each of the coal-producing regions defined
by the U.S. Geological Survey.  Sources of  trace element concentration  data
were publications by Magee,38 Zubovic,39 Kessler,AO Ruch,4  and^von Lehra-
den 42,43  xhe Bureau of Mines44 was a source of coal distribution data.


                                 83

-------
     Table 27 (continued).  STACK EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF
                            ELECTRICITY BY EXTERNAL COMBUSTION3


     each coal-producing region, concentrations of As, Ba, Be, B, Cr, Co,
Cu, F, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Sn, U, V, and Zn in bituminous coal were calcu-
lated using reference 38 as a primary source and reference 39 as a supple-
mentary source.  For Cl, Br, and Ti, data from Illinois in reference 41
were considered as typical; of all coal-producing regions.  For Sb, Bi, Cd,
Fe, Te, Tl, and Zr 'concentrations were calculated by using reference 40.
For Se the single concentration cited by reference 43 was used.

Bituminous coal consumption in the geographical regions used by the U.S.
Department of Commerce was related to coal shipments from the coal-pro-
ducing regions using reference 44.  For further details, see Appendix B.

mFor anthracite coal, typical trace element concentrations were taken from
reference 40-  A total anthracite consumption in 1974 of 1.46 x 10° tons
was obtained from references 6 and 19.

 For lignite, reference 38 supplied the data for North Dakota lignite and
reference 39 supplied the data for Texas lignite.  Reference 38 contained
data for the elements As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Br, Co, Cu, Cr, Mn, Mo, Ni, Sn, V,
Zn, and Zr.  Reference 39 contained data for the elements Be, Br, Co, Cu,
Mb, Ni, Sn, V, and Zr0  A concentration of Cl in lignite was obtained from
reference 45.  Lignite consumption in 1974 consisted of 6.8 x 10  tons
from North Dakota and 5,1 x 10  tons from Texas, according to reference 15,

°Data on petroleum were taken from reference 46.  The oil producing regions
were listed as the U0S., Canada, South America, Mideast, Africa, and Asia.

Ppor residual oil, trace element concentration data were available  for As,
Sb'i Baj'Bf, Cr, 'Mn, Ni, V, and Zn from reference 46.  For the trace element!
Be, B, Cd, Co, F, Fe, Pb, Hg, Mo, Se, Sn, Ti, and U reference 42 was used
as the primary source and references 43, 47, 48 and 49 as supplementary
sources .  Data on shipments from the producing regions for consumption in
the United States were obtained from reference 50.  See Appendix B  for  fur-
ther details.
     distillate oil, reference 46 reported concentrations  for As,  Br,  Cu,
Mn, and Sn and reported that Sb, Ba, Cd.,- Cr, Hg, Ni, Se, V, and  Zn were
not detectable.

 Hydrocarbon gases were assumed to be free of trace elements.
                                 84

-------
Table 28.
EMISSION FACTORS FOR ELECTRIC
GENERATION EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

*
1.0.00.0.0 Electric generation
1.1.00.0.0 External combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coalb
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All otokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual oil
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.21.0.2 All other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate oil
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.22.0.2 All other
1.1.30.0.0 Gasd
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.30.0.2 All other
Particulates3
Total

NA
NA
NA
NA
17A
13A
2A
13A
NA
17A
X
X
2A
NA
7A
7A
6A
7A
NA
NA
8
8
" NA
8
8
NA
10
10
Gases
SO
X

NA
NA
NA
NA
38S
38S
38S
38S
NA
38S
X
X
38S
NA
303
.305
305
308
NA
NA
1575
1575
NA
1575
1575
NA
0.6
0.6
NO
X

NA
NA
NA
NA
18
30
55
15
NA
18
X
X
18
X
X
15
NA
6
NA
NA
50
105
NA
50
105
NA
300
700
HC

NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.3
0.3
1
NA
0.03
X
X
0.2
NA
1
1
1
1
NA
NA
2
2
NA
2
2
NA
1
1
CO

NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
2
NA
1
X
X
2
NA
1
1
1
2
NA
NA
3
3
NA
3
3
NA
17
17
                 85

-------
          Table 28 (continued).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR ELECTRIC
                                 GENERATION EXTERNAL COMBUSTION


Abbreviations used in the table have the following meanings

    A = Multiply by weight percent ash

    B = Multiply by weight percent sulfur

    X = Fuel consumed in this combustion system is small, emission is
        assumed to be negligible.

   NA = Emissions for this combustion system were calculated as the
        total of emissions from the appropriate subsystems


 The emission factors for coal give values in terms of pounds of pollutant
per ton of coal burned.

Q
 The emission factors for oil give values in terms of pounds of' pollutant
per 1000 gallons of oil burned.

d
 The emission factors for gas give values in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 10  cubic feet of gas burned.
                                 36

-------
Participates - Electricity generation by utilities accounts for 13 per-
cent of the total man-made emissions of particles in the United States
and 64 percent of the total particulate emissions from stationary com-
bustion sources.  These emissions occur after combustion gases pass
through control devices such as electrostatic precipitators, cyclones,
scrubbers, and filters that can eliminate up to 99 percent of the par-
ticulate mass loading.

Much of the discussion that follows deals with coal combustion because
coal accounts for 98 percent of the particulate emissions from utilities.
The discussion deals first with particulate loading before control de-
vices and then with particulate emissions after control devices.  It
is divided further into sections dealing with total mass emissions and
with emissions of fine particles, because while control devices are effi-
cient for the largest particles they are less efficient for the fine
(< 3 micron) particles.

Coal - The NEDS emission factors in Table 28 used to prepare Table 27
were obtained from Smith et al.    Diagrams from that reference are
reprinted in Figures 5 through 9 for the various furnace types.  The
data were obtained via personal communications and via test data col-
lected in the 1950's.  A statistical summary of the data is presented
in Table 29.  The range of the data, the mean, the standard deviation,
and the 90 percent confidence interval were calculated for all furnace
types except the stoker for which there was insufficient data.  The
calculated 90 percent confidence intervals may be too small as they
were based on the assumption that all the data values were independent.

Data on fine particulate loadings before control devices have been
                            52 53
reported in two MRI studies.  *    The accuracy of these data is un-
certain, however, because analytical techniques may have altered the
original size distributions, and much of the fine particulate data were
                                 37

-------
extrapolated from data on  larger  size ranges.  For 300 pulverized  coal-
fired units fine particles ranged from 4 to 22 percent of the  total
particulate mass, with a mean  of  13 percent.   For cyclone units, extrap-
olations indicate that fine particles accounted for 30 percent of  the
total.  For stokers,  fine  particles ranged from 1 to 13 percent of the
total, with a mean of 6 percent.   The results for stokers are  consistent
                             54
with similar studies  by GCA.
                10-
               8
                 5-
A VAIUE OF 10% COM8USTIBIE MATTER
WAS ADDED WHEN AN AUTHOR INDICATED
HIS VAIUES REPRESENTED OM V ASH EMISSION.
NUMBERS IN BIOCXS ARE
REFERENCES CITED
•»

104
flOS 66
JIC6 tCS 62
tW
62
113
58

f 96 95 K
f VAt UE CHOSEN = 69

III
112 10
70 IU 97
58 95
23 63 5J 52 [®I621 |62[62
                  50   60  10~  BO   90   100  110  120  130  MO  150
                    TOTAL PARTI CUIATES AS PERCENT OF ASH IN COAL BURNED
        Figure  5.   Total particulate emissions from dry-bottom
                    pulverized coal-fired units (Reprinted from
                    Reference 51)
                                  38

-------






3 is.
5


£
oe
o
Q_
|*J
™ |O—
Ix.
O
O
X

S —



o«




















f'°!
J95| |9i[67



















[62]
62 62 62
9SJ63J62
VAIUE CHOSEN £ 55
~ WITHOUT ASH
RCINJECTION » VAtut 0' 10* CDMBUSTIttC MATTER *»»















62
6?
62
62
S?

62
62
62
61
62
113
13
70
«2
62
fi?

62
62
62
62
62
62
62
97
112

w
62
«2
S2
fi'

62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
58
K\ 97
97
ADDED WHIN AN AUTHOR INOICATCD Hit
VALUES REPRESENTED CHIT ASH EMISSION.








62
62
62
62
62
62
'.«
62
fi?

62
6?
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
! 14
23
DVAIUCS fOS UNITS WITHOUT
DCINjrCTION.
r~" \ VAIUES fOR UNITS WITH
^ j BEINJECTION

NUMBEDS IN ILOCKS MC
gjl REFERENCES CITED
&
1
62 1
6?l VAIUE CHOSEN : 120
""" •* WITH ASH
62 RE INJECTION
62
62 621621 !62! :62: r«}j62:
^ 621621 '62U2:62;62; I6J162!
tl 62162162' f62;62;62:62: ''fi'tt'-
63 62|»7J62] {67:62T62|62: ;62;62;62;
23 06 9'J62;62:6?:62:02:62;62:62T62:62:62I62J62:6Z!
 10
         30   
-------
         20
         15-
                      171!
                                A VALUE OF tiO". CO"UUSTI61E MATTER *AS
                                ADDED »VI£N A\ AUTHOR INDICATED HIS VAIUES
                                REPRESENTED ONIY ASH EMISSION.
                                QvAlUE FOR UNIT WITHOUT REINJECTION

                                L.J VA1UE FOR UNIT *ITH REINJECTION
                                NUMBERS IN BIOCKS APE
                                REFERENCES CITED
                              £ VAIUE CHOSEN -65
                                WITHOUT ASH REINJECTION
                               58
                                                   CHOSEN « IOO

E
fiTs
"ee]
ne|n?|7i 58 j
23
. 58
80
71 1

noi' 7ii
-1— «— 1 I--T-T—I
58 ' 7KI10I 71!
,„, 	 , i 	 i ,< 	 J
23 56 J TO 261
                                          99
          20   30   40    50   60   70   BO   90  100  110   120  130  110
                      TOTAL PARTI CULATES AS PERCENT ASH IK COAL
      Figure  8.  Particulate emissions from spreader stoker-
                   fired  units (Reprinted from Reference  51)
5-



67
f
%

67
06
47
^..
M
«i
•>
67
120
47
47
GO
67
120
12C
!?C
47
' \l
67
120
120
95
ei
&
iB
ILUE CHOSEN i 25
A VALUE OF 40-. COMBUSTIBLE MATTER WAS
ADDED «H£N AN AUTHOR INDICATED HIS VALUES
REPRESENTED. ONLY ASH EMISSION.
r?0
63
64 l?o|67
80 |67| |67J
•i 1 r^Tn
„ 10 .'U JO 40 SO bo 70 60 40 100 1 10 120 130 140 IS
TOTAL PARtlCULATES AS PERCENT OF ASH
Figure  9.   Particulate emissions from stoker-fired units  (except
             spreader stokers)  (Reprinted  from Reference 51)
                                   90

-------
             Table 29.  PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR COAL COMBUSTION WITHOUT  CONTROL  EQUIPMENT
vo
Type of unit
Pulverized
Dry bottom
Wet bottom without fly ash
re inject ion
Wet bottom with fly ash
reinj action
Cyclone
Spreader stoker
Without fly ash reinjection
With fly ash reinjection
All other stokers
Pounds of particulate per ton of coal
burned, values represent emissions
before control equipment
Reference

17A
13A
24A
2A
ISA
20A
5A
Total range

12A - 30A
3A - 19A
16A - 33A
0.5A - 10. 5A
5A - 52A
9A - 24A
OA - 29A
Mean and 90%
confidence
interval

18. 2A + 6.7A
12. 9A + 4.4A
23. 1A + 7.1A
2.4A + 2.6A
Mt
-
Standard
deviation

4.1
2.7
4.3
1.6
-
-
               Based on reference 51 except  as  indicated.
               These values  were calculated  under  the assumption that the reported-data values
              were  independent.

-------
Estimates of the average efficiency of particulate control devices on
coal-fired utility boilers are listed in Table 30, along with estimates '
of particulate emissions after control.   The data reported in the first
three columns were obtained in MRI   telephone surveys conducted in 1968
and 1969.  Estimates derived by GCA from FPC Form 67 magnetic tape data
are listed in the last column.  The differences between the MRI esti-
mates and our estimates based on the FPC data are small except for the
cyclone type.  The MRI estimates were used in Table 27.  The accuracy
of these estimates of average efficiency is uncertain because of differ-
ences between design and operating efficiency.  One study   reported an
average design efficiency of 98.2 percent for 14 high efficiency units
and an average operating efficiency of 89.3 percent.  Emissions esti-
mated using the design efficiency are a factor of 5 less than emissions
estimated using the operating efficiency.  Another study   of 12 units
fitted with electrostatic precipitators reported an average design effi-
ciency of 99.5 percent versus an average operating efficiency of 95-7 per-
cent.  Here emissions estimates based on design efficiency are a factor
of 9 less than those based on operating efficiency.
        Table 30.  TOTAL MASS EFFICIENCY OF PARTICULATE CONTROL
                   DEVICES IN COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
Boiler type
Pulverized
Cyclone
Stoker
Control device
efficiency3
Cc
0.92
0.91
0.80
Application
of control
C
a
0.97
0.71
0.87
U.S. average
efficiency
Cm=Cc - Ca
0.89
0.65
0.70
FPC data
U.S. average
efficiency0
0.89
0.88
0.65
   The data in this table were obtained from utilities accounting for
  one-half of the total U.S. utility consumption of coal.  C  is the
  fraction collected of the total particulate mass entering control
  devices. -*->
   Ca is the fraction of utility boilers equipped with particulate
  control devices. 5->
  °These values were calculated from Federal Power Commission Form  67
  data for the 1972 reporting year.
                                92

-------
 Estimates of the average fine particulate efficiency of control devices
 on coal-fired utility boilers are listed in Table 31.  The data reported
 in the first three columns were obtained by MRI   from studies of a vari-
 ety of particulates only some of which were derived from coal.  The effi-
 ciency data reported by MRI are shown in Figure 10.  Much of these data
                                       58
 was published originally by Stairmand.    The data in the last column of
 Table 31 show the relationship between total particulate and fine par-
 ticulate emissions used in Table 27.  Additional data on fine particu-
 lates are shown in Figure 11.  Curve 1 is a composite of three field
                      59
 tests reported by SRI   on high efficiency electrostatic precipitators
 connected to pulverized coal-fired units; curve 2 is a composite of
 22 tests of a fabric filter reported by GCA   on a stoker.  The MRI data
 from Figure 10 are also plotted for comparison.
      Table 31.  FINE PARTICULATE EFFICIENCY OF PARTICULATE CONTROL
                 DEVICES IN COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS*
Boiler type
Pulverized
Cyclone
Stoker
Control device
efficiency
Cc
0.75
0.55
0.32
Application
of control0
C
a
0.97
0.71
0.87
U.S. average
efficiency
c = c • c
m c a
0.73
0.39
0.28
Fine particulate
fraction^
F
P
0.35
0.52
0.14
aThe data in this table were obtained from utilities accounting for
one-half.of the total U.S. utility consumption of coal.
 Cc is the fraction collected of the fine particulate mass entering
control devices.  Part of the data is from test results and part is
from reported design efficiencies.
£»                                             *
 Ca is the fraction of utility boilers equipped with particulate
control devices.
 Fp is the fraction of the total particulate mass emission that is fine
(<3 micron) particulates and was derived from the ratio of fine par-
ticulates to total mass.
                                 93

-------
w.w
                                                                  0.01
 0.01
  0.01
                        fAITICU DIAMETIt • MICtCNS
                                                                l_]w.w
   Figure 10.
Control device  efficiencies .for a variety
industrial particulates  (Reference  55)
of
                                94

-------
  w.w
  W.t
  95.0


  90.0
§
| 50.0

X
S

  20.0
  10.0

  5.0

  2.0
  1.0
  O.S

  0.2
  »•'
  0.05
  o.c
                    illlll
I. HIGH EFFICIENCY, ESP  (Ref.  59)
2. FABRIC  FILTER   (Ref.  54)
o.oi

0.05
o.t
0.2
0.5
1.0
                                                                S.O

                                                                0.0


                                                               20.0
                                                              -JSO.O  £
                                                                   I
                                                                   i
                                                                   8
                                                                       - M.O
                                                              - W.O
                                                               96.0

                                                               W.O
                                                                      Jjw.w
    o.oi
                             0.1

                            PAtTICU OWMmi-MICIONS
                                                      t.o
   Figure 11.  Control device efficiencies  for recent  field  test
                 results of  coal-fired  boilers (curves 1 and 2)
                                    95

-------
Oil/gas - The emission factors listed in Table 28 were used to estimate

loadings before particulate control.  The efficiencies shown in Table  32

were used to estimate emissions after particulate control.
          Table  32.  EFFICIENCIES OF PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICE
                     IN OIL- AND GAS-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
Fuel type
Oil
Gas
Control device
efficiency3
Ca
0.50
-
Application
of control*5
C
a
0.20
0
U.S. average
efficiency
C = C • C
m c a
0.10
0
Fine particulate
fraction0
F
P
0.90
0.90
    C   is  the fraction collected of the total particulate mass entering
    control devices.

    Ca  is  the fraction of utility boilers equipped with particulate con-
    trol devices.

    F   is  the fraction of the total particulate mass emission that is
    fine (<3 micron) particulates and was derived from the ratio  of
    fine particulates to total mass.
Sulfur Oxides  (SO )_ - Total man made SO  emissions amounted  to  31 million
         "i~'"r"~~"'    T X^1""                    X
tons in  1974.  Of this total stationary fossil fuel combustion  sources

accounted for  22 million tons.  Electric power plants contributed 16  mil-

lion tons or 52 percent of the annual SO  emissions.  Coal combustion rep-
                                        X
resented 87 percent of utility generated SO  emissions.  Between 1960 and
1970 SO  emissions increased at the rate of 4 percent per year.
                                                                61
About .98 percent of the SO  emitted from-combustion sources  is  in the
                          X
form of S02.  For the combustion of anthracite'and bituminous coals,  as
                                             /: o /• o
well as fuel oils, evidence in the literature   '   suggests  that the

conversion of sulfur compounds in these fuels to SO-  is  90 to 100 percent

complete.  Sulfur retention in anthracite and bituminous coal ash is

generally low.  In a Bureau of Mines ashing study of  anthracite coals

sulfur retention ranged from about 1 percent to almost 15 percent at  the
                                  96

-------
low ashing temperature  (750 C) and was  substantially  less  than 1 percent
at the high ashing temperature (1200°C).   In another  ashing study involv-
ing bituminous coal   sulfur retention  was less  than  5 percent.

There is some evidence  that sulfur in coal of high alkali  ash content
tends to concentrate in the ash during  combustion and that this sulfur
retention occurs roughly equally  for pyritic and organic sulfur.66'67
Most of the evidence is for low rank  (lignite) coals  which generally
have high alkali content.  Studies involving North Dakota  lignite" have
received considerable attention in the  literature.  In two independent
pulverized firing studies in 20 MW to 215  MW utility  boilers  '   sulfur
retention ranged from 10 percent  to 40  percent.  In two ashing studies  >
conducted in accordance with ASTM-approved procedures 60 percent to
90 percent sulfur retention was observed.   In addition, several stud-
   f\ S — 7 9
ies      have shown that the addition of lime, limestone, or dolomite
directly into a furnace can reduce SO   emissions, although boiler operat-
                               72    x
ing problems have been  serious.
The degree of SO., formation, usually 1  to 2 percent of total SO , is
dependent upon combustion conditions.    In general, the leaner the fuel
mixture the more SO,, relative  to S0~ is formed.  In-addition, SO, forma-
tion is a function of the age  of the combustion device, boiler design,
and method of firing.

Nitrogen Oxides (NO )_ - According to a  recent National Academy of Sciences
Study   national nitrogen oxide emissions have grown at an average rate
of over 4 percent per year for the last 3 decades.  At present, stationary
source fuel combustion accounts for about 65 percent of all U.S. man-
made nitrogen oxide emissions.  Projections of future nitrogen oxide
emissions demonstrate that, if present  statutory standards are adhered to,
stationary sources will contribute an increasing percentage of total
nitrogen oxide emissions through 1990.  The nitrogen oxide emission rate
per Btu produced is greater from coal than from either oil or natural gas.
                                 97

-------
Nitrogen oxides  (NO ) are formed in the high temperature region of the
                   X
furnace; i.e., in the flame zone, by two mechanisms.  The first mechanism,
termed  "thermal" fixation, involves the reaction of atmospheric oxygen
and nitrogen.  These react in radical chain reactions.  The second mech-
anism,  termed "fuel-N conversion," involves the oxidation of fuel con-
taminants that contain nitrogen.  These contaminants are derivations of
such compounds as pyridine and quinoline.  Generally, more than 90 per-
cent of the NO  emitted to the atmosphere is NO with the remainder being
              X
The amount of NO  formed in the furnace is dependent upon several operat-
              79X
ing variables.    One of these is excess air.  For a given furnace
temperature distribution 'the amount of NO  formed decreases as .the excess
air decreases.  This decrease occurs because of a decrease in the oxygen
concentration in the high temperature flame zone where the NO  is formed.
                                                             X
The influence of temperature on NO  emissions is more complex.  Decreases
                                  J^
in temperature are associated with decreases in NO  emissions.  However,
                                                  X
the thermal fixation reactions are more temperature-dependent than the
fuel-N conversion reactions.  Therefore, for a fixed value of excess air,
decreases in temperature cause emissions to decrease from thermal fixa-
tion rather than from fuel-N conversion.
Thus emissions of NO  can be minimized by reducing the oxygen content and
                    Jv                                     ^^
temperature in the flame zone of the furnace.  Reductions in the  oxygen
content reduce emissions of both fuel NO  and thermal NO  whereas reduc-
                                        A               X
tions in temperature produce significant reductions only in thermal NO  .
                                                                      X
Methods that have been used to reduce temperature include:  (a) injection
of cooled combustion products, steam, or water'into the flame zone; (b)
reduction of the temperature to which combustion air is preheated; (c)
extraction of heat from the flame zone; and  (d) reduced furnace load.

Methods of reducing oxygen content in the flame zone include reducing the
overall excess air and reducing the excess air for some burners without
                                  98

-------
reducing the overall excess air  (staged combustion).  Low excess air
firing, staged combustion, flue-gas recirculation, reduced furnace load,
water or steam injection, and reduced air preheat are control techniques
that have been successfully demonstrated on utility boilers, although
the latter two methods do reduce thermal efficiency.  Using combinations
of the techniques listed above, an average reduction in nitrogen oxide
emissions of 37 percent has been achieved for coal-fired utility boilers,
48 percent for oil-fired boilers, and 60 percent for gas-fired boilers.

Coal - Data on NO  emissions from 53 coal-fired utility boilers are pre-
sented in Table 33.  Emission factor data in terms of pounds of N07 per
million Btu are summarized in Table 34.  The data in Table 34 correspond
to full load operation without modifications for NO  reduction.  The
                                                   X
average N0? emission for the pulverized coal-fired units, 0.68 pounds
per million Btu, was near the new source performance standard of 0.7
lb/10  Btu. ' Excess air ranged from 5 to 50 percent in. the reported data
for normal operation.  This compares with a range of from 5 percent to
                                                       no •? Q
25 percent which is typical for NO  control strategies. ' '    Reduction
                                  X
below 15 percent is accomplished at the risk of increased emissions of
CO and unburned hydrocarbons and at the risk of increased slagging and
corrosion.
Although the data in Table 33 on cyclone boilers are scanty, it is clear
that NO  emissions from the cyclone boilers are greater than from the
       X
pulverized coal-fired boilers.  This observation has been made by others
     7 ^
also.    The emissions from pulverized units are greater than from stokers.
All of these trends are consistent with the fact that cyclones have the
highest heat release rates and furnace .temperatures and that stokers have
the lowest.

The emissions from the wet bottom boilers are higher than from the dry
bottom boilers.  Generally, wet bottom boilers operate at higher tempera-
tures than dry bottom boilers.  These differences in temperature are
                                 99

-------
                            Table 33.
NO  TEST DATA FROM COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
  X
                                                                                    73
(oiler
No,
SS-l
SS-l
C-l
C-l
HO-1
IIO-l
NAS-1
NAS-1
NAs-2
HAS -2
NAS-J
XAS-3
KAS-4
NAS-4
NAS-5
NAS-S
NAS-6
NA3-6
XAS-7
NAS-7
NAS-S
KAS-8
NAS-9
KAS-10
NAS-10
NAS-lt
KAS-1Z
NAS-13
J-l
J-l
CE-l
CE-2
CE-2
CEO
CE-4
cs-s
CE-5
ez-s
No. of
burners
NA
NA
NA
MA
.
-
7
7
7
7
2
2
1
1
I
1
6
e
s
5
6
6
6
2
2
1
1
8
_
-
—
•
_
„
.
.
.
-
Boiler
size,
MM
13
13
120
120
13
13
6
6
6
6
13.5
13.5
i
5
7.5
7.5
22.5
22.5
21
21
23
23
50
51.3
51.3
1
1
32.5
576
576
52
100
100
110
122
170
170
206
Boiler
loud,
KM
13
10.
120
90
13
9.
4.8
It.
4.
4.
11
11
A
4
6.3
6.3
16.1
18.1
12
12
16.2
16.2
40
32
32
0.8
0.8
. 26
460
460
52
100
80
110
122
170
157
206
Boiler*
type
Stok.
Stok.
Cyc.
Cyc.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Stok.
SCO .
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Stok.
Pulv.
Cyc.
Cyc.
Stok.
Stok.
Pulv.
Fulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
Pulv.
Fulv.
Fulv.
Fulv.
Wrt*
dry
B'
D
V
U
V
W
.
•
.
-
_
-
.
*
.
-
»
*
.
-
,
m
m
.
•
.
.
-
v
*•
.
.
i
.
-
„
-
-
Firing1"
pattern
HA
NA
NA
KA
11
if
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
.
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
NA
NA
NA
NA
-
T
T
T
I
T
T
T
T
T
I.
Nitrogen
content,
X
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6

-
»
-
.
-
»
-
.
-
„
-
.
-
•.
f •
m
•
-
.
•
-
.
-
• ..
-
•
• .
-
.
•
•
Exccsfl
air,
7.
'•4.6
51.1
42.0
46.2
40.7
43. 7
_
-
.
-
„
-
»
•
.
•
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
.
_
-
.
-
.
•
-
A
-
.
•
-
02 In
flue 8".
7.
7.0
7.2
6.3
6.8
6.1
' 6.5
„
m
.
-
.
-
_
-
.
-
_
-
,
-
••
••
.
.
•
.
»
-
4
-
.
•
»
-
-
.
-
-
NOXC
control
NA
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LEA
NA
LEA
NA
LRA
NA
IEA
NA
LEA
NA
LEA
NA
LCA
NA
LEA
NA
NA
LEA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SP
NA
.NA
SF
NA
NA
NA
sr
HA
NOX emissions
lb/106 Btu
0.76
0.68
2.2
1.8
0.59
0.56
0.327
0.263
0.314
0.277
0.518
0.469
0.651
0.462
0.651
0.542
0.529
0.504
0.774
0.659
0.766
0.504
0.812
1.120
1.039
0.382
0.484
0.678
0.57
0.34
0.49
0.56
0.21
0.'.9
0.50
0.76
0.60
0.71
Ib/ton
21.1
18.9
61.2
50.1
15.6
14. S
„
-
..
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
.
-
.
•
•
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
No. of
tcsti

3-4

3-4

3 -4
_
-
.
-
_
-
.
•
.
m
.
-
.
*•
m
-
•
.
•
.
to
m
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
Analys i»
«etliodd
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
FSA
_ ,'
-
*
.
_
-
w
•
.
-
.
-
.
-
•
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
.
-
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
FSA •
Ts.t
d«Ce
.
•
_
-
.
-
_
-
.
-
.
-
m
-
»
-
»
-
.
' -
.
-
-
.
•
.
•
-
*
-
,
- '
-
-
•
.
•
«
Ttlt
location
.
•
_
-
_
-
.
-
.
-
»
' -
m
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
'
.
.
-
.
•
-
.
-
.
•
-
•
•
.
"
•
tef.
74
74
74
74
74
74
61
(1
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
75
7J
76
76
76
76
76
76
74
76
o
o

-------
Table 33 (continued).
NO  TEST DATA FROM COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS
  x
                                                                    73
Boiler
No,
WC-6
WC-6
WC-6
DJ-2

DJ-2
K>€-2
EDE-2
EDE-2
C-6
C-6
C-6
to-l
. LO- 1
to-l
HBO
HB-3
RB-3
rc-4
FC-4
FC-4
1-3
1-3
N-3
N-3
N-3
B-4
B-4
B-4
DJ-4
DJ-4
BB-2
SB-2
11-2
V-l
V-l
T-l
T-l
rw-i
rw-i
No fif
no . 01
burners
16
16
16
18

18
16
16
16
16
16
16
20
20
20
40
40
40
54
54 •
54
48
48
20
20
20
20
20
20
28
28
24
24
24
16
16
16
16
24
24
Boiler
s IEC *
KM''
125
125
125
105

105
256
256
250
320
320
320
218
218
218
480
480
480
800
800
800
250
250
330
330
330
350
350
350
348
348
350
350
350
97
97
85
85
80
80
Boiler
1 nuA .
Lono >
w
125
123
100
101

99
253
256
221
350
320
260
219
218
185
490
473
400
800
794
600
250
248
314
310
256
350
300
186
306
304-
370
370
300
97
72
85
62
80
55
Bnt l»r^
ot ier
type
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.

Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv,
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Fulv.
Pulv,
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
PM!V.
Pulv.
Ui.r<
WC-t
dry
D
D
D
D

D
H
W
H
D
D
P
D
D
D
H
W
W
D
D
9
.
"
D
D
D
.
*
-
D
D
W
W
W
D
D
D
D
D
D
«r tno^
r ing
pattern
FB
FB
FB
FB

FB
FB
FB
FB
FB
FB
FB
H
n
11
H
H
.- H
H
H
H
T
T
T
T
T
T-
T
r
T
t
O(Curbo)
O(turbo)
O(turbo)
V
v-
T
T
It
n
NitroRpn
content .
7.
1.29-1.72
1.29-1.72
1.29-1.72
0.77-0.86

0.77-0.86
1,18-1.42
1.18-1.42
1.18-1.42
1.33-1.43
1.33-1.43
1.33-1.43
1.03-1.12
1.03-1.12
1.03-1.12
1.40-1.93
1.40-1.93
1. '.0-1.93
1.23-1.31
1.23-1.31
1.23-1,31
1.30-1.59
1.30-1.59
1.47-1.65
1.47-1.65
U47-1.65
1.30-1.59
1.30-1.59
1.30-1.59
t.. 77-0. 86
0.77-0.86
1.26-1.41
1.26-1.41
1.26-1.41
1.4
1.4
1.3-1.4
1.3-1.4
1.3
1.3
Exeeas
_ ,_
• ir *
.
.
-


-
.
.
*
.
.
•
.
.
-
.
*
-
.
•
•
.
-
.
-
-
.
.
-
.
•
.
-
-
45.3
48.8
29.1
25.6
35.5
37.7
02 In
flue ga* »
3.4
2.0
2.7
5.0

5.2
3.5
1.6
. 3.0
3.3
2.2
3.5
3.9
2.8
2.2
.5
.4
.6
.0
.2
.0
.1
.3
4.2
2.3
3.0
4.4
2.4
2.2
4.2
3.3
. 2.8
1.4
1.8
6.4
7.0
4.8
4.4
3.4
3.B

control
NA
Low NOXI
Low SOX1I
NA

Low NOKI
NA
Low MOXI
Low NO* I I
NA
Low KOXI
Low NOXII
NA
Low KOXI
Low NOXII
HA
Low SOXI
Low NOXII
NA
Low NOXI
Low NOXII
NA
Low N0xt
NA
Low NOXI
Low NOXII
NA
Low NOjcI
L
-------
                                     Table  33  (continued).
                                                           NO   TEST  DATA  FROM COAL-FIRED UTILITY  BOILERS
                                                              X
                                                                                                                                               73
toller
Ho.
CE-7
CE-7
CF.-6
CE-9
CE-10
CE-11
CE-U
C£-13
CE-14
CE-15
CE-16
Ct-16
-1
-I
-1
-I
-I
-1
•1
No. of
burner!
.
-
.
-
-
*
*•
.
-
-
•
*
•
a.
.
.
-
*
-
toller
• l*e,
MW
215
215
250
250
265
370
375
3)8
(26
485
565
565
125
125
125
125
125
123
125
toiler
load,
tr.i
215
158
250
250
265
370
375
378
426
485
565
395
127
127
127
162
112
112
112
toller*
type
rutv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
PulV.
PulV.
Pulv.
Fulv.
Pulv.
Pulv.
w«t«
dry
•
-
.
•
»
•
~
.
•
•
.
-
.
••
•
-
•
•
'•
Firing1"
pattern
I
T
T
T
T
T
I
I
t
I
T
T
T
I
T
T
T
T
t
Nitrogen
content,
I
„
•
.
•
.
•
m
m
.
.
.
-
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Excess
-If.
I






_
.
.
.
.
-
26
IS
6
S.i
37.S
17.5
18
02 In
flue gas,
t
*h
-
.
*
.
.
a>
.,
*
.
.
»
.
.
•
*
.
•
•I
NO/
control
m
SF
K\
KA
MA
NA
NA
KA
NA
NA
KX
SF
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
sr
NOg emission*
lb/106 Dtu
0.63
0.32
0.74
0.56
0.64
0.67
0.90
0.84
0.79
0.56
0.67
0.41
0.61
0.52
0.31
0.38
O.S7
0.38
0.29
Ib/ton
.
-
.
•
•
-
.
*
.
•
.
-
.
-
•
•
•
*
"
No. of
tciti
m
-
.
•
•
•
•
.
.
.
.
-
.
•
•
»
•
•
•
Analysis
method'1
PSA
PSA
PSA
I'SA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
PSA
Test
d«t«
.
-
.
•
-
•
.
-
.
-
m
•







Test
location
•»
-
.
•
.
•
•
-
-
*
*
-
.
•
»
•
•
'••
*
Kef.
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
77
77
77
77
77
77
77
o
NJ
 Pulv. - Pulverized
 Cyc.  - Cyclone
 Stok. - Stoker

  H • HortKontallv opposed
 Ft - Front or back wall.
  I • Trangentlal
  0 » Other
  V • Vertical

cLcv NOKI  - An optimized combination of ataged firing and lav «ccu> a)lr.
 Lou Ii0xll  - The aame as Low NOXI with red-cad load.
      LEA  - Low excess air
       SF  - Staged firing
               TR • Infrared
               UV - Ultraviolet
               CL- - Cheoiilutntncscent
             PSA - PhenoldlsuUonic acid
             *The boilers tested by Battok  were classified aa vet or dry by using PPC data.

             "lOO rW t* approximately «qu«l to 1040 x 10* Ito/hr, th. txacl .-iul»ala«y
              dtpanding on th* afficlsncy of th* unit.
             KA -. Kot applieabla
              - - Unknown

-------
                  Table 34.
o
OJ
NOX EMISSIONS FROM COAL-FIRED UTILITY BOILERS WITHOUT CONTROL AND AT

FULL LOAD - TEST DATA SUMMARY

Pulverized
Stokers
Cyclones
Pulverized, dry .
Pulverized wet
Pulverized unknown
P.D. tangential3
P.O. horizontally opposed
P.D. front walla
P.D. vertical3
P.W. tangential
P.W. horizontally opposed
P.W. front wallb
P.W. verticalb
All pulverized tangential
All pulverized horizontally opposed
All pulverized front wall
All pulverized vertical
NOV emissions - lb/10 Btu
X
•
Number of
boilers
41
11
2
13
4
24
3
2
4
1
0
2
1
0
23
4
5
1
Mean
0.68
0.57
1.66
0.74
0.82
0.60
1.00
0.88
0.55
0.77
0.93
0.64
0.89
0.89
0.55
Standard
deviation
0.19
0.18
0.76
0.25
0.17
0.09
0.34
0.21
0.25
0.12
0.28
0.19
90 percent
confidence
interval
+ 0.31
+ 0.30
± 0.41
-
-
+ 0.20
                   Pulverized  dry.
                   Pulverized wet.

-------
 shown in Figure 12 in terms of higher heat release rates and furnace exit
 temperatures.
                3400
                 1400
                         100    200    300    400
                         Heat Release Rate, 1000 Btu/sq ft. hr
                                                500
  • Figure 12.   General range of furnace-exit-gas temperature for dry ash
               and slag-tap pulverized coal-firing   (Reprinted from
               reference 78)

The  emissions  from the tangentially-fired boilers are generally lower
than the rest.   This  is also consistent with temperature differences; the
lowest  temperatures are fcund in the tangentially-fired units.79

The  data in Table 33  were  examined for the dependence of NO  emissions on
                                                            X
boiler  size.  The relationship is shown in Figure 13 in which the dis-
tinction is made between pulverized tangential and pulverized other, than
tangential-firing patterns.   No dependence is apparent.  The data in
Table 33 were also used to calculate emission factors in terms of pounds
of N02  emitted per ton of  coal burned.  These emission factors compare
with the EPA emission factors as follows:
                                  104

-------
ouu
700
600

500
>
>
2
UJ
IM
v) 400
o £
01 j
o
CD
300
•
200

100
O
X-PUUVERIZEO TANGENTIAI.
0-PULVE3IZEO OTHER
.

X
X •
X,
X
X 0 X X
X
X
X
X
XX X
X •
X
X
0
x Ox o
x x °
o
X X
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.3       0.4      0.5      0.6       0.7      0.8       0.9      1.0
                                 POUNDS OF NOX /I06  Btu
1.2
   Figure 13.  Test data of NOX emissions  from coal-fired  utility boilers

-------
                           Emission  factor  (Ib  N00/ton  coal)
Boiler type
Pulverized
Stoker
Cyclone
Table 33
15
13
37
— — - •£m-"~ -....• 	 	 	 	
EPA9 .
18
15
55
 For the pulverized  and  stoker-fired  units  the difference between emission
 factors is  about  15 percent.   For  the  cyclone units  the  difference is
 30 percent.   The  EPA emission  factors  were used  to estimate the stack
 emissions in Table  27.

 Oil - Data on N0__ emissions  from 31  oil-fired utility boilers  '   are
                X
 presented in Figure 14.   The data  correspond  to  full load operation with-
 out combustion modifications for NO  reduction.   The average NO  emis-
                                   x                           x
 sions for-the tangentially-fired units were 0.27 lb/10  Btu; the average
 NO  emissions  for the other  units were 0.55 lb/10  Btu.   These  emission
   X
 factors  compare with the  EPA emission  factors  as  follows!
                                 Emission  factor  (Ib NO  /1Q3  gal)
             Firing type                 Figure 14   EPA
         Tangential                         40        50
         Other than tangenfial              81       105
 For  the  tangentially-fired units the difference between  emission factors
 is 20 percent.  For the other units the difference is  25 percent.   The
 EPA  emission factors were used to estimate the stack emissions  in Table 27.

 Gas  - Data on NO  emissions  from 28 gas-fired  utility boilers  '   are
 presented in Figure 15-   The data correspond  to  full load operation with-
out  combustion modifications for N0x reduction.   The average NO  emissions
 for  the tangentially-fired units were  0.27 lb/10  Btu; the average NO
                                              6                        x
emissions for the other units were 0.81 lb/10  Btu.  The data in Figure 15
                                 106

-------
o
«^J
         700
          600
          500
 •  400
ui
N

W

OS
U


5  30°
CD
          200
          100

                             A
                    A

                     £
                      0.1
                        0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
                                                          POUNDS OF NO,  PER 10  Btu
                                                                                                             KEYi

                                                                                                              A TANGENTIAL

                                                                                                              O OTHER
I.I
1.2
                                      Figure 14.   Test data of NO   emissions  from oil-fired utility boilers
                                                   (from  references' 61 and 80)
1.3

-------
1 Wlwl

KEYi
A TANGENTIAL
600 h • ° OTHER
\
\


500

=5
Z 40O
Ul
w
oc
g 3 30C
0

200
100
°0
A 0
i
-
O
.

A O
0
A
.
A * A 0
A 0
» A A A A
«* A A , -
1 i I 1 1 _!__!„_ 1 1_ _ _J ^^i _!_
0.1 O.Z 03 0.4 0.5 0.6 0,7 0.8 0.9 1 .0 1,1 1.2 1 .
                       POUNDS OF N02 PER I06 Btu
Figure 15.  Test  data of NO  emissions  from  gas-fired utility boilers
            (from references 61 and 80)

-------
can be used to calculate emission  factors  in  terms of pounds of NO
emitted per million cubic  feet of  gas burned.  These emission factors
compare with the EPA emission factors as follows:
                                                            36 -.3
          Firing type                   Figure 15         EPA9
Emission factor (Ib NO _/10  ft )
      Tangential                           280            300
      Other than tangential                830            700
For the tangentially-fired units  the  difference between emission factors
is 7 percent.  For the other units  the  difference is 19 percent.  The EPA
emission factors were used to  estimate  the stack emission. "

Hydrocarbons - Stationary combustion  is a  relatively minor source of hydro-
carbons, contributing approximately 1 percent to the total nationwide
emissions in 1974.  Electric power  generation contributed 0.3 percent to
the total.  These emissions of hydrocarbons result  from.the incomplete
combustion of carbonaceous fuels.   Hydrocarbons may be emitted from com-
bustion units because of the poor mixing of the combustion gases produc-
ing localized fuel rich areas  in which  there will be insufficient oxygen
for complete combustion.
                            a
Hydrocarbons are often measured as  part of NO  control programs.  Craw-
            73
ford et al.,   in a recent study, measured hydrocarbon emissions at 12 pul-
verized coal-fired boilers during 240 test runs and found that the concen-
trations were generally below  the limit of the measuring equipment
(i.e., less than 1 ppm).  Crawford's  data  suggest an emission factor of
less than 0.02 Ib/ton.  Even when low NO  combustion methods were being
                                         A.
tested hydrocarbon emissions were near  0.02 Ib/ton.  The emission factors
                                               Q
used for Table 27 are the EPA  emission  factors;  i.e., 1 Ib/ton for coal
burning systems employing spreader  stokers and 0.3 Ib/ton for all other
boilers.9  The emission factor of 0.3 Ib/ton was derived from data pre-
sented by Cuffe et al.81  Emission  factors for oil- and gas-fired boilers
are 2 lb/103 gallons and 1 lb/106 ft  ,  respectively.
                                 109

-------
Carbon Monoxide - Stationary combustion is a relatively minor source of
carbon monoxide, contributing approximately 1 percent to the total nation-
wide emissions in 1974.  Electric power generation contributed 0.2 per-
cent to the total.  CO is formed as an intermediate product of reactions
between carbonaceous fuels and oxygen.  When less than the theoretical
amount of oxygen required for complete combustion is supplied, CO is a
final product of the reaction.  CO may also be found from the dissocia-
                                 82
tion of COp at high temperatures.
                              C02 * CO + 0
The thermodyanmic equilibrium favors the dissociation of CO  at high tem-
peratures .  Thus, increasing the temperature increases the equilibrium
concentration of CO.  Rapid quenching of the combustion products then
"freezes" the concentration of CO.

For minimum CO emissions, combustion equipment is designed for rapid
reaction rates and long reaction times.  Rapid reaction rates are pro-
moted by:  providing intimate contact between fuel and air; furnishing
sufficient but not excessive air for complete combustion; increasing the
combustion temperature by preheating the fuel and air; and minimizing
the heat loss during combustion of the fuel.  After complete combustion,
slow cooling of the gases promotes complete oxidation of CO to CO-.

Control of CO emissions is attained by proper adjustment of the air-fuel
ratio.  Insufficient air for complete combustion will produce high con-
centrations of CO.  Excess air which lowers the combustion temperature
below the optimum will also increase the concentration of CO.  Insuffi-
cient mixing of the gases in the combustion units will produce localized
fuel rich areas which promote the formation of CO.

Carbon monoxide is often measured as part of NO  control programs.   One
such study involved 12 pulverized coal-fired boilers in the range  105  to
       73
800 MW.    The reported CO emissions had a mean of 1.6 4- 0.6  Ib/ton  at
                                 110

-------
a 95 percent confidence level.  The emission factors used for Table 27 are
the EPA emission factors (AP-42).9  For utility boilers the emission factor
is 1 pound of CO per ton of coal burned except for stoker-fired boilers
for which the emission factor is 2 Ib/ton.  Emission factors for oil- and
gas-fired utility boilers are 3 Ib/ton 1000 gallons and 17 lb/106 ft ,
respectively.

Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM) - Emissions of organic materials from
utility boilers are presented in Table 27  for benzene soluble organic
matter (BSO), particulate polycyclic organic matter (PPOM), and benzo(a)
pyrene (BaP).  These estimates are based on data given in references 37, 74,
and 83.  Emissions of POM are largely due  to incomplete combustion and
as a result  the combustion efficient utility boilers are only minor sources
of POM.    The importance of combustion efficiency is illustrated in
Figure 16 where BaP emission rates are plotted against gross heat input
for various  combustion units.  The lowest  emissions are representative
of utility boilers; the highest emission rate sources are representative
of residential heating units.

Most source  estimates of POM are for BaP rather than PPOM and in addition
the limited  amount of data oh POM and PPOM are not easily compared.  Many
compounds comprising POM are volatile 5 at typical stack temperatures
but condense at ambient temperatures onto  fly ash particles after leaving
the stack.   Thus the differentiation between PPOM and total POM is de-
pendent upon whether these emissions are sampled in stack or after emerg-
ing from the stack.  No estimates have been found for total POM; however,
                                   Q£
Table 35, from a 1973 Mitre report,   lists total annual POM emissions
from coal, oil and gas utility plants.  It is interesting to note that in
the case of  coal-fired boilers the Mitre estimates are similar to thoss
given in Table 27 for BSO estimates.
                                 Ill

-------
10
  -I
   10
GROSS HEAT  INPUT TO  FURNACE, I0e  Btu/hr
Figure 16.  Benzo(a)pyrene emissions from coal,  oil,  and
            natural gas heat-generation processes*^
                      112

-------
                     Table 35.  TOTAL POM EMISSIONS,
                                MITRE ESTIMATE86
Power plant boilers
Pulverized coal
Stoker coal
Cyclone- coal
All oil
All gas
Annual emission
in tons
8,980
1,032
310
7,675
6,151
The data given in Table 36 are taken from references 74 and 83 and rep-
resent the PPOM found by summation of the emissions of the following
10 POM compounds:
    •   Pyrene                »   Anthanthrene
    •   Benzo{a)pyrene        •   Coronene
    *   Benzo(e)pyrene        •   Anthracene
    •   Perylene              •   Phenanthrene
    •   Benzo(ghi)perylene    •   Fluoranthene
Using the mean value from the reported data and the heat input from coal
used by steam-electric plants, the annual emissions of PPOM we're calculated.
Tangentially-fired boilers make up 50 percent of the capacity of coal-
fired power plants, but only two values were reported for them.  These
two values have a mean of approxim.
than the mean value for all types.
two values have a mean of approximately 1,000 yg/10  Btu,  which is higher
Emissions of BaP from oil- and gas-fired sources were low in comparison
to emissions from coal-fired sources, as shown in Figure 16.  Detectable
concentrations of BaP were found in only two of the six oil-fired units
tested.  Similarly BaP was detected in only two of the five gas-fired
units tested.  The estimates given in Table 27 are based on an estimated
rate of 10 yg/10  Btu of total PPOM.
                                  113

-------
              Table 36.  SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE PPOM DATA
Boiler type
Vertically fired, dry bottom
Vertically fired, dry bottom
Vertically fired, dry bottom
Vertically fired, dry bottom
Frontwall fired, dry bottom
Frontwall fired, dry bottom
Tangential, dry bottom
Opposed, downward inclined, wet bottom
Opposed, downward inclined, wet bottom
Opposed, downward inclined, wet bottom
Vertical
Tangential
Frontwall
Horizontally opposed
•
Cyclone
Cyclone
Mean, all tests
Standard deviation
PPOM,
yg/106 Btu
419
319
736
473
646
194
1,019
1,103
454
345
374
984
309
1,326
1,943
3,354
885
787
Reference
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
83
74
74
74
74
74
83"


Btu input, coal power plants, 1974

Total annual PPOM emissions from
  coal-fired power plants
8.5 x 10

9.5 tons
                                                              15
                               114

-------
Estimates of benzene soluble organics and BaP were calculated for coal
using the data presented in reference 83.  Values for oil and gas were
obtained using the same ratios of PPOM/BaP and PPOM/benzene soluble
organics obtained for coal.

                  181
Only one reference    reported data for emissions of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) from combustion.  The average emission rate from a
125 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler was 0.8 mg/lO^ Btu.  Assuming the
same emission rate for all coal-fired boilers, the total PCB emissions
from coal would be 7.5 tons per year.  No data were found for emissions
of other polyhalogenated hydrocarbons (PHH) from coal and no data were
found for any PHH emissions from oil or gas.

Trace Elements - Much of the discussion that follows deals with trace
element emissions from the combustion of coal.  These emissions are much
greater than those from oil or gas because the concentrations of most
trace elements are greatest in coal.  Trace elements present in ap-
preciable amounts in petroleum are Ni, V, and Na.  No trace ele-
ments are present in appreciable amounts in gaseous hydrocarbons.

The concentration levels of such toxic trace elements as Sb, As, Be,
Cd, F, Pb, Hg, Se, Tl, and V have been shown to be two to three orders
of magnitude greater in urban aerosols (0.1 to 10 pm) than in the earth's
      OQ Q*7
crust.  '    Particulates from coal combustion have been examined as a
                               88
major source of these elements;   however, it has been found that the
concentrations of most trace elements on fly ash particles produced, by
coal combustion are one to two orders of magnitude less than in the
urban aerosols.  Nevertheless, because the trace elements are concen-
trated largely on the surfaces of fly ash particles from which they may
be readily desorbed following inhalation, trace element emissions from
coal combustion pose a possible health hazard.
                                115

-------
Almost every naturally-occurring element has been detected in coal.  '
References to minor and trace elements in coal are listed in Table 37.
Attempts to characterize the trace element content of coal and to deter-
mine the fate of trace elements following combustion have had limited
success.  The chemical composition of coal varies greatly from one de-
posit to another even in the same seam and it is therefore difficult
                                                39-42 90 91
to extract a representative sample for analysis.     '  '    The ash con-
tent is dependent upon the care taken in mining, especially when there are
ore beds nearby, and the cleaning and coal preparation processes used.

Considerable attention has been given to the development of accurate and
reliable methods for the analysis of coal but adequate methods have be-
                                                              92
come available only recently.  In a recent EPA-sporisored study   instru-
mental neutron activation analysis (INAA) was used in four laboratories
to measure trace element concentrations in coal and fly ash samples pre-
pared by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS).  For most of the 37 ele-
ments measured in the coal and the 41 elements measured in the fly ash,
agreement among the laboratories was good; and for the 12 elements for
which NBS had assigned values agreement with the NBS values was good.
The results of the 1974 study are shown in tables 38 and 39.
Trace elements are transferred during combustion to particles which range
in size from less than 0.1 ym to greater than 100 ym.     Particulate
control devices remove most of the large particles and substantial amounts
of the small particles from the combustion gases leaving the furnace, but
because of variations in equipment design, emissions to the atmosphere
from a given unit must be determined by stack gas sampling.  Many trace
elements are concentrated on the surfaces of particles with the highest
concentrations found on the smallest particles.  Groups at Oak Ridge
National Laboratories,     '   *   '    the University of Colorado,   '
the University of Illinois at Urbana,85'89'96'101'106 and the University
            87 97 107
of Maryland,  '  '    have studied the dependence of concentration on
particle size in efforts to complete mass balances for power plant units.
                                116

-------
Table 37.  MINOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL
Element
Actinium
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Astatine
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Boron
Bromine
Cadmium
Calcium
Cerium
Cesium
Chlorine3
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Fluorine
Francium
Gado linium
Gallium
Germanium
Ha f nium
Holmium
Iodine
Iron
Symbol
Ac
Al
Sb
'As
At
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Ca
Ce
Cs
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
Dy
Er
Eu
F
Fr
Gd
Ga
Ge
Hf
Ho
I
Fe
References

38, 40, 41, 93-96

38, 40, 41, 93-98

40, 42, 91, 93, 95
38-42, 91, 96, 98
40, 96
39-42, 91
40, 41, 91, 93, 94S 97 .
38, 40-42, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98
38, 40-41, 94, 96
40, 91, 93, 94
40, 91, 93, 94
40, 91, 93, 94
39-42. 91, 93, 94, 96, 98
39-41, 91, 93, 94, 96
39-42, 91, 93-96, 98
40
40
40, 91, 94
38, 40-42, 91

40
39-41, 93, 94
39-41
40, 93, 94
40
40, 97
39-42, 91, 93-96
                  117

-------
Table 37 (continued).  MINOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL
Element -
Lanthanum
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
3,
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Neodymium
Nickel
Niobium
Phosphorus
Polonium
•a
Potassium
Praseodymium
Protactinium
Radium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Tantalum
Tellurium
Terbium
Thallium
Thorium
Thulium
Symbol
La
Pb
Li
'Lu
Mg
Mn
Hg
Mo
Nd
Ni
Nb
P
Po
K
Pr
Pa
Ra
Rb-
Sm
Sc
Se
Si
Ag
Na
Sr
Ta
Te
Tb
Tl
Th
Tm
References
39, 40, 91-94
38, 40-42, 93-98
40, 42, 91
40
38, 40-42, 93, 94, 96
40-42, 91, 94, 96, 98
38, 40-42, 93-95, 97-99
39-41, 91, 93-95
40
39-42, 91, 93, 94, 98
40, 95
40, 41
95
38, 40-42, 91, 93, 94, 96
40


40, 93-95
40, 93, 94
40, 91, 93, 94
38, 40-42, 91, 93-98, 100
38, 40-42, 93, 94, 96
40, 42, 91
38, 40, 42, 91, 93, 94
40, 42, 93-95
40, 91, 93, 94
40
40, 91
40, 96
40, 93, 94
40
                     118

-------
        Table 37 (continued) .  MINOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL
Element
Tin
3
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Ytterbium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Symbol
Sn
Ti
W
. U
V
Yb
Y
Zn
Zr
References
39-42, 96
38-41, 93, 94, 96
40
40, 93, 94
38, 40-42, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98
40, 91
39, 40, 95
40-42, 91, 93-96, 98
40, 41, 95
            Minor elements:  about 1 percent or more,
                             on ash basis.
The process by which trace elements are enriched on the smallest par-
ticles seems to begin in the combustion zone with the volatilization
of some chemical species containing the element.  Beyond the combustion
zone, condensation and adsorption on particulate surfaces takes place.
Because the rate of adsorption is dependent .linearly on surface area,
the highest concentrations occur on those particles with the greatest
ratio of surface area to volume; i.e., the smallest particles.

Trace elements can be classified by their degree of enrichment in fly
ash.  The disposition of minor and trace elements during combustion
and a qualitative estimate of the degree of their enrichment in fly
ash are presented in Table 40.  Elements listed in Table 40, which are
enriched in fly ash or volatilized, are generally found in coal in the
form of sulfides which are more volatile than silicates which are gen-
erally the forms of the elements not enriched.
                                119

-------
IS)
o
                                     Table 38.   ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS  IN NBS COAL  (SRM1632)
                                                                    UNLESS  %  INDICATED)
                                                                                                                 92



Element
Nl
X? CO
Ai «)
Cl
K (ro
CJ U)

EC
II

V
Cr
X.i
Fo (Z)
Co
;;l
in
As

Se
3r
Kb
Sr
Ac
In
Sb
Cs
El
La
Ce
Sa
r.u
7b
Yb

lit
Ta
w
Th

U

M.iryl.-ind

Oncorur.nt Ion
199 20
0.1') 0.02
1.73 0.13
970 liO
0.*>7 0.01
0.41 0.03
0.47 0.06C
3.7 0.15
960 lUD
a 30 2ooc
37 1
19.7 0.8
41 * 2
0.8'j 7 0.06
5.6 + 0,2

30 + 10
5.7 + 0.2
8 + 2C
3.1 + 0.3
20 + 4
20 + 2°



4.3 + 3.0
1.4 + 0.1
3 JO + 20
11.3 +0.5
20.4 0.3
1.83 0.07
0.33 0.03
0.22 0.05
0.7 0.1
0.1-1 0.01
0.95 0.05
0.21 0.02
0.87 0.10
3.0 + 0.2


No. of
determinations
9
5
6
12
5
2
3
6
3
3
5
5
6
6
6

4
J
3
5 -
5
3



6
5
6
5
6
13
6
5
5
6
5
7
5
6



11. HI I' 1 If
cop. evil t r JL ion
(6 deteraiinnt ions
unl'-ss noted)
lilt) * 10''
0.21 + 0.07
1.73 + 0.08
HilO + 200
0.2.1 ^ 0.01
0.2 HI + 0.00»b

3.4 + 0.3
1 100 + 200

31 + 4
IV + 2
41 + 6
0,»1 + 0.07
5.2 +' 0.4
11) + 4

5.7 + 0.5

3.3 + 0.4
17 5" 2
19 + 2
1.70 + 20
0.06 + 0.03

3.7 + *,0
1.4 * 0.1
390 + 20
10.5 '£ 0.5

1.7 +0.3
0.28 -l 0.01
0.23 + 0.06


0.97 + 0.1
0.23 + 0.05

1.4 + 0.6
3.45 + 0.10^'j
1.41 + 0.07 •
I.lvcrimire
cl)nv<-nt r.it lun .
5
diitcrplna t i,ong
e.ioh
311 + 22
"
2.0 + 0.1
71.0 4 1,0
0.2ff> + 0.008
0.42 + 0.07

3.9 + 0.2
1100 + 100

3S + 1
19 + 1
41 + 3
0.«2 f 0.04
6.0 + O.J


5.0 + 0.7

3.5 + 0.4
19+2



0.20 + 0.12
4.1 + 5.3

327 + 19
9.1 + 0.6
18.5 + 0.7
1.48 + 0.07
0.32 + 0.01



0.72 + 0.06

0.6 + 0.3
3.0 + 0.2


_ ._ — — i — _ — — — ~ 	 „____„„
W.i'ili tn^ton st.'itc

Concent rat ion
424 + 20


1023 4 W
0.1J + 0.10


3.9 + 0.4
1140 + 60

37.7 + 1.2
21 + 2

O.K7 + 0.07
5.9 + 0.4
20 + 4

8.0 + 0.4

3.7 + 0.4
21.4 + 0.7
23 + 2
152 + 21


3.3 + 1.1
1.49 + 0.12
360 + 35
11.9 + 0.5


0.33 + 0.04



0.72 + 0.10
0.29 + 0.05

3.1 + 0.2


No. of
determinations
5


5
5


21
4

4
16

21
21
10

5

11
5
11
21


15
11
14
5


10



21
21

16



Avc r:i ge

Concentration
414 + 20
0.20 + 0.05
1.S5 + 0.13
390 + 125
0.28 + 0.03
0.43 £ 0.05

3.7 + 0.3
1040 £ 110

36+3
19.7 + 0.9.
43 + 4
0.84 + 0.04
5.7 + 0.4
18 + 4
30 + 10
6.5 + 1.4

1.4 + 0.2
19.3 + 1.9
21 + 2
161 + 16
0.06 + 0.03
0.10 + O.i2
3.9 + 1.3
1.4 -f 0.1
352 + 10
10.7 I 1.2
19.5 + 1
1.7 + 0.2
0.13 + 0.04
0.23 + 0.05
0.7 -^ 0.1
0.1'. + 0.01
0.96 + 0.05
0.24 + 0.04
0.75 + 0.17
3.2 + 0.2

1.41 + 0.07
No. of
values
3
2
3
4
5
3

4
5

4
4
3
4
4
2
1
5

4
4
3
2
1
1
4
3
4
4
2
3
4
2
1
1
3
3
2
5

1
                        a-.
                         Twelve determinations.
                        ^Determined by dlre:t -r-ray counting of natural radioactivity.
                        CDctcmined by instrumental photon activation analysis.
                        dOn* sample of 100 g was counted five tines for 1000 rain each.

-------
N>
                                  Table  39.   ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS  IN NBS FLY ASH  (SRM1633)
                                                          (yg/g UNLESS  % INDICATED)
                                                                                                                 92



Element
Na
«s (;•>
AI r.>
'il (>.)
C'.
K C)
Ca (<>

S;
Ti

V
Cr '
>:.T
Ke «)
Co
M
£n
As

5e
Er
Kb
Sr
Y
Zr
In
S»

t
Cs
Ba
U
Ce
S3
Eu
Tb
Yb
La
Hf
Ta
w
Pb
Tn

U

M.iryl.iml

ConcentrnL Ion
3400 + 200
I.V) 4 0.16
U.2 + 0.5
7! + 2*
« + 10
l.'-O t 0.08
4.2 + 0.4
5.3 t 0.5*
27 t 1
i-j.io .*" 4no
73M- + •', I0a
2M +" ;•>
! 10 + 6
509 V :o
6.2 + 0.3
4i.2 + 1.6
9J f 'j'1
no + :5a
60 t 2.5
61.5 +• 3.0a
10.3 + 1.4

126 + 10a

62 4- 10a
301 4 20a

7.8 + 0.7
7.0 * 1.1*
2.9 T 1.2a
7.9 4 0.9
27CO + 200
82 + 3
156 * 12
13.8 + 0.0
2.9 + 0.2
1.7 + 0.25
5.1 + 0.8
1.0 4 O.I
7.9 + 0.4
1.F.4 ? 0.13
5.7 + 1.0
75 ? 5"
23.5 + 1.0


No. nf
Jetormin.itlona
9
6
5
3
&
5
3
3
7
3
3
• 6
7
8
7
6

R.tl f-cl 1 ••
coivonlr.itlcn
(6 (!»•( frniM.it Ions
unlrsH Tinted)
17IW 4 2(10
• 2.im + o.vi
12. (> + 0.4


1.71 4_ 0.03b


27 4 1
76UO + 800

220 4- 15
131 4 8
*89 + 11
6.5 i 0.3
40 + 2
2
3
9
5
5

2

3
2

9
3

5
7
6
8
8
7
5
5
8
7
6
5
2
6



6145

8.8 4- 1.2
12 + 4
124 + 10
1900 + 200



7.2 +0.8


9.9 + 0.8
3400 + 400
82 + 4C

12.4 + 0.5°
2.3 + 0.1
2.0 +0.3
6.9 + 0.9

8.2 + 0.8
1.7 + 0.3
. ~
•
2» t 2 b d
26.2 4 1.3°'°
12.0 + 0.5°>d
tt wrnore
concent r.it inn.
(U't.rrniIn.H Ions
each
2800 4 200

12.3 4j 0.6


1.4 + 0.1
4.5 4 0.3
~
?n + 2
72(.U 4 700

244 + 24
126 + 10
50(. + 23
5.8 + 0.3
42 + 2


52 + 3

11.5 + 1.4





0.32 + 0.10
6.'. + 0.4



2600 200
65 7
135 7
11.1 0.7
2.2 0.2



B.2 + 0.8

3.5 + 1.1

2J + 1



W:t s h i n)*, t 2 + 10
301 + 20
0.32 + 0.10
6.9 + 0.6

2.9 + 1.2
8.6 + 1.1
2700 + 200-
S2 * 2
146 + 15
12.4 + 0.9
2.5 + 0.4
1.9 + 0.3
7 + 3
1.0 + 0.1
7.9 + 0.4
l.S + 0.3
4.6 + 1.6
75 +" 5
24.8 + 2.2

12.0 + 0.5
No. of
values
4
2
3
1
1
4
3

4
5

4
4
4
4
4
2
1
5

3
I
3
2
1
1
1
3

1
3
4
3
2
3
4
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
i

1
                         "uone by Instrumental photon activation analysis.
                          Done by 
-------
Table 40.  DISPOSITION OF MINOR AND TRACE ELEMENTS
           DURING COMBUSTION

 Minor and trace elements not enriched in fly ash
Element
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Bismuth
Calcium
Cerium
Cobalt
Europium
Hafnium
Iron
Lanthanum
Magnesium
Niobium
Potassium
Rubidium
Samarium
Scandium
Silicon
Strontium
Tantalum
Thorium
Tin
Titanium
Yttrium
Symbol
Al
• Ba
Be
Bi
Ca
Ce
Co
Eu
Hf
Fe
La
Mg
Nb
K
Rb
Sm
Sc
Si
Sr
Ta
Th
Sn
Ti •
Y
References
94-96, 103, 104
94, 103, 104
103, 104
103
94, 96, 104
94, 103
94, 96, 103
94
94, 103
94-96, 103, 104
94, 103
94, 96, 103, 104
95
94, 96, 103
94, 95, 103
94, 103
94, 103
94, 96, 103
94, 95, 103
94, 103
94, 103
103
94, 96, 103, 104
95
                      122

-------
Table 40 (continued).  DISPOSITION OF MINOR AND
                       TRACE ELEMENTS DURING
                       COMBUSTION

 Minor and trace elements enriched in fly ash
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Gallium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Polonium
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Symbol
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ga
Pb
Hg
Ni
Po
Se
Tl
Zn
References
94-97, 103, 104
94-98, 103
38, 94, 96, 103, 104
94, 96, 103, 104
94-96, 103, 104
94, 103
94-98, 103, 104
94, 95, 97-99, 103, 104
94, 96, 103, 104
95
94-98, 100, 103, 104
96
94-96, 103, 104
Minor and trace elements partially volatilized
               during combustion
Element
Arsenic
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorine
Fluorine
Iodine
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Symbol
As
Br
Cd
Cl
F
I
Pb
Hg
Se
References
94-98, 103
94, 97, 103
38, 94, 96, 103
94, 103
42
97
94-98, 103
94, 95, 97-99, 103
94-98, 100, 103
                     123

-------
A list of trace elements was made that included those known to be poten-
tially hazardous or of interest to EPA.  Mass balances reported by groups
at the University of Colorado,95'105 the University of Maryland,87'97'107
                           9/.                                Q^ 04 mi
Midwest Research Institute.,   Oak Ridge National Laboratories^'^'""^
and Radian    were used to calculate for each trace element the fraction
emitted to the atmosphere.  These data are presented in Table 41.  Dif-
ferences in stack emissions are due to differences in coal properties and
furnace design, as well as difficulties in analytical procedures.  Because
of the uncertainties in the data only one parameter was developed for
each element and this parameter, derived from pulverized coal studies, was
applied to all categories of coal combustion.
        i no
Battelle    has estimated that the radioactivity emitted by a 175 MW
coal-fired boiler is in the range of 19-54 millicuries/year or 0.1-0.3
millicuries/MW.  An earlier estimate   indicated a maximum of 200
millicuries/year for a similar sized plant .or 1.1 millicuries/MW.  Radio-
active emissions will vary widely from plant to plant depending on the
coal source.  Lignites have a higher uranium content (about 80 ppm) than
                                38
bituminous coals (about 10 ppm).    The quantity of radioisotopes emitted
will also depend on the types present, the effect of furnace operating
parameters and the effects of control equipment.

More important than the total quantity of radioactivity emitted by coal-
fired power plants, which appears to be relatively small, is the type of
isotopes emitted and their physical states.  Similar to trace elements
all naturally occurring radioisotopes are probably present in coal.
        95 179
Kaakinen  '    has measured radium 226, polonium 210 and lead 210 in coal,
bottom ash and fly ash at a coal-fired power plant.  Lead 210 and polonium
                                     95
210 were concentrated in the fly ash.    It is suspected that volatile
radioisotopes such as lead 210, polonium 210, bismuth 210 and radium
daughter products are concentrated either in the flue gas or fine par-
ticulates.   Because fine particulates are controlled less effectively
than the larger particles and because fine particulates deposit  in  the
                                 124

-------
   Table  41.   TRACE ELEMENT STACK EMISSIONS  FROM COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS

Element
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bt
8
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fa
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ho
Nt
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Valmorit
A
14
14









19

4.6
28

89
27

80






24
3.3
Chalk point
A
32
33
6



98


10
11



34
0
84

17
52



17

• 25
23
17
Widows creek
A
88

40
44



82
95
35
58
43
97
0
66
19
60

40
12
87

84
26

44
69

B


26
26





39
11
30

20
43
25


35

4.6

4.7
32

29
30

Allen0
A
0
8
0




0

0
0


0
13
0



45



2
0
0
22

B
27
3.4
0.31



100
2.3
97
1.2
0.64


0.70
2.5
0.81
56


12



0.71
0.67
1.4
2.3

Station I
B
1.1
9.1
1.1
0.52

4.8

15
•
13
0.22
9.8
2.1
0.79
4.2
0.45
59
33
4.0
2.7



0.25
1.5
2.9
3.7

Stntlon 1IR
B
3.6
0.90
<0.1
<2.9

5.9

3.2
100
13
2.0
0.8
8.3
0.90
5.2
1.5

9.4
2.8
15



0.75
0.70
2.5
4.2

StnUon IIlh
B
69
21
<2.3
7.1

62

50
100
47
56
28
96
18
62
13
100
100

83



9.4
14
28
66

CCA estimate1

25
25
15
25
25
25
100
35
100
25
10
25
100
10
35
25
90
25
25
70
25
25
25
25
25
30
25
10
Values in the table represent  fractions in coal, expressed as %,  released to the atmosphere.  Values in
column A were calculated from analyses of ashes collected from the unit; values in column B were calculated
from analyses of fly ash and  flue  gas sampled from the stack.

bThese data were obtained in  a  University of Colorado study95'    from a 180 MW pulverized coal-fired unit.
The unit was fitted with an economizer, a mechanical dust collector,  and both an electrostatic precipitator
and a wet scrubber which had  been  installed in parallel.

CThese data were obtained in  a  University of Maryland study87'97'109  from a 355 MW wet bottom pulverized
coal-fired unit.  The unit was  fitted with an economizer and an electrostatic precipitator. The study was
not designed particularly to  produce a mass balance.

BThese data were obtained in  a  Midwest Research Institute study2  from a 125 MW dry bottom pulverized coal-
fired unit fitted with an economizer and a mechanical dust collector.  The unit was not fitted with an
electrostatic precipitator.

eThese data were obtained in  an Oak Ridge National Laboratories study93'94'102"104 of a 290 MW crushed coal-
fired cyclone unit fitted with  an  economizer and a high efficiency electrostatic precipitator.

fThese data were obtained in  a  Radian study104 from a 330 MW pulverized subbitumlnous coal-fired unit fitted
with high efficiency venturi  scrubbers.

EThese data were obtained in  a  Radian study104 from a 350 MW pulverized subbiluminous coal-fired unit fitted
with a high efficiency electrostatic precipitator.

hThese data were obtained in  a  Radian study104 from a 250 MW crushed  lignite-fired cyclone unit fitted with a
mechanical dust collector.

'These estimates of trace element  emissions apply strictly to pulverized coal-fired units only.  They were
made after L-xnmining the mass balances from the Valmont, Chalk Point, Widows Creek station I and station II
units, all of which burn pulverized coal, and other trace element  studies not involving mass
balances85,89,96,101,10b  ln  addltion they are based OT national average contact device characteristics.
                                                 125

-------
 lungs, radioisotopes may be a problem even though the amounts emitted are
 not  large.  The National Atmospheric Research Center plans to measure
 radioisotope emission as a function of particle size.

 Total radioactive emissions from coal based on 1 millicurie per megawatt
 capacity are estimated to be 200,000 millicuries/year.   Emissions of lead •
 210, polonium 210 and radium 226 are estimated to be 30,000, 30,000 and
 600  millicuries/year.

 Internal Combustion

 The  generation of electricity by utilities via internal combustion accounts
 for  0.08 percent of total particulates, 0.02 percent of sulfur oxides,
 2.2  percent of nitrogen oxides, 0.04 percent of hydrocarbons, and 0.03
 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from all man-made sources.  It ac-
 counts for 0.4 percent of total particulates, 0.03 percent of sulfur
 oxides, 4.9 percent of nitrogen oxides, 9.9 percent of hydrocarbons, and
 3.8  percent of carbon monoxide emissions from stationary combustion
 sources.

 The  major pollutant from gas turbines is nitrogen oxides.  The nitrogen
 oxides are formed in the high temperature region of the combustor.  Re-
 generative cycles increase the combustor temperature thus increasing the
 amount of nitrogen oxides produced.

 The major pollutant from reciprocating engines is nitrogen oxide, although
 significant amounts of carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons are also
 produced.  Diesel engines produce greater quantities of pollutants  than
 spark engines.  Total nationwide emission estimates of particulates
 (including <3 micron diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen
 oxides,  hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, polycyclic organic matter  and
 trace elements are presented in Table 42.  The estimates are based  on
                             9
 the EPA-NEDS emission factors  listed in Table 43 and on the methods
described in the notes following Table 42.
                                 126

-------
                    Table 42.  EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION3
to
-4
•
1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
1.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
t
1.2.30.0.0 Gas
1.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
1.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.3.30.0.0 Gas
1.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
1.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.4.30.0.0 Gas
Particulates,
103 tons/yr
Total
4,500
28
26
1.9
6.7
5.1
0
5.1
1.6
21
21
21
0.33

-------
           Table 42 (continued).  EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION8

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
1.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.2.30.0.0 Gas
1.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
1.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.3.30.0.0 Gas
1.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
1.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.4.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Sb
51




0
ND


ND
ND

As
3,000
0.065
0.065

0.06
0.06
0
0.06

0.005
0.005
0.005

Ba
2,700




0
ND


ND
ND

Be
230




0






Bi
98




0






B
5,000




0






Br
5,600
0.086
0.086

0.08
0.08
0
0.08

0.006
0.006
0.006

Cd
200




0
ND


ND
ND

Cl
590,000




0






Cr'
1,500




0
ND


ND
ND

00

-------
          Table 42  (continued).   EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION "OF ELECTRICITY BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION2

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion1*
1.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.2.30.0.0 Gas
1.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
1.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.3.30.0.0 Gas
1.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
1.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.4.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Co
320
i



0






Cu
2,000
0.043
0.043

0.04
0.04
0
0.04

0.003
0.003
0.003

F
31,000



0




•

Fe
131,000



0






Pb
1,200



0






Mn
4500
0.13
0.13

0.12
0.12
0
0.12

0.01
0.01
0.01

Hg
48



0
ND


ND
ND

Mo
510



0






Hi
4,900



0
ND


ND
ND

Ss
740



0
ND


ND
ND

VO

-------
            Table  42 (continued).  EMISSIONS FROM THE GENERATION OF ELECTRICITY BY  INTERNAL  COMBUSTION3

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion15
1.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.2.30.0.0 Gas
1.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
1.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
1,3.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.3.30.0.0 Gas
1.4.00.0,0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
1.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.4.30.0.0 Gas
G
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Te
28



0






Tl
9.3



0






Sn
100
1.1
1.1
0.82
0.82
0
0.82

0.30
0.30
0.30

Ti
55,000
*



0






u
1,500



0






V
6,700



0
ND


ND
ND

Zn
2,000



0
ND


ND
ND

Zr
. 1800

1

0






u>
o
          Values in the table represent total estimated  emissions to the atmosphere from conventional stationary combustion
         sources in the continental United States.   An entry of "ND" signifies that a trace element has not been detected
         when measured and an entry left blank signifies that no information is available.  The emission factors used for
         this table are givm in Table 43.
          Capacities and fuel consumption were taken from reference 6-.  The emissions were calculated by multiplying the
         emission factor by the fuel consumption for each pollutant and each fuel.    The sulfur content for distillate oil
         of 0.225 percent was taken from reference  110.
         CNo information was available on emissions of <3 micron particles.

          No information was available on emissions of organics.

         6The internal combustion emissions for the trace elements were calculated  by multiplying the fuel consumption by
         the trace element content of each fuel.  For distillate oil reference 46 reported concentrations for As, Br, Cu,
         Hn, and Sn and reported that Sb, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Hi, Se, V, and Zn were not detectable.  Hydrocarbon gases were
         assumed to be free of'trace elements.

-------
      Table 43.  EMISSION FACTORS
                 ESTIMATES, TABLE
FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION EMISSION
42
-
1.0.00.0.0 Electric generation
1.2.00.0.0 Internal combustion
1.2.20.0.0 Petroleum13
1.2.30.0.0 Gasc
1.3.00.0.0 Internal combustion/
gas turbine
1.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.3.21.0.0 Residual oil
1.3.22.0.0 Distillate oil
1.3.30.0.0 Gas
1.4.00.0.0 Internal combustion/
reciprocating engine
1.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.4.22.0.0 Distillate oil
1.4.30.0.0 Gas
Particulates3
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
X
5
14
NA
33.5
33.5
14
Gasesa
S0x
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144S
X
144S
0.6
NA
144S
144S
0.6
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
68
X
68
413
NA
469
464
3000
HC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6
X
5.6
42
NA
375
375
42
CO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15.4
X
15.4
115
NA
102
102
115
 Abbreviations used in the table have the following meanings •

     S = Multiply by weight percent sulfur

     X = Fuel consumed in this combustion system is small; emission
         is assumed to be negligible.

    NA = Emissions for this combustion system were calculated as the
         total of emissions from the appropriate subsystems.

 The emission factors for oil give values in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 1000 gallons of oil burned.^

°The emission factors for gas give values in terms of pounds of pollu-
tant per 10  cubic feet of gas burned.*
                                131

-------
To obtain state emission estimates for purposes of assigning priorities
to the various combustion systems it will be necessary to prorate the
nationwide values b~y multiplying by the ratio of the fuel consumption in
a state  (ton/year) to the fuel consumption nationwide (ton/year).  Fuel
consumption estimates by state are provided in Appendix B.

ASH HANDLING EMISSIONS

Steam electric utility plants produce ash as a waste product of combustion.
The ash  is transported to a disposal system by either wet (sluicing) or
dry (pneumatic) conveyance.  Most utility plants (approximately 80 per-
     23
cent)    dispose of ash in settling ponds or basins with a wastewater
overflow.  The characteristics of the waste water are related to the
physical and chemical properties of the ash and to the volume and initial
quality  of fhe water used.  The quantity of water discharged and the
concentration.and composition of suspended and dissolved solids in the
wastewater stream will depend upon wastewater characteristics and plant
equipment and practices.  Air emissions will occur as a result of wind
erosion  of landfill and from the dry collection and transport of ash.
Ground and surface water contamination can result from leaching of waste
water from landfill and settling ponds.
                            «

Ash Generated

The total amount of ash generated by utility boilers is available from
                          23
data on  file with the FPC.    Their data, after extrapolation of 1972
fuel consumption and ash generation data, yield a value of approximately
49,000,000 tons in 1974.  Our estimate of total ash collected, as pre-
sented in Table 44 after adjustment for fuel consumption and application
of emission controls, is approximately 47,000,000 tons in 1974.  This
estimate is somewhat higher than values of 40,000,000 tons and 43,000,000
tons given in references 36 and 111 after adjustment for 1974 fuel  con-
sumption.  Variations are due to differences in values assumed for  control
                                 132

-------
efficiencies, fuel consumption, and average ash content of the fuel.  Total
fly ash collected is estimated to be 34 million tons per year in 1974,
with other estimates (for 1975) ranging from  32 to 36 million tons per
     112,113            •
year.   '

The relative contribution of the bottom ash and fly ash to the total was
calculated using NEDS boiler population data  and the NEDS value for fly
ash production by boiler type adjusted for the application of control.
Bottom ash is about 27.5 percent of the total ash generated on the basis
of such calculations.  However, the 27.5 percent bottom ash estimate is
appreciably lower than that given in reference 114.  This reference
indicates that bottom ash (including boiler slag) accounted for about
36 percent of the total ash produced by utilities in 1971.  The data pre-
sented in reference 114 were based on an Edison Electric Institute survey
of essentially all U.S. power plants.  The difference between the two
estimates may'be partially due to the high particulate emission factor
values used by NEDS for pulverized dry boilers.

Disposal Methods

Information concerning the prevalence of disposal methods was based on FPC
data and reference 114.  The FPC data were analyzed to obtain an estimate
of ponding as a disposal option.  Based on fuel consumption, 80 percent
of coal-fired utilities indicate that ponding is used as a disposal option.
(As yet no definitive information concerning  the application of lined ponds
has been found.)  The extent of landfill operations was determined by
difference.  The values reported in acres per year represent that area
                                                                        2
(25 feet deep) which is needed to contain the dry ash (density 100 Ib/ft ).
Actual pond area requirements will greatly exceed the number reported in
Table 44.115

The commercial utilization of ash has increased in recent years with the
marked increase, shown for 1971 in Table 45,  due to an increase in the use
                                 133

-------
Table 44.  ASH HANDLING EMISSIONS:  ELECTRIC UTILITIES,  1974




1.0.00.0.0 Electric generation
1.1.00.0.0 External combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coal
1.1. 11. 0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized wet.
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual oil
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.21.0.2 All other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate oil
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.22.0.2 All other
1.1.30.0.0 Gas
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.30.0.2 All other
ft/v f- + f\fa
Ot/i. CUi0
ash.
10^
tons
12,925
12,925
12,900
12,550
5,350
2,300
4,700
200
50
15
0
0
35
300
180
45
45
30
25
25
10
15
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil


Fly nsli.
10' tons
34,125
34,125
34,100
33,200
27,800
3,850
1,300
250
100
' 35
0
0
65
800
480
120
120
80
25
25
10
15
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
•Nil
Nil

Total,
101
tons
47,050
47,050
47,000
45,750
33,150
6,150
6,000
450
150
50
0
0
100
1,100
660
165
165
110
50
50
20
30
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

Ash
utilization.
tons
7,500,000
7,500,000
7,500,000
7,300,000
5,300,000
980,000
950,000
70,000
24,000
8,000
0
0
16,000
174,000
105,000
26,000
26,000
17,000
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Ponding


acre/yr
692
692
692
673
480
90
88
7
2.2
0.7
0
0
1.5
16
9.6
2.4
2.4
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.5
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
acre
feet/
yr
17,300
17,300
17,30i'
17,300
17,300
16,800
12,200
2,260
2,200
165
55
18
0
0
37
400
240
60
60
40
23
23
9
14
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Landfill


acre/yr
37
37
37
36
26
5
4
1
0.2
0.05
0
0
0.15
0.8
0.5
0.12
0.12
0.18
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
acre
feet/
yr
876
876
872
850
610
115
115
9
2.7
0..9
0
0
1.8
21
12
3.2
3.2
2.3
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

Water"
discharge ,
10b gol/yr
310,000
310,000
310,000
301,000
218,200
40,300
39,400
3,100
' 935
314
0
0
671
7.160
4,300
1,070
1,070
720
400
400
180
220
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

Air
emissions,
— « » — ™. »
103
tons./yr
20
20
20
19.3
14
2.6
2.5
0.2
0.06
0.02
0
0
0.037
0.47
0.28
0.07
0.07
0.05
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
"See Tables *7 and 48 for properties of discharge waters.

-------
      Table 45.  COMPARATIVE ASH PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION
                                                           .114
Category
Ash produced , tons :
Fly ash
Bottom ash
Boiler slag
Total
Ash utilized, tons:
Fly ash
Bottom ash
Boiler slag
Total
Ash utilized, percent:
Fly ash
Bottom ash
Boiler slag
Total
1966a

17,123,144
8,065,683
NA
25,188,827

1,355,138
1,695,531
NA
3,050,669

7.9
21.0
NA
12.1
1969b

21,091,406
7,648,567
2,921,226
31,661,199

1,927,493
1,959,900
964,578
4,851,971
•
9.1
25.6
33.0
15.3
1970

26,538,019
9,890,951
2,801,475
39,230,445

2,158,345
1,842,952
1,094,362
5,095,659

8.1
18.6
39.1
13.0
1971

27,751,054
10,058,967
4,970,786
42,780,807

3,253,206
1,612,026
3,738,488
8,603,720

11.7
16.0
75.2
20.1
aFirst year that data were taken.
b!967 and 1968 data omitted from tabulation.
NA - Not available.
                               135

-------
                                 114
 of boiler slag as road aggregate.     It was assumed that the ratio of ash
 utilized to ash produced in 1974 was 16 percent.  The ash utilized figures
 include ash sold and ash removed from the plant site at no expense.  This
                                                                114
 ash  can be utilized in the application areas listed in Table 46.
Progress in fly ash utilization is more advanced than for other types of
waste utilization because of the greater quantities of fly ash collected.
However, utilization of fly ash has not been as successful in the United
States as in European countries.  In 1969 Britain utilized 42 percent of
its  total fly ash production, France 55 percent and the United States only
9  percent.     Extensive work is now being done in the United States to
enhance the use of ash.  A discussion of this work will not be given
here; instead the reader is referred to references 116 through 125 for
a  more thorough treatment of this subject.

Properties of Discharge Waters

The  quality and quantity of ash handling waste water produced by electric
utilities have been discussed earlier and illustrated in-Figure 3 and
Table 44.  Table 47 presents the chemical properties of ash pond discharge
water as derived from reference 36.  In addition to the data presented in
Table 47, it is important to note that the addition of ash to water imme-
diately results in reductions in the pH and dissolved oxygen values. -
Ash  streams are usually combined in a common system, thus the elemental
composition of the combined ash will be basically that of the parent coal
minus the volatile components and particulates not collected by control
devices.

The volume of ash pond discharge waters, estimated to be 290,000 x  10^
gallons per year based on FPC data, is in good agreement with estimates
calculated from average pond discharge volumes of 5,000,000  gallons per
day per 1,000 MW given in reference 36.  Total ash pond volume discharge
calculated in this fashion, assuming 80 percent application  of ponding,
is 310,000 x 10  gallons per year in 1974.

                                 136

-------
                                                        114
       Table  46.   ASH COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION,  1971
-
Ash utilized:
Mixed with raw material
before forming cement
clinker
Mixed with cement clink-
er or mixed with ce-
ment (pozzolan cement)
Partial replacement of
cement in —
Concrete products
Structural concrete
Dams and other mas-
sive concrete
Lightweight aggregate
Fill material for roads,
construction sites,
etc.
Stabilizer for road
bases, parking
areas, etc.
Filler in asphalt mix
Miscellaneous
Total
Ash removed from plant
site at no cost to
utility but not cov-
evered in categories
listed under "ash
utilized"
Total ash utilized
Ash removed to disposal
areas at company expense
Total ash collected
Fly ash,
tons



104,222


16,536

.
177,166
185,467

71,411
178,895


363,385


36,939
147,655
98,802
1,380,478





1,872,728
3,253,206

24,497,848
27,751,054
Bottom ash,
tons



NA


NA


35,377
NA

NA
13,942


533,682


7,880
2,833
475,417
1,069,131





542,895
1,612,026

8,446,941
10,058,967
Boiler slag
(if separated
from bottom
ash) , tons



91,975


NA


76,563
NA

NA
NA


2,628,885


49,564
81,700
428,026
3, 356 j 713"





381,775
3,738,488

1,232,298
4,970,786
NA — Not applicable
                              137

-------
                   Table 47.  PROPERTIES OF ASH POND
                              DISCHARGE WATERS36
Water parameter
Total solids
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
•a
Oil and grease
Hardness
Alkalinity
so4
Al
Cr
Na
NH3
N03
Cl
Cu
Fe
Range of
concentration,
mg/fc
300-3500
250-3300
25-100
0-15
200-750
30-400
100-300
0.2-5.3
0.1
20-173
0.1-2
0.1-6.1
20-2000
0.1-0.3
0.02-2.9
                   Proposed federal standards (30-day
                  average)  .
Values for total suspended solids were also estimated from FPC data.  The
average loading was 70 mg/£, and is within the range reported in reference
36.  Use of this value results in a total suspended solids emission from
ash handling of about 80,000 tons per year.  This value is somewhat higher
than the Hittman    estimate of about 55,000 tons per year but makes no
allowances for background solids.  It is also slightly greater than an
average loading of 60 mg/£ given in reference 36 which was based on a
sampling of 66 percent of coal-fired utilities.

The variability of chemical composition data is large.  Average values
have been determined in some cases, again based on a sampling of 66 percent
                                 138

-------
of coal-fired utilities.    This reference also provides an extensive
listing of ash pond overflow pollutants for about 30 utility plants.
Data for Fe and Cu emissions obtained by ERGO, in a study of ash pond
                                     1 ? ft
pollutants from the utility industry,    are within the general range
of values reported in Table 47.  The determination of average values
for other elements will involve a study of data on file under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System.  Trace element concentrations
for ash pond liquor are shown in Table 48 and are representative of the
solubility of some elements.  The values, however, cannot be considered
                                       127
representative of all ash pond liquors.     See Tables 24 and 25 for
additional data concerning ash pond discharge.
                 Table 48.  TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
                            IN ASH POND LIQUOR127
Element
Lead
Antimony
Barium
Manganese
Mercury
Beryllium
Boron
Nickel
Cadmium
Selenium
Zinc
Arsenic
Concentration,
ppm
0.01
0.015
0.07
0.075
< 0.001
0.002
0.5
0.015
0.01
0.035
0.03
0.01
 Leachates from Ponds and Landfill

 Leachates from ponds and landfill present a potential hazard through con-
 tamination of surface and ground waters.  The concentration of heavy
                                  139

-------
metals,  particularly arsenic and cadmium are consistently in excess
 (5  to  100  times) of natural abundance.  The trace metal contents of some
ash wastes are so high as to be more comparable with low grade ores
than natural soil environments.     Tables 49 and 50 list concentrations
of  major elements in ash and selected trace elements in bottom and fly
ash.   The actual amounts of metals or other leachates released into
water  will depend upon the chemical state and the properties and flow of
the water with which the fly ash comes into contact.
 Air  Emissions  From Landfill

 No definitive  data on air emissions resulting from the collection,
 transport  and  landfill storage of ash was found in the literature.
 However, wind  erosion from landfills or ash storage piles can be a
 significant'local problem, as was noted in a recent stack testing pro-
 gram of a  pulverized coal boiler in Nucla, Colorado.    .

 Attempts have  been made to estimare the amount of air emissions attribut-
 able  to storage of ash by application of the wind erosion equation given
 in reference 128.  However, a large number of assumptions have to be
 made.  If  the  worst possible, conditions are assumed erosion losses .can
 be high, on  the order of 10  tons/year.  Evaluation of other mineral and
 agricultural handling and storage emission factors indicate that, on the
 average, overall emission factors without control are generally in the
 range of 30 to 100 Ib/ton.  Application of the higher factor to ash storage
 also would result in high emissions (-2 x 10  tons/year) assuming 100 per-
 cent dry handling of the ash.
 A more detailed listing of trace elements in ash can be  found  in Appen-
dix C.  This listing in conjunction with data from Tables  44  and 49 can
be used to estimate the pollution potential of ash solid  waste  on a na-
tional basis.  Coal consumption values by State  (Appendix B)  can be used
to determine pollution potential by State.
                                 140

-------
Table 49.  POWER PLANT COAL ASH COMPOSITIONS116
- Constituent
Silica (Si02)
Alumina (Al 0.)
« J
Ferric Oxide (Fe 0-)
Lime (CaO)
Potassium Oxide (K 0)
Magnesia (MgO)
Sodium Oxide (Na 0)
Titanium Dioxide (TiO )
Sulfur Trioxide (S0_)
Carbon (C) and volatiles
Boron (B)
Phosphorus (P)
Uranium (U) and Thorium (Th)
% by weight
30-50
20-30
10-30
1.5-4.7
1.0-3.0
0.5-1.1
0.4-1.5
0.4-1.3
0.2-3.2
0.1-4.0
0.1-0.6
0.01-0.3
0.0-0.1
      Table 50.  SELECTED TRACE ELEMENTS
                 IN ASH116
                     (ppm)
Element
Arsenic
Mercury
Antimony
Selenium
Cadmium
Zinc
Manganese
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Nickel
Chromium
Lead
Vanadium
Fly asha
15
0.03
2.1
18
< 0.5
70
150
300
5000
3
70
150
30
150
Bottom asha
3
< 0.01
0.26
1
< 0.5
25
150
70
1500
< 2
15
70
20
70
      aActual trace element composition
      will vary widely depending on
      boiler type and coal composition.
                    141

-------
 A review of  the  technical literature dealing with the suspension of par-
 ticulate matter  by air streams indicates that wind erosion occurs most
 readily at particle diameters of about 100 microns.  Soils with particle
 diameters less than 50 microns (representative of fly ash) hardly erode
                                                      129
 at all  because of attractive forces between particles.     Many laboratory
 studies further  confirm that as particle size decreases below 50 microns,
 the velocity required to suspend the particle increases.

 In view of the above, and considering that most of the ash is transported
 by water sluicing and initially ponded and that most landfill operations
 ultimately involve some sort of control measure (soil and vegetative
 cover), an emission factor of 1 Ib/ton of ash was chosen to estimate
 air emissions from ash handling.  The emission factor is appreciably higher
 (greater than two orders of magnitude) than that for coal storage and
 handling losses  and results in an estimated particulate emission of
 20,000  ton/year.  Further, it was assumed that all ash is ultimately
 disposed of  as landfill.

 COOLING SYSTEM WATER WASTES

 Within  the steam electric power generating industry, cooling systems are
 a significant source of both thermal and chemical discharge.  Cooling
 systems are  either wet or dry and utilize a once-through or recirculatory
 flow pattern.  Wet systems use water for cooling the working fluid  and
 dry systems  use  ambient air.  Combination wet-dry systems are also  in  use.
 In addition  to thermal discharges, cooling systems can produce  fogging
 and fallout  of salt laden droplets (drift or carry-over).  Table  51 sum-
 marizes the  environmental considerations and potential impacts  of various
                    135
 wet cooling  systems.

 The quantity of  cooling water discharge from once-through cooling systems
 and blowdown from recirculative systems is given in Table 22.   The  amount
 of  cooling tower makeup, blowdown, evaporation, and drift associated with
cooling in a  typical 1000 MW power plant is presented in Figure 4.
                                 142

-------
            Table 51.   SUMMARY OF  ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
                         THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF WET COOLING  SYSTEMS135
  Atmospheric effects
 Hydrologic and aquatic
        effects
   Land effects
Visible plume:
  visual intrusion,
  ground shading,  and
  reduction in
  visibility to
  various means of
  transportation.
 Ground fog:  poten-
  tial hazard to ground
  and water transporta-
  tion arid nuisance to
  nearby communities.
Icing:  potential
  hazard to ground.
  transportation and ice
  accumulation on
  nearby structures
  and utility wires.

Drift deposition:
  potential damage
  to biota, acceleration
  of corrosion of  nearby
  structures, and  contamina-
  tion of soil and-water
  bodies.

Cloud formation:
  visual intrusion and
  potential local
  weather modifications.

Precipitation and
  snow augmentation:
  potential local
  weather modifications
  and nuisance to  nearby
  communities and
  drivers on adjacerits
  roads.
Net water consump-
 tive use:  potential
 depletion of surface-water
 and groundwater
 resources and
 degradation of water
 quality.
Slowdown discharge:
 potential contamination
 of surface-water and ground-
 water supplies, poten-
 tial increase of soil
 salinity, and increase of
 water temperature near
 discharge point.

Seepage and leakage
 water:  satae effects
 as blowdown discharges.
Intake screen devices:
 impingement or entrapment
 of aquatic life.

Transport through condenser
 and-circulation pumps:
 damage to aquatic
 organisms.
Discharge systems:
 disturbance to
 aquatic conmunities
 due to mechanical
 forces and turbulence.
Land use:  type
 of land acquired
 and the amount
 area required for
 each of the cool-
 ing systems.
Terrestrial impact:
 potential damage to
 plant communities
 and wildlife due to
 excavation, grading,
 and construction;
 effects of drift
 deposition; and excess
 moisture on the biota.

Land characteristics:
 effects of seismic  risks,
 soil permeability,  and
 type of foundation
 or construction
 required.  .

    Other effects

Sound levels:
 nuisance to nearby
 residents and
 transient observers.

Aesthetics:
 nuisance to nearby
 residents and
 transient observers.
                                         143

-------
Table 52 presents detailed cooling system wastewater data delineated
according  to the type of fossil fuel used in individual power plants.
The  information is reduced from an FPC summary report on steam-electric
                                                               23
plant air  and water quality as compiled for calendar year 1972.    Any
plant receiving more than 75 percent of its heat input from a particular
fuel was classified according to this primary fuel.  Any plant receiving
less than  75 percent of its heat input from one particular fuel was
classified under its two major fuels.  This resulted in a system of six
classifications:  coal, oil, gas, coal and oil, coal and gas, and oil
and  gas.   All fossil fuel plants are listed by type of cooling system:
once-through fresh, once-through saline, cooling ponds, cooling towers,
and  combination cooling systems.  These latter three systems are classi-
fied as recirculative.  The following data were compiled for each class:
number of  plants, number of boilers, generating capacity, annual elec-
tricity generated, average rate of withdrawal from the cooling water
source, average rate of discharge to the cooling water source, amount of
cooling water additives, and average low and high temperature rise across
the  condensers.

Thermal Discharge

The  average thermal discharge to water associated with the production of
                                                       1 36
electrical energy in the United States is 5000 Btu/kWh.     In 1974,
1419 billion kWh of electricity was produced by fossil fuel external
combustion power plants.  Based on the national average thermal discharge
rate, 7.1 x 10   Btu of heat was discharged by fossil fuel power plants in
1974.  The total heat discharge given in Table 52 is based on data col-
lected for 1972 by the FPC.23  The total of 6.26 x 1015 Btu corresponds
closely with the value of 6.38 x 10   Btu derived from 1972 fuel con-
sumption and the discharge factors presented above.
                                144

-------
                         Table 52.   CHARACTERIZATION OF COOLI.NG SYSTEMS IN THE U.S. - 1972
Ul
Cooling system
Once-through
Fresh
Coal
Oil
Gas
Gas and oil
Gas and coal
Coal and oil
Saline
Coal
Oil
Gas
Gas and oil
Gas and coal
Coal and oil
Total: Once-through
No.
plants

189
19
41
16
44
6
12
61
25
21
0
6
440
No.
boilers

716
80
162
97
234
124
29
375
114
103
0
23
2,057
Total
capacity,
MW

91,662
6,571
12,793
2,542
14,781
6,434
5,060
23,114
11,994
15,465
0
3,553
285.999
Annu.il (1972)
electric Uy
generated,
MHli x 106

461.0
34.0
50.2
10.8
71.0
5.9
23.8
105.0
49.4
72.5
0
15.8
899.4
Com Imious
witliclrau.il
rate,
ft^/s

97,687
9,070
12,724
4,487
14,257
1,633
6,782
27,948
10,494
18,063
.0
4,713
207,656
Dlsch.irgc
rate,
ft3/s

97,421
9,057
12,673
4,479
14,236
1,633
6,782
27,475
10,484
18,063
0
4,713
207,513
Chlorine,
tons

6,890
1,102
194
207
2,188
142
1,747
4,460
1,515
0
0
1,182
19,627
Average
low AT,
OF

15.03
11.53
14.07
11.63
13.11
13.83
12.18
12.23
14.08
14.76
0
11.67
Average
high fiT,
oF

17.08
15.74
16.49
13.75
16.34
17.17
15.83
16.21
18.40
17.10
0
13.00
Annual heat
discharged
(calculated),
Btu/y'r x 101*

3,086
243
381
112
412
49
186
782
335
566
0
114
6,266

-------
               Table 52  (continued).   CHARACTERIZATION  OF COOLING  SYSTEMS  IN THE U.S.  - 1972
Cooling system
Reclrcnlatlve
Cooling ponds
Coal
Oil
Gas
Gas and oil
Gas and coal
Coal and oil
Cooling towers
Coal
Oil
Gas
Gas and oil
Gas and coal
Coal and oil
Combined systems
Coal
Oil
Gas
Gas and oil
Gas and coal
Coal and oil
Total: Recirculatlve
No.
plants


14
-
25
-
1
-
20
1
85
8
8
-

23
1
28
2
7
-
223
No.
boilers


33
-
82
-
9
-
46
3
279
32
21
-

82
6
150
10
26
-
779
Total
capacity,
MW


7,454
-
11,688
-
282
-
13,517
252
17,176
1,854
2.941
-

12,256
618
9,783
60
2,237
-
80,114
Annual (1972)
electricity
generated,
HWh x 106


40.8
-
47.7
-
0.8
-
1
53.7
0.1
7.0
7.2
8.9
-

58.1
2.47
45.2
0.1
10.9
-
242.5
M,ikrup
wlllulr.iw.il
rate.


2,661
-
4,918
-
14
-
294
5
477
25
42
-

9,015
561
5,099
41
1,929
-
25,078
Blowdown
d isrh.irf'e
rate,
ft3/s
•

2,597
-
3,653
-
8
-
105
0
161
6
7
-

8,963
561
5,003
41
1,274
-
22,379
Phosphate,
tons


-
-
0
-
0
-
87
30
415
27
67
-
•
1
0
53
0
0
-
.680
Caustic
soda,
tons


-
-
0
-
0
-
178
0
3
0
0
-

454
0
1
0
0
-
635
Line,
tons


-
-
0
-
0
-
6,726
0
6,584
343
1,484
-

2
0
745
0
0
-
15.884
Alum,
tons


-
-
0
-
0
T
819
0
295
216
74
-

0
0
48
688
0
-
2,140
Chlorine,
tons3


249
-
271 .
-
1
-
334
36
1,081
244
153
-

491
3
1,151
1
61
-
4,075
Average
low AT,
Of


16.5
-
13.7
-
10
-
21.07
11
14.88
15.63
14.25
-

18.43
14
13.96
15.0
13.86

Average
high AT,


17.3
-
17.2
-
10
-
21.03
13
17.16
17.25
17.75
-

20.74
19
18.29
18.0
17.86

"Additives as reported by FTC'.



bSy>teos with a capability of using more than one type of cooling unit.

-------
The once-through cooling system is presently the most common method of
                  23 137
condenser cooling.  '     Once-through systems use an ocean, estuary,
river, or lake as their water source.  The cooling water is withdrawn
and passed through a condenser where it collects heat transferred from
the working fluid and then is discharged to the original source.  The
amount of heat added to the water is dependent upon the thermal efficiency
of the condenser and .the amount of cooling water.  Analysis of•data in-
                                23
eluded in the FPC Summary Report   indicates an average temperature rise
of 15 F and a discharge rate of 2 x 10   cubic meters per second per
kilowatt of generating capacity.  The annual heat discharge to water in
total British Thermal Units is presented in Table 52 for once-through
cooling systems.  Over the range of cool and warm cooling water tempera-
ture, the heat capacity of. water is constant at 1.0 Btu/lb/F°.  Conse-
quently, the heat discharge is equal to water discharge in Ibs/yr multi-
plied by the average temperature change in degrees Fahrenheit.  Table 53
presents a summary of thermal water discharges emanating from once-
through cooling systems.

The second method of condenser cooling is recirculation of the cooling
water.     Although existing plants utilize once-through cooling to a
large extent, new plants are using recirculative cooling systems in order
to reduce thermal discharges as required by the Water Pollution Control
                      1 "38                                    130
Act Amendments of 1972    and associated effluent guidelines.     Recircu-
lative systems consist of cooling ponds or lakes, spray canals or ponds,
wet cooling towers or combination wet-dry cooling towers.  Cooling towers
are operated using either a natural or mechanical draft.     Cooling towers
must be blown down in order to prevent buildup of solids and subsequent
fouling of condenser surfaces.  There is some rejection of heat to surface
water due to the heat content of blowdown water.  The heat content of the
blowdown can vary from under 1 percent of the total condenser heat dis-
charge for cold-side blowdown systems to as high as 7 to 8 percent of the
total condenser heat discharge for hot-side blowdown systems.    The
thermal discharge to water associated with recirculative cooling systems
cannot be reliably calculated.  Blowdown is generally performed at the
                                147

-------
Table 53.  THERMAL DISCHARGES TO WATER FROM POWER PLANT COOLING SYSTEMS
-
1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.2.0
1.1.12.3.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.13.L.O
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
Electric generation
External .combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Lignite
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Petroleum
Residual oil
Tangential firing
All other
Distillate oil
Tangential firing
All other
Gas
Tangential firing
All other
Thermal discharge
Once-through
fresh,
1012 Btu/yr

4280
3320
3220
2330
430
430
30
20
7
0
0
13
80
48
12
12
8
320
300
120
180
20
8
12
640
160
480
Once- through
saline,
1012 Btu/yr

1980
240
230
170
29
29
2
2
1
0
0
1
8
5
1
1
1
1120
1070
420
650
50
20
30
620
150
470
                                148

-------
cold side of the cooling system so that the temperature difference between
blowdown and ambient water is minimal.  If blowdown were performed on the
hot side of all recirculative systems, the total heat discharge would be
a maximum of 11 percent of that associated with once-through systems as
defined by the total water discharge in each system.

The ambient atmosphere is the ultimate receptor of heat dissipated from
once-through and recirculative cooling systems.  The significance of at-
mospheric thermal pollution from these sources has not been investigated
but is negligible in comparison to the solar input.

Wastewater Discharge

The quantity and quality of cooling water discharge depends upon the type
of cooling system in use.  For example, Federal regulations require that
the quantity of free available chlorine discharged from once-through
cooling systems will not exceed 0.5 mg/£ on the average over 30 days.
On the other hand the regulations    state that the quantity of pollutants
discharged with recirculative cooling system blowdown will not exceed the
concentrations enumerated below:
                                        1-day          30-day
                                       maximum         average
                 Pollutant          concentration   concentration
         Free available chlorine      0.5 mg/£        0.2 mg/fc
         Zinc                         1.0 mg/Jl        1.0 mg/A
         Chromium                     0.2 mg/S,        0.2 mg/fc
         Phosphate                    5.0 mg/£        5.0 rag/£
         Other corrosion inhibit-     Limit to be established on
           ing materials              a case-by-case basis
In addition to these regulations, power plants are required to submit an
application for a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System  (NPDES)
Permit to the Regional EPA Administrator and State.  If the .effluent char-
acteristics and levels outlined in this NPDES Application are fundamen-
tally different from those outlined by Federal regulations and those

                                149

-------
                                                 16
 considered  in  the guideline development document,   and if these dif-
 ferences are deemed justifiable, the Regional Administrator or state can
 establish effluent limitations in the NPDES permit either more or less
 stringent than those outlined in the above Federal regulations.  Such
 limitations must be approved by the Administrator of the Environmental
 u   *.    •    A      130-134
 Protection Agency.

 Once-Through Systems - Passage of water through condensers and service
 water coolers  causes growth and accumulation of biological organisms
 on  cooling system surfaces.  The troublesome organisms are primarily
 algae and bacteria, although in saline cooling systems they include higher
 level organisms.  The uncontrolled buildup of these organisms can greatly
 reduce  the  efficiency of the condenser.  The most commonly employed
 method  of removing these organisms is the intermittent injection of
 chlorine or sodium hypochlorite into the cooling water system.

 The amount of chlorine dosage varies from site to site and depends upon
 the source of cooling water and ambient conditions.  For example, in
 winter  the biological growth is not as extensive as in spring or summer,
 and the chlorine demand is low.  Normally, the chlorine is supplied as a
 slug rather than by continuous injection.  The frequency of chlorine
 dosage differs in each plant, and may vary from once a day to as many as
 12 times a day with the treatment duration varying between 5 minutes and •
 2 hours.  Chlorination results in residual chlorine concentrations in
 the range of 0.1 to 1.0 mg/Jl.  Higher residual concentrations are re-
 quired when treating saline water cooling systems.  Residual chlorine
 levels of 4.0 to 5.0 mg/£ are necessary for removal of crustaceans.36,137

 Recirculative Systems - Warm recirculating water is cooled by evaporating
 a fraction of the total volume.  During the cooling process, a small per-
centage of the water will be suspended in the air draft as water vapor
and entrained droplets (drift) will be emitted.  As a result of evapora-
tive cooling water losses, salts that are dissolved in the remaining
                                 150

-------
cooling water become more concentrated.36'139  Most natural waters con-
                I I                  it              i
tain calcium (Ca  ), magnesium (Mg  ), sodium (Na ), other metallic ions,
and carbonate (CO-j  ) , bicarbonate  (HCO ~), sulfate (SO,  ) , chloride
(Cl ), and other acid ions in solution.   '     In addition seawater con-
tains high concentrations of sodium (Na+)  and chloride  (Cl~).

As cooling water evaporates, all constituents, including dissolved and
suspended solid materials, are concentrated in the cooling stream.  The
degree to which these constituents  can be  concentrated is limited by the
solubility of the constituents for  the prevailing conditions of tempera-
ture and pH.  Additives are introduced into recirculating cooling water
streams to control corrosion and scale and the formation of algae, slime,
and fungi.  Tables 54, 55, and 56 list some of the additives and additive
systems that are used and the concentrations of ions and biocides in these
systems that are discharged with blowdown.  Reference should be made to
Table 24 which lists trace element  concentrations in cooling tower blow-
down.  The values represent a single specific plant and are not intended
to be national averages.  The power plant  studied was tangentially-coal-
fired with a total capacity of 750  MW.

Calcium carbonate and calcium sulfate are  the dissolved salts of greatest
concern in cooling tow^r systems.   In the  Southwest, silica and silicates
also present a problem.  At high concentrations, these materials exceed
their solubility limit, precipitate out of solution and deposit on
heat exchanger surfaces as a hard scale.   Removal of a portion of
cooling water (blowdown) and replacement with fresh makeup cooling water
is one method used to reduce the concentration of these troublesome
materials.  Temperature, pH, and chemical  additives are factors which
affect the solubility of these materials.  Some additives which are used
to increase the solubility of these materials are organic phosphates,
                                           137
phosphonates, polymers, and sulfuric acid.
                                 151

-------
    Table 54.   CHEMICALS USED  IN RECIRCULATIVE COOLING
               WATER SYSTEMS140
             Use
      Chemical
Corrosion inhibition or scale
  prevention in cooling towers
Biocides in cooling towers
pH control in cooling towers

Dispersing agents in
  cooling towers
Biocides in condenser cooling
  water systems
Organic phosphates
Sodium phosphate
Chromates
Zinc salts
Synthetic organics

Chlorine
Hydrochlorous acid
Sodium hypochlorite
Calcium hypochlorite
Organic chromates
Organic zinc compounds
Chlorophenates
Thiocyanates
Organic sulfurs

Sulfuric acid
Hydrochloric acid

Lignins
Tannins
Polyacrylpnitrile
Polyacrylamide.
Polyacrylic acids
Polyacrylic acid salts

Chlorine
Hypochlorites
Sodium pentachlorophenate
                          152

-------
      Table 55.  COOLING  TOWER CORROSION AND SCALE
                 INHIBITOR SYSTEMS23
    Inhibitor system
 Concentration of chemical
additives in recirculating
       water, mg/£
1.   Chromate
2.   Chromate + Zinc
    Chromate + Zinc +
      Phosphate (inorganic)
    Zinc + Phosphate
      (inorganic)
5.  Phosphate  (inorganic)
6.  Phosphate  (organic)
7.  Organic Biocide
200 - 500 mg/,g CrO,
-  65
 17
  8
 10
  8
 30
  8
 15
 15 -  60 mg/.g P04=

 15 -  60 ing// P04S
  3-10 mg/£ organics
        CrO,
35 mg/,0 Zn*"*'
15 mg/,0 CrO,~
35 mg/.e Zn4*
45 mg/,2 P04S
35 mg// Zn44"
60 m/£ PO,3
 30 mg/,0 chlorophenol
  5 mg/^S sulfone
  1 mg/,6 thiocyanate
                          153

-------
          Table 56.  TYPICAL COOLING TOWER
                    ADDITIVE SYSTEMS
                                    36
    Chromate - inorganic phosphate system
Untreated river water
   makeup to tower
Cooling tower system
    80 mg/.e C3

    16 m&/£ Mg4

   157 mg/£ HC0

   455 mg/& Cl"

    60 mg/Jl SO,
              44"
    320 mg/jj Ca44"

     64 ng/4 Mg4"4"

     18 mg/.0 HCO "

  1,820 mg/je Cl"

    712 mg/.g SO,"

     27 mg/jg CrO,=
     12
                                      P0
                               .pH 6.5
Controllable limits in tower system:  pH 6.4
to 6.6; total alkalinity 15 to 20 mg/,0; cal-
cium as CaCOs 1,000 mg/JJ max; hexametaphosphate
6 to 10 mg/f ; CrO^ 25 to 30 mg/^.

           Organic phosphate system
Untreated well water
makeup to tower
80 mg/& Ca44"
10 mg/,g Mg
263 mg/,e HC03"
28 mg/^ Si02
Cooling tower' system
333 mg/.e Ca44"
52 mg/^ Mg
239 mglS, HC03"
150 mg/^ Si02
Controllable limits in tower system:  pH 8.4  to
8.6; total alkalinity 175 to 225 mg'/l;  calcium
as CaC03 1,000 mg/il max; silica as Si02 180
     max; organic phosphate 20 to 30
                     154

-------
The wet warm conditions present in recirculating cooling systems promote
microbial growth, and the uncontrolled  growth  of algae, slimes, and fungi
in the main condenser and other heat exchangers may be a serious problem.
As in once-through systems, chlorine is used to inhibit the growth of
algae and slimes.  Residual chlorine concentrations are maintained below
1.0 mg/5, to avoid corrosion problems.   Sodium  pentachlorophenate is also
                           137
used to stop fungi attacks.

Ions in cooling water may be naturally  occurring or introduced as -corro-
sion inhibitors, biocides, pH controls  and  dispersants.  When the concen-
tration of these ions exceeds solubility  limits, salt will precipitate.
The solubility of some salts decreases when the temperature rises.  Salts
exhibiting this characteristic are likely to precipitate and form scale
on hot condenser tube walls and reduce  heat transfer.  The most common
way to control this scale formation is  to blowdown a portion of the re-
circulating water stream and replace it with fresh water so that the ion
concentration in the circulating water  does not reach saturation at any
time.  Blowdown (B) is a function of cooling water makeup quality.  As
shown in the following equation, the volume of cooling water makeup (M)
required is equal to the sum of the volume  of  cooling water lost as blow-
down (B) , drift (D) , evaporation (E) , and seepage or .leakage (S) .  »
S is very small  in comparison  to  the  other  volume  parameters and can be
neglected without significantly affecting calculated volumes.   It fol-
lows that the volume of blowdown  is a function of  makeup water  quality
and can be determined  from  the following expression.36

                       «   E -  (S  + D) (C -  1)
                       B . - ___


where C = cycles of concentration (dimensionless) .
                                  155

-------
Cycles of concentration is the number of times that the solute species
can be concentrated before one particular constituent concentration ex-
ceeds a critical level.  C can be increased as influent water quality
increases.  This qualitatively illustrates the degree to which influent
water quality can degrade prior to falling below acceptable levels.  The
equation shows that for a constant rate of evaporation, drift and seepage
the required blowdown decreases as C increases.  The equation represents
a tradeoff between external feedwater treatment and internal chemical
conditioning needs.  For average quality cooling water makeup, the value
for C is conventionally kept between 4 and 6.  For extremely high quality
cooling water makeup, C values of 15 and above may be employed.  When
saline cooling water is used, C generally ranges between 1.2 and 1.5.
Figure 17 presents a recently published nomograph for computing-cooling
                                       141
tower blowdown and makeup requirements.

Environmental Impacts of Recirculative Cooling Systems

The significant environmental quality impacts associated with recircula-
tive cooling systems are drift, fogging and consumptive water use.
Table 57 illustrates the relative environmental impacts produced by these
systems.

Drift - Droplets of water may be discharged from spray cooling canals or
ponds, wet cooling towers, and wet-dry cooling towers.  The warm moist
air discharged from cooling towers contains mechanically entrained water
droplets which range from several microns to several hundred microns in
diameter.  Droplets smaller than approximately 20 microns are referred
to as fog, while larger droplets are commonly called drift or carry-over.
In contrast to fog, which is relatively pure condensed water vapor, drift
droplets contain the same concentration of dissolved chemicals as  the
                                 142 143
circulating cooling water stream.   '     Table 58 presents the design
and operational characteristics of wet cooling systems that affect drift
rates.
                                 156

-------
o
z
o
o

u.
o

OT
LJ
_J
O
>-
O
    6 •


    7-

    8

    9 -
    10-
   60


   SO




—  40







—  30





—  25
                                                                 80 O

                                                                 70  K
                                                                     Ul
                                                                     O
                                                                     Ul
   OL
   2
   UJ
   H

   cc
   Ul
20 ^
   o
   oc
   LJ
   *
   o
                                                              H-  15
                                                                     o.
                                                                     2
                                                                     ui
                                                              L_     UJ
   Ul
   o
   z
     Figure 17.  Nomograph for  computing cooling tower blowdown

                 and makeup requirements
                                157

-------
          Table 57.   RELATIVE ATMOSPHERIC  IMPACT OF VARIOUS
                     RECIRCULATIVE  COOLING SYSTEMS142
Relative
environmental
impact
Most severe
Intermediate
effect
Least severe
Type of impact
Visible vapor
plume
Ca
A,B,D
E
Ground
fog
D
A,B,C
E
Icing
D
A,B,C
E
Drift depo-
sition rate
. D
B,C,E
A "
  Type of cooling systems:   A -  Cooling  lake
                            B -  Spray pond

                            C -  Natural  draft wet cooling  tower

                            D -  Mechanical draft wet cooling tower

                            E -  Mechanical -draft wet-dry cooling
                                tower.
   Table 58.   DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL  CHARACTERISTICS OF WET COOLING
              SYSTEMS AFFECTING DRIFT RATES142
            Cooling towers
       Spray canals or ponds
Volume of circulating water
  in the system per unit time

Tower features (height, diameter,
  .and characteristics, of drift
  eliminators for natural-draft
  tower; height, cell diameter,
  characteristics of drift elimi-
  nators, and number of cells for
  mechanical draft tower)

Drift flux and droplet size
  distribution

Exit temperature

Exit velocity
Volume of circulating water in
  the system per unit time
Area, spray modules spacing, and
  spray nozzle characteristics
  (droplets size and spray pat-
  tern)

Drift flux and droplet size
  distribution
Spray nozzle exit temperature
Spray nozzle exit velocity
                               158

-------
Evaporation causes the concentration of dissolved solids in the drift
droplets to increase.
                     134
         The reduction in droplet size decreases fall
speed, and as drift droplets  fall  out  of  the  plume  they are dispersed
                          139
by atmospheric turbulence.     Table 59 presents the atmospheric variables
and characteristics that affect  the dispersion and  deposition of drift.
Smaller drift particles possess  lower  inertia and are dispersed more
efficiently.
            139
Figure 18 illustrates a typical distribution for cool-
       144
ing tower drift fallout,    and Figure 19 presents drift deposition rates
from three different types of wet cooling systems for two different at-
mospheric conditions.
     Table 59.  ATMOSPHERIC VARIABLES AND CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING
                DISPERSION AND DEPOSITION OF
            Atmospheric variables
                          Atmospheric characteristics
  Ambient temperature
  Ambient relative humidity
  Wind speed and direction
  Precipitation (rain and snow)
  Concentration of condensation nuclei
                          Atmospheric stability
                          Depth of the mixing layer
Recirculative cooling system drift losses may vary from 0.005 percent to
0.02 percent of the cooling flow for well controlled natural draft and
mechanical draft cooling towers.3   Drift eliminators are often used to
control drift emissions from cooling towers.     Figure 20 illustrates
cooling tower drift deposition rates for two eliminator systems and two
sets of atmospheric conditions    and Table 60 presents measured and
estimated drift deposition values as reported in various references.  An
emission factor based on generating capacity would be totally unreliable
due to the large number of variables influencing deposition.

Spray cooling ponds produce higher drift fates than cooling towers but
                                                                  O£
the maximum radial distance of discharge is substantially reduced.    The
drift rate is typically 0.1 percent of cooling water flow and the highest
                                 159

-------
20mph windQ
                                                           31.3% of drift mass governed by atmospheric dispersion
                 Distance traveled, ft.      130
174 186 203   228
 Cumulative percent of drift mass    39.8      46,6 52.1 56.7  60.7     64.7
                                               68.7
           Figure  18.   Cooling tower  drift fallout (from reference 144)

-------
    1(T5
   P 10"6

   1
   IU
   Q
                     Mechanical-
                     draft
                     cooling
                     lower
Natural
draft
cooling
tower —i
      0.01      0.1        1
           DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km
    10 0.01       0.1       1
            DISTANCE DOWNWIND, km

                    ID)
10
Figure  19.   Drift deposition rates from wet cooling systems
             as  a function of the distance downwind under
             (a)  slightly  unstable atmospheric conditions  -
             ambient temperature of 7.2°C,  relative humidity
             of  95 percent;  and (b) neutral atmospheric  con-
             ditions - ambient temperature of 7.2°C, rela-
             tive humidity of 95 percent (From reference 145)
                            161

-------
      100.0
       50 0 —
       10.0 —
     O  O"5 —
     VI
     s
     LJ
     Q
        0.1
       0.05 —
       0.01
         0.1
                  OJS  1.0        5.0  10.0
                         DISTANCE, miles
50.0  100.0
Figure 20.  Drift deposition  rates for two eliminator
            systems and  two sets  of atmospheric con-
            ditions:  A  - duplex  eliminator, stable,
            90 percent relative humidity, 2.5 mph
            wind; B - duplex  eliminator, unstable,
            60 percent relative humidity, 10 mph wind;
            C - sinusoidal-wave eliminator, stable,
            90 percent relative humidity, 2.5 mph
            wind; and D  - sinusoidal-wave eliminator,
            unstable, 60 percent  relative humidity,
            10 mph wind  (From reference 145)
                         162

-------
                                                    Table 60.   SALT DEPOSITION  RATES
en
U)
Measured or
predicted
Measured

Measured

Measured
Predicted13


Predicted13


Measured






Type of tower
or model used
Mech. draft wet tower -
Anclote Plant, Florida
Natural draft wet
tower - Seabrook, N.H.
Trojan Nuclear Plant
Natural draft
Diffusion Model
Roffman & Hrimble
Natural draft.
Hosier Method
Hosier et al.
Mechanical draft
Mechanical draft
Mechanical draft
Mechanical draft
Natural draft
Natural draft
Natural draft
Plant
capacity,
MW
2 at 515




1000


1000


1320
1644
1722
821
873
850
872
Salt or fresh
water cooling
Salt

Salt

Fresh
Salt


Salt


Salt
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Fresh
Maximum
deposition,
Ib/aqre/yr
' 194.0

65.6

1.3
27.6


348









Distance to
maximum
deposition,
feet
5,000

16,000


2,600


3,900









Total deposition
Ib/yr
3.5 x 105

3 x 106


1.3 x 104


3.8 x 105


3.8 x 107
6 x 105
10.5 x 105
4.7 x 104
1.1 x 106
4 x 105
9 x 104
- r__ ' _
ton/yr
1.75 x 102

1.5 x 103
,

6.5


1.9 x 102


1.9 x 104
3 x 102
5.25 x 102
23.5
5.5 x 102
2 x 102
45
ton/MW
0.17


1

0.01


0.19


14.4
0.18
0.30
0.03
0.63
0.24
0.05
               These figures represent deposition within  the  area bounded by the distance to maximum deposition.
              This provides a basis for comparison with the figures given in footnote e,

               A. Roffman and L. D. Van Vlcck,  "The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and Predicting Cooling Tower
              Drift and Its Deposition," Journal  of APCA.  September 1974, p. 855-859.

              CA. Roffman and R. E. Grimble,  "Prediction  of Drift Deposition from Salt Water Cooling Towers."
              The Annual Meeting of Cooling Tower Institute',  Houston, Texas, January 29 to 31, 1973.

               C. Hosier, J. Pena, and R. Pena, "Determination of Salt Deposition Rates from Drift from
              Evaporative Cooling Towers."  Dept. of Meteorology, Penn. State Univ., 1972.
              Development Document for Effluent Limitations  Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
              for Steam Electric Power Generating Point  Source  Category.  EPA 440/l-74-029a.  October 1974,

-------
                                                                     139
salt deposition occurs at approximately 300-400 feet from the source.
One reference reports that the composite of a number of tests at various
spray cooling sites indicates that measurable drift rarely exceeds 600
                                                                  182
feet from the source under a variety of meteorological conditions.

Fogging - Plumes from cooling towers have the potential to produce con-
ditions of fogging and icing.  Normally the plume will mix with the am-
bient air and not inhibit visibility.  However, during thermal inversions
and periods of high humidity and low temperature, the plume can become
constrained close to the ground surface and cause fogging.  Such fogging
is generally limited to the cooling tower site (within -2000 feet of the
tower) and the probability of occurrence is higher with mechanical draft
than natural draft cooling towers.

The impact of cooling tower fogging depends upon the duration, frequency,
and location of individual incidents.  The greatest potential hazard exists
in regions of transportation such as airports and major highways.
Figure 21 illustrates areas in the U.S. that would be affected by fogging
generated from cooling towers.  The map is based on the following
criteria:148
    •   High Potential - Regions where naturally
        occurring heavy fog is observed over 45 days
        per year, where the maximum mixing depths
        are low (400-600 meters) from October through
        March, and the frequency of low-level inver-
        sions is at least 20-30 percent.
    •   Moderate Potential - Regions where naturally
        occurring heavy fog is observed over 20 days
        per year, where the maximum mixing depths
        are less than 600 meters from October through
        March, and the frequency of low-level inver-
        sions is at least 20-30 percent.
    •   Low Potential - Regions where naturally
        occurring heavy fog is observed less than
        20 days per year, and the maximum mixing depths
        are moderate to high (generally greater than
        600 meters) from October through March.

                                 164

-------
a<
Ui
             HIGH POTENTIAL



             MODERATE  POTENTIAL



             SLIGHT POTENTIAL
              Figure 21.  Geographical distribution  of  potential  adverse effects from cooling towers,

                          based on fog, low-level  inversion  and low mixing depth frequency  1^8

-------
 Cooling ponds are also a potential source of ground fogging.  The develop-
 ment of plumes  is not a problem because of the large area of water vapor
 discharge.  A steam type fog can develop over the pond surface during cold
        149
 weather..     The fog produced does not normally extend over the surround-
 ing land, but under extreme conditions may encroach upon bordering land
                           147
 for distances up to 1 mile.     In addition, steam fogs can cause icing
 of embankment vegetation.' The extent and effect of cooling pond fogging
 increases as air temperature decreases, humidity increases, and atmos-
 pheric stability increases.
Consumptive Water Use - Recirculative cooling systems transfer heat: to
the atmosphere through evaporation of a portion of the cooling water.
Such recirculative cooling systems consume more water per kWh of elec-
tricity produced than do once-through cooling systems.  Figures 22, 23,
and 24 illustrate the variation in water evaporation as influenced by
water temperature, wet bulb temperature and relative humidity.

OTHER WASTEWATER EMISSIONS

The following subsections discuss the wastewater effluents from boiler
water treatment, boiler blowdown, and equipment cleaning.

Boiler Water Treatment

The most comprehensive national survey of waste water generated by steam-
electric power plants was conducted by the Federal Power Commission and
includes general characteristics such as volume, solids loading, and pH.
Table 61 summarizes the pertinent boiler feedwater information gathered
by the FPC.23
                                 166

-------
   I.I
   1.0
  0.9

x
* 0.7
„ 0.6
til
^ 0.5
£ Q4
° 0.3
  Q2

  O.I

    0.
                                          2 ACRES/MW
                                       NATURAL  LAKE
                                       OR RIVER
                     10       15
                    COOLING  RANGE, °
                                            20
                                              25
    Figure  22.  Water consumption versus temperature  range
                 of cooling water source-^"
                                           NATURAL LAKE
                                           OR RSVER
                                             MECHANICAL DRAFT C.T.


                                            J	I
                                 60         70
                          WET  BULB TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure 23.   Water consumption versus wet bulb temperature
                                                                  136
  I.S

  1.4

  1.2

* 1.0
f-
z O.6

^ 0.6

  0.4

  0.2

   0.
                     2 ACRES/MW
                     	K


                ACRE/MW
                               MECHANICAL   DRAFT C.T.
                                     COOLING
                                      LAKE
                                -SPRAY
                                 PONDS
                   -NATURAL DRAFT C.T.
                                    NATURAL LAKC
                                    OR RIVER
               4O          60          80
                   RELATIVE HUMIOITT, %
                                                       100
  Figure  24.  Water consumption versus relative  humidity
                            167

-------
      Table 61.  BOILER FEEDWATER REQUIREMENT AND USE OF FEEDWATER
                 TREATING AND CONDITIONING CHEMICALS - 1971 U.S.
                 FGSSIL-FUELED STEAM-ELECTRIC POWER PLANTS23
 Total annual generation of plants reporting
   annual boiler feedwater consumption rates
 Feedwater requirement
 Phosphate consumption
 Caustic consumption
 Lime consumption
 Alum consumption
 Chlorine consumption
1,260,490,574 MWh/yr

9,000,000,000 gal/yr
        973.5 tons/yr
     43,329.3 tons/yr
      8,662.3 tons/yr
      1,922.5 tons/yr
        370.7 tons/yr
Boiler Feedwater Quality Requirements - Boilers in steam-electric power
generating stations require that makeup water be added to steam condensate
return in order to compensate for feedwater lost during boiler blowdown,
steam sootblowing, venting, gland, and boiler tube leakage.  The required
quantity and quality of all feedwater is a function of boiler operating
pressure and heat transfer rate.  Modern high pressure boilers require
extremely pure feedwater while low pressure boilers (<300 psi) can some-
times operate using feedwater which has not been externally treated.
Table 62 is a catalogue of power plant ambient water quality and required
boiler feedwater quality as reported in a number of references.  The spec-
ifications for individual characteristics sometimes vary by an order of
magnitude or more.  Requirements for boiler feedwater quality are cur-
rently under investigation and subject to revision.  In addition, the
A.S.M.E. Research Committee on Water in Thermal Power Systems is cur-
rently investigating and developing a consensus of proper operating prac-
tices for industrial boilers.     Their preliminary estimates covering
values for boilers operating at steam pressures of 1500 psig and greater
are shown in Table 62.
                                 168

-------
                                      Table 62.   UTILITY BOILER WATER QUALITY2
Characteristic
Alkalinity (CaCO )
Aluminum
Ammonia
Bicarbonate
Calcium
Chloride
COD
Copper
DO
Dissolved solids
Hardness (CaCO,)
Hydrogen sulfide
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Organics
pH, units
Phosphate
Silica
Sulfate
Suspended solids
Total solids
Zinc
Ambient water quality
Saline
NASb
500
3

600

19,000
500


35,000
5,000
80

10
10-100

50
150
1,400
15,000
40,000

Fresh
{•
Strauss










<15

<15



1-100




Burns & Roe



16-80 ,
10-150





0.2-2
2.5-12
0.1-1.0

5.5-7.5

2.15
20-140
10-200
200-300

EPAB






0.01



0.05

0.03







0.06
Boiler feedwater quality
All boilers
NASb
700-1500
psl
40
0.1
0.1
48.0
0.01

1.0
0.05
0.007
200.0
0.07
0.5
0.01
0.01
0.5
8.2-9,0

0.7

0.5

0.01
1500-5000
psi
1
0.1
0.07
0.5
0.01

1.0
0.01
0.007
0.5
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.1
,8.8-9.4

0.01

0.05

0.01
ABHAf
1500-2000
psi
150












0


1.0

10
750

Power8
>2000
psi
100












0


0.5

5
500

Drum type boilers
Babcock & Wilcoxh
1000-2000
psi
50-150





0.005
0.007

0
0.01


0
8.5-9.5

0.5-5.0


0.15

>2000
psi
.





0..002
0.007

0
0.01


0
8.5-9.5

0.15-0.5


0.05

Water tube boilers
ASME1
1500-2000
psi.
i





0.01


0
0.01










ON
NO

-------
          Table 62 (continued).  UTILITY BOILER WATER QUALITY*

o
 Values in mg/£ unless otherwise noted.

 Water Quality Criteria, 1972.  A Report of the Committee on Water
Quality Criteria, Environmental Studies Board.  National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy of Engineering.  Washington, B.C.  1972.

°Strauss, Sheldon D.  Water Treatment.  Power.  June 1973.

 Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
Source Performance Standards for the Steam-Electric Power Generating
Point Source Category.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1974.

eProposed Water Quality Information.  U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Volume II.  October 1973.  (Numbers given are averages for
various drainage basins throughout the United States.)

 Packaged Firetube Boiler Engineering Manual.  First Edition.  Pre-
pared by Technical Committee of Packaged Firetube Section.  American
Boiler Manufacturers Association.  1971.

8Steam Generation.  Power Magazine, 330 West 42nd Street, New York,
New York.  June 1964.

 Steam/Its Generation and Use.  Babcock and Wilcox, New York, New York.

''"Industrial Boiler Water Subcommittee - A.S.M.E. Research Committee on
Water in Thermal Power Systems.  Feedwater Quality in Modern 'industrial
Boilers.  A consensus of Proper Current Operating Practices.  April
1975.  PRELIMINARY REPORT.
                                170

-------
Categorization of water specifications according to type of fuel use is
not provided in the data presented in Table 62; however, oil firing gen-
erates the greatest amount of radiant heat and, therefore, demands strict-
est attention to water quality guidelines.  Coal firing releases the next
greatest amount of radiant heat and gas firing emits the least.151  At high
operating steam pressures characteristic of utility boilers it is advised
that no allowance be made for the type of fuel fired in order to ensure pro-
per boiler operation.  As an aid to the discussion of boiler water treat-
ment, the typical steam generating boiler water cycle is shown in Figure 25.

Boiler Water Quality Control - Utility boilers must be continuously moni-
tored in order to provide for efficient operation.  This precaution allows
for immediate system .stabilization and prevention of equipment damage
which might result from the use of boiler water containing hazardous
contaminants.

Continuous analysis of boiler water specific electrical conductance is
the widely used method of automatic monitoring.  Conductance is directly
proportional to the ionizable dissolved solids in the water.  The monitors
can be designed to sound alarms or automatically feed back to corrective
treatment mechanisms.  Specific conductance is measured in micromhos/cm
(1 x 10   mhos/cm) .  Utility boilers should contain water which maintains
a specific conductance between 0.2 and 0.5 micromhos/cm corresponding to
a total dissolved solids concentration ranging between 0.1 and 0.25 ppm.
Values above this require that the system be checked for contamination
from leakage and/or that the internal treatment and blowdown parameters
be altered.     Undesirable boiler water impurities include dissolved
mineral matter, dissolved gases, alkalinity, and acidity.  The ABMA rec-
ommends that boiler water alkalinity should be less than 20 percent of
                         7 ft
the total solids content.    Excessive concentrations of these contaminants
and characteristics cause scale, corrosion, carryover, and caustic
embrittlement.
                                 171

-------
NS
      o
      o
      Li


•


<


SUPERK
                                 CONDENSATE SYSTEM
                                        MAKEUP WATER
                                                                   .REHEATER
                                                                         STEAM

                                                                      GENERATING
                                                                                     SYSTEM
                                                                 ECONOMIZER
                                                                 vA/VW—
                                                                  FEEDWATER  SYSTEM
                        CONDENSATE
                          PUMP
                                  vWA/—
                                  AUXILIARY
                                   COOLERS
  | FEEDWATER
_J_PUMP	
-vAAAA/	
 FEEDWATER
 HEATERS
                                                                                            •	1
I
o
m
CIRCULATING
WATER
PUMP
           COOLING
           WATER
           SUPPLY
                      Figure 25.
                                                                1 q /•

                     Typical steam-electric plant boiler water cycle

-------
Feedwater dissolved oxygen and pH should also be monitored to prevent cor-
rosion and boiler d_amage, and coupled to hydrazine and ammonia pumps to
                                                                        78
allow for instantaneous feedback and correction of hazardous situations.

Associated Objectional Effects and Control Methods - Boiler water contam-
inants can seriously impair boiler efficiency and result in costly repair
and maintenance problems due to scale formation, corrosion, carryover and
caustic embrittlement.  These effects and methods of control are described
below.

Scale - The presence of scale on tube surfaces reduces heat transfer.  As
temperature rises, the solubility of many mineral constituents in the feed-
water decreases.  The solids precipitate in  crystalline form and firmly
bind to metallic  surfaces.  The heat transferred through surfaces covered
                                                               152
with 0.10 to  0.20 inches of scale is reduced by 1 to 3 percent.     This
decrease in efficiency significantly increases fuel consumption and may
disturb the operating characteristics of other portions of the system.
Thin scale coatings in the high heat zones,  including water wall and first-
pass tubes, cause overheating and subsequent rupture.  Scale formation is
prevented by external pretreatment, internal treatment, and blowdown.  Ex-
ternal pretreatment includes.clarification,  softening, ion exchange, and
filtration.   The  objective of each of  these  alternatives is to reduce the
concentration of  salts,  alkalinity and/or  acidity prior to boiler feed.

Corrosion - The principal deleterious  aspect of corrosion  is structural
failure.  Extensive pitting  is promoted by water containing dissolved
gases such as carbon dioxide and  oxygen.   Low  pH feedwater can cause loss
of metal in wide  areas while excessively alkaline  feedwater causes  local-
ized embrittlement through  the reaction of hydrogen and carbon.   Corrosion
can be eliminated by pH  neutralization, deaeration,  carbon dioxide  neu-
tralization,  and  protective  film introduction.   Deaeration removes  oxygen
by direct application of a vacuum,  by  heating  and  degasification, or by
deactivation.153  Carbon dioxide is  neutralized  by the addition  of  ammonia
                                  173

-------
or suitable amines.   Electron transfer and reactant diffusion can be con-
trolled by applying inhibiting silicates or amine films.

Carryover - This term describes the passage of moisture or entrained
solids from the boiler drum into the turbine.   Carryover generally pro-
duces superheater malfunction and turbine blade wear.  Carryover is
caused by priming and foaming.  Priming consists of surging water in the
steam outlets caused by heightened steaming rates, load swings, ineffec-
tive mechanical steam separation, uneven fire distribution, or excessively
high water level.  Foaming is a result of the formation of stable, non-
coalescing bubbles in the boiler water, and leads to gross entrainment of
solids in the separated steam.  The common causes of foaming are exces-
sive alkalinity, excessive boiler water solids, and. the presence of or-
ganics such as oil.  The recommended solids concentration in boiler water
                                       ,  -,   78
in order to prevent carryover is shown below:
         Drum pressure, psi   Total solids, ppm   Silica, ppm
            1500 - 2000              750               2
               > 2000                 15               1

These values are the maximum allowable so that it is advisable  to operate
at solids concentrations which are much lower.  The saturated steam should
be of the following quality:
            Steam contaminant   Maximum concentration, ppb
              TDS                           60
              Sodium  (Na)                   20
              Silica  (Si02)                 20

Carryover can be controlled by using  external  treatment  for reducing feed-
water solids concentration.  These methods  include  clarification, filtra-
tion, softening, and demineralization.  Internal  alterations include reduc-
tion of water level, boiler load, and the inclusion of steam washers and
mechanical steam separators.  Periodic  or continuous blowdown prevents
solids from building up above  the concentrations  existing in the treated
                                174

-------
feedwater.  Excessive boiler water  alkalinity  can be reduced by modifying
the internal treatment chemicals used.  A monosodium or disodium phosphate
can be used in place of trisodium phosphate  to reduce alkalinity.7**

Oil should not be allowed  to enter  into the  boiler water by leakage through
pressure seals or joints,  as its presence leads  to severe foaming.  The
application of organic antifoaming  agents is usually successful in control-
ling this problem.

Caustic embrittlement - This condition describes the presence of inter-
crystalline cracking in the boiler  system metal.  Although rare, its diag-
nosis requires sensitive scrutiny.  Left undetected, embrittlement can
lead to violent explosions.  Boiler feedwater  containing free hydroxide
alkalinity and silica is the primary cause.  If water leaks through a
highly stressed joint or crevice, it will flash to steam and high concen-
trations of hydroxide will remain in the crack causing metal degeneration
and failure.  The most effective control of  embrittlement is provided by
insuring proper mechanical fitting.  Welding and stress relieving lessen
embrittlement, but existing plants  with rivet  jointing in drums are sub-
ject to failure.  Maintenance control methods  include the use of chemical
inhibitors such as sodium  nitrate,  lignin derivatives or tannins.  Boiler
water alkalinity is lowered.by introducing phosphate for pH control.

Boiler Feedwater Makeup Treatment - The treatment of boiler feedwater
makeup is conventionally accomplished by clarification, softening, fil-
                                                           137
tration, demineralization, evaporation and reverse osmosis.     These
processes remove suspended and dissolved solids to varying extents.  Fig-
ure 26 shows the general layout of  a boiler  feedwater treatment system.

Clarification - The sedimentation process is used to destabilize and re-
move suspended and colloidal solids from makeup feedwater.  Coagulants,
such as aluminum and iron  salts or  lime, are added to form precipitates.
The addition of polymers or polyelectrolytes increases the rate of floc-
culation and sedimentation of the generated  precipitants.  Table 63 lists
the principal coagulants used and the normal dosages.

                                175

-------
                           RAW WATER SUPPLY
      RETURNS FROM
         TURBINE
           AND
        CONDENSER
TO TURBINE
     A
RAW WATER
 STORAGE
                       DEAERATING
                         HEATER
       CONDENSATE
         RECEIVER
                                         SOFTENERS
            CONDENSATE
           RETURN  PUMP
                                        ION EXCHANGE
                                        CLARIFICATION
                                         FILTRATION
              PROPORTIONING
                  PUMP
              CHEMICAL FEED
                TO BOILER
                                 CHEMICAL TANKS
                                   AND PUMPS
                   BOILER
                FEED PUMP
     Figure 26.   General boiler feedwater treatment scheme

                            176

-------
                    Table 63.  CHEMICAL COAGULANTS137
Coagulant
Alum
Sulfate
(Filter Alum)
Sodium Aluminate

Ferrous Sulfate
Ferric Chloride
Calcium Carbonate
(Chalk)
Proprietary
compounds
High molecular
weight compounds
Purpose
Main coagulant
To assist coagulation
with sodium aluminate
Main coagulant
To assist coagulation
with aluminum sulfate
Main coagulant
Main coagulant
To assist coagulation
with aluminum sulfate
Main coagulant
Coagulant aid
Normal dosage,
ppm
5-50
2-20
5-15
0.1 - 2
5-50
5-50
-
< 2
0.1 - 10
Softening - Calcium and magnesium are the principal hardness-forming con-
stituents present in boiler feedwater makeup.  The lime-soda or Clark-
Porter process of water softening    is used to precipitate these dis-
solved hardness-forming constituents and reduce alkalinity (CO " and
HCO ~).  In this process, calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime; Ca(OH) ) and
                                                              I I
sodium carbonate (soda ash; Na^CCO are used to precipitate Ca   as CaCO,
and Mg   as Mg(OH)9.  The boiler feedwater is treated with coagulants
and softeners and flows into a clarifier where solids settle and are
agglomerated to form a sludge which is discharged as waste.  Since the
water effluent from the clarifier always contains some carryover of fine
particles, boiler water clarification is generally followed by filtration.
Filtration can be accomplished in open gravity flow or closed pressurized
tanks.  The filtration media generally used include sand, stone, and
anthracite coal.  Various combinations of these materials are used in
36
                                 177

-------
 conventional  systems to remove suspended solids and any carryover of
 flocculated material from clarification.  Filter backwashing is performed
 one  to  three  times per day depending upon the increase in head loss as
 the  tank  is operated.

                                                      78
 Another method of softening is sodium cycle softening.    This is an ion
 exchange  process which exchanges sodium for calcium and magnesium.  Treated
 water contains the same amount of bicarbonate, sulfate, chloride, dis-
 solved  solids, and alkalinity that is in the untreated water.

 Demineralization - In order to produce boiler water of quality acceptable
 to high pressure utility boilers, demineralization is often required.
 This process  is capable of generating water which approaches theoretical
 chemical  purity.  The hot lime zeolite-split stream method or the mixed
 bed  ion exchange method can be used.  The split stream method requires
 two  zeolite tanks, one containing resin in the hydrogen .form and the
 other containing resin in the. sodium form.  The hydrogen resin tank re-
 places  calcium and magnesium ions with hydrogen ions and the effluent
 discharged is acidic with reduced solids content.  The total flow can be
 proportioned between both tanks in order to stabilize alkalinity at a low
 level and provide efficient hardness removal.

 In the  mixed bed method, anion and cation resins are mixed together to
 allow for complete simultaneous removal of electrolytes from the feedwater.
 When the resins become saturated with ions (breakthrough capacity) they
 must be regenerated.  Regeneration is possible in this system because the
 cation  resin is approximately twice as dense as the anion resin.  After
 turbulent backwashing, the resins will settle back into separate strata.
 In the  first stage of regeneration, small particles which have been  re-
moved from boiler water and have collected at the top of the ion exchange
bed are removed by a reverse flow water wash.  Backwashing usually  lasts
 for about 10 minutes at flow rates from 5 to 7 gallons per minute  per
square  foot of bed.  In the second stage of regeneration, spent  ion
exchange resins are contacted with a chemical solution.  Cation  resins  are

                                 178

-------
contacted for approximately 30 minutes with a weak sulfuric acid or hydro-
chloric acid solution while anion resins are contacted for about 90 minutes
with a weak sodium hydroxide, ammonium hydroxide, or sodium chloride solu-
tion.  Spent regenerated solution contains most of the eluted ions.36
Rinse water is then admitted to flush out any remaining eluted ions and
excess regenerant solution.  The volume of rinse water used is about 25
                               152
gallons per square foot of bed.     Wastes from resin regeneration con-
sist primarily of soluble sodium, calcium and magnesium chlorides or sul-
      137
fates,    plus excess sulfuric acid or alkali (NaOH) used for regenera-
tion.  A schematic diagram of the zeolite softening process is shown in
Figure 27.

Evaporation - This process is capable of producing water of the same
purity generated by ion exchange dernineralization.  Evaporation is a
distillation procedure in which solids are separated from water by pro-
ducing steam, after which the steam is condensed to water.  The chemical
composition of the waste stream is similar to that of the untreated water
except that all constituents are extremely concentrated.  The majority
of utilities prefer the use of the ion exchange demineralization process
because it is currently less costly than evaporation.

Reverse osmosis - This process is being used more extensively to prepare
makeup water for power plants.  Reverse osmosis requires relatively few
chemicals and no regenerant wastes are produced.  The process does have
high power requirements and water pretreatment may be required to avoid
membrane deterioration.  A few pilot units in the range of 20 to 100 gpm
capacity are now in operation or are being installed.  The ratio of"product
water or permeated water to reject water varies from 1:1 to 9:1 and is
dependent on the concentration and composition of the input water and
the quality of the product water desired.  The blowdown or reject water
contains from 2 to 10 times the salt concentration of the original feed.
                                                       137
The rejected concentrate also requires proper disposal.
                                 179

-------
00
o
                                                                                                    TO BOILER
              ^

SLUDGE RECIRCULATION
                                                                 BOOSTER PUMP
                                       SLUDGE .SLOWDOWN
                           Figure 27.  Schematic diagram of zeolite softening  process

-------
Boiler Feedwater Makeup Treatment Wastes - Clarifier and filtration wastes
are those resulting from the suspended solids in the original feedwater
makeup plus a small amount of coagulants and/or softeners.  Clarifier
sludge can contain aluminum or iron salts derived from coagulation plus
calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide derived from lime-soda water
softening.  Waste sludges from clarifiers used for domestic water treat-
ment generally have a total solids content in the range of 3,000 to
15,000 mg/£.     The solids concentrations of sludge withdrawn from
utility boiler water clarifiers will be about the same.  Approximately
75 to 80 percent of these solids are suspended, and the remainder are
dissolved.  Twenty to twenty-five percent of the total solids are volatile.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) usually runs from 30 to 100 mg/Jl and the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) ranges from 500 to 10,000 mg/Jl.15^  The
large difference between the BOD and COD values for boiler water clarifier
sludge indicates the presence of considerable quantities of nonbiodegrad-
able organics.  Boiler feedwater treatment waste parameters are shown in
Table 64.

Condensate Treatment - As is the case for feedwater makeup, the degree of
treatment practiced in the condensate-feedwater system is directly related
to the unit's operating pressure and temperature.  Treatment methods are
also influenced by whether the boiler is the drum or once-through type.
Condenser leakage promotes the problems that condensate treatment is
intended to alleviate.  These problems include corrosion and scale forma-
tion caused by the introduction of oxygen, alkalinity, hard minerals, and
organics such as oil.

High pressure utility boilers are capable of operating without condensate
polishing systems; however, the benefits available from treating the con-
                                                                  78
densate encourage the use of the process.  These benefits include:
    •   Improved turbine capacity and efficiency
    •   Shorter unit start-up time
    •   Longer intervals between boiler cleaning.
                                 181

-------
             Table  64.   BOILER FEEDWATER TREATMENT WASTES:  ELECTRIC UTILITIES - EXTERNAL COMBUSTION



1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coil
1.1. 11. 0.0 Bltuainoui
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.5.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stoker.
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stoker*
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Seekers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Cat
1.1.10.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Clarlf lent Ion w.istts
Volume,
co3/i!ay
550
316
306
220
41
41
4
2
0.7


1.)
a
4.8
1.2
1.2
0.8
113
108
42
66
s
2
3
121
29
92
Turbld-
Uy.
JTU
1,088


























TSS,
Bg/l
25,21)


























Hard-
ness,
mp/l
1,215


























Iron,
»g/l
352









•
















Alumi-
num,
«(!/«



























Ion exrh.iMiu- w.isti'A
Volume.
n'/.l.w
'13,910
54,0110
52,350
37,590
7,0l>5
7,065
631)
300
105


195
1,350
BIO
203
203
1)5
19,250
18.1KO
7,150
11.2JO
870
3)8
532
20,660
5,020
15,640
IDS,
«*/«
7.408


























Sul-
r.ni!.
"lit I
2.085


'























rhio-
rlJc,
•*/t
1,708


























Sodium,
mg/l
3,112


























Ammo-
nia,
m»/l
46


























Evaporator blovdovn
Volume,
mVdiiy
66
3D
36.5
26.2
4.9
4.9
0.5
0.5
0.2


0.3
1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
13.5
12.9
5.0
7.9
0.6
0.2
0.4
14.5
3.5
11.0
TSS,
og/l
175


























TDS.
mg/l
730


























Sul-
fate,
mg/t
;»


























Chlo-
ride,
mill
194




•






















ci'/d.iy
9i,526
54,354
52,693
37,834
7,111
7.111
635
303
106


197
1,359
816
204
204
136
19,377
18,500
7,197
11,304
876
340
53 S
20,800
5,057
15. 743
106
gal/yr
9.U3
5,2'0
5,030
3,647
, 685
685
61
29
10 .


19
131
78
20
20
11
1,868
1,784
694
1,090
84
31
5]
2,005
487
1.518
00
ro

-------
Deaeration is accomplished in boilers of less than 1800 psi by adding
sodium sulfite to the condensate,  Approximately 8 ppm of sodium sulfite
                            78
will remove 1 ppm of oxygen.    Hydrazine is used in higher pressure drum
and once-through systems in place of sodium sulfite in order to prevent
the formation of acidic gases.  The products of the reaction between
hydrazine and oxygen are volatile so that no solids are added to the
boiler water and corrosive tendencies are inhibited.
The alkalinity in both once-through and drum type systems is maintained
by the breakdown of hydrazine into ammonia and/or by the addition of
ammonia.  Condensate pH will stabilize between 8.5 and 9.5 if a residual
                                                        -JQ
of 0.06 ppm hydrazine is maintained at the boiler inlet.    This concen-
tration of hydrazine is not adequate to completely remove all oxygen so
that in high pressure boilers the emphasis must be placed on maintenance
of an airtight system.

In drum type units, morpholine or cyclohexylamine are sometimes used for
pH control.  In low pressure drum type units, chelating agents such as
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid  (EDTA) or polyphosphates such as sodium
orthophosphate are used.  Chelates combine with metal ions and hold them
in a soluble but nonionic state.  In this way, scale formation is mini-
mized.     By maintaining a free residual of sodium brthcphosphate, softer
porous sludges of calcium and magnesium are formed instead of hard scale.
Where necessary, a concentration of free caustic hydroxide may be main-
tained to assist in converting the magnesium salts to the less objection-
able magnesium hydroxide.  Periodic blowdown removes most of the sludge.
                                                        137
The remainder can be chemically or mechanically removed.

All once-through boilers employ sophisticated means for removing solids
from the condensate.  In many cases, deep bed or mixed bed demineralizers
of high flow rates (25 to 50 gpm/sq ft) are installed directly in the
condensate piping.  Some plants install precoated filters for solids
removal prior to demineralization despite the fact that ion exchange
                                 183

-------
 resin beds provide some filtration.  Condensate polishing demineralizers
 may be  designed for 30 to 50 percent of flow and are principally used only
 during  startup and for periods in which condenser leakage occurs.  In
 this case, treatment during normal .operation may be provided by 100 per-
 cent capacity precoat filters or by the use of an ion exchange resin.
 The success of condensate polishing by ion exchange has prompted the
 installation of demineralizers in a few drum-type unit systems.  As was
 the case  for feedwater makeup treatment, the wastes produced by the re-
 generation of condensate demineralizers are chlorides, sulfates, and
 dilute  solutions of sulfuric acid and caustic soda.     A method of
 condensate treatment employing ion exchange is shown in Figure 28.
Boiler Slowdown
 The most comprehensive source of available boiler blowdown data is the
 Federal Power Commission Report FPC S-246 covering steam-electric
                                               23
 plant and water quality data for the year 1972.    Approximately 55 per-
 cent of the plants generating electricity from external combustion re-
 ported boiler blowdown information.  Some of the plants that reported
 annual volumes of boiler blowdown also reported the pH and suspended
 solids loading of this wastejwater stream.  A compilation of th'is FPC data
 is presented below.
          Total annual generation of plants   78,206,700
            reporting blowdown suspended
            solids loadings
          Average suspended solids loading    30.8 mg/£ (or) ppm
          pH range                 .           5.5-11
Boiler blowdown refers to the periodic or continuous discharge  to  waste
of a portion of the working fluid of a boiler to reduce the amount of
dissolved and suspended solids in the boiler water.  If allowed to accu-
mulate, these solids precipitate as scale on heat transfer surfaces,  lim-
iting the effectiveness and structural integrity of these surfaces.  Scale
forming materials are composed of the hard salts of calcium and magnesium,

                                 184

-------
CO
                                                                CONTAMINATED
                                                                  WATER
                                                                 STORAGE
                              REGENERATION  WATER
                                                                                         HOTWELL  PUMP
                                                                      CHEMICAL FEED
^. TO  CONDENSATE
  FEEDWATER CYCLE
                         Figure 28.   Schematic diagram of condensate polishing system'
                                                                                       13

-------
dissolved silicates, and to a lesser extent, iron and copper salts
resulting from corrosion.

Feedwater is always treated to reduce hardness and dissolved solid and
gas  concentrations to low levels before it enters a boiler.  In addition,
ion  exchange columns are used in newer installations to continuously
purify  the condensate.  Chelating agents and pH control chemicals are
added to feedwater to inhibit precipitation of scale and corrosion.

Dissolved and suspended solids nevertheless accumulate in the boiler water
necessitating periodic or continuous blowdown.  The fraction of boiler
water discarded by blowdown ranges from near zero in nuclear and supercrit-
ical boilers with condensate polishing, to about 8 pounds per 1000 pounds
                  78
of steam generated   in older medium pressure boilers.  The frequency and
volume  of blowdown is not normally influenced by the type of fuel used.

Control Methods - External chemical pretreatment methods for limiting the
quantity of scale forming minerals and salts are described in the feed-
water treatment section.  Procedures include the use of clarification,
softening, ion exchange, evaporation, and reverse osmosis.  The general
objective of the first three processes is to substitute soluble ions for
scale forming ions.  Sodium phosphates and various sulfates are used to
precipitate a nonadhering carbonate sludge.  Chelating agents are used
to complex calcium, magnesium, iron, and copper.  Evaporation of feed-
water,  followed by condensation, generates product water with greatly
reduced salt _concentration.  Reverse osmosis utilizes an ion permeable
membrane and external pressure to transfer ions against the normal  con-
centration gradient and produce salt-free feedwater.

Mechanical and chemical deaeration are used to remove corrosive  gases  and
control corrosion.  Sodium sulfite and hydrazine are used  to  chemically
scavenge dissolved oxygen.  Carbon dioxide is neutralized  by  adding ammo-
nia  or neutralizing amines.
                                186

-------
Characteristics of Slowdown Wastes - Pollutants discharged in boiler blow-
down waste water include suspended and dissolved solids, hardness, acidity,
alkalinity, and phosphates.  Table 65 presents concentration values which
are average values for 66 percent of the nation's coal-fired power plants.

Boiler systems using hydrazine and phosphate discharge blowdown water with •
a pH ranging between 9.5 and 11.  High pressure boiler blowdown has a
total dissolved solids content in the range of 10 to 100 mg/Jl.  Blowdown
from boilers using phosphate additives contains 5 to 50 mg/£ phosphate and
10 to 100 mg/£ hydroxide alkalinity.  Blowdown from boilers using hydra-
                                  78
zine contains 0 to 2 mg/H ammonia.

Equipment Cleaning Wastes

Tables 66 and 67 summarize wastewater volume and constituents found in
equipment cleaning discharge waters.  The effluent guideline document for
                                          36
steam-electric power generating facilities   reports national average fig-
ures for total suspended solids (TSS), iron, and copper, and defines the
entire spectrum of waste characteristics existing in six separate plants.
The ratio of national TSS to the average TSS for the six plants was used
to extrapolate values for the entire range of pollutants on a national
basis.  Table 67 reports these extrapolated figures and the national
average values for TSS, iron, and copper.  The extrapolated numbers are
questionable, and detailed study of permit applications on file under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System is required to obtain
better data.

Cleaning Requirements - Chemical cleaning of the water side of boiler
system components falls into two categories:  preoperational and opera-
tional cleaning.  A wide variety of cleaning solvents are used, including
acids, alkalies, complexers and chelating agents.  The water side clean-
ing characteristics of all steam generating plants are presented here as
being independent of fuel used.  Actually, metal oxide deposits will form
                                187

-------
Table 65.  BOILER SLOWDOWN VOLUME AND COMPOSITION

1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coal
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.0.0 Lignite
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.1.21.0.1 Tangent-al Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Gas
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Volume ,
106 gal/yr

6540
3760
3640
2611
508
508
45
20
7
0
0
13
100
60
15
15
10
1340
1280
498
782
60
23
37
1440
350
1090
TSS,
mg/i

30.8


























TDS,
mg/fc

150


























Ammonia,
mg/i

1


























Phosphate,
rag/i

5-50


























Alkalinity,
rag/ 1

• 10-100


•























                     188

-------
Table 66.  EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASTEWATER VOLUME

1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.2.0
1.1.12.3.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.13.1.0
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
Electric Generation
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Lignite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Volume,
106 gal/yr

2184
1260
1222
877
165
165
15
6
2
0
0
4
32
19
5
5
3
442
422
164
258
20
8
12
482
117
365
aTable 67 presents equipment cleaning wastewatei
characteristics.
                     189

-------
Table 67.  EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS:
           ELECTRIC GENERATION - EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
                                                    36
Wastewater
characteristic
Hardness
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
NH3
Ni
Zn
Na
N03
Br
Mn
so4
Cl
F
Al
Cr
Cu
Fe
Mg
Concentration,
mg/2,
4,000
(14,000)a
127
(9,000)
(10)
(105)
(40)
(3,200)
(1)
(320)
(12)
(16)
(11,000)
. (680)
(8)
(240)
380
2,100
(30)
 Parentheses indicate extrapolated'values.
                         190

-------
on internal heating  surfaces  most  rapidly in oil-fired  boilers where
•radiant heat  intensity  is  the greatest.   However,  differences in cleaning
frequency dictated by this fact  are assumed  to  be  negligible.

Preoperational Cleaning of Boilers - During  the production of carbon steel
boiler tubing, mill-scale  (Fe^)  of varying thickness  is formed on the
interior metal surface.  If it is  not removed before operation, portions
will dislodge and leave intermittent corrosion  forming  patches of scale.
The displaced mill-scale is likely to collect in the superheater or tur-
bine where it can create pitting and erosion.   Lubricants which are applied
during manufacture also must  be  removed  prior to startup.  Oils tend to
collect on nuts  and  bolts  and grime buildup  during construction.

Preoperational cleaning of the water side of drum-type  and once-through
boiler systems is an involved procedure.   The system is initially filled
with caustic  soda, trisodiuin  phosphate,  emulsifying or  wetting agents,
and fired at  low pressure.  This phase continues for 6  to 12 hours with
frequent blowdown.   The solution is drained  and rinsed  from drum-type
systems and displaced in once-through systems.   A  corrosion inhibiting
acid solution (hydrochloric,  hydroacetic, or citirc) is then injected in
order to remove  mill-scale. -  The solution is drained or displaced, as
applicable.   In  drum-type  boilers, an alkaline  boilout  is performed after
the acid phase.  This is done with a soda ash solution  and neutralizes
pockets of acid  and  removes hydrogen gas  bubbles.   In once-through sys-
tems, an alkaline wash  which  consists of  trisodium phosphate and a wetting
agent is used.   The  final  step requires  provision  of a  passive molecular
film on clean surfaces  to  prevent  subsequent rusting.   A mixture of sodium
nitrite, mono and disodium phosphate is  used in drum-type boilers, while
hydrazine and ammonia are  used in  once-through  boilers. The system is
then cooled and  prepared for  service.

The wastes produced  by  preoperational cleaning  are variable, but are most
dependent upon the combination of  cleaning solvents used.  The waste water
                                 191

-------
 can be  acidic or alkaline and contain oil, grease, suspended solids, phos-
 phates, nitrates, and silica.  If organic emulsifying agents are used,
 the effluent water may be high in BOD and COD concentration.

 Operational Cleaning of Boilers - Since boiler cleaning is performed on a
 highly  intermittent basis and because the procedure requires a degree of
 technical  skill and specialized equipment, a cleaning contractor is often
 hired to carry through the cleaning operation.  Usually, the utility will
 provide the necessary water and a means for containment of generated
 waste water.  The cleaning organization provides tank trucks for mixing
 of the  cleaning solvent and necessary equipment such as pumps and auxil-
 iary piping and valves.

 After a boiler is placed in service, a variety of solid constituents enter
 the system along with the feedwater.  Some percentage of insoluble com-
 pounds  will deposit on metal surfaces in spite of external feedwater
 treatment  and boiler water blowdown.  The problem is most critical in
 high pressure units and eventually all systems require shutdown and chem-
                                                      36
 ical cleaning.  A study conducted by Burns & Roe, Inc.   indicates that
 cleaning frequency varies from once in 7 months to once in 100 months
 and that the mean time between cleanings is 30 months.  Boiler scale
 contains precipitated salts and corrosion products.  Its composition is
 variable and depends on the materials of construction, the composition
 of the  feedwater, boiler chemical additives, and contaminants from in-
 filtration.  Boiler scale can consist of the following compounds:
    •   Calcium carbonate, sulfate, phosphate, silicate
    •   Magnesium phosphate, silicate, hydroxide,
    •   Silica
    •   Oxides of iron, copper
    •   Zinc, nickel, aluminum
    •   Mud, silt, dirt (from condenser leakage)
As scale builds up on tube inner surfaces, the temperature  loss  through
the tube increases and causes the steel to lose strength under  particularly

                                 192

-------
adverse conditions.  Ultimately,  the  steel will  plastically deform (creep)
and then rupture.  -


The solvent used for cleaning  depends upon the nature and composition of

the scale, and the type of  surface being  cleaned.   Inhibited hydrochloric
acid is the solvent most widely used  because of  its effectiveness in

removing practically all scale deposits in a rapid period of time and

because of its low cost.  Other acid  and  alkali  cleaning solvents that
are used include the following:

                 Acids                  Alkalis
              Sulfuric       Free ammonia
              Sulfamic       Ammonium hydroxide, bifluoride
              Phosphoric     Ammonium sulfate, carbonate
              Nitric         Potassium bromate,  chlorate
              Citric         Sodium bromate, chlorate
              Formic         Nitrates, nitrites
              .Hydroacetic    Caustic  soda
              Hydrofluoric   Hydrazine
                             Ammonium and sodium EDTA
                             Thiourea

The alkalis are used where  circumstances  prevent the use of a strong acid.

These applications include  the cleaning of stainless steel and cleaning

of nonventable, nondrainable_ sections under circulating conditions.  High

velocities are used when circulating  hydrochloric acid which might cause

large patches of scale to detach  and  clog inaccessible regions.  There-
fore, the use of a weaker solvent which must be  circulated at lower veloc-

ities in order to be effective can be justified  economically.


One-stage cleaning can be used for copper and metal removal and two-stage
cleaning programs can be used  when copper predominates in the scale.  In

the first case, thiourea or  some  other metal complexer is used.  In the

latter case the first stage  cleaning  uses a mixture of ammonium carbonate,

ammonium hydroxide, and sodium bromate.   After firing and rinsing, a solu-

tion of hydrochloric acid, corrosion  inhibitor,  and copper complexer is

fed into the system.   This is  followed by rinsing and alkaline flushing

or boilout.


                                  193

-------
 Boiler volumes range from 5,000 to 100,000 gallons.  Because the cleaning
                                                             137
 operation may require a total of two to seven boiler volumes,    the range
 of  discharge is extremely variable.  The type of residual wastes discharged
 during operational cleaning depend upon the chemical solvents used.  Waste
 water from alkaline cleaning will contain excess alkalinity, ammonium
 ion, oxidizing agents, phosphates, COD, and iron, copper, and hardness
 derived  from metallic scale.  These same pollutants are discharged when
 alkaline chelating and passivating solutions are used for rinsing after
 acid cleaning.  The principal pollutants discharged during acid cleaning
 include  excess acidity, phosphates, fluorides, COD, copper, iron, hard-
 ness, and turbidity.  When organic solvents and other specialized clean-
 ing solutions are used, a variety of pollutants are discharged in the
 rinse water.  In general, the waste contains alkalinity or acidity, or-
 ganic compounds, ammonium compounds, phosphates, and scale compounds.

 Disposal of Boiler Cleaning Wastes - Methods of disposal of chemical clean-
 ing boiler waste vary widely and reflect the necessity to deal with cleaning
 waste waters on an extremely intermittent basis.  One disposal method is con-
 trolled waste release to a waterway.  The waste water is neutralized and di-
 luted in the ambient water to the extent of 5,000 or 10,000 to 1.  This prac-
 tice will be curtailed in the future in light of current interim guidelines
 and standards for steam-electric power generating plants.     Future use of
 this disposal scheme will require the attainment of discharge permits as
                                                               138
 outlined in the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

 Sedimentation and neutralization in collecting basins prior to ambient
water discharge is an alternative procedure.  The use of additional  chem-
 icals is minimized if alkaline and acidic waste streams are allowed  to
mix and neutralize in a controlled volume.  Sedimentation will remove a
major portion of the suspended and dissolved solids prior to discharge.

Discharge of waste to lagoons for permanent storage is another  treatment
method.   The percentage of solids will increase as settling  proceeds and
                                 194

-------
 supernatant water  evaporates.   Permanent storage basins  are  designed  to
 prevent  leaching of  waste  water to ground water.  Organic  air  emissions
 from  stabilization lagoons have not been previously studied  but are as-
 sumed to be of negligible  importance.   Organic solvents  are  used only to
 a slight extent because  of limited application and high  cost.  In addi-
 tion,  most organic solvents are employed by outside cleaning contractors
 who sometimes make provision for hauling cleaning wastes to  acceptable
 disposal sites.

 Other methods include  off-site disposal, waste solvent solidification and
 incineration.  Off-site  disposal is utilized where transmission costs and
 effluent guidelines  are  not prohibitive.  This includes  trucking to com-
 mercial  disposal sites or  barging to deep ocean dumping  areas.  Waste
 solvent  solidification is  currently being used on an experimental basis.
 An outside vendor  is generally contracted to provide this  service.  The
 contractor maintains the necessary equipment and the waste is  prepared
 for disposal to landfill or abandoned  mine.   Incineration  of waste sol-
 vents  is  practiced on  a  very limited basis.   When organic  solvents are
 used,  the spent liquid is  sprayed into a furnace at a rate of  50 to 100
                                                                      •I-i-T
 gpm.   The associated air pollution effects have proven to  be minimal.

 The disposal method  used depends upon  type of waste,  treatment efficiency,
 and cost.  In the  future,  the  point source effluent limitations developed
 by the EPA will be an  important  constraint.

 Miscellaneous Cleaning Requirements and Associated Waste Water -

 Condenser cleaning and wastes  -  Preoperational cleaning  of the steam  side
 of the condensers  is done  with alkaline solutions.   Operational cleaning
 of the steam side  of the condenser depends on boiler  water quality and is
 infrequent.   The water side  of the condenser is  usually  cleaned with
 inhibited hydrochloric acid.   This procedure must  be  properly  controlled
 in order to prevent  damage  to  stainless steel condenser  tubes.  The wastes
produced are the same  as those generated in  boiler cleaning.

                                  195

-------
 Feedwater heater cleaning and wastes - Preoperational cleaning with tri-
 sodium  phosphates and wetting agents removes oils, grease, and preserva-
 tives from both sides of the feedwater heaters.  Acid cleaners are some-
 times used on the water side of the heaters but not on the steam side.
 This precaution is taken in order to prevent acid from remaining in the
 more pronounced crevices on the tube exterior.  Operational cleaning of
 ferrous alloy tubes is generally not required.  Operational cleaning of
 copper  alloy tubing uses a 5 to 20 percent solution of hydrochloric acid,
 a neutralizing solution of 0.5 to 1.0 percent soda ash or caustic soda,
 and a final rinse with demineralized water.  Cleaning can be performed
 during  boiler cleaning.  Wastes include acidity and alkalinity from
 separate cleaning stages.  Oil, phosphates, and iron and copper ions
 will also be generated.

 Fireside boiler and air preheater cleaning and wastes - The fireside of
 boiler  tubes and air preheaters collect fly ash, soot, corrosion products,
 and airborne dust.  Both must be cleaned in order to maintain adequate
 heat transfer rates.  Cleaning is accomplished by steam soot blowing dur-
 ing operation or with high pressure fire hoses while the equipment is hot.
 Alkaline solutions may be added as cleaning aids.  The frequency and
 quantity of fireside cleaning discharge are fuel dependent bur have not
 been delineated by fuel because the water volume is insignificant.  The
 acidity  of cleaning wastes depends upon the sulfur content of the fuel.
 If the  rinse is neutralized with soda ash, phosphates, or detergents,
 the waste may become alkaline.  Other waste products include fly ash,
 soot, rust, magnesium salts, copper, iron, nickel, and chromium.  In
 oil-fired boilers, the vanadium content of this waste stream may be high.

 Small equipment cleaning and wastes - Other plant components, such as
 condensate coolers, air compressor coolers, and stator oil coolers are
 chemically cleaned at infrequent intervals.  The common cleaning solution
 is inhibited hydrochloric acid with detergents and wetting agents occa-
sionally added.  This operation produces a low volume waste stream which
contains variable pH, metals, oil, and suspended and dissolved  solids.

                                 196

-------
Stack cleaning and wastes - Fly ash and  soot deposits in stack interiors
are usually cleaned with high pressure water.  The waste stream from this
operation contains suspended solids, high and low pH, metallic salts,
and oil.

Cooling tower basin cleaning and wastes  - Carbonates, microbial growth,
sulfites, and windblown debris accumulate in cooling tower basins.
Therefore, the cooling basin is periodically cleaned with water which
results in the discharge of high quantities of suspended solids.

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING EMISSIONS

Coal Storage Requirements

In order to" insure continuous operation, coal-fired generating plants
maintain a 75- to 90-day coal supply on  site.  Table 68. shows coal storage
requirements based on the average of data supplied in EPA's Effluent
                               o£
Limitations Guideline Document.    These estimates are based en a storage
requirement of 15 to 75 acres per 1000 MW of generating capacity.  The
reported fivefold range is due to variation in coal storage practices
and land area availability.. Other estimates indicate that an'area of
40 acres is required for a 3,000 MW generating plant.     In addition, a
private power company indicated that the government estimates may be low
by a factor of 6 for specific plants.     Other projections indicate 1/2
to 1-1/2 acre feet are required for each MW of rated capacity in storage
                                      137
piles ranging from 25 to 40 feet high.     A height of 30 feet and a
volume of 1.2 acre feet/MW, corresponding to an area of 40 acres for a
1,000 MW plant, were used in compiling Table 68.
Coal Pile Drainage

Surface run-off from natural precipitation constitutes the primary source
of potential contamination of surface waters due to coal storage.  An
                                 197

-------
Table  68.  ELECTRIC UTILITY:   FUEL-STORAGE AND HANDLING EMISSIONS,  1974
a
1.0.00.0.0 Electric Generation
1.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
1.1.10.0.0 Coal
1.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
1.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
1.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.12.2.0 ' Pulverized Wet
1.1.12.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.13.C.O Lignite
1.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
1.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
1.1.13.3.0 Cyclone
1.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
1.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
1.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
1.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.21.0.2 All Other
1.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
1.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.22.0.2 All Other
1.1.30.0.0 Gas
1.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
1.1.30.0.2 All Other
Coal storage requirement
Weight,
tons
93,000,000
93,000,000
93,000,000
90,000,000
64,500,000
12,000,000
12,000,000
1,500,000
500,000
175,000
0
0
325,000
2,500,000
1,500,000
37,500
37,500
25,000
NA






NA


Area,
acres
7,700
7,700
7,700
7,500
5,300
1,000
1,000
200
35
12
0
0
23
165
100
25
25
15
NA






NA


Volume',
acre feet
230,000
230,000
230,000
225,000
160,000
30,000
30,000
5,000
1,050
370
0
0
680
4,950
2,950
750
750
500
NA






NA


Coal pile
drainage0
Volume,
106 gal/yr
7,900
7,900
7,900
7,700
5,600
1,050
1,050
100
40
14
. 0
0
26
160
100
22
22
16
NA






NA


Particulate
air
emissions,
tons/yr
170
170
170
160
115
21
21
3
1
0.3
0
0
0.7
4
2.2.
0.75
0.75
0.3
NA






NA


   The reported coal pile drainage properties (see Table 69) apply to all coals.
  Note:  NA - Not Applicable.
                                    198

-------
impervious clay foundation is generally provided for coal storage areas
to prevent ground water contamination.1^7

Table 25. presented the yearly volume of coal pile drainage from electric
utilities, the pollutant components, and a summary of hazardous effects.
The national coal pile drainage volume is reported to be approximately
        Q                 r  o
7.9 x 10  gallons (30 x 10  m ) per year, based on average rainfall
rates.  '     The pollution potential of the coal pile runoff depends  '
upon meteorological conditions, pile area, and type of coal used.  Coal
runoff usually has a low pH and a high concentration of dissolved solids
including iron, magnesium, and sulfate.  Aluminum, sodium, manganese,
and other metals may also be present in undesirable amounts.  Given the
yearly runoff volume for all coal shown in Table 68, a concentration of
1 mg/£ is equivalent to a total emission of 65,000 Ib/yr of any particular
           4
constituent.
Coal pile drainage contains dissolved metallic salts in the concentration
range shown in Table 69.  The variability of drainage composition reflects
the variety of coals used as well as the history and rate of rainfall.
During heavy rainfall the level of dissolved solids emitted will be high
initially and will rapidly decrease.  When rainfall is light, the long
retention time may allow more diffusion, and hence more chemical reaction
to occur and result in higher pollutant concentrations.  The values pro-
vided in Table 69 are based on data included in information filed under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES),    as re-
                                                •3 s
ported in an EPA guideline development document.    Data presented are
based on a survey of 66 percent of the major steam-electric power plants.
Additional information can be obtained by a more detailed survey of the
NPDES files.

Seepage to ground water can be minimized by storing the coal on an imper-
vious base of clay or plastic liners.  Installation of a simple drainage
system for holding and treatment can eliminate surface water contamination
for normal quantities of precipitation.  Examples of specific treatment

                                 199

-------
   Table 69.   COMPOSITION OF DRAINAGE  FROM  COAL PILES
                                                     36
                                                  .8
                                 Concentration,  mg/fc
Alkalinity
BOD
COD
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Ammonia
Nitrate
Phosphorus
Turbidity
Acidity
Total hardness
Sulfate
Chloride
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Sodium
PH
   15 - 80
    3-10
  100 - 1,000
1,500 - 45,000
   20 - 3,300
  700 - 44,000
  0.4 - 1.8
  0.3 - 2.3
  0.2 - 1.2
    6 - 505
   10 - 27,800
  130 - 1,850
  130 - 20,000
   20 - 480
  825 - 1,200
    0-16
  1.6 - 3.9
  0.4 - 2.0
   90 - 180
  160 - 1,260
  2.2 - 8.0
 Appropriate for all values except pH.  Using the volumes
in Table 68, 1 mg/£ is equivalent to 65,000 Ib/yr.
                          200

-------
schemes are neutralization and sedimentation.  These processes first re-
quire the collection and discharge of runoff to waste settling basins.
Neutralization can be accomplished by adding lime, soda ash, or an alkaline
waste stream from another process.  Solids sedimentation can be achieved
by providing extended retention time, and it can be accelerated with the
addition of coagulants.

Drainage collection systems and treatment capacities should be designed
to receive water quantities that contain the maximum pollutant concen-
trations.  Since the waste concentrations produced by heavy rainfalls are
not critical, something less than maximum storm flow should be used as
the basis of design.  Therefore, the current design rule is to provide
capacity adequate for 1 inch of rainfall over the storage area during a
               1 ^7
24-hour period.

Air Emissions

Coal Preparation - The preparation of coal prior to delivery to the power
plant facility can involve several operations:  cleaning'j demoisturizing,
dedusting, sizing, etc.  The processing and storage of coal at the power
plant also require extensive handling and size reduction equipment.  The
size reduction equipment is usually well controlled and not a major source
of emissions.

The size of coal delivered to the plant will depend upon the boiler type.
For stoker-fired units it is customary to supply coal of the proper size
and no on-site crushing or sizing is required.  Pulverized and cyclone
furnaces both require crushing equipment and fine pulverizers are re-
quired for pulverized-fired furnaces.  Generally, these latter furnace
types can accommodate any size of coal available.  Coal sizes are not
well standardized because of the differences in fracturing characteristics
of the various coals.  Bituminous coal size can vary from run of mine coal
(8 inches or larger) to coal which passes through a 3/4-inch round screen.
                                 201

-------
Stoker coal, which will vary with stoker type, generally is passed by a
1-1/4 inch but retained on a 3/4 inch screen.

Coal Storage - Data on air emissions from coal storage are extremely
scarce.  The discussion here is based on information supplied by the Mon-
                           1 eg
santo Research Corporation.     Atmospheric emissions of fugitive dust,
carbon monoxide, and gaseous hydrocarbons evolve from coal storage piles.
At a distance of 50 meters from a coal pile, the concentrations of car-
bon monoxide and hydrocarbons are well below the ambient air quality
standards.  No POM emissions were detected.  Particulate matter in the
form of coal dust is the most important air emission from coal storage
piles.

Particulate emissions are influenced by wind speed, pile surface area,
coal density, and the prevailing precipitation - evaporation index.  The
dust emission factor from coal piles has been estimated to be equal to
                                  I CO                              '  c
0.59 mg/kg-yr (0.00118 lb/ton-yr).     This is equivalent to 1.1 x 10J
Ib/yr of coal dust emission based upon 93,000.,000 tons of coal stored per
year.  Wind erosion reportedly represents only one-third of total emissions
from aggregate storage piles with the remainder attributed to various
                                  159
transport and handling operations.     In accordance with this informa-
tion, a factor of 3 has been applied to the above estimate of wind erosion
loss to estimate total particulate air emissions from coal storage and
handling.

Storage of Oil and Natural Gas - Emissions from the delivery, storage,
and transfer of petroleum and natural gas are negligible for the  electric
utility industry.  The only pollutants emitted from petroleum and natural
gas handling operations are hydrocarbons.
                                 202

-------
 FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION

 Sludge Composition and Emissions

 The data presented in Table  70  are for  an expected  application of flue gas
 desulfurization to 7,000  MW  of  capacity in 1975.16°  The  composition data
 presented in  the  table are based  on the use of limestone  scrubbing solely.
 These values  are  based on the use of coal containing 3.5  percent sulfur
 and 10 percent ash.  Although limestone scrubbing is presently the most
 widely used scrubbing method, there is  some advantage to  using lime, par-
 ticularly for high sulfur content fuels.     The use of  limestone instead
 of lime will  increase the solid waste generated by  about  25 percent.
 Reference 160 was used  to  determine the  area requirements and the applica-
 tion of disposal methods.  Area  requirements are  a  direct function of the
 sulfur content of the fuel burned.   Ash  content must  also be considered
 if  particulates and  S0_  are  collected  in a common scrubber or if they
 are collected separately and combined  in a common waste stream or pond.
 The estimates are based  on the application of scrubbers to only coal-fired
 utility units.  Flue gas desulfurization has" been and will be applied to
 oil-fired units, particularly those burning high  sulfur content oil.

 There is no information  available  concerning air  emissions from landfill.
 Similarly, there is  very little  information concerning water pollution
 from leaching and/or runoff  from ponds and landfill.  These environmental
 considerations will  be discussed below for the lime/limestone scrubbing
 systems followed by  a brief  discussion of alternative flue gas scrubbing
 processes.

 Fly ash may be removed in  the scrubber or in a control device upstream of
 the S0~ control scrubber.  Although both alternatives are being utilized,
 it is imperative for many  processes other than lime/limestone scrubbing
 that fly ash removal is  carried  out prior to the  S02  removal process.
Usually,  however, the fly  ash removed  is combined with the sludge in a
single disposal system.
                                 203

-------
             Table 70.  EFFLUENTS FROM LIMESTONE SCRUBBERS0
Weight
Composition
  CaC03 •
        •  2
          1/2 H_O
  CaC0
  SO ~ removed
  Fly ash
Disposal method
  Ponding
  Landfill
  Landfill and fixation
Air emissions from landfill
9,000,000 tons/year

2,135,000 tons/year
  315,000 tons/year
1,190,000 tons/year
  670,000 tons/year
2,016,000 tons/year

110 acres/year  2750 acre-feet
 15 acres/year   375 acre-feet
  5 acres/year   125 acre-feet
    4,500 tons/year
 Assuming application of  flue  gas
 of capacity in 1975. •
                                 desulfurization to 7,000 MW
Disposal Methods

The disposal methods were based on information provided in references 160
and 162, with area requirements based on storage to a 25-foot depth.  Dis-
regarding the many technical difficulties that have been encountered in
the development of lime/limestone and other scrubbing systems, one of the
most troublesome problems associated with lime/limestone processes is the
difficulty of sludge disposal.  If EPA estimates of about 70,000 MW of
flue gas desulfurization capacity operating in 1985    are correct, a
total of 100,000,000 tons per year of sludge and ash would be produced
(50 percent solids basis).  Scheduled and predicted capacity are affected
by a shortage of hardware vendors, the lead times required for design and
construction, and a reluctance on the part of power companies to under-
take the high capital investment required.
                                 204

-------
The following qualitative comparison between scrubber sludge and fly ash,

as presented in reference 61, will be helpful in the assessment of water

and solid waste disposal problems associated with these materials:

    •   The sludges typically contain calcium sulfite,
        calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate and fly ash
        in varying compositions.  Fly ashes typically
        contain silica, alumina and hematite.  The
        compounds in the scrubber sludge are more  -
        soluble than those in the fly ash.

    •   The high sulfur content of the sludge creates an
        additional problem of sulfur removal for manu-
        facturing processes requiring high temperatures.

    •   Both sludge solids and ash will contain trace
        elements and other species originating in
        the coal, lime/limestone or water.  The primary
        source of trace metals is the coal (ash).

    •   Sludge and ash liquors will both contain dis-
        solved species.  Untreated sludge liquors nor-
        mally have a lower pH than fly ash liquors,
        hence trace metal solubility is generally
        greater.

    •   Sludge liquors may contain significant quantities
        of chlorides.

    •   Untreated sludge settles to about 50 percent
        solids, and will require more storage volume
        per unit weight than ash which settles to about
        80 percent.


At this time disposal of scrubber sludges by ponding and landfill appears

to be the only important near term alternative.  Although water pollution

potential appears high, there appear to be minimal problems for a lined

and well-engineered pond.164  However, if the pond is operated in an open

loop mode to minimize some of the technical problems associated with the

chemistry of the scrubbing process, serious water pollution problems may

result from runoff of the bleed stream. ' Closed loop operation will prob-

ably be required, provided scrubbing systems can be operated in this mode.

The composition of pond liquor from a closed loop system estimated for

TVA's Widow Creek Operation is given in Table 71.

                                 205

-------
                Table 71.  COMPOSITION OF POND LIQUOR
                           (CLOSED LOOP OPERATION)165
                Constituent
Concentration, mg/Jl
           Calcium
           Magnesium
           Sulfate
           Sulfite
           Chloride
           Sodium plus potassium
           Iron
           Barium
           Cyanide
           Zinc
           Mercury
           Nickel
           Copper
           Chromium
           Cadmium
           Phosphate
           Total dissolved solids
      830
      230
     1400
      145
     1200
       50
        0.07
        0.2
      < 0.01
        0.02
      < 0.0002
      < 0.05
        0.03
        0.11
        0.001
        0.1
     5700
The concentration of toxic trace elements in the clarifier underflow from
open loop systems is given in Table 72.  Based on data from sludge liquors

analyzed thus far, the following pollutants .have appeared substantially
in excess of water quality criteria and therefore are of concern:  mercury,
selenium, boron, chloride, sulfate, and total dissolved solids.


If landfilling is used, chemical fixation has been suggested as  a means

of eliminating water pollution problems due to leachates.  Fixation methods
have been developed by at least three companies  (Chemfix, Dravo, and IUCS).

The Chemfix fixation process involves the reaction of at least  two chem-
ical components to form chemically and mechanically  stable solids.  The
chemicals react with all polyvalent metal ions to produce stable,  in-

soluble, inorganic compounds, which should  reduce leachate trace elements
as shown in Table 73.
                                206

-------
Table 72.  SUMMARY OF TCA LIMESTONE  SLUDGE  LIQUOR METAL ANALYSIS164
           (OPEN LOOP OPERATION),  TVA SHAWNEE  POWER STATION
      Element
                                         Clarifier  underflow liquor,
                                                    ppme
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Total chromium  (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Zinc (Zn)
   0.2b
   0.01
   0.005
250QC
   0.05
   0.05
   O.lb
 600C
   0.06d
   0.3b
   0.5
 Equivalent to mg/Jl.
 Exceeds USPHS Standards  -  1962.
 "Total dissolved solids  exceed  USPHS  Standards  - 1962.
 Exceeds some state standards.
Table 73.  COMPARISON OF TRACE  ELEMENTS ANALYSES BETWEEN RAW SLUDGE
           AND LEACHATE FROM THIS  SLUDGE AFTER CHEMICAL CONDITION-
           ING BY FIXATION



Constituents
Arsenic (As)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chlorides (Cl~)
Total chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Zinc (Zn)
Phenol (C6H50H)
Cyanide (CN~)
Sulfate (S04~)
TVA Shawnee
TCA limestone
raw sludge,
ppm
2.2
0.30
2,000
2.8
1.5
120
26
< 0.10
3.5
16
< 0.25
< 0.10
> 10,000

Leachate water from
conditioned sludge,
ppm
< 0.10
< 0.10
64
< 0.25
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
< 0.10
0* s%
.10
400
                               207

-------
The Dravo fixation process chemically fixes the sludge by the addition of
"Calcilox."  The Calcilox is added to the sludge during pumping to a dis-.
posal basin.  The solids fraction settles and cures over a 30-day period.
The solids can then be removed to the final disposal site, or the entire
process can be carried out at the final site.  The conditioned sludge
                                                     164
has clay-like properties and can be used as landfill.     Dravo has re-
ceived a permit for an installation at Ohio Edison's South Mansfield Plant.
The IUCS fixation process uses fly ash and a lime additive to chemically
fix the sludge.  The quantity used depends upon the reactivity of the
fly ash and the water content of the sludge.  The material produced by
this process can develop strengths of 300 psi in 7 days and over 1,000
psi after 1 month.  Because of the decreased permeability and the chem-
ical fixation of the trace elements, the release of pollutants to ground
                                                                164
waters is about 10,000 times less than that of untreated sludge.

Information concerning the effectiveness of the fixation processes on
leaching, ground water runoff, etc., is needed, and both Dravo and Com-
monwealth Edison at its Will County Station are conducting leachate
tests.    Further studies will be conducted 'by Aerospace Corporation at
the Shawnee test facility to resolve some of the uncertainties concerning
fixation.
Utilization

Utilization of the sludge from nonregenerative processes  is hampered by
the physical and chemical properties of the sludge as  it  comes  from the
scrubber or disposal pond.  The sludge contains considerable  quantities
of water which must be removed before the solids can be utilized.   The
solids portion also contains significant amounts of sulfur and  smaller
amounts of toxic trace elements which may be released  to  the  environment.
Table 73 shows some of the potentially harmful constituents of  the raw
sludge.  The sludge may be used in the same products that utilize fly ash.
                                 208

-------
The amount of fly ash used in 1972 was approximately 8 percent of the
amount produced.  This figure gives some idea of the potential of sludge
utilization and should probably be considered a maximum as the sludge  •
would be competing with fly ash.  The sludge also has other potential
uses -as shown in Table 74, but the amount used will be very small be-
cause of physical, environmental and economic limitations.  The largest
use of sludge will probably be as landfill, which is actually a means
of disposal.

Air Emissions From Scrubbers

Removal efficiencies for SO  and particulates have been reported in
references 164 and 165.  S02 removal efficiencies are in the 90 percent
range.  Overall particulate efficiencies are in the 98 to 99 percent
range.   '     More work remains to be done, hox^ever, on the efficiency
as a function of particle size.  Another important parameter yet to be
reliably determined is the amount of fly ash and scrubbing liquor entrain-
ment in the effluent particulate.  The limited data available suggest
that fly ash represents about 60 percent of the total and the remainder
is entrainment of slurry liquor.  The extent of sulfate emissions from
                                                      167
the latter category of emissions should be determined.
Other Processes for SO^ Removal

Sulfur oxide removal technologies are classified as throwaway or re-
generative processes.  As discussed above in the case of lime/limestone
scrubbing processes, air pollution problems may be converted to potential
water or solid waste disposal problems.  Regenerative processes, if they
can be operated in a completely closed loop mode, eliminate water pollu-
tion and reduce solid waste problems by conversion of the S02 to a product
which, if not saleable, is greatly reduced in volume.  Table 75 depicts
the area that would be required to store the disposal products of 20 years'
                                 168
operation of a 100,000 MW system.
                                 209

-------
       Table 74.  POTENTIAL PRODUCT APPLICATIONS
                                                164
 Uses same as or similar to
      those for fly ash
      Potential  new  uses
Concrete admixture (structure
  and products)
Manufacture of portland cement
Fired brick
Filler in bituminous concrete
Road base course, parking
  lots, etc.
Structural fill
Soil amendment
Mine void fill
Neutralization of acid mine
  drainage
 Autoclaved  products  -
    gas  concrete,  bricks,
    mineral aggregate
 Hot  press sintering  -
    pipes, metal, coatings
 Gypsum products  -
    wallboard, plaster
 Mineral recovery
 Sulfur or sulfuric
    acid production
 Artificial  aggregate
   Table 75.  AREA REQUIRED FOR DISPOSAL OF ASH, SLUDGE
              AND PRODUCTS FROM A 100,000 MW SYSTEM -
              20 YEARS' OPERATION168
         Disposal product
Storage area required,
     square miles
   (depth - 10 feet)
   Fly ash, 80% solids
   Limestone sludge, 50% solids
   Lime sludge, 50% solids
   Sulfuric acid, 95%
   Sulfur, 90% recovery
          46
         160
         123
          33
           9
                          210

-------
The advantage of conversion to sulfur or sulfuric acid is apparent from
a storage viewpoint.  Economic attractiveness would also be enhanced if
sales value could be realized for the sulfur or sulfuric acid obtained
from many regenerative processes.

The technologies for SO  removal are summarized in Figure 29, taken
from reference 169.  Summary descriptions of six processes that have
gained some acceptance in the United States are provided in Table 76.
The following additional processes are in the prototype stage of de-
velopment on utility or industrial boilers:  Thoroughbred 101 process,
Foster Wheeler-Bergbau Forschung process,    and the Shell Flue Gas
                        172
Desulfurization process.

The future acceptance of these systems will depend largely on successful
demonstration of reliability in the 100 desulfurization units which have
been installed or planned for installation by 1980 in utility plants.   At
the present time several plants appear to be operating at high availabil-
ity as shown in Table 77, obtained from reference 173.  However, the units
operating with high reliability are unique with regard to their location
(high water evaporation rates), coal properties (particularly low chlorine
content) or the chemical composition of the reactants.  The peculiarities
of these systems-must be evaluated with respect to other systems not
operating in as successful a fashion.  Other factors such as scrubber
design, methods of construction, extent of saturation and oxidation are
also in need of study at this time.
                                 211

-------
Figure 29.  Technologies for the removal of
            sulfur dioxide from stack gas
            (from reference 169)
                    212

-------
                         Table 76.  SUMMARY DESCRIPTION  OF  FLUE  GAS  DESULFURIZATION PROCESSES
Process
Lime/limestone
scrubbing







Double alkali
process







Magnesium oxide
scrubbing









Wellman-Lord











Classification/
operating principles
"Rirowaway process/wet
absorption in scrubber
by slurry; Insoluble
sulf ites and sul fates
disposed of as waste.




Throwaway process/wet
absorption in scrubber;
re act iints nnd reaction
products soluble; reac-
tion products precipi-
tated and removed from
tion outside of scrubber;
most coTnmon reactant
sodium sulEite.
Regenerative process /wet
absorption by magnesium
oxide slurry; fly ash
removed prior to or after
scrubbing; magnesium
oxide regenerated by
calcining with carbon;
SC?2 byproduct can be con-
verted to sulf uric acid
or sulfur.

Regenerative process/
sodium base scrubbing
with sulfite to produce
bisulfite? regeneration in
tin evsporative crystalli—
zer", Sulfate Eoraed
either purged or removed
by selective crystallisa-
tion.




S02 particulate
efficiency
Up to 90 percent S02
removal/99 percent fly
ash removal by most
scrubbers.





High efficiency > 90 per-
cent SO? removal/high
particulate removal as
above .





90 percent SOj removal/
particulate removal as
required by prescrubber.








>*JQ percent SOz remove*
particulate removal ae
above by prescrubber.









Dcve lopment s ta tus
Most studied but relia-
bility questionable due
primarily to scaling;
16 full scale units in
operation or planned for
start-up by 1977.


•
Active area but no full
scale demonstration as
yet; G.M. installed a
unit on a coal- fired
boiler in Feb. 1974;
several sulfate removal
schemes under s tudy .


One full scaled unit on
test at Boston Edison
150 MW oil-fired unit





,


Reliably operated
(> 9000 hours) in
JjipAn* Full titrile ilcn-
ons t r 
-------
                    Table  76  (continued).   SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION PROCESSES
Process
Citrate system









Catalytic
oxidation







Classification/
operating principles
Regenerative process/flue
g,*s waslied to remove par-
ticles and S0;j, cooled
and absorbed in sodium
citrate-citric acid solu-
tion in packed tower I
solution then reacted
with hydrogen sulfide to
form sulfur.

Ri'y« HIT. it I vc procoss/
catalytic (ixiii.) t ion by
V205 at 850-900^F to
convert SC>2 to SOj fol-
lowed by condensation to
form 70-80 percent
H2SO^. Variation of con-
tact process applied to
dilute gases.
S02 particulate
efficiency
> 95 percent S02 removal/
particulate removal as
required.







85-90 percent SO? recov-
ery/high particulate effi-
ciency needed to avoid
plugging and fouling
of catalyst.




Development status
New development by Bureau
of Mines; Now testing
1000 cfm pilot plant;
also 2000 cfm unit in
Terrc Haute, Indiana.
High potential.




Two-year test period on
15 MW boiler; also ;:est
on 100 MW boiler of
Illinois Power Company;
reliability not demon-
strated.



Application
As above.




"




New plants* oil
or coal.







Implementation
As above.









As above.








Advantages
High efficien-
cy; economic; no
intermediate
S02 regenera-
tion; high re-
liability; poten-
t (.1 1 ly most .if-
t riict I vc of
vi.iMc pro-
cesses.
Relatively sim-
ple and known
technology;
minimal mechan-
ical operations;
no relevant re-
heat require-
ments.

Disadvantages
Marketing of sulfur;
reheat.








Expensive ; poor qual-
ity sulfuric acid;
poor reliability with
appreciable downti.ee;
extra ducting to avoid
problems associated
with ESP failures and
high temperature gases.

Ni
I-1
*-

-------
   Table 77.  PERFORMANCE  SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL SCRUBBER UNITS


Utility
Ariz PS

Boston Ed

Com Ed


Daiiybnd Co-op

Duqucsne Lt

General Motors

Gulf Pwr


Illinois Pwr

Kansas City P&L





Kansas P&L



Key West

Louisville G&E

Nevada fSvi



Pepco

So. Cal Ed



TTVA



Unit (Mw)
Cholla-l 1115)

Mystic-G (150!

WillCity-1 (167)


Alma (60)

Phillips (410)

Parma (32)

Scholr-1 (201


Wood R-4 1110)

Hawlhorn-3 (KO!

Hawthorn-''. (100!

La Cygne (320)

Lawrence-4 (125)

Lawrence-5 (400)

Key West (371

Peddy'sRuM (05)
*
Gardner. 1 (125)

Ga'dncr-2 025!

Dickerwn-3 (lOOi

Mohave-1 HGO)

Mohave-2 (ICO)

Shjwn»-10 (30)



Vendor
Research-
Cottrcll
Chcmico

Oabcock &t
Wilcox

Foster-
Wheeler
Chcmico

Koch

ADL/Comb.
Equip.
Associates
rV.onsonto
Eriviro-Chcm
Comb,
Ennnrg.
Comb.
EnGnrg.
Eabcock &
Wilcox
Comb.
Enonrg.
Comb.
Engnrg.
Zu
-------
 SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION

 There is only one electric utility, the Union Electric, Meramac Plant in
 St. Louis, Missouri, that utilizes solid waste as a fuel on a regular
 basis.  The Union Electric Plant burns municipal refuse (MR) as a supple-
                                         3
 mentary fuel in its coal-burning boilers.   However, as shown in Table 78,
 there are several facilities either under construction or in the planning
                                     1 7R
 stage that will use refuse as a fuel.     Because of basic differences in
 boiler design, and lack of solid fuel and ash handling equipment, MR will
 not be used in oil- or gas-fired units because of their lack of ash han-
 dling facilities.

 Properties of the Fuel

 As shoxra in Table 79, MR is the most available waste source for the pro-
 duction of energy.     About 10 percent of the power required for a
 typical city could be recovered from its refuse.     The physical composi-
 tion of typical MR is given in Table 80.     The composition of MR varies
 both with the season and the location of its collection.  Hence, the ac-
 tual composition of MR in a given location must be specified precisely
 to obtain an accurate representation of the pollutant loadings to be
 expected from any one facility.  However, to estimate potential pollu-
 tant loadings, average national or regional pollutant compositions are
 acceptable.   The average chemical composition of prepared MR is given
 in Table 81.1?5
MR is attractive as a fuel for several reasons:
    0   MR is already collected and shipped to central
        points in most urban areas, thus alleviating
        the collection problem.
    •   MR is ubiquitous and Its flow is increasing
        rather than decreasing, thus its disposal as a
        fuel is potentially advantageous from an envi-
        ronmental standpoint.
    •   MR has a low, 0.2 percent, sulfur content
        rivaling that of the highest grade of coal.
                                 216

-------
t-o
                           Table 78.   PLANNED OR EXISTING REFUSE TO ENERGY SYSTEMS
                                                                                   178
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Ames , Iowa


Albany, N.Y.
Monroe County, N.Y.
Memphis, Tenn.
Wilmington, Del.
Number
of
boilers
2
3






Refuse
feed rate,
ton/hr
12.5
5.95
1000 Ib/wk



'

Steam
rate,
Ib/hr
925,000
360,000
125,000
95,000




Steam
temp. ,
OF .

900
725
710




Steam use
Electric generator
Electric generator






Status
OP 1972
UC 1975


DSC
C Neg
PD
US
            Notes:   OP   -  Operating
                     UC   -  Under construction
                     DSC -  Design study complete
C Neg - Contract under negotiation
PD    - Preliminary design underway
US    - Under study

-------
                                                        f
  Table 79.   DISTRIBUTION BY SOURCE OF DRY ORGANIC WASTED





Source
Urban refuse
Manure
Logging and wood
manufacturing
Agricultural crops
and food wastes
Industrial wastes
Municipal sewage
solids
Miscellaneous
Total

Reserve
(readily
collectable) ,
million tons
per year
71.0
26.0
5.0

22.6

5.2
1.5

5.0
136.3
Resource
1971
(total amount
generated) ,
million tons
per year
129
200
55

390

44
12

50
880
Resource
1980
(total amount
generated),
million tons
per year
222
266
59

390

50
14

60
1,061
Table 80.  PHYSICAL COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL MUNICIPAL REFUSE
Category
Paper
Food waste
Yard waste
Metal
Glass
Wood
Textiles
Leather, rubber
and plastics
Miscellaneous
Weight percent (as fired)
With
yard waste
44.2
16.6
12.6
8.7
8.5
2.5
2.3
2.9
1.7
Without
yard waste
50.7
19.1
-
10.0
9.7
2.9
2.6
3.3
1.7
Description
Various types, some with
fillers
Garbage
Grass, brush, shrub trimmings
Cans, wire, and foil
Bottles (primarily)
Wooden packaging, fu.rniture,
logs, twigs
Cellulosic, protein, woven
synthetics
Polyvinyl Chloride, Polyethy-
lene, Styrene, etc., as
found in packaging, house-
wares, toys, and nonwoven
synthetics
Inorganic ash, stones, dust
                          218

-------
Table 81.  CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF PREPARED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
                                                            176
Category
Heating value, Btu/lb:
As received
Dry
Moisture, wt %:
Total
Inherent
Ash, wt %:
As received
Dry
Sulfur, wt %:
As received
Dry
Chlorine, wt %':
As received
Dry
Common salt, wt %:
As received
Dry
Ash analysis, wt %:
P2°5
Si02
A12°3
Ti02
Fe 0
CaO
MgO
so3
K 0
Na 0
Sn02
ZnO
CuO
PbO
Average

4,981
7,248

31.2
1.2

15.8
23.1

0.10
0.16

0.40
0.58

0.30
0.45

1.52
49.6
11.3
0.89
7.89
13.0
1.55
1.54
1.78
8.70
0.05
0.43
0.28
0.20
Maximum

7,593
13,002

66.3
2.62

21.4
33.0

0.28
0.36

0.94
1.14

0.55
0.76

2.04
56.7
26.9
1.52
22.2
15.8
2.32
2.72
2.91
19.2
0.10
2.25
1.23
0.62
Minimum

2,293
6,602

11.1
0.36

7.6
14.3

0.04
0.07

0.14
0.31

0.11
0.33

1.06
39.9
6.1
0.07
3.03
9.09
0.64
0.73
1.07
3.11
0.02
0.19
0.08
0.12
                             219

-------
However, there are disadvantages which will restrict its use by electric
utilities.  The low heating value of MR is of concern, requiring classifi-
cation processes to remove noncombustible metals and inorganic materials.
The classified refuse has an average heating value of about 4,500 Btu/lb;
although this heating value approaches that of some low grade lignite
fuels, it is not sufficient for efficient combustion.  Thus the use of MR
by utilities will be as a supplementary fuel where the waste constitutes
cnly a small percentage of the fuel fired.  Used in this manner, the dif-
ferential effects will be small.  Concern has also been expressed about
the corrosive effects of MR and ash handling and disposal problems.  How-
ever, experience at the Meramac Plant has not indicated any serious effect
on boiler surfaces.  While the fly ash from the Meramac Plant has been
successfully used as a cement constituent, marketing of bottom ash as a
road bed material does not appear likely because of metal contamination.

The variability of MR characteristics, the seasonal variation in supply,
and the lack of full scale demonstration are other factors restricting
the use of MR as a supplementary fuel by coal-fired utilities.

Emissions

                                                    3
The Union Electric Plant consists of two facilities.   At the first facil-
ity the refuse is shredded, ferrous materials removed and air classified.
The inorganic fraction is landfilled or sold.  The light, organic  frac-
tion is trucked to the combustion facility.  At the combustion  facility
the prepared refuse is fed pneumatically into a modified boiler where  it
is burned in suspension with coal.

Table 82 lists the common air pollutant emissions for different poxrer
loads and heat inputs from the refuse.  The power load varies  from 80  to
120 MW and the maximum sustainable rate of refuse firing  is  20  ton/hr.
Particulate emissions data are given in Table 83.  The difference between
the EPA/MRI and the Union Electric Tests is believed  to arise  from the
                                 220

-------
Table  82.   EMISSION  DATA:  COAL AND REFUSE FIRING"
     Stack gas composition corrected to 50% excess air

Load,
MW
80
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
100
120
120
120
120

Heat input
from refuse,
percent
0
9
18
18
27
0
9
. 9
9
18
0
9
9
18

Mean for 0% refuse
Standard deviation
Mean for 9% refuse
Standard deviation
Mean for' 18% refuse
Standard deviation
One test at 27%
refuse

CO,
ppm
51
75
86
61
56
73
70
67
59
63
38
60
57
54

57.33
(17.79)
64.67
(71.18)
66.0
(13.88)
56


so2>
ppm
882
999
906
NA
804
779
989
899
1,149
1,471
1,031
870
912
920

897.33
(126.7)
969.67
(101.63)
1,099
(322.24)
804


NO,
ppm
250
246
403
317
267
350
233
216
249
217
254
213
316
246

284.67
(56.62)
245.5
(37.59)
295.75
(82.83)
267


so3,
ppm
4.0
4.5
22.3
0.0
31.3
0.0
21.9
0,0
0.0
0.9
22.1
0.0
0.0
0.0

8.7
(11.78)
4.4
(8,76)
5.8
(11.01)
31.3


ci,3
mg/m
284
274
419
374
426
367
385
420
•332
.298
309

Hg,3
yg/m
0.017
0.007
0.019
0.013
0.010
0.007
0.017
0.019
0.027
0.012
0.013
394 0.012
418 0.006
376 0.017
1
;
320 0.012
(42.58)
370.5
(57.03)
366.75
(50.32)
426

(0.005)
0.015
(0.008)
0.015
(0.003)
0.010

                        221

-------
Table 83.  PARTIGULATE EMISSION DATA, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION"

EPA/MRI Tests:
Coal
80 megawatts
100 megawatts
120 megawatts
EPA/MRI Tests:
Coal plus refuse
80 megawatts
100 megawatts
120 megawatts
Union Electric Tests:
Coal
75 megawatts
100 megawatts
140 megawatts
Union Electric Tests:
Coal plus refuse
75 megawatts
100 megawatts
140 megawatts
Inlet ,
grain/dscf
Mean


1.56
1.80
1.92


1.95
1.91
1.83


1.94
2.11
1.95


1.99
2.10
1.91
Deviation


a
a
a


0.072
0.085
0.172


0.025
0.163
0.068


0.095
0.003
0.190
Outlet,
grain/dscf
Mean


0.043
0.050
0.067


0.037
0.062
0.065


0.023
0.035
0.060


0.045
0.073
0.113
Deviation


a
a
a


0.0074
0.0098
0.0163


0.0025
0.004
0.0157


0 '
0.003
0.0151
 Only one test.

Note:  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
       MRI - Midwest Research Institute
                              222

-------
incomplete breaking in of the precipitators prior to the tests by Union
Electric.   Water pollutant loadings for the Union Electric Plant are the
same as those expected from a tangentially-fired coal burning facility.
(These have been discussed elsewhere in this document and will not be
elaborated on here.)

The composition of bottom'ash changes when municipal refuse is fired.
Prior to the use of MR, the bottom ash from the St.  Louis plant was sold
to highway construction firms.  When MR is fired, the bottom ash con-
tains large amounts of unburned wood, metal, and other wastes and must
be landfilled.  There have been no quantitative studies on the composi-
tion of the bottom ash.

Pollutant  loadings can be calculated from reported gas flow rates and the
emissions  factors given in Tables 82 and 83.  Table  84 presents the
pollutant  loadings expected from the Union Electric  Plant for 100 MW
output power, burning 18 percent MR, and-an assumed  8760 operating hours.
Actual emissions may be much lower depending on the  percentage of MR and
the actual operating hours.

    Table  84.  TOTAL STACK EMISSIONS FOR THE UNION ELECTRIC PLANT3
Fuel
1.
2.40.0.0 (18% MR plus
coal)
b c
Emissions, "
10-^ tons/yr
Particulate
660
S02
20
NOx
1.3
CO
0.37
HC
—
     Calculated  from test results at 100 MW load and 18 percent
    refuse.
     Total emissions for coal plus MR.
    Calculated  for  a flow rate of 285,348 dscfra.
                               223

-------
 REFERENCES

 1.  Energy Use in 1974, Interior Department Preliminary Estimates.
     Energy Users Report 81:201.  The Bureau of National Affairs.   1975.'

 2.  Statistical Abstracts of the United States:   1974.   94th Edition.
     U.S. Bureau of the Census.   Washington, D.C.

 3.  Shannon, L. J., M. P. Schrag, F. I. Howea, and  D. Bendersky.   St.
     Louis Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstration.   Air Pollution
     Test Report.  Midwest Research Institute.   U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA Report No. 650/2-74-073.  Research Triangle
     Park, N. C.  August 1974.

 4.  Statistical Abstracts of the United States:   1971.   92nd Edition.
     U.S. Bureau of the Census.   Washington, D.C.

 5.  Federal Power Commission News.  Washington,  D.C. May 9, 1975.

 6.  FPC News.  Published Weekly 1974.  Federal Power Commission.
     Washington, D. C.

 7.  Strauss, S. D.  Annual Plant Design Report.   Power.  November 1974.

 8.  Klumb, D. L.  Union Electric Solid Waste Utilization System.
     Presented at the 1974 Air Pollution Control Association Conference.
     May 1974.

 9.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   EPA Publication
     AP-42.  Environmental Protection Agency.  April 1973.

10.  FPC News.  Federal Power Commission.  Washington, D.C.  May 24, 1974.

11.  1974 Year-End Summary of the Electric Utility Situation in the United
     States.  Edison Electric Institute.  New York.   1975.

12.  Sussman, M. V-  Elementary General Thermodynamics.   Addison Wesley.
     Reading, Massachusetts.  1972.

13.  Steam Electric Plant Factors/1974 Edition.  National Coal Association.
     December 1974.

14.  Coal Facts 1974-1975.  National Coal Association.  Washington, D.C.
     1975.

15.  Steam Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses.
     Twenty-fifth Annual Supplement - 1972.  Federal Power Commission.
     Washington, D.C.  April 1974.
                                  224

-------
16.  Statistical Yearbook of the Electric Utility Industry for 1973.
     Edison Electric Institute.  New York.  1974.

17.  Federal Register.  Washington, D.C.  Volume 40, No. 91.   May 9,  1975.

18.  Westertrom, Leonard.  Personal Communication.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.
     Washington, D.C.  May 1975.

19.  Distribution of Pennsylvania Anthracite for the Calendar Year 1973.
     U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.  Washington, D.C.
     1974.

20.  Production of Coal-Bituminous and Lignite.  Weekly Coal  Report
     No. 3002.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
     Washington, D.C.  March 28, 1975.

21.  FPC News.  Federal Power Commission.  Washington, D.C..  June 29,  1973.

22.  Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data  for the  Year
     Ended December 31, 1969.  Federal Power Commission.  Washington,  D.C.
     February 1973.

23.  Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data  for the  Year
     Ended December 31, 1972.  FPC-S-246.  Federal Power'Commission.
     Washington, D.C.  March, 1975.

24.  Cowherd, C., and J. L. Spigarelli.  Hazardous Emission Characteriza-
     tion of Utility Boilers.  Volume 1.  Field Test Plant Draft Report
     EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228, Task No. 39 and EPA Contract No.
     68-02-1324, Task No. 27.  Kansas City, Missouri.  March  3, 1975.

25.  FPC News.  Federal Power Commission.  Washington, D.C.  January  31,
     1975.

26.  Reference 23, page 136.

27.  Baumeister, 1. (ed).  Mark's Mechanical Engineers Handbook.  Sixth
     Edition.  New York.  1958.

28.  Masser, C. C., and D. S. Kirchen.  Preliminary Edf.tion of Supplement
     5 to Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42).  Research
     Triangle Park, N. C.  April 16, 1975.

29.  Eller, W. M.   Power Generation in Cane Sugar Factories.   Combustion.
     September 1974.

30.  Brooks, K.  Personal Communication.  U.S. EPA Regional Office,
     Seattle, Washington.  August 1975.
                                 225

-------
31.  Refuse Combustion.  Environmental Reporter.  Bureau of National
     Affairs.  March 14, 1975.

32.  Control of Environmental Impacts From Advanced Energy Source.
     Stanford Research Institute.  U.S. EPA Report No. 600/2-74-002.
     March 1974.

33.  Sawyer, J. W.  Gas Turbines in Utility Power Generation.  Inter-
     national Turbine.  January - February 1975.

34.  Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook.  4th Edition.

35.  Gas Turbine Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production
     Expenses -1972.  Federal Power Commission.  Washington, B.C.  1974.

36.  Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New
     Source Performance Standards for the Steam-Electric Power Generating
     Point Source Category.  U.S. EPA Report No. 440/l-74-029a.
     October 1974.

37.  Hangebrauck, R. P., D. J. von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.  Source of
     Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.  U.S. Department of
     Health, Education and Welfare.  Publication Number PHS No. 999-AP-33.
     1967.

38.  Magee, E. M., H. F. Hall, and G. M. Vaige, Jr.  Potential Pollutants
     in Fossil Fuels.  U.S. EPA Report No. R2-73-249.  Prepared by ESSO
     Research and Engineering Company, Linden, N. J.  June 1973.

39.  Zubovic, D. P., et al.  Distribution of Minor Elements in -Some Coals
     in the Western and Southwestern Regions of the Interior Coal Province.
     Geological Survey Bulletin 1117-D.  1967.

40.  Kessler, T., A. G. Sharrey, and R. A. Fridel.  Analysis of Trace
     Elements in Coal by Spark-Source Mass Spectrometry.  Pittsburgh Energy
     Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.  U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau
     of Mines.  7714.

41.  Ruch, R. R., H. I. Glusroter, and N. F. Shimp.  Occurrence and Distri-
     bution of Potentially Volatile Trace Elements in Coal.  An Interim
     Report.  Illinois State Geological Survey.  April 1973.

42.  von Lehmden, D. J., Robert H. Jungers, and Robert E. Lee, Jr.   Deter-
     mination of Trace Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel Oil and Gasoline  -
     A Preliminary Comparison of Selected Analytical  Techniques.  Analyti-
     cal Chemistry.  46:239.  February 1974.

43.  von Lehmden, D. J.  Personal  Communication.  June  1975.
                                  226

-------
44.  Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution.  Calendar Year 1973.
     Mineral Industry Surveys.  U.S. Department of the Interior,  Bureau
     of Mines.   1974.

45.  McAlpin, W. H.  and B. B. Tyus.  Design Considerations for 575 MW
     Units at Big Brdwn Steam Electric Station.  Proceedings:  Bureau
     of Mines - University of North Dakota Symposium, Grand Forks, N.  D.
     May 1973.

46.  Validation of Neutron Activation Technique for Trace Element Deter-
     mination in Petroleum Products.  Gulf Radiation Tech.  August 1973.
     API.   4188.

47.  Davis, D.  D., G. W. Sonal, et al.  Study of the Emissions from  Major
     Air Pollution Sources and Their Atmospheric Interactions. University
     of Maryland, Department of Chemistry Progress Report.  November 1,
     1972 to October 31, 1973.

48.  Anderson,  D.  Emission Factors for Trace Substances.  U.S. EPA  Report
     No. 450/2-73-001,  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  December 1973.

49.  Sahagian,  J., R. Hall, and N. Surprenant.  Waste Oil Recovery and
     Reuse Program - Residue Management.  Draft Final Report.  GCA Corp.,
     GCA/Technology Division.

50.  Crude Petroleum, Petroleum Products, and Natural Gas Liquids.  Mineral
     Industry Surveys.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.  February 1975.

51.  Smith, W.  S., R. A. Taft, and C. W. Gruber.  Atmospheric Emissions
     from Coal  Combustion - An Inventory Guide.  U.S. Department  of  Health,
     Education, and Welfare. " NAPCA Publication No. AP-24, Cincinnati, Ohio.
     1966.

52.  Shannon,,L. J., P. G. Gorman, and M. Reichel.  Particulate Pollutant
     Systems Study Volume II - Fine Particle Emissions.  Midwest  Research
     Institute.  APCO Contract CPA-22-69-104.  Publication No. APTD-0744.
     Durham^ N. C.  August 1971.

53.  Weast, T.  E., et al.  Fine Particulate Emission Inventory and Control
     Survey. Midwest Research Institute.  U.S. EPA Report No. 405/3-74-040.
     January 1974.

54.  Bradway, R. M., R. W. Cass, and N. F. Surprenant.  Fractional Effi-
     ciency of  a Utility Boiler Baghouse - Nucla Generating Plant.  U.S.
     EPA Contract No. 68-02-1438.  GCA/Technology Division,  Draft Report
     May 1975.

55.  Shannon, L. J., et al.  Particulate Pollutant System Study Volume I  -
     Mass  Emissions.  Midwest Research Institute.  APCO Contract  No.
     CPA-22-69-104.   Publication No. APTD 0743.  Durham, N. C. August 1971.
                                 227

-------
 56.   Benson, J. R., and M. Corn.  Costs of Air Cleaning With Electrostatic
      Precipitators at TVA Steam Plants.  Journal of the Air Pollution
      Control Association.  24(4).  April 1974.

 57.   Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources - Summaries of
      Test Data.  U.S. EPA.  August 1971.

 58.   Stairmand, C. J.  The Design and Performance of Modern Gas-Cleaning
      Equipment.  Journal of the Institute of Fuel.  58-81.  February 1956.

 59-   McCain, J. D., J. P. Gooch, and W. B. Smith.  Results of Field
      Measurements  of Industrial Particulate Sources and Electrostatic
      Precipitator  Performance.  Symposium on Electrostatic Precipitators
      for  the Control of Fine Particulates.  U.S. EPA Report No. 650/2-75-016.
      January 1975.

 60.   Sahagian, J., R. Dennis, and N. Surprenant.  Particulate Emission
      Control Systems for Oil-Fired Boilers.  U.S. EPA Report No.
      450/3-74-063.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.  December 1974.

 61.   Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control.  Report by
      Commission on Natural Resources.  National Academy of Sciences.
      March 1975.

 62.   The Federal R&D Plan for Air Pollution Control by Combustion Processes
      Modification.  Final Report.  Battelle Memorial Institute.  Contract
      No. CPA-22-69-147.  January 1971.

 63.   Locklin, D. W-, et al.  An Overview of Research Needs for Air
      Pollution Control by Combustion Process Modification.  AICHE Symp.
      Series.  68(126):!.  1972.
                             *

 64.   Demeter, J., and D. Bienstock.  Sulfur Retention in Anthracite Ash.
      Report of Investigation 7160.  Bureau of Mines.  July 1968.

 65.   Sondreal, E. A., W. R. Kube, and J. L. Elder.  Analysis of the
      Northern Great Plains Province Lignites and Their Ash:  A Study of
     Variability.  Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 7158.  1968.

 66.  Final Report on Sulfur, Mercury, and Other Materials Studies at Neil
     Simpson Station.  Prepared by Walden Research Corporation.  Cambridge,
     Mass.  June 1973.

67.  Gronhovd,  G. H., P. H. Tufte, and S. J. Selle.  Some Studies on Stack
     Emissions from Lignite-Fired Powerplants, presented at the 1973
     Lignite Syposium,  Grand Forks, North Dakota.  May 1973.

68.  Ode, W.  H.,  and F.  H. Gibson.  Effect of Sulfur Retention on
     Determined Ash in Lower-Rank Coals.  Bureau of Mines Report of
     Investigations 5931.  1962.
                                  228

-------
69.  Fundamental Study of Sulfur Fixation by Lime and Magnesia.   Final
     Report.  Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio.   June 1966.

70.  Pollock, W. A., et al.  Sulfur Dioxide and Fly Ash Removal  From
     Coal Burning Power Plants.  Air Eng,  9:24.  1967.

71.  Frankel, R. J.  Problems of Meeting Multiple Air Quality Objectives
     for Coal-Fired Utility Boilers.  J Air Pollut Control  Assoc.  19:18.
     1969.

72.  Gartell, F. E.  Full Scale Desulfurization of Stack Gas by  Dry
     Limestone Injection.  U.S. EPA Report No. 650-2/73-019A. August 1973.

73.  Crawford, A. R. , E. H. Manny, and W. Bartok.  Field Testing:   Applica-
     tion of Combustion Modifications to Control NOX Emissions from Utility
     Boilers.  Exxon Research and Engineering Company.  June 1974.

74.  Cuffe, S. T., and R. W. Gerstle.  Emissions from Coal-Fired Power
     Plants A Comprehensive Study.  PB 174708.  1967.

75.  Jain, L. K., E. L. Calvin, and R. L. Looper*  "State of the Art" for
     Controlling NOX Emissions.  Catalytic, Inc.  U.S. EPA  Report No.
     R2-72-072a.  September 1972.

76.  Blakeslee, C. E., and H. E. Burbach.  Controlling NO  Emissions from
     Steam Generators.  Combustion Engineering, Inc.  JAPCA.  23:37-42.
     January 1973.

77.  Blakeslee, C. E., and A. P. Selker.  Program for Reduction  of NOX
     From Tangential Coal-Fired Boilers—Phase I.  Combustion Engineering,
     Inc.  U.S. EPA Report No. 650/2-73-005.  August 1973.

78.  Babcock, and Wilcox.  Steam/Its Generation and Use. New York.  1972.

79.  Bueters, K. A., W. W. Habect.  NOX Emissions From Tangentially Fired
     Utility Boilers - Theory.  Presented at 66th Annual AICHE Meeting.
     Philadelphia, Pa.  November 1973.

80.  Blakeslee, C. E., H. E. Burbach.  NOX Emissions From Tangentially
     Fired Utility Boilers - Practice.  Presented at 66th Annual AICHE
     Meeting.  Philadelphia, Pa.  November 1973.

81.  Cuffe, S. T., R. W- Gerstle, A. A. Orning, and C. H. Schwartz.  Air
     Pollutant Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants.  Journal  of the  Air
     Pollution Control Association:  Volume 14:  No. 9.  September 1964.

82.  Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary
     Sources.  National Air Pollution Control Association.   U.S. Department
     of HEW, Washington, D.C.  March 1970.
                                  229

-------
83.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Report on Particulate Polycyclic
     Organic Matter.  U.S. EPA Report No. 600/6-75-001.  March 1975.

84.  POM Preferred Standards Path Report for Polycyclic Organic Matter.
     U.S. EPA.  OAQPS.  October 1974.

85.  Natusch, D.  Physico-chemical Association of Trace Contaminants in
     Coal Fly Ash.  Paper presented at ACS Meeting.  Philadelphia, Pa.
     April 1975.

86.  Selected Characteristics of Hazardous Pollutant Emissions.  MRT-6401.
     Volume II.  Report prepared under EPA Contract No. 68-01-0438.
     May 1973.

87.  Zoller, W. H., et al.  Emissions of Trace Elements from Coal-Fired
     Power Plants.  Paper presented at 8th Annual Conference on Trace
     Substances in Environmental Health, Columbia, Missouri.  June 1974.

88.  Lee, R. E., and D. J. von Lehmden.  Trace Metal Pollution in the
     Environment.  JAPCA.  23:853.  1973.

89.  Natusch, D. F. S.  Personal Communication.  May 1975.

90.  Schultz, H., E. A. Hattman, and W. B. Booker.  Trace Elements in Coal
     - What Happens to Them?  Preprint of Paper presented at ACS 169th
     National Meeting," Philadelphia.  April 6-11, 1975.

91.  Sather, N. F., and W- M. Swift.  Potential Trace Element Emissions
     from the Gasification of Illinois Coals.  Argonne National Laboratory.
     March 1975.
                             *
92.  Ondov, J. M., et al.  Elemental Concentrations in the National Bureau
     of Standard's Environmental Coal and Fly Ash Standard Reference
     Materials.  Analytical Chemistry.  47:1102.  1975.

93.  Bolton, N. E., W. Fulkerson, R. I. Van Hook, et al.   Trace Element
     Measurements at the Coal-Fired Allen Steam Plant.  Progress Report
     February 1973 to July 1973 for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
     ORNL-NSF-EP62.  June 1974.

94.  Klein, D. H., A. W. Andren, J. A. Carter, et al.  Pathways of  38 Trace
     Elements through a Coal-Fired Power Plant.  Oak Ridge National Labora-
     tory Draft Report to the National Science Foundation.  1974.

95.  Kaakinen, J. W., R. M. Jordan and Ronald E. West.  Trace  Element Study
     in a Coal-Fired Power Plant.  University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
     For Presentation at the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
     Control Association.  June 1974.
                                  230

-------
 96.   Davison,  R.  L.,  D.  F.  S.  Natusch, and J.  R.  Wallace.   Trace  Elements
      in Fly Ash - Dependence of Concentration on Particle  Size.   Env.
      Sci.  and  Technol.   8:1107.  1974.

 97.   Zoller, W. H.,  E.  S,  Gladney, and G. E.  Gordon.   Elemental Fractiona-
      tion in the Chalk Point Power Plant.  Preprint of Paper  presented  at
      ACS 169th National Meeting, Philadelphia,  April 6-11, 1975.

 98.   Coutant,  R. W.,  J.  S.  McNulty, and R. D.  Giamar.  Determination of
      Trace Elements  in a Combustion System to EPRI.  January  1975.

 99.   Billings, C. E., A. M. Sacco, W. R. Matson,  and  R. Griffin.  Mercury
      Balance on a Large Pulverized Coal-Fired Furnace.  JAPCA.  23:9.
      September 1973.   p. 773-774.

100.   Andren, W. W.,  Y.  Talnic, D. H. Klein, and N.  E. Bolton. Physical
      and Chemical Characterization of Selenium in Coal-Fired  Steam Plant
      Emissions.  Draft report from Oak Ridge.   1974.

101.   Natusch,  D. F.  S.,  J.  R.  Wallace, and C.  A.  Evans. Toxic Trace
      Elements:  Preferential Concentration in Respirable Particles.
      Science.   183:202.   1974.

102.   Bolton, N. E.,  W. Fulkerson, R. I. van Hook, et  al:  Trace Element
      Measurements at the Coal-Fired Allen Steam Plant.  Progress  Report
      for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ORNL-NSF EP43.   June 1971 to
      January 1973.

103.   Klein, D. H., et al.  Trace Element Measurements at the  Coal-Fired
      Allen Steam Plant - Mass Balance and Concentrations in Fly Ash.
      Preprint of Paper presented at ACS 169th National Meeting', Phila-
      delphia.   April 6-11,  1975.

104.   Coal-Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, Volumes I-IV,
      Stations I-III.  Radian Corporation, Austin, Texas.  Prepared
      for EPA Region VIII, Denver, Colorado.  September 1975.

105.   Kaakinen, J. W., et al.  Trace Element Behavior in a  Coal-Fired
      Power Plant. Preprint of Paper presented at ACS 169th National
      Meeting,  Philadelphia.  April 6-11, 1975.

106.   Natusch,  D. F.  S. ,  and J. R. Wallace.  Urban Aerosol  Toxicity:
      The Influence of Particle Size.  Science.  186:695.  1974.

107.   Zoller, W. H.  Personal Communication.  May 1975.

108.   Trace Elements  in a Combustion System.  Report to EPRI by  Battelle-
      Columbus  EPRI 122-1.   January 1975.
                                  231

-------
109-  Eisenbud, M., and H. G. Petrow.  Radioactivity in the Atmospheric
      Effluents of Power Plants that Use Fossil Fuels.   Science.  144.
      1964.

110.  Shelton, E. M. Burner Fuel Oils, 1974.  Bureau of Mines.  U.S.
      Department of Interior, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  1975.

111.  Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and Cost of Energy Supply and
      End Use.  Volume 1.  Hittman Associates, Inc.  PB-238 784.
      November 1974.

112.  Technical and Economic Factors Associated with Fly Ash Utiliza-
      tion.  Division of Control Systems.   Office of Air Programs.
      U.S. EPA.

113.  Brackett, C. E.  Production and Utilization of Ash in the United
      States.  Bureau of Mines Inf. Cir. 8488.  1972.

114.  Brackett, C. E.  Production and Utilization of Ash in the United
      States.  Bureau of Mines Inf. Cir. 8640.  1973.

115.  Considerations Affecting Steam Power Plant Site Selection.  Office
      of Sciences and Technology, Energy Policy Staff.   U.S. G. P. 0.
      Washington, D.C.  1968.

116.  Solid Waste Disposal.  Radian Corporation.  U.S.  EPA Report No.
      650/2-74-030.  May 1974.

117.  Theis, T. L.  The Potential Trace Metal Contamination of Water
      Resources Through the Disposal of Fly Ash.  Paper presented at
      2nd National Conference, on Complete Water Reuse.   Chicago', Illinois.
      May 1975.

118.  Houlton, Lyle K.  Bottom Ash and Boiler Slag.   Bureau of Mines
      Inf. Cir.  8640.  1973.

119.  Mimick, L. John.  Converting Stack Waste into Usable Products.
      Power.  118(l):72-75.  1974.

120.  Hartens, D. C.  Chemical and Physical Reactions of Soil With Fly
      Ash.  Virginia Polytechnic Institute, School of Agriculture.
      Blacksburg, Virginia.

121.  New Look Into Fly Ash.  Combustion.  October 1, 1974.  p. 13-14.

122.  Georgoli, N., D. C. Harley, and J. Thedos.  Removal of Heavy Metal
      Ions from Aqueous Solutions with Fly Ash.  Paper presented  at the
      Second Conference on Complete Water Reuse.  Chicago.  May 1975.
                                  232

-------
123.  Capp, J. p., and D. W. Gilmore.  Fly Ash from Coal Burning Power-
      Plants:  An Aid in Regenerating Coal Mine Refuse and Spoil Banks.
      NCA Conference, Louisville, Kentucky.  October 1974.

124.  Technical and Economic Factors Associated with Fly Ash Utilization.
      The Aerospace Corporation.  U.S. EPA APTD 1068.  July 1971.

125.  Capp, J. P., and J. D. Spender.  Fly Ash Utilization, A Summary of
      Applications and Technology.  Bureau of Mines Inf. Cir. 8483.   1970.

126.  U.S. EPA Report by ERCO.

127.  Rossoff, J., et al.  Study of Disposal and Utilization of By-
      products from Throwaway Desulfurization Processes.  Flue Gas
      Desulfurization Symposium.  The Aerospace Corporation.  U.S. EPA
      Report No. 650/2-73-038.  December 1973.

128.  Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources.   MRI.
      U.S. EPA Report No. 450/3-74-037.

129.  Billings, C. and J. Wilder.  Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology.
      Report Prepared for NAPCA by GCA/Technology Division.  Contract
      No. CPA 22-69-38, December 1970.

130.  Federal Register.  Steam-Electric Power Generating Point Source
      Category.  Effluent Guidelines and Standards.  October 8, 1974.

131.  Jordan, John W.  Personal Communications.  Permit Assistance and
      Evaluation Division.  U.S. EPA.  Washington, D.C.  May 1975.

132.  Rose, John.  Personal Communications.  Burns and Roe, Inc.   May 1975.

133.  Thorsell, Richard.  Personal Communications.  Edison Electric
      Institute.  May 1975.

134.  Hamburg, Jeffrey.  Personal Communications.  Stone and Webster
      Engineering.  May 1975.

135.  Roffman, A.  Environmental, Economic, and Social Considerations in
      Selecting a Cooling System for a Steam Electric Generating Plant.
      Published in Cooling Tower Environment - 1974 by the U.S. Energy
      Research and Development Administration.  1975.

136.  A Summary of Cooling Technology, prepared by the NUS Corporation
      at the request of Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power
      Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

137.  A Summary of the Processes Involved and the Chemical Discharges
      Associated with the Electric Utility Industry.  Edison Electric
      Institute.
                                 233

-------
138.  The Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.   86 Stat.  816
      et seq.  Public Law 92-500.

139.  Environmental Assessment of Alternative Thermal Control Strategies
      for the Electric Power Industry.  U.S.  EPA.  1974.

140.  Aynsley, E., and M. R. Jackson.  Industrial Waste Studies:   Steam-
      Generating Plants.  Draft Final Report for U.S. EPA Contract No.
      EPA-WQO, No. 68-01-0032.  May 1971.

141.  Schwieger, R. G.  Power Data Sheet No.  501:  Find Cooling Tower
      Blowdown and Makeup.  Power.  Volume 119,  No. 2.  February 1975.
      p. 12.

142.  Roffman, A., and R. E. Grimble.  Drift Deposition Rates from Wet
      Cooling Systems.  Published in Cooling Tower Environment - 1974
      by the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.  1975.

143.  The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and Predicting Cooling Tower
      Drift and Its -Deposition.  JAPCA.  24(9):855-859.

144.  Furlong, D.  The Cooling Tower Business Today.  Environmental
      Science and Technology.  8:714.  August 8, 1974.

145.  Comparison of Evaporative Losses in Various Condenser Cooling -Water
      Systems.  Proceedings of the American Power Conference.  Vol. 32.
      1970.

146.  Daugard, S. J., et al.  Review of the Engineering Aspects of Power.
      U.S. EPA.  October 1973.

147.  Reviewing Environmental Impact Statements - Power Plant Cooling
      Systems, Engineering Aspects.  Environmental Protection Technology
      Series.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Report No.
      660/2-73-016.  October 1973.

148.  Potential Environmental Modifications Produced by Large Evaporative
      Cooling Towers.U.S. EPA Report No. 16130 DNH 01/71.  U.S. Government
      Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  January 1971.

149.  Sonnichsen, J. C. Jr., S. L. Engstrom, D. C. Kolesar, and G.  C.
      Bailey.  Cooling Ponds - A Survey of the State-of-the-Art.  Hanford
      Engineering Development Laboratory.  Report No. HEDL - TME  72-101.
      September 1972.

150.  National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.

151.  Feedwater Quality in Modern Industrial Boilers  - A consensus  of
      Proper Current Operating Practices.  Preliminary Report.   Industrial
      Boiler Water Subcommittee - A.S.M.E. Research  Committee  on Water in
      Thermal Power Systems.  April 1975.


                                   234

-------
152.   Strauss,  Sheldon D.  Water Treatment.  Power.   June 1973.

153.   Fair, Geyer, and Okum.  Elements of Water Supply and Waste Water
      Disposal.  2nd Edition.  John Wiley and Sons,  Inc.   1971.

154.   Fair, Geyer, and Okum.  Water and Waste Water  Engineering.
      Volume 2.  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.  1968.

155.   Packaged Firetube Boiler Engineering Manual.  First Edition.
      Prepared by Technical Committee of Packaged Firetube Section.
      American Boiler Manufacturers Association, Newark,  N. J.   1971.

156.   Albrecht, A. E.  Disposal of Alum Sludges.  American Water Works
      Association Journal.  January 1972.

157.   Personal Communication.  Niagara Mohawk Power.

158.   Blackwood, T. R., and A. W. Wachter.  Source Assessment of Coal
      Storage Piles.  U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency, EPA  Contract
      No. 68-02-1874'.

159.   Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources. MRI.
      U.S. EPA Report No. 450/3-74-037.  1974.

160.   Potential Solid Waste Generation and Disposal  from Lime and
      Limestone Desulfurization Processed.  Bureau of Mines Inf; Cir.
      8633.  1974.

161.   Weir, A., Jr.  Personal Communication to NAS.   Southern California
      Edison Company.  Rosemead, California.  1975

162.   Elder, H. W.  Flue Gas Desulfurization Byproduct Disposal/Utiliza-
      tion:  Review and Status.  U.S. EPA Report No. 650/2~74-126b.
      December 1974.

163.   EPA Increases Estimates of Power Plant Control Costs.  Energy
      Users Report.  Washington., D.C.  July 24, 1975.

164.   Rossoff,  J., and R. C. Rossi.  Disposal of By-Products from Non-
      Regenerable Flue Gas Desulfurization Systems:   Initial Report.
      Aerospace Corporation.  U.S. EPA Report No. 650/2-74-037a.

165.   Slack, A. V., and J. M. Posts.  Disposal and Use of By-products
      from Flue Gas Desulfurization Processes, Introduction and  Overview.
      TVA.  1973.

166.   Epstein,  M.  Test Results from the EPA Lime/Limestone Test Facility,
      Bechtel Corporation.  Flue Gas Desulfurization Symposium.   U.S.
      EPA Report No. 650/2-73-038.  1973.
                                  235

-------
 167.  Vasan, S.  The Citrex Process for S02 Removal.  Chemical Engineering.
      Progress.  Vol.  71:No. 5.  Peabody Engineering Systems.  May 1975.

 168.  Projected Utilization of Stack Gas Cleaning Systems by Steam-Electric
      Plants.  Sulfur Oxide Control Technology Assessment Panel.  APTD-1569
      April 15, 1973.

 169.  Rosenberg, H. S., R. B. Engdahl, J. H. Oxley, and J. M. Genco.
      The Status of S0£ Control Systems.  Chemical Engineering Progress.
      Vol. 71:No. 5.  Battelle Columbus.  May 1975.

 170.  Tamarl, A.  The Thoroughbred 101 Desulfurization Process.  Chemical
      Engineering Progress.  Vol. 71:No. 5.  May 1975.

 171.  Bischoff, W. F., and Y. Habib.  The FW-BF Dry Adsorption System.
      Chemical Engineering Progress.  Vol. 71:No. 5.  May 1975.

 172.  Removing S02 from Stack Gas.  Environmental Science and Technology.
      February '1973.-

 173.  Three Scrubber Units Show 90% Availability for Year; Several Others
      Close.  Summary of PEDco-Environmental Specialists January Monthly
      Report to EPA.  Electrical Week.  March 10, 1975.

 174.  Anderson, Larry L.  Energy Potential from Organic Wastes:  A Review
      of  the Quantities and Sources.  Bureau of Mines Information Circular
      8549.  Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C.  1972.

 175.  Environmental Considerations in Future -Energy Growth.  Battelle
      Columbus Laboratories, for the Office of Research and Development.
      U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-0470.  April 1973.

 176.  Power from Waste.  Power.  February 1975.

 177.  A Methodology and Documentation for Consistent Analysis of Energy
      Alternatives for Environmental Impact Statements.  Vol. 3.   Submitted
      by  the Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma for
      EPA.

 178.  Huang, C. J., and C. Dalton.  Energy Recovery from  Solid Waste.
      Volume 2, Technical Report.  Prepared by University of Houston,  for
      Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, NASA.  NASA CR-2526.  April  1975.

179.  Kaakinen,  J.  W., Trace Element Study in a Pulverized Coal-Fired
      Power Plant,  Ph.D Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
      1974.
                                  236

-------
180.   Delaney,  T.   Personal Communication.  October 1975.

181.   Coxrfierd,  C.,  M.  Marcus, C. Guenther, J. Spigarelli.  Hazardous
      Emission  Characterization of Utility Boilers.  Midwest Research
      Institute.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No.
      EPA 650/2-75-066.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  July 1975.

182.   Ceramic Cooling Tower Company,  PSM Drift Testing.  CT-142-1.
      Rev. A.  April 21, 1973.

183.   Rohrman,  F.A.  Analyzing the Effect of Fly Ash on Water Pollution.
      Power.  August, 1971.

184.   Coal-Fired Power Plant Trace Element Study, Volume I-IV, Radian
      Corporation.  September, 1975.

185.   Bornstein, L.J., et al.  Reuse of Power Plant Desulfurization
      Waste Water.  Aerospace Report No. ATR-75(7448)-l, The Aerospace
      Corporation.  Prepared for Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory,
      National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and
      Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
      Oregon.  June, 1975.
                                 237

-------
                               SECTION III
                      INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SOURCES

This section presents estimates of air, water, and solid waste pollutants
produced by certain types of conventional industrial fossil fuel combus-
tion sources.  Fuel combustion usage for steam generation (process steam,
space heating, and generation of electricity) and by stationary engines is
included while fuel used for feedstock or direct heating is not included.

It is estimated that, within the fuel use categories considered in this
study, industrial sources consume 29 percent of the fuel.  Industrial
fuel is primarily natural gas (67 percent), but oil (18 percent) and coal
(12 percent) are used in large quantities.  Wood and bagasse represent
the remaining 3 percent of industrial fuel consumption.

Many of the principles governing the operation of electric utility boilers
apply to industrial boilers.  However, industrial boilers consist of a
much wider capacity range, from small package boilers of 10-200 x 10"
Btu/hr to units exceeding 1500 x 10  Btu/hr.  Pressure and temperature
requirements vary from as low as 2 psig and 215 F for heating applica-
tions to as high as 1500 psig and 1000°F for large turbine generators.
In this study all boilers used by industry are classified as industrial
boilers, although other studies have defined industrial boilers as only
those in the 10-500 x 106 Btu/hr size range.1'2

The type of boiler used in coal-fired installations depends upon  coal
availability and plant size.  While pulverized coal boilers can burn all
coals,  their lowest practical size is about 200 x 10  Btu/hr.  This  lower
                                 238

-------
limit is determined by the costs of pulverizers and other auxiliary equip-
ment for smaller units.  Cyclone boilers can be used in the size range
of 100-800 x 10  Btu/hr, and are suitable for low-ash-fusion temperature
coals.  Many small units less than 200 x 106 Btu/hr use stokers as the
most practical means of firing coal.  Almost any coal can be burned suc-
cessfully in stoker type boilers.  The spreader stoker is the most com-
mon firing me.thod used for intermediate size boilers, up to 250 x 10
Btu/hr.

Natural gas- and oil-fired boilers are similar to utility boilers and can
be used for all capacities.  By-product gas, bagasse, wood, and other
waste materials are available in many industrial areas and are often
utilized in industrial boilers.  The availability of these cheap fuels
is often the decisive factor influencing industries to install electric
generation equipment.  Otherwise, electricity might be more economically
purchased from a utility.

The use of internal combustion engines (gas turbines and reciprocating
engines) is more prevalent in the industrial sector than in the electric
utility sector.  Internal combustion engines account for almost 25 per-
cent of the industrial fuel use as opposed to 4 percent in electric
utilities.  The greater use of internal combustion engines is largely
based on their adaptability to required variations in demand and their
simple operation.  The gas turbine is replacing the reciprocating engine
because of its lower installed cost per horsepower and its greater
reliability.

DATA SOURCES

Previous industrial combustion studies have used NEDS data,  sales figures
                                                             4
available from the American Boiler Manufacturers Association,  and U.S.
Department of Commerce census data  to define boiler capacity and popula-
tion.  There is less information available in the technical literature
                                 239

-------
concerning operating and emission control practices of industrial fuel
consumers than is available on the utility sector.

Emission control information for air pollutants is available in the NEDS
data  file for combustion sources emitting more than 100 tons/year of any
criteria pollutant.  This emission rate is characteristic of uncontrolled
boilers which are greater than or equal to the following capacities:
    •   Bituminous coal-fired      4 x 10  Btu/hr
    •   Residual oil-fired        13 x 106 Btu/hr
    •   Natural gas-fired        110 x 106 Btu/hr
These minimum capacities vary with fuel ash content, sulfur content,
and boiler operating hours.  Many industrial boilers do not appear in
the NEDS file because they are below the minimum capacities.

The characteristics of industrial boilers have been studied in several
recent EPA programs.  Emissions and control techniques at 50 coal-,
                                                                    n
                                                                     6
oil-, and gas-fired boilers in the 10-500 x 10  Btu/hr size range have
been extensively investigated by KVB in a continuing series of tests.
Particulate control device application for industrial coal-fired units
in the size range 10-500 x 10  Btu/hr, as specified in NEDS data, has
                                                     7 8
been analyzed by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC). '   Midwest Research
Institute (MRI) has also estimated control efficiency for industrial
                   9
coal-fired boilers.   MRC estimated an overall control efficiency of
50 percent, while MRI estimated 60 percent for coal-fired boilers.  We
were unable to update control equipment efficiency  through the NEDS file
as point source printouts were unavailable from EPA in the time  frame of
the project due to computer problems.  The emission estimates provided in
this section of the report are based on the limited data presently avail-
able.  More extensive data on industrial boilers larger than 100 x 10
Btu/hr capacity are being compiled by the Federal Energy Administration.
                                 240

-------
Oil, gas, and coal consumption were calculated from Bureau of Mines
     10-13
data.       NEDS as well as other data sources were used to estimate
consumption of minor fuels such as anthracite, wood, and bagasse.  As
will be noted, these data sources generally yield lower fuel consumption
                             7 8
values than estimates by MRC. '
The quantity and characteristics of waste water and solid waste emissions
from industrial combustion  sources are not extensively reported in the
technical literature.  In addition, investigation  into methods of con-
trolling these emissions has received little  attention.  The National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program is a potential
source of information, but  cannot yet be used for  data that are statis-
tically meaningful.  In estimating water and  solid waste pollutants, we
have assumed that industrial and utility practices are similar for the
large boilers.  Descriptions of these practices provided by knowledgeable
individuals were also utilized.

FUEL CONSUMPTION

Industrial combustion fuel  consumption included in this project includes
fossil and solid waste fuels used for steam generation and space heating
or in stationary engines.   Fuel used for direct heating in applications
such as kilns, coking, and  other metallurgical and mineral processing
operations is not included.  Consumption of fuel as feedstock is also
not included.  A number of  data sources are available for estimating
industrial fuel usage,  "*  but estimates vary due to differences in
definitions of industrial fuel use.

GCA's estimates of industrial fuel consumption are based primarily on
                                                            *v
Bureau of Mines data  ~   (coal, oil, and gas) and NEDS data  (wood and
bagasse).  Coal consumption for steam generation and space heating was
                                 241

-------
estimated to be 61,620,000 tons/year.  (This is only a portion of the
total industrial coal consumption, as about 90,000,000 tons/year are used
for coking.  )  Similarly, oil consumption reported in Table 85 represents
less than half the total used by industry, as large amounts are used as
feedstocks and for direct heat.    Natural gas consumption by external
combustion systems was calculated by subtracting the amount used in inter-
nal combustion systems and then subtracting direct heat and feedstock con-
sumption (about 35 percent).    Bagasse and wood consumption were calculated
                                           3
from emissions reported by the NEDS system.   During 1973, only four large
                                              12
scale systems with a total capacity of 10 x 10   Btu/hr were burning refuse
to produce steam (see Table 105).  These systems have had operating prob-
lems, have probably operated at load factors near 20 percent, and most of
                                         18
the steam produced has not been utilized.    The small amount of refuse
burned has not been included in any of the summary tables but is discussed
in a later section.  Fuel consumption by gas turbines and reciprocating
                                                          19
engines was estimated from capacity and average load data.
Our fuel consumption estimates for both coal- and oil-fired boilers are
considerably lower  (-50 percent) than estimates prepared by MRC.  '   MRC
                                                        20
calculated fuel consumption from boiler population data  and  generalized
                                         21
load factors and combustion efficiencies.    The generalized load  factors
were based on very  little real data, and therefore fuel consumption
estimates based on  Bureau of Mines data were used whenever possible.

Natural gas accounts for 67 percent of industrial fuel  usage,  oil for
18 percent, and coal for 12 percent (see Table 85).   External  combustion
sources account for 77 percent of the total with internal combustion
accounting for the  remaining 23 percent.  Natural gas represents 61 per-
cent of external combustion fuel, while coal and oil represent 16 and
15 percent, respectively, of external combustion fuel.  Bagasse accounts
for only 0.2 percent of external combustion  fuel, and wood  accounts  for
3 percent.   Municipal refuse represents less than 0.05  percent.
                                 242

-------
               Table 85.   INDUSTRIAL FUEL CONSUMPTION,  1973

2.0.00.0.0
2,1, 00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2. loll. 0.0
2,1.12.0.0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.21.0.0
2.1.22,0.0
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.41.0.0
2.1.42.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
2.2.20.0.0
2,2.30.0.0
Industrial
External combustion
Coal3
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Residual
Distillate
Natural gasc
Bagasse
Wood
Internal combustion
Petroleum
Natural gasc
Amount used


60,620
57,450
370
2,800
11,400,000
8,400,000
3,000,000
5,200,000
4,300
28,000
5,000,000
2,600,000
2,400,000
1012 Btu
11,300
8,540
1,370
1,320
10
40
1,700
1,270
430
5,200
20
250
2,760
360
2,400
     3.
      In thousands of tons.
      In thousands of gallons.
     CIn 10  cubic feet  (includes LPG)
Industrial fuel consumption data by state are presented in Appendix B«
The same eight states (Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Penn-
sylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia) that consume 58 percent of util-
ity coal, consume 68 percent of industrial coal.  Only 10 percent of the
total industrial coal is consumed in the western half of the U.S.  Natural
gas consumption is concentrated in Texas and Louisiana where 35 percent
of the total is consumed.  Consumption of oil is more evenly distributed,
but the largest amounts are used in the east.  One-third of the oil is
                                 243

-------
consumed in the adjacent states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
New York, and New Jersey.  Bagasse is burned in large quantities in Hawaii
                                                                        o
 (72 percent of total), Florida  (17 percent), and Louisiana  (11 percent).
Wood  is burned primarily in the Northwest  (33 percent) and  the South
                             3
Atlantic region (29 percent).
POPULATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT

Coal-, Oil-, and Gas-Fired Boilers

The number of industrial boilers and plants is much greater than the
number of utility units.  For this reason there have been no attempts to
conduct an inventory of all industrial boilers.  The most widely used
                      1070
boiler population data ' ' '  were originally developed by Battelle for
                                                  20
API and EPA and are based primarily on sales data.    A recent Battelle
report states:  "Unfortunately, there is no fully satisfactory source of
statistics on the actual number or the installed capacity of boilers now
in field service.  Sales records, even if available for many years, would
not be adequate because a field conversion from one fuel to another is
                                2
not reflected in sales records."   In addition, sales data do not re-
flect boiler shutdowns due to business failures or other operational
changes.

Despite the uncertainties involved in estimating industrial boiler popu-
lations, such an estimate can be useful and, therefore, the best available
description of industrial boiler size and capacity is presented in
Table 86.  The data in the size range 10-500 x 10  Btu/hr are based on
an analysis by Battelle Columbus Laboratories  of NEDS data, supple-
mented with sales information from the American Boiler Manufacturers
                  4                                5
Association (ABMA)  and the Department of Commerce.   The data for boil-
ers above 500 x 10  Btu/hr are based solely on NEDS data.  Boilers above
500 x 10  Btu/hr represent 25 percent of coal-fired boiler capacity  and
only 8 percent and 11 percent of oil- and gas-fired capacity,  respectively-
                                 244

-------
     Table  86.   TOTAL  CAPACITIES OF INDUSTRIAL BOILERS,  19731'22
Size,
106 Btu/hr
10-20
20-50
50-100
100-200
200-500
> 500
Totals
Capacity, 109 Btu/hr
Coal
10
20
60
90
150
90
420
Goal3
and other
10
30
70
130
290
180
710
Oil
180
110
140
120
160
60
770
Oil3
and gas
310
160
190
160
210
80
1110
Gas
90
60
50
80
100
50
430
Gasa
and oil
160
310
370
230
200
140
1410
All
fuels
480
500
630
520
700
400
3230
^J
 Includes boilers designed to burn the primary fuel  only, as well as
those capable of burning a secondary fuel.
     Table  87.   NUMBER AND SIZE OF INDUSTRIAL BOILERS,  1973
                                                          1,22
Size,
10° Btu/hr
10-20
20-50
50-100
100-200
200-500
> 500
Totals
Number of boilers
Coala
670
860
930
870
830
70
4,230
Oila
21,000
4,600
2,500
1,100
600
135
29,935
Gasa
11,000
8,900
4,900
1,500
570
90
26,960
All
fuels
32,670
14,360
8,330
3,470
2,000
295
61,125
     aincludes boilers designed to burn the primary fuel  only,  as
     well  as those capable of burning a secondary fuel.
                               245

-------
The number of boilers in each size fuel category was estimated from the
capacity and the average of the size range and is presented in Table 87.

Table 88 presents estimates of boiler capacities and fuel consumption by
detailed combustion system classification.  The estimates of fuel consump-
tion within the bituminous coal category were based on the boiler size data
(Table 86) and the associated boiler type and combustion efficiency within
                   1 21
each size category. '    In addition, the average load factors within each
category were considered.  In the case of anthracite and lignite, however,
all fuel consumption has been assigned to stoker boilers because over 90
                                                            3
percent of the boilers burning these fuels do so in stokers.
The capacity of oil- and gas-fired boilers using tangential  firing was
determined by assuming that boilers larger than 100 x 10  Btu/hr were
similar  to utility boilers.  Therefore, 16 percent of oil-fired and
10 percent of gas-fired industrial boilers are estimated  to  use tangen-
tial  firing patterns.

Solid Waste-Fired Boilers

Wood/bark may be burned in stoker-fired boilers, and in systems similar
to pulverized coal firing  (i.e., tangential  firing), at capacities up  to
         f\        9 *^
1000 x 10  Btu/hr.    Bagasse can also be burned in both  stoker-fired
                                 24                                     6
boilers  and by suspension  firing.    Boiler  input heat rates to  600  x  10
                           25
Btu/hr have been reported.    Municipal refuse will be burned in  stoker-
type boilers (mainly traveling grates) and may be burned  in suspension if
                                   18
properly pulverized and classified.    The majority of the  nonutility
                                                                 18
systems  appear to be using various traveling grate arrangements.     At
this time, the largest refuse burning boiler is  the Chicago Northwest

                                                                        12
Incinerator with a capacity of nearly 700 x 10  Btu/hr.     The total
municipal refuse generated in  the U.S.  has  a heating value of 1433 x 10
                               12
Btu compared to the 38,700 x 10   Btu  consumed  by the stationary combus-
                                     ?fi
tion sources included in this  study.
                                 246

-------
Table 88.
INDUSTRIAL BOILER CAPACITY AND FUEL CONSUMPTION
BY COMBUSTION SYSTEM, 1973

2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2.1.11.0.0
2.1.11.1.0
2.1.11.2.0
2.1.11.3.0
2. 1.11. A. 0
2.1.11.5.0
2.1.11.6.0
2.1.11.7.0
2.1.12.0.0
2.1.12.1.0
2.1.12.2.0
2. 1.12. A. 0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.13.1.0
2.1.13.2.0
2.1.13.A.'0
2.1.13.5.0
2.1.13.6.0
2.1.13.7.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.21.0.0
2.1.21.0.1
2.1.21.0.2
2.1.22.0.0
2.1.22.0.1
2.1.22.0.2
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.30.0.1
2.1.30.0.2
2.1.AO.O.O
2.1.A1.0.0
2.1.A2.0.0
Industrial
External combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Overfeed stokers
Spreader stokers
Underfeed stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
All stokers
Lignite
Pulverized dry
Pulverized wet
All stokers
Overfeed stokers
Spreader stokers
Underfeed stokers
Petroleum
Residual oil
Tangential firing
All other
Distillate oil
Tangential firing
All other
Gas
Tangential firing
All other
Refuse
Bagasse
Wood/Bark
Approximate
design capacity,
1C" Btu/hr steam
3,700
3,230
730
690
330
70
10
280
25
235
20
8
0
0
8
20
0
0
20
0
20
0
1,110
850
1AO
710
260
AO
220
1,410
1AO
1,270



Fuel consumed ,
1012 Btu/yr
11,280
8, SAO
1,370
1,320
650
130
AO
500
30
A50
20
10
0
0
10
40-
0
0
AO
0
AO
0
1,700
1,270
200
1,070
A30
70
360
5,200
520
A, 680
270
20
250
                            247

-------
Internal Combustion

Internal combustion engines are used in the utility industry at only a
few percent of capacity.  However, industrial requirements for a large
number of small, fairly simple, reliable units for pipeline transmission
of oil and gas result in increased use of internal combustion engines.
In addition, the requirement for numerous startups and shutdowns, as in
agricultural irrigation, favors internal combustion engines.

For the year 1971, gas turbines operated at an average of 55 percent of
capacity and reciprocating engines operated at an average of 58.1 percent
            19
of capacity.    In that year, the power generating capacity of gas tur-
bines amounted to 35.5 million horsepower whereas the power generating
capacity of reciprocating engines amounted to 34.7 million horsepower,
of which 73 percent was for industrial use, including 35.2 percent for
transmission of oil and natural gas in pipelines, 9.3 percent for natural
gas production, 6 to 9 percent for natural gas processing, and 22 percent
                            19
for agricultural irrigation.    Fuel consumption data for 1971 were avail-
     19
able,   and the 1973 consumption was estimated to be relatively the same
because total U.S. natural gas consumption was constant   and most en-
gines are used iri the natural gas and petroleum industries.  Capacity
and fuel consumption data for industrial internal combustion engines
are presented in Table 89.
Very little data are available on the size and number of internal com-
                                                                       27
bustion engines.  The majority of sales during 1973 were below  1,000 hp
(-8-11 x 10  Btu/hr heat input).  However, some new pipeline operations
are using gas turbines in the 10,000-20,000 hp range.  Based on the
               19 27
available data,  '   a rough estimate would be 100,000 units with an
average size of 600 hp (-4.8-6.6 x 10  Btu/hr heat input).
                                 248

-------
      Table 89.  INDUSTRIAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION - FUEL CONSUMPTION

2.0.00.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
2.2.20.0.0
2.2.30.0.0
2.3.00.0.0
2.3.20.0.0
2.3.21.0.0
2.3.22.0.0
2.3.30.0.0
2.4.00.0.0
2.4.20.0.0
2.4.21.0.0
2.4.22.0.0
2.4.30.0.0
Industrial
Internal combustion
Petroleum
Natural gas
Gas turbines
Petroleum
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Reciprocating engines
Petroleum
Residual oil
Distillate oil
Natural gas
Capacity,
1000 hpa

59,343
8,223
51,120
29,989
1,864
0
1,864
28,125
29,354
6,359
0
6,359
22,995
Fuel consumption,
1012 Btu

2,760
360
2,400
1,490
90
0
90
1,400
1,270
270
0
270
1,000
   Q
    Capacity is energy output in horsepower.  One horsepox
-------
       Table 90.  THE INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO
                  AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
Pollutant
Particulate
SO
X
NO
X
HC
CO
Percent of U.S. total
man-made emissions
6
10
11
0.2
0.1
Percent of stationary
combustion source emissions
28
14
25
22
15
Total nationwide emission estimates of particulates (including <3 micron
diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, polycyclic organic matter,  and trace elements are pre-
sented in the following subsections for the industrial combustion
sector.

External Combustion

Combustion of fue.l for the generation of electricity, space heating, and
process steam by industry via external combustion accounts for 6 percent
of total particulates, 10 percent of sulfur oxides, 7 percent of nitrogen
oxides, 0.2 percent of hydrocarbons, and 0.1 percent of carbon monoxide
emissions from all man-made sources.  Industrial external combustion
accounts for 28 percent of total particulates, 14 percent of sulfur
oxides, 15 percent of nitrogen oxides, 21 percent of hydrocarbons, and
14 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from conventional stationary
combustion sources.
Detailed emission estimates for the United States are presented  in Table 91.
The estimates of criteria pollutants are based on the EPA-NEDS  emission
       o o
factors   listed in Table 92 and the methods described  in  the notes fol-
loi^ing Table 91.
                                 250

-------
Table 91.   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS3 FROM INDUSTRIAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coal
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous"1
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.1Z.O.O Anthracite0
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite4
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum6
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gasf
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse8
2.1.42.0.0 Wood/B;irkh
Particulatcs,
103 tons/yr
Total
2,000
2,000
2,000
1,600
610
99
6
900
54
810
36
6.3
0
0
6.3
35
0
0
35
0
35
0
120
97
15
82
21
3
IS
25
2.5
22
42
210
<3uk
200
200
66
65
29
4.8
3.8
27
1.5
24
1.1
0.12
0
0
0.12
0.68
0
0
0.68
0
0.63
0
110
87
14
73
19
3
16
23
2.3
21


Cases,
103 tons/yr
S0x
3,200
3,200
2,200
2,200
1,100
220
68
850
51
770
34
7.3
0
0
7.3
25
0
0
25
0
25
0
1,000
1,000
160
840
'*•
6
35
1.4
0.14
1.3
0
18
"Ox
2,700
1,600
590
570
260
87
49
170
10
150
6.8
1.9
0
0
1.9
18
0
0
18
0
18
0
430
320
27
290
110
10
100
420
42
380
5.5
140
HC
80
76
17
16
4.3
0.87
0.27
11
0.66
9.9
0.44
0.055
0
0
0.055
1.4
0
0
1.4
C
1.4
0
15
11
CO
160
150
73
57
15
2.9
0.89
22
1.3
20
0.88
1.7
0
0
1.7
14
0
0
14
0
14
0
21
15
2 3
9
4.2
0.66
3.5
7,7
0.77
6.9
5.5
31
12
5.7
0.89
4.8
41
4.1
37
5.5
44
Organice,1
tons/yr
BSO
25,000
25,000
2,800
2,700
1,200
250
50
1,200
97
970
97
19
0
0
19
90
0
0
90
0
90
0
11,000
8,600
940
7,600
2,400
280
2,100
11,000
2,000
9,000


PPOH
20
20
16
15
7.2
1.4
0,29
7.7
0.56
5.6
0.56
0.11
0
0
0.11
0.52
0
0
0.52
0
0.52
0
1.4
1.1
0.12
0.96
0.38
0.044
0.33
2.2
0.4
'l.8


BaP
5
5
4.0
3.8
1.8
0.36
0.072
1.7
0.14
1.4
0.14
0.028
0
0
0.028
0.13
0
0
0.13
0
0.13
0
0.36
0.27
0.03
0.24
0.094
0.011
0.083
0.55
0.10
0.45


                              251

-------
Table 91 (continued).
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS  FROM INDUSTRIAL
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coalk
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Vet.
2.1.11.3.0 C-rlone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stutters
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1"
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1:13.2,0 Pulverized Bet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5,0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0,0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual 011°
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil?
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gasl
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse
2.1.42.0.0 Wood/B,irk
'Trace elements, J
tons/yr
Sb
5.8
5.8
4.5
4.5
2.3
0.34
0.022
1.8
0.11
1.6
0.072

0
0
0

0
0

0

0
1.3
1.3
0.20
1.1
KD
ND
ND





As
260
260
250
250
130
19
1.2
100
6.1
92
4.0
0.04
0
0
0.04
0
0
0

0

0
11
10
1.6
8.4
0.50
0.034
0.37





Ba
490
490
470
330
170
25
1.6
130
8.0
120
5.2
3.4
0
0
3.4
140
0
0
140
0
140
0
21
21
3.3
18
KD
ND
ND





Be
25
25
22
22
11
1.6
0.11
8.8
0.52
7.8
0.34
0.17
0
0
0.17
0.13
0
0
0.13
0
0.13
0
3.0
3.0
0.47
2.5








Bi
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.0
4.5
0.69
0.043
3.7
0.22
3.3
0.14

0
0
0
0.08
0
0
0.03
0
0.08
0












B
490
490
490
470
240
36
2.3
190
12
170
7.6

0
0
0
19
0
0
19
0
19
0
3.6
3.6
0.56
2.9








Br
870
870
860
860
420
85
11
330
20
290
13
0.37
0
0
0.37
0.036
0
0
0.035
0
0.036
0
5.8
5.7
0.89
4.9
0.11
0.018
0.092





Cd
67
67
3.7
3.7
1.9
0.28
0.018
1.5
0.090
1.3
0.059

0
0


0
0

0

0
63
63
9.9
53
ND
ND
ND


•


Cl
93,000
93,000
92,000
86,000
42,000
8,500
2,600
33,000
2,000
29,000
1,300
550
0
0
550
5,500
0
0
5,500
0
5,500
0
530
530
83
450








Cr
••"^^•i^
200
200
140
130
65
9.9
0.63
53
3.1
47
2.1
7.0
0
0
7.0
1.9
0
0
1.9
D
1.9
0
58
58
9.1
49
KD
ND
ND





                        252

-------
Table 91 (continued)".  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS3 FROM INDUSTRIAL
                       EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coalk
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokrvs
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite01
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wee
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2. 1.13. A. 0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil0
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oilp
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gasl
2.1.30.2.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse
2.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark

Co
110
110
42
34
17
2.6
0.17
14
0.82
12
0.54
5.6
0
0
5.6
2.5
0
0
2.5
0
2.5
0
70
70
11
59









Cu
460
460
130
120
58
8.7
0.57
47
2.8
41
1.8
4.6
0
0
4.6
4.2
0
0
.4.2
0
4.2
0
330
330
52
280
0.25
0.016
0.023





trace elements, J
tons/yr
F
4,800
4,800
4,800
4,700
2,300
460
140
1,800
110
1,600
70
59
0
0
59

0
0

0

0
0.13
Q.13
0.020
0.11








Fe
33,000
33,000
32,000
32,000
16,000
2,400
150
13,000
760
11,000
500
420
0
0
420

0
0

0

0
235
235
37
200








Pb
86
86
85
81
41
6.2
0.40
33
2.0
29
1.3
0.56
0
0
0.56
3.0
0
0
3.0
0
3.0
0
1.3
1.3
o.:o
1.1








Kn
510
510
510
480
210
31
15
180
10
160
6.6
0.84
0
0
0.84
25
0
0
25
0
25
0
5.0
5.0
0.79
4.2
0.066
0.011
0.055





Kg
S.I
8.1
7.4
7.3
3.6
0.72
0.22
2.8
0.17
2.5
0.11
0.091
0
0
0.091

0
0

0

0
0.65
0.65
0.10
0.55
ND
ND
ND





Mo
110
110
34
33
17
2.5
0.16
13
0.80
12
0.52
0'.04
0
0
0.04
0.7
0
0
0.7
0
0.7
0
72
72
11
61








Nl
1,700
1,700
130
130
65
9.9
0.63
53
3.1
47
2.1
3.0
0
0
3.0
1.4
0
0
1.4
0
1.4
0
1,600
1,600
250
1,300
ND
ND
ND





Se
110
110
110
110
55
11
3.4
42
2.5
38
1.7
0.051
0
0
0.051

0
0

0

0
4.5
4.5
0.71
3.8
SD
ND
ND





                        253

-------
Table 91 (continued)'.
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS  FROM INDUSTRIAL
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coalk
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite10
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual 011°
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oilp
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gas<]
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse
2.1.42.0.'0 Wood/Bark
Trace elements, J
tons/yr
Te
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.4
0.21
0.013
1.1
0.065
0.98
0.043

0
0


0
0

0

0












Tl
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.45
0.069
0.0043
0.37
0.022
0.33
0.014

0
0


0
0

0

0












Sn
18
16
9.9
8.6
4.3
0.66
0.043
3.5
0.21
3.1
0.14

0
0

1.3
0
0
1.3
0
1.3
0




5.6
0.90
4.7





Ti
5,600
5,600
5,400
5,400
2,700
400
26
2,200
130
1,900
84
35
0
0
35

0
0

0

0
170
170
27
140








U
180
180
140
140
68
10
0.67
55
3.3
49
2.2

0
0


0
0

0

0
44
44
6.9
37








V
2,100
2,100
260
250
130
19
1.2
100
6.0
90
4.0
0.81
0
0
0.81
4.2
0
0
4.2
0
4.2
0
1,800
1,800
280
1,500
tro
ND
ND





Zn
220
220
210
200
99
15
0.97
80
4.7
71
3.1
2.0
0
0
2.0
5.3
0
0
5.3
0
5.3
0
6.0
6.0
0.94
5.1
ND
ND
ND





Zr
" 	 ••
460
460
460
420
210
32
2.0
170
10
150
6.7
2.9
0
0
2.9
39
0
0
39
0
39
0












                        254

-------
        Table 91 (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS3 FROM INDUSTRIAL
                               EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
a
 Values in the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmo-
sphere from conventional stationary combustion sources in the United
States.  An entry of "ND" signifies that a trace element has not been
detected when measured; and an entry left blank signifies that no in-
formation is available.  The emission factors used in this table are
given in Table 92.

 The consumption of bituminous coal was taken from Table II, page 39,
of reference 10 under the column headed "All others."  The percentage
of boilers using controls for particulates was multiplied by the aver-
age particulate control efficiencies for each boiler type and sub-
tracted from unity to obtain the fractions of the total particulates
that escape.  These escape numbers are 0.19 for pulverized units,
0.48 for stokers, and 0.25 for cyclones.  The sulfur and ash contents
of the coal were assumed to be equal to those for coal used by electric
utilities for each state; these were taken from Table 1-A, page 1, of
reference 29.

c                                                                       3
 The emissions from anthracite combustion are from the 1972 NEDS Report.

 The consumption of lignite was taken from reference 30.

 The consumption of oil was taken from Tables 8 and 9, pages 6 and 7,
of reference 11.  The sulfur content of the oils was taken from refer-
ence 31 for 1973 oils, which gives the average sulfur content by geo-
graphical region.  (Any state falling into more than one region was
assigned a sulfur content corresponding to the average of those regions.)

 The consumption of natural gas was taken from Table 7, page 8, of refer-
ence 12.  The consumption data for liquified petroleum gas was taken from
Table 5, page 7, of reference 13.  The emissions listed for "Gas" are
summations of the emissions for natural gas and LPG.
                                                                2
gThe emissions for bagasse were taken from the 1972 NEDS Report.

 The consumption of wood was calculated from the emissions reported in
the 1972 NEDS Report.3  This consumption figure was then updated to 1975,
using a growth rate of 1.2 percent per year.  The updated consumption
data were then used to calculate the emissions.

"'"The emissions of BaP and BSO from all fuels were calculated from emis-
sion factors in reference 32.  The emissions of particulate polycyclic
organic matter (PPOM) from coal were based on a summation of emission
factors for Pyrene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(c)pyrene, Perylene, Benzo(ghi)-
perylene, Anthanthrene, Coronene, Anthracene, Phenanthrene, and Fluor-
anthene.  PPOM emissions from oil and gas were calculated by assuming


                                255

-------
        Table 91 (continued);  FLUE GAS EMISS10NSa FROM INDUSTRIAL
                               EXTERNAL COMBUSTION

the same ratio to BaP as in the case of coal.  Emission factors were
specific to intermediate size combustion equipment.  No data were found
on emissions of polyhalogenated biphenyls from conventional industrial
combustion.

-'The amount of each trace element, i, emitted to the atmosphere was cal-
culated as follows :
    (1) The amount of i in the fuel, A., was

                             A. - C. x F.

        where  C. = concentration of i in the fuel, ppm

               F  = yearly consumption of fuel, tons /year.

        If Ai was calculated on a regional basis, results were
        summed to the national level.

    (2) The amount emitted to the atmosphere, E., was
        For coal-fired pulverized dry bottom units f^ = 0.16, for
        pulverized wet bottom units f^ = 0.12, for cyclone units
        f.j_ = 0.025, and for stokers f.^ = 0.17.  Exceptions are Br,
        Cl, and F for which f± = 1.0, Hg for which f± = 0.90, and
        Se for which f± = 0.70.  For oil-fired units f± « 1.0,
        where f^ = estimated fraction of i emitted to the atmosphere.

 uata for coal were available for each of the coal-producing regions
defined by the U.S. Geological Survey.  Sources of trace element con-
centration data were publications by Magee,33 Zubovic,34 Kessler,35
Ruch,36 and von Lehmden.37

 For each coal-producing region concentrations of As, Ba, Be, B, Cr, Co,
Cu, F, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo, Ni, Sn, U, V, and Zn in bituminous coal were  cal-
culated using reference 33 as a primary source and reference 34 as a
supplementary source.  For Cl, Br, and Ti, data from Illinois in refer-
ence 36 were used as typical of all coal-producing regions.  For Sb, Bi,
Cd, Fe, Te, Tl, and Zr, concentrations were calculated by using reference
35.  For Se, the single concentration cited by reference 38 was used.

 For anthracite coal, typical trace element concentrations were taken
from reference 35.
                                256

-------
        Table 91 (continued).   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS3 FROM INDUSTRIAL
                               EXTERNAL COMBUSTION


nFor lignite, reference 33 supplied the data for North Dakota lignite,
and reference 34 supplied the data for Texas lignite.  Reference 33 con-
tained data for the elements As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Br, Co, Cu,  Cr,  Mn, Mo,
Ni, Sn, V, Zn, and Zr.  Reference 34 contained data for the  elements Be,
Br, Co, Cu, Mo, Ni, Sn, V, and Zr.  A concentration of Cl in lignite was
obtained from reference 39.

 For residual oil, trace element concentration data were available for
As, Sb, Ba, Br, Cr, Mn, Ni, V, and Zn from reference 40.  For the trace
elements Be, B, Cd, Co, F, Fe, Pb, Hg, Mo, Se, Sn, Ti, and U, reference
41 was used as the primary source and references 37, 41, 42, and 43 as
supplementary sources.

 For distillate oil, reference 40 reported concentrations for As, Br, Cu,
Mn, and Sn, and reported that Sb, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Se, V, and Zn were
not detectable.

^Hydrocarbon gases were assumed to be free of trace elements.

Emissions of <3 micron particles were estimated from data in reference 8
indicating for industrial coal combustion the fraction of mass emissions
that were <3 microns.  These fractions were 0.0484, 0.626, and 0.0295 for
pulverized, cyclone, and stoker-fired boilers, respectively.  For oil and
gas, 90 percent of the total particulate was assumed to be <3 microns.
                                257

-------
Table 92.   EMISSION FACTORS FOR TABLE 91

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coalb
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 ' Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
Particulates
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
16A
13A
2A
13A
13A
13A
13A
2A
X
X
2A
6.5A
X
X
6.5A
X
6.5A
X
Gases3
S0x
NA
NA
NA
NA
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
385
38S
X
X
38S
305
X
X
30S
X
305
X
N0*
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
18
30
55
15
15
15
15
15
X
X
15
13
X
X
13
X
13
X
HC
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
0.2
X
X
0.2
1
X
X
1
X
1
X
CO
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
10
X
X
10
2
X
X
2
X
2
X
                  253

-------
       Table  92 (continued).  EMISSION FACTORS FOR  TABLE 91

2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gasd
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasseb
2.1.42.0.0 Wood/Barkb
Participates
Total
NA
NA
23
23
NA
15
15
10
10
10
22
15
Gases3
S0x
NA
NA
159S
159S
NA
144S
144S
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
1.5
NOV
A
NA
NA
40
80
NA
40
80
175
175
175
2
10
11C
NA
NA
3
3
NA
3
3
3
3
3
2
36
CO
NA
NA
4
4
NA
4
4
17
17
17
2
31
 Abbreviations used in the table have  the  following explanations:
    A  = Multiply by weight percent  ash
    S  = Multiply by weight percent  sulfur
    X  = Fuel consumed in this combustion  system is small; emission is
         assumed to be negligible
    NA = Net applicable;  emissions for this  combustion system were cal-
         culated as the total of emissions from the appropriate subsystems.
 The emission factors for coal, bagasse, and xrood/bark give values in terms
of pounds of pollutant per ton burned.
GThe emission factors for oil give values  in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 1000 gallons of oil burned.
dThe emission factors for gas give values  in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 10^ cubic feet of gas burned.
                                 259

-------
Emissions from industrial fuel consumption are governed by the same prin-
ciples as discussed in detail in the electric utility section.  Combustion
equipment design and operating practices are different, thus emission
factors are different.  Generally industrial combustion equipment is
smaller and is operated less efficiently than electric utility equipment.
Therefore, emissions of nitrogen oxides tend to be lower due to decreased
furnace temperatures, and emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
and organics tend to be higher due to incomplete combustion.  SO  emis-
                                                                X
sions should be virtually the same for utility and industrial systems
although the ratio of SC>2 to SCU may differ.  Particulate emissions from
coal are strongly affected by controJ equipment efficiency and application
which are both lower in the industrial sector.  Particulate emissions from
oil in the industrial sector are estimated to be three times as high per
                                     O Q
unit of fuel as in the utility sector   due to the presence of unburned
carbon.

Estimates of emissions of polycyclic organic matter were derived from
data sources described in Section II.  Although the data quality is poor,
emissions of organics in the industrial sector appear to be an order of
magnitude higher per unit of fuel than in the utility sector.  Organic
emission data should be accepted with extreme caution as the estimates
are based on a limited number of tests, and the sampling procedures used
were questionable.

Internal Combustion

Total nationwide emission estimates of particulates  (including  <3 micron
diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, and trace elements are presented in Table  93.   The esti-
                                                28
mates are based on the EPA-NEDS emission factors   listed  in  Table  94
and on the methods described in the notes following  Table  93.
                                260

-------
Table 93.  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial Generation
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.2.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.2.30.0.0 Gasd
2.3.00,0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
2.3.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil6
2.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.3.30.0.0 Gas
2.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
2.4.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.4.30.0.0 Gas
Particulates,
10' tons/yr
Total
2,000
5.4
5.4

1.7
1.7

1.7

3.7
3.7
3.7

<3uf
200











Cases,
103 tons/yr
SO
X
3,200
7.2
6.8
0.42
3.5
3.2

3.2
0.25
3.8
3.6
3.6
0.17
N0x
2,700
1,100
64
1,070
260
12

12
250
870
52
52
820
HC
80
4.2
4.2






4.2
4.2
4.2

CO
160
11
11






11
11
11

p
Organics,
tons/yr
BSO
25,000











POM
20











. BaP
5












-------
Table 93 (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial Generation
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.2.20.Q.O Petroleum0
d
2.2.30.0.0 Gas
2.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
2.3.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil6
2.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.3.30.0.0 Gas
2.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
2.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.4.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Sb
5.8







0
ND



ND
ND

As
260
0.069
0.069



0.033
0.033
0
0.033


0.036
0.036
0.036

Ba
490

ND





0
ND



ND
ND

Be
25







0







Bi
9,1







0







B
490







0







Br
870
4.4
4.4



2.1
2.1
0
2.1


2.3
2.3
2.3

Cd
67

ND





0
ND



ND
ND

Cl
93,000







0







Cr
200



'



0
ND



ND
ND


-------
                  Table  93  (continued).   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION
N3
O>
U>

2.0.00.0,0 Industrial Generation
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.2.20.0.0 Petroleum0
d
2.2.30.0.0 Gas
2.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
2.3.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil6
2.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.3.30.0.0 Gas
2.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
2.4.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.4.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Co
110







0







Cu
460
0.035
0.035



0.017
0.017
0
0.017


0.018
0.018
0.018

F
4800







0







•Fe
33,000







0







Pb
86







0







Mn
510
0.007
0.057



0.014
0.014

0.014


0.043
0.043
0.043

Hg
8,1

ND



0

0
ND



ND
ND

Mo
110







0







Ni
1,700

ND





0
ND



ND
ND

Se
110

ND
t




0
ND



ND
ND


-------
                    Table  93  (continued).   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION
to
a>

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial Generation
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.2.20.0.0 Petroleum0
2.2.30.0.0 Gasd
2.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
2.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil6
2.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.3.30.0.0 Gas
2.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
2.4.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.4.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Te
2.8


0





Ti
0.90


0





Sn
18
2.0
2.0

0


2.0
2.0
2.0

Ti
5,600


0





U
180


0





V
2,100
ND

0
ND

ND
ND

Zn
220
ND

0
ND

ND
ND

Zr
460


0






-------
           	Table  93  (continued).   FLUE  GAS  EMISSIONS  FROM  INDUSTRIAL  INTERNAL  COMBUSTION

             Values in the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmosphere from stationary
           combustion sources in the continental United States.   An entry of "ND" signifies that a
           trace  element has not been detected when measured and  an entry left blank  signifies that
           no  information is available.   The emission factors used in this table are  given in-
           Table  94.

             Capacity  based  on 1971 data  from reference 19.
           f*
            "Oil  consumption was based on 68 percent of 1973  fuel  use by oil  companies.   This value
           was determined as the ratio of internal combustion fuel use to total fuel  use by oil
           companies  for 1971 as reported in reference 19.   A heat content of 140,000 Btu/gal was
           assumed.   A sulfur content of 0.225 percent was taken  as the average of the data reported
           in  reference 31.

             Natural gas consumption was  based  on 14 percent  of 1973 industrial fuel use.   This factor
^          was determined as the ratio of industrial combustion fuel use to  total industrial fuel use
*""           for 1971,   A heat content of  1022 Btu/scf was assumed.
            g
             Little residual oil was burned in internal combustion engines in 1973.

             No information was available on emissions of less than 3 micron  particles.

            **No information was available on emission factors for  organics from internal combustion
            engines.

             Trace element emissions were based on' consumption data and calculated  trace element  con-
            tent  of the fuels.  These were multiplied to determine the total  emissions of  trace ele-
            ments.  For distillate oil, reference 40 reported concentrations  for As, Br, Cu,  Mn,  and
            Sn and reported that Sb, Ba,  Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Se,  V and Zn were not detectable.  Hydro-
            carbon gases were assumed to  be free of trace elements.

-------
              Table 94.   EMISSION FACTORS  FOR TABLE 93

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial Generation
2.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
2.2.20.0.0 Petroleum*3
2.2.30.0.0 Gasc
2.3.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Gas Turbine
2.3.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.3.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.3.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.3.30.0.0 Gas
2.4.00.0.0 Internal Combustion/
Reciprocating Engine
2.4.20,0.0 Petroleum
2.4.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.4.30.0.Q Gas
a
Particulates
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.8
X
16.8

NA
33.5
33.5

Gases3
S0x
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
144S
X
144S
0.6
NA
144S
144S
0.6
NOX
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
118
X
118
598
NA
469
469 '
3000
HC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

X


NA
37.5
37.5

CO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

X


NA
102
102

 Abbreviations used in the  table have the following meanings:

    S = Multiply by weight  percent sulfur

    X = Fuel consumed in  this combustion system is small; emission
        is assumed to be  negligible

   NA = Not applicable.   Emissions for  this combustion system were
        calculated as the total of emissions from the appropriate
        subsystems

 The emission factors for oil give values in terms of pounds of
pollutant per 1000 gallons  of oil burned.

 The emission factors for gas give values in terms of pounds of
pollutant per 10^ cubic feet of gas burned.
                                  266

-------
Industrial internal combustion sources account for 0.02 percent of total
particulates, 0.02 percent of sulfur oxides, 4.6 percent of nitrogen
oxides, 0.01 percent of hydrocarbons, and 0.007 percent of carbon mon-
oxide emissions from all man-made sources.  They account for 0.08 per-
cent of total particulates, 0.03 percent of sulfur oxides, 10 percent of
nitrogen oxides, 1.0 percent of hydrocarbons, and 1.0 percent of carbon
monoxide emissions from stationary combustion sources.
NO  is the primary pollutant resulting from internal combustion engines,
as noted by McGowin   and Bartz et al.   in recent emission tests of in-
ternal combustion engines, both reciprocating and gas turbines.  They
confirmed that NO  emissions :
                 X
than those from gas turbines.
confirmed that NO  emissions from reciprocating engines  are much  higher
                 X
To obtain state emission estimates for purposes of assigning priorities
to the various combustion systems, it was necessary to prorate the na-
tionwide values by multiplying by the ratio of the fuel consumption in
a state to the fuel consumption nationwide.  Fuel consumption estimates
by state are provided in Appendix B.  Additional data on trace element
content are provided in Appendix C.

ASH HANDLING EMISSIONS

Ash handling air, water, and solid xjaste effluents created by industrial
combustion systems are a coal-related problem.  Coal represents 16 percent
of fossil fuel consumption for industrial steam generated by external com-
bustion.  Industrial boilers burning coal, however, are responsible for
approximately 99 percent of the total ash handling emissions of industrial
combustion sources.  Natural gas is essentially ash free and residual oil
has an ash content only 1 to 2 percent of the ash content of coal.  Since
petroleum use, largely residual oil, constitutes only 20 percent of in-
dustrial fuel consumption; the associated ash handling waste volume is
insignificant relative to coal-generated ash.
                                 267

-------
Ash Generated
The extent of control used for fly ash collection will affect the total
amount of ash recovered in industrial combustion systems.   Estimates of
the extent of control applied to industrial sources less than 500 x 10
Btu/hr capacity were made by Monsanto Research Corporation, as shown
below:
Capacity,
106 Btu/hr
10 - 200
200 - 500
> 500
Percentage of
control application
21.0
53.7
70.0
The estimate of 70 percent control applied to the >500 x 10  Btu/hr
capacity boiler systems is based on figures developed by Midwest Re-
                                            o
search Institute for all industrial boilers.   Oil- and gas-fired
boilers are assumed to have no fly ash control although the NEDS data
report 11 percent control for oil-fired boilers.

The distribution of ash between bottom ash and fly ash produced by indus-
trial coal-fired bioler systems also influences the quantity of emissions
from ash handling.  The ratio of bottom ash to fly ash is estimated to be
equal to the utility distribution as follows:
               Type of boiler           Bottom ash/fly ash
             Pulverized dry bottom              15/85
             Pulverized wet bottom              35/65
             Cyclone                            90/10
             Stokers                            65/35

Coal consumption distribution within different  ranges  of  industrial capac-
ity was also considered.  An estimated  70  percent  of capacity is below
                          nair
                          22
500 x 10  Btu/hr.  The remaining 30 percent  is  above  this  value and con-
sists of only 300 boilers.'
                                 268

-------
Total ash collected, calculated  from  the  above data and assumptions, was
5.1 x 106 tons/yr in 1973 as shown  in Table  95.  This  total is comprised
of 57 percent bottom ash and 43  percent fly  ash.  The  amount of fly ash
generated is 4,800,000 tons, with 46  percent estimated to be collected.

Wastewater Emissions

The ash handling practices of industrial  fuel combustion sources are sub-
ject to a great deal of uncertainty.   The ash handling practices of
large industrial boilers (>500 x 10   Btu/hr)  are assumed to parallel the
practices followed by electric utilities.  In estimating wastewater emis-
sions, we have further assumed that all of the ash produced by smaller
boilers is handled dry rather than \jater-sluiced and ponded.  Based on
the above assumptions, the amount of  ash handling waste water discharged
is 7100 x 10  gallons per year as shown in Table 95.   This volume con-
sists of 3800 x 10  gallons per  year  of fly  ash handling waste water and
3300 x 10  gallons per year of bottom ash handling waste water.  The
change in distribution from the  utility sector is due  to the larger por-
tion of bottom ash handled and disposed of dry.

The pollutants discharged with ash handling  waste water are identical to
those associated with electric utility ash handling, as previously shown
in Table 47.  Estimates of trace elements in industrial bottom and fly
ash combined are included in Appendix C.

Air Emissions

Ash discharge to air results from wind erosion at landfill sites and from
dry ash collection and transport.  Particulate emission figures shown in
Table 95 are based on an emission factor of  1 Ib/ton/year applied to the
total amount of ash collected which is 5,100,000 tons.  This factor is
identical to that used for utility combustion sources  and is based on the
same  considerations.
                                 269

-------
   Table  95.   ASH HANDLING EMISSIONS:   INDUSTRIAL COMBUSTION, 1973

2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2.1.11.0.0
2.1.11.1.0
2.1.11.2.0
2.1.11.3.0
2.1.11.4.0
2.1.11.5.0
2.1.11.6.0
2.1.11.7.0
2.1.12.0.0
2.1.12.1.0
2.1.12.2.0
2.1.12.4.0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.13.1.0
2.1.13.2.0
2.1.13.4.0
2.1.13.5.0
2.1.13.6.0
2.1.13.7.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.21.0.0
2.1.21.0.1
2.1.21.0.2
2.1.22.0.0
2.1.22.0.1
2.1.22.0.2
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.30,0.1
2.1.30.0.2
:, i.4i. o.o
:. 1.42, o.o


Industrial
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Overfeed Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Underfeed Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Lignite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Overfeed Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Underfeed Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Bagasse
WooJ/Bark

Ash
collected ,
10-* r.ons/yr
5,100
5,100
5,100
4,750
2,350
500
150
1,950
120
1,750
80
25
0
0
25
225
0
0
225
0
225
0
NA3






NA




Discharge water,
10(> gallons/yr
7,100
7,100
7,100
6,750
3,210
680
200
2,660
160
2,390
110
34
0
0
34
310
0
0
310
0
310
0
NA






NA




Air emissions,
10^ Ibs of particulates/yr
7,100
5,100
5,100
4,850
2,350
500
150
1,950
120
1,750
80
25
0
0
25
225
0
0
225
0
225
0
NA






NA




NA - Not applicable.
                                270

-------
COOLING SYSTEM WATER WASTES  .

Cooling practices of the industrial combustion sector are very difficult
to define.  However, it is assumed that conventions and procedures exist-
ing in electric utilities are applicable.  As such, industrial boiler
systems use once-through and recirculative cooling systems.  The latter
system type is comprised of cooling towers, spray ponds, or combinations.
The water pollutants emitted from industrial steam generation cooling sys-
tems have been assumed to be the same as those discharged from electric
utility cooling systems, including:  chlorine; and salts associated with
calcium, magnesium, sodium, phosphorus, and chromium.  Excess concentra-
tions of these effluent water constituents result from evaporation of
circulating cooling water and cooling water treatment to prevent scale
deposition, corrosion, and growth of micro-organisms.  The pollutants
are discharged continuously in once-through systems and periodically
during blowdown in recirculative systems.  Table 96 presents chemical
                                                      45
characteristics of water in industrial cooling towers.

Table 97 illustrates general cooling system wastewater characteristics
associated with industrial steam generation.  All quantities are based on
electric utility cooling water quality.  Heat discharge and water with-
drawal and discharge figures were derived in accordance with an estimate
that 80 percent of national thermal discharge is the result of electric
generation.^  It is assumed that the heat discharge per pound of water
is the same in the utility and industrial sectors.

OTHER WASTEWATER SOURCES

The strength and volume of wastewater effluent from industrial steam
generation systems are influenced by a variety of factors.  In general,
these determinants combine to decrease the ambient impact of waste water
produced in the industrial sector relative to electric utilities.  How-
ever, since 50 percent of industrial boiler capacity  is greater than
                                271

-------
fo
•vj
ro
                                            Table 96.   INDUSTRIAL COOLING TOWER WATER  QUALITY
                                                                                                               45
Coo 11 TI,-;
tower
sanpled
1
2
3
.4
5C
Ar.~i>n ia
"ikc'ip,
-g N/'-
O.U« (9>»
0.08 (7)
0.07 (5)
0.09 (3)
0.12 (M)
Rl owdown,
0.97 (11)
0. 10 (8)
0.24 (7)
0.09 (4)
0.48 (4)
Nilr.itc
Makeup ,
n>; tl/i
0.37 (10)
2.32 (7)
0.32 (6)
0.29 (3)
0.60 (•'.)
Blowdown,
mfi N/t
2.30 (11)
5.24 (8;
0.52 (71
1.38 (4)
1.05 (4)
Total phosphorus
M.ikoup ,
0.17 (10)
0.04 (6)
0.10 (6)
0.16 (3)
0.09 (3)
Bl oudowii ,
4.18 (11)
2.41 (8)
1.05 (7)
0.58 (4)
1.89 (3)
'I. iru:
Make-up ,
i'5/t
V, ('»
2.7 (6)
752 (6)
1,713 (3)
42 (4)
1! Inwdnun ,
2,107 (10)
8.5 (8)
4,315 (7)
4,263 (4)
2,087 (4)
Copper
M.ikcup ,
7 (9)
22 (6)
16 (6)
23 (3)
3.1 (4)
Blowdown ,
1.08011 (10)
13 (8)
204d (7)
139 (4)
i45d (5)
Chromium
Makeup ,
us/t
7 (5)
<10 (5)
<1 (6)
<20 (1)
<10 (4)
Blov-
dcwn ,
as/1
9e (31
10 (2)
7 (5)
370 (4)
<10 (4)
Mercury
Makeup ,
3.0 (9)
6.S (6)
1.8 (6)
2.0 (3)
3.9 (4)
Blovdovn f
6.0 (10)
19.9 (3)
2.4 (7)
3.3 (4)
2.7 (4)
"Xr.in concentrations,  mg N •  milligrams of nitrogen.
 Parenthesized values are number of samples.
cTo«er 5  is Tower 1 with different chemical conditioning program.
 The high values are the result of extensive corrosion of copper tubing in the systems.
^Values may be much higher for cowers using chrornate for corrosion inhibition.

-------
                                Table  97.   INDUSTRIAL COOLING SYSTEM WASTE WATER

2,0.00.0.0 Industrial Generation
2.1. CO. 0.0 External Combustion
:. LI-:. o.o eo.ii
2.1.11.0.0 Eltu-tnous



2.1.11.1.0 All StoVrrs
2. 1.11.5.0 Over.'teJ StoV.ers
2,1.11.6.0 Sfrcai!cr Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.L2.C.O Aiit!.r.ic tte
2.1.1:. 1.0 Pulv.-ri^oj Dry
2.1.12.2.0 rr.vurlifil Wet
2,l.i:. 4.0 All St-Wrs
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite

2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2. 1.13. A. 0 AH Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Ov.-rlVi-J Stokers
2.5.13.6.0 Sproi.'.er Sto',.ers
2.1.13.7.0 I'iKlerforJ Stokers
2.1.20.3.0 Petrr-U-ua

3.1.::. C.I T.ingii.iUl Flrinf
2.1.21.0.2 All Otht-T
2.1.::. o.o cisttiiiK OH
2.1.::. 0.1 7jn.-i.Tit ijl Firing
2.1.:.'. 0.2 All Other
2.1.33.3.0 C.19
2.1.30.0.1 T-ingentlil Flrlnp
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1. -.1.0.0 SagJSie
2.1. -2. 0.0 WooJ/Bark
He.lt d Isi-liarue,
Btu/yr t 1C'2
Once- through
fresh

1,070
172
166







I



>






215
160


55


650


2
30
Once -through
saline

500
81
78







1



2






100
27


2)


305


1
14
Cooling w.ltcr ui llidr.iuiil r.itc ,
HJ/s
Once- through
fresh

35,000
5,601)
5,400







40



160






7,100
5,400


1,600


71,40(1


70
980
Once- tliruurji
saline

17,000
2.70U
2,600







20



BO






3,400
5,400


Cool i Hf
ponds

1 .9 'XI
•111)
2VO







2



8






380
28U


860 100


10, '.00


34
480


1,1. ,1)


4
53
Coo 11 1>|-
toutrs

210
34
33











I






42
32


11


128



6
Comhlncd
sy stems

4,160
CIO
645







5



20






830
620


210


2.540


8
120
Cooling voter discharge rate ,
ft3/.
Once- through
f It sh

34,900
5,6'JO
5,400







40



160






6,900
5,150


1,750


21,3(10


70
980
Once- through
saline

17,000
2,700
2,600







20



80






3,400
2,540


81-0


10,400


34
480
Cooling
ponds

1,560
250
240







2



6






3iO
230


80


950


3
44
Cooling
Cowers

70
11
11


















14
10


4
|

43



2
Chlorine
discharge,
i * " "
Coc.bir.od All
systtxs systems

3,960
440

0,1-5.0
0.1-5.0
615







5



20






750
590




















0.1-5.0



200 ;




2,420 i 0.1-5.0


6
no
1




to
^J
u>

-------
 100  x  106  Btu/hr, it is assumed that many industry practices will be sim-
 ilar to  the  utility industry.  Steam condensation and  recycling must be
 utilized to  limit water consumption and  treatment.

 Natural  gas  constitutes 61 percent of  industrial external  combustion fuel
 use  and  only 21 percent of electric utility  fuel use  (see  Tables 11 and
 87).   This trend lessens the water pollution problem associated with
 industrial combustion because  gas is the cleanest fossil fuel.  The
 amount of  waste water from industrial  equipment cleaning,  fuel handling
 and  ash  handling is reduced significantly.

 Industrial boilers operate at  lower temperatures and pressure than utility
 boilers.   Therefore, industrial boiler feedwater specifications and feed-
 water  treatment requirements are more  lenient than those necessary in the
 utility  sector.  However, industrial wastewater quantity and quality are
 not well investigated or documented fields of  study.  A thorough review
 of NPDES permits would potentially provide significant data, but such an
 investigation is outside the scope of  this study.  Therefore, the quan-
 titative data presented in this section  are  the result of  proportioning
 characteristics of utility steam generation  waste water.   Consequently,
 the wastewater volume estimates provided in  subsequent subsections are
 highly conservative.  The industrial wastewater streams are the same types
 as those existing in electric  utilities  and  result from boiler feedwater
 treatment, boiler blowdown, equipment  cleaning, cooling, and ash handling,
 as previously discussed, and fuel handling as  discussed in a later section.

 Boiler Feedwater Treatment

 The processes used for boiler  feedwater  treatment include  clarification,
 softening, filtration, evaporation, demineralization,  and  reverse  osmosis.
Because industrial boilers operate at  lower  temperature and pressure  than
utility boilers, scale forming constituents  such as silica, iron,  and
                                 274

-------
 calcium and magnesium ions remain water  soluble  at  higher  concentrations.
 The degree of solids removal  required  is reduced to the  point where  trace
 quantity removal systems such as evaporation  and reverse osmosis are used
 only to a slight extent.  Therefore, the dominant treatment methods  are
 clarification, softening, and filtration.

 Investigation into appropriate operating practice for  modern industrial
 boilers is currently being undertaken  by the  ASME Research Committee on
                                47
 Water in Thermal Power Systems.     The study  will present  a consensus of
 recommended industrial boiler feedwater  quality  guidelines.  The prelim-
 inary figures for alkalinity  in low pressure  boilers  (<1000 psi) are
 based on a long established guideline  of the  ABMA.     This requires  that
 alkalinity remain less than or equal to  20  percent  of  total dissolved
 solids and less than or equal to 10 percent of unadjusted  conductivity.
 This specification effectively controls  alkalinity  as  a  carryover mediator
 but does not protect against  corrosion at higher pressures.  Therefore,
 the ASME Research Committee is tentatively  advising that,  at pressure
 greater than 1000 psi, the free sodium or potassium hydroxide alkalinity
 be equal to zero.

 References 47, 48, and 49 recommend the  industrial  boiler  feedwater char-
 acteristics that appear in Table 98.   The values presented for iron, cop-
 per, and hardness are preliminary and  subject to verification in the very
 near future.  Recommendations for low  pressure boilers are controversial
 in that operators of these units claim that the  requirements are unneces-
 sarily stringent.  However, if these guidelines  are not  followed, the
 extent of blox^down can increase causing  a large  loss of  heated water and
 inefficient use of fuel as well as  increased  heat discharge to receiving
water.

Table 99 illustrates the boiler feedwater treatment wastewater volumes
calculated for industrial external  combustion steam generation.  The
values  are based entirely on  figures obtained for electric utilities and
                                 275

-------
                            Table 98.   INDUSTRIAL BOILER FEEDWATER SPECIFICATIONS
                                                                                    47,48,49
Pressure nt outlet
of steum drum,
ps i )_;
0-50
51-300
301-450
451-600
601-750
751-900
901-1000
1001-1500
1501-2000
> 2000
Total
solids,
ppm
2500
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1250
1000
750
500
Total
alkalinity,
ppm
500
700
600
500
400
300
250
200
150
100
Suspended
solids,
ppm
150
300
250
150
100
60
40
20
10
5
Oils, fats, grease
and other organics,
ppm
10
10
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
Silica,
ppm
-
125
90
50
35
20
8
2.5
1.0
0.5
T 3
Iron,
ppm
-
0.100
0.050
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.020
0.010
0.010
—
_ a
Copper,
ppm
-
0.050
0.025
0.020
0.020
0.015
0.015
0.010
0.010
-
Hardness ,
ppm CaCOj
-
0.300
0.300 ,
0.200
0.2X10
0.100
0.050
0.0
0.0
-
N)
        Preliminary recommendations.

-------
Table 99.   INDUSTRIAL BOILER FEEDWATER TREATMENT WASTES, 1973

2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2.1.11.0.0
2.1.11.1.0
2.1.11.2.0
2.1.11.3.0
2.1.11.4.0
2.1.11.5.0
2.1.11.6.0
2.1.11.7.0
2.1.12.0.0
2.1.12.1.0
2.1.12.2.0
2.1.12.4.0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.13.1.0
2.1.13.2.0
2.1.13.4.0
2.1.13.5.0
2.1.13.6.0
2.1.13.7.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.21.0.0
2.1.21.0.1
2.1.21.0.2
2.1.22.0.0
2.1.22.0.1
2.1.22.0.2
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.30.0.1
2.1.30.0.2
2.1.41.0.0
2.1.42.0.0
Industrial
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All stokers
Overfeed Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Underfeed Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Lignite
Volume,
10& gal/yr

5,050
810
780
385
75
25
295
20
265
10
6


6
24
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Overfeed Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Underfeed Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Bagasse
Wood/Bark

24

24

1,010
755
120
635
255
40
215
3,080
310
2,770
10
140
Volume,
m-V
-------
arc computed according to actual utility and industrial fuel use in 1973.
The effluent quantities reported could be reduced further if feedwater
solids concentration specifications for utility and industrial boilers
were also considered.  However, such figures would be over-refined con-
sidering the precision of the data input.  Therefore, the figures pre-
sented are very conservative and represent the highest possible flow
volume.

The total solids or suspended solids concentration of feedwater treatment
waste water is equally difficult to determine.  The range illustrated in
Table 99 is based on the concentration stipulated for clarification wastes
from electric utilities and the assumption that effluent concentration
will be reduced since the average industrial feedwater specifications are
liberalized to a large extent.

Boiler Slowdown

Boiler blowdown is practiced in industrial boilers in the same manner as
electric utility boilers.  Blowdown is required to limit the concentra-
tion of dissolved and suspended solids in the boiler water.  This practice
helps prevent the formation of scale on metal surfaces which otherwise
causes reduced heat transfer efficiency and deteriorated structural
stability.  The hazardous constituents found in blowdown include sus-
pended and dissolved solids, hardness, acidity, alkalinity, phosphates,
and silica.  All concentrations will be greater than or equal  to those
characteristic of utility boiler blowdown due to the less stringent water
specifications for industrial boilers.

There are no data that specifically define the volume and characteristics
of industrial boiler blowdown other than the NPDES permit applications.
As such,  the figures presented for industrial boilers in Table 100 are
based on electric utility boiler blowdown quantity and quality.   The blow-
down volume reported is proportional to utility and  industrial fuel
                                 278

-------
Table 100.  INDUSTRIAL BOILER SLOWDOWN, 1973

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coal
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite
2.1.13.1.0 Pulveri2ed Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gas
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse
2.1.. '.2. 0.0 Wood/Bark
Volume ,
106 gal/yr

3,630
585
560
280
55
17
210
13
190
9
4
0
0
A
17
0
0
17
0
17
0
720
540
85
455
180
30
150
2,215
215
1,900
10
100
TSS,
ai£,/£

30
































TDS,.
lug/ 1

150







Ammonia,
mg/ 1

1
























































Phosphate,
mg/,8

5-50



















'












Alkalinity,
nifi/J

10-100
































                     279

-------
 consumption.  Other values are equal  to  those presented  for  electric
 utilities.  Although  the data quality is questionable, these quantities
 represent  the best available data.

 Equipment  Cleaning Wastes

 Industrial steam generating boilers require periodic  cleaning in  the same
 manner  as  utility boilers.  The water side of industrial boilers  requires
 preoperational and operational cleaning.  The extent  and characteristics
 of water-side cleaning wastes are independent of  the  type  of fuel used.
 Cleaning waste waters can contain excess acidity, alkalinity,  phosphates,
 organic compounds, copper, iron, hardness, and turbidity.  Fire-side boiler
 cleaning is also required in the industrial steam generation sector.  The
 quantity of water and waste is vastly reduced from utility generation due
 to the  large use of natural gas for fuel.  As such, the quantity  and impact
 of boiler  fire-side cleaning waste water is insignificant.

 Cleaning waste water disposal methods include controlled periodic release
 to a waterway and discharge to a holding tank prior to discharge  to am-
 bient water.  As in utility boiler cleaning, federal  regulations    pro-
 hibit   controlled release without a permit so that holding and sedimenta-
 tion is the predominant control method.  Where cleaning  is done by  an
 outside firm, waste water may be trucked away to  appropriate land disposal.

 The characteristics of equipment cleaning waste water appear in Table  101.
 The volume is derived from the amount associated  with electric generation
 utility boilers and is based on the proportion of fuel consumption  within
 each sector.  Pollutant concentrations existing in electric  utility clean-
 ing waste water are reported for industrial cleaning  waste water and,  there-
 fore, represent a very conservative estimate of emissions.  However,  these
values are currently the best available  data to adapt for  industrial
boiler cleaning.
                                 280

-------
Table 101.  INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASTE WATER, 1973

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coal
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
2.1.11.1.0 Pulvarized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12,2.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1,13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Ovsrfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gas
2.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1,41.0.0 Bagasse
2.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Volume,
106 gal/yr

1,210
195
187
92
18
6
71
4
64
-3
2
0
2
6
0
0
6
0
6
0
240
180
28
152
60
10
50
740
74
666
5
30
Hardness,
nZ/Jt

4,000































TS,
n>3/.e

9,130































TSS,
mg/^

130








1






















IDS,
n>3//

9,000































                            281

-------
 FUEL  STORAGE AND HANDLING

 Coal  use  represents 16 percent of fossil fuel consumption by the indus-
 trial combustion boilers considered in this document.  Industrial boilers
 burning coal are responsible  for all fuel handling wastes.  Emissions
 from  industrial petroleum and natural gas storage are negligible.  Indus-
 trial coal handling practices do not differ appreciably  from methods
 followed  by electric utilities.  However, the industrial sector does not
 require storage facilities as extensive as electric utilities require.
                                                                52
 A storage capacity of 10 to 30 days' coal supply is recommended.
 Storage requirements shown in Table 102 were calculated on the basis
 of a  30-day storage requirement, 15-feet storage depth, and a density
 of 75 Ib/cubic foot.

 Wastewater Emissions

 The volume of coal pile drainage shown in Table 102 was  determined for a
 40-inch average yearly rainfall.  The concentration of individual pollu-
 tants in  the coal drainage will be equal to figures previously presented
 in Table  69 for utility coal  handling.  This is the case because the
 relative  mix of bituminous, anthracite, and lignite coal consumption  in
 both  the  utility and industrial sectors is the same.

 The extent of coal drainage collection and treatment within  the  industrial
 sector is unknown.  It is assumed that industrial boilers  of  greater  than
 500 x 10  Btu/hr capacity have collection and treatment  corresponding to
 utility practices.  This accounts for 25 percent of industrial  steam
 generation capacity using coal for fuel.

 Air Emissions

Air emissions from industrial coal pile storage and handling,  shown  in
Table 102, were calculated in the same manner as for utilities.   A factor
                                  282

-------
       Table 102.  INDUSTRIAL COAL HANDLING EMISSIONS,  1973

2.0.00.0.0 Industrial
2.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
2.1.10.0.0 Coal
2.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
2.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.11.3.0 Cyclone
2.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.11.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.11.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.11.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
2.1.12.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.12.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.0.0 Lignite
2.1.13.1.0 Pulverized Dry
2.1.13.2.0 Pulverized Wet
2.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
2.1.13.5.0 Overfeed Stokers
2.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
2.1.13.7.0 Underfeed Stokers
2.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
2.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
2.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.21.0.2 All Other
2.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
2.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.22.0.2 All Other
2.1.30.0.0 Gas
2.1.30,0.1 Tangential Firing
2.1.30.0.2 All Other
2.1.41.0.0 Bagasse
2/1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Storage requirements
103
tons stored

- 5,000
5,000
4,700
2,300
4,500
150
1,800
120
1,603
80
50
0
0
50
250
0
0
250
0
250
0
NAa






NA


NA
NA
L;ind area
rrquirrj,
acres

200
200
190
95
19
6
70
4
63
3
2
0
0
2
8
0
0
8
o
8
0
NA






NA


NA
NA
Volume
equircd ,
cru-ft

3,000
3,000
2,950
1,400
280
90
1,030
65
970
45
30
0
0
30
120
0
0
120
0
120
0
NA






SA


NA
NA
fiater emissions
Co.-il dr:i in.ir;c,
R.-il/yr x !()'>

220
220
210
105
20
5
80
5
72
3
2
0
0
2
8
0
0
8
0
8
0
KA






NA


NA
NA
Air emissions
103 Ibs of
particulatcs/yr

18
18
17
8.6
1.6
0.4
6.5
0.4
5.9
0.25
0.16
0
0
0.16
0.65
0
0
0.65
0
0.65
0
NA






NA


NA
NA
"NA - Not applicable.
                                  283

-------
of 0.0035 lb/ton/yr53'54 is used and is applied to a total of 5 x 10
ton/yr of coal stored.
 SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION
 In  the past several years interest in the burning of waste products as
                   1 8
 fuels has increased   due to the high cost of disposal and scarcity of
 suitable landfill sites.  There are currently four methods of utilizing
 solid wastes as fuels for the production of steam or electricity for
 industrial use.  These are:
    •   The incineration of municipal refuse (MR) to
        provide steam for industrial purposes.
    •   The supplemental firing of waste fuels in
        industry to provide heat and/or steam.
    •   The firing of sugar cane wastes, bagasse, to
        produce steam.
    •   The firing of wood, bark wastes or wood
        products to produce heat or process steam.
Waste products are used for fuel primarily because they represent a
                                                               18
disposal problem and are available at minimum costs.  Table 103
contains a listing of the heating values of various waste products.
The firing of wastes to provide energy for industry is carried out on a
comparatively small scale; i.e., each plant burns its own wastes  for
disposal and to meet part of its own energy requirements.  The exception
is the firing of MR as a fuel where large collection and firing facilities
are an economic necessity.  The small size of individual contributors to
solid waste combustion makes inventorying each contributor difficult, if
not impossible.
                                 284

-------
                Table 103.  TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL WASTES WITH
                            SIGNIFICANT FUEL VALUE18
Waste
Gases :
Coke-oven
Blast-furnace
Refinery
Liquids :
Industrial sludge
Black liquor
Sulfite liquor
Dirty solvents
Spent lubricants
Paints and resins
Oily waste and residue
Solids :
Bagasse
Bark
General wood wastes
Sawdust and shavings
Coffee grounds
Nut hulls
Rice hulls
Corn cobs
Average heating
value (as fired),
Btu/lb

19,700
1,139
21,800

3,700- 4,200
4,400
4,200
10,000-16,000
10,000-14,000
6,000-10,000
18,000

3,600- 6,500
4,500- 5,200
4,500- 6,500
4,500- 7,500
4,900- 6,500
7,700
5,200- 6,500
8,000- 8,300
 For clarity, each method of solid waste firing for industrial purposes
 will be discussed separately.

 Bagasse Combustion

 Bagasse is the fibrous waste produced from the processing of sugar cane.
                                                      n I
 It has an average heat content of 4,600 Btu per pound,   and has been
 burned to provide energy for electric power generation in Hawaii since
 shortly after the turn of the century.  Generally, every cane sugar fac-
 tory produces power for its own use and some supplemental power.  The
 power output ranges from 2.3 to 17.0 MW.25  Stack gas emissions have not
been studied to any great extent although the EPA is now conducting tests
in Hawaii and Florida to determine emission factors for bagasse combustion.
                                 285

-------
However, because of the low sulfur content of bagasse, S02 emissions should
be low.  NO  levels are expected to be small because of the low flame tern-
           X
peratures.  The major pollutant loading comes from particulate emissions.
The variations in the properties of the bagasse fuel and boiler design
result in large fluctuations in the level of emissions (1.8 — 20.0 mg/m )2^
and corresponding changes in particle size distribution of the fly ash.
The fly ash is usually returned to the field for cultivation.
                                                              3
Table 104 lists the emissions from bagasse burning facilities.   The
emissions for bagasse were taken from the 1972 NEDS Report because of
the lack of information from any other sources.
    Table 104.  TOTAL STACK EMISSIONS FROM BAGASSE BURNING FACILITIES'

1.2.4.1 Bagasse
Tons
fuel
-
io12
Btu/yr
-
Emissions, 10^ tons/yr
Particulates
42
so2
0
NOX
5.5
CO
5.5
HC
5.5
The Incineration of Municipal Refuse

Facilities for the disposal of solid waste and the production'of process
steam are more numerous than for the production of electricity.  Table 105
lists the facilities presently in operation or planned for the near
future that plan to use MR fuel combustion to generate steam for distribu-
tion.  The chemical and physical properties of municipal  refuse have been
documented in Section II.  As noted, the heating value of MR is too low
and variable for utility use.
The steam generating plant in Saugus, Mass., will  be  discussed below as
a general example of industrial steam generation  from wastes.   The Saugus
plant   utilizes a water wall boiler.  The basic  requirements  of the
plant are to accept an average of 1200 tons  per day of domestic and
                                 286

-------
                           Table 105.  PLANNED OR EXISTING REFUSE TO ENERGY SYSTEMS
                                                                                   55
00
Location
Saugus, MAM.
Iralntree, Mau
Harrlaburg, Pa.
Chicago, 111,
Nashville, Ttnn.
Norfolk, Va.
Portsmouth, Va.
Akron, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Palner Township, tit
Brockton, Mass.
Chicago, lit.
Bridgeport, Conn.
Hennstead, N.T.
New Britain, Conn.
Lane County, Ore.
ttackpnsnck Koadovlandfli N.J.
HUvauVfe, Wise.
Washington, D.C.
Montgomery County, Md.
Madison, Wise.
Us Angelra, Calif.
Honolulu, I1.iw.ill
Housalonlc Valley, Conn.
Number
of
bollera
2
2
2
t
2
t
I

















Rofuae
(erd rate.
ton/hr
62. S
10
10
66.67
30
it
«.u

















StlMffl
r.itp,
Ih/hr
370,000
60,000
185,000
Uu.OOO
270,000
100,000
40,000

















Sl.-.im
twn|i.,
°P
S75
-405
465
414
600
~4»
-1*0

















St ciin
prennurc,
P«l«
KVO
250
250
2JJ
400
27S
US

















5 team uae
Onmncretal *
G. E.



Commercial
(heating
and cool-
ing)
U.S. Navy
Ship*


















R«'flU!0
prev'-'r^tlitn*
A.C.
0
0
0
0
0
0


















S.
X
-0
X
X
0
X


















M.
X
0
X
0
0
0


















Other
fuel
Oil
Caa
Oil
Caa


.Oil

















Furnace
type
Moving
ern'e
Traveling
grate
Recipro-
cating
grate
Crate
Moving
grate
Recipro-
cating
graC*
Grata,

















Enlsslon
control
ayscea
E.S.P.
E.S.P.
E.S.P.
E.S.P.
Wet
scrubber
K.S.P. and
Multi-
cyclone


















Status
UC 197S
0? 1971
OP 1972
OP 1970
OP 1974
OP 1967
UC 197S
DSC
rsc
rsc
ss
UC
C Awd.
C Awd.
C N«g.
PDC
FSC
FSC
US
US
US
US
US '
us
*A.C. Air Clasalfler
S. Shredder
«. Hignelic separator.
*UC Under Construction PSC - Feasibility Study Coop lets C Nag. • Contract under Negotiation
0? Operating SS • Eyetm Shakedown In progm* ?DC » Preliminary Deiiga CoaplcU
BM Dealgn Study Couplet* C Awl. • Contract Awarded US • Under Study.

-------
commercial refuse and to provide steam at 652 psig and 785 F to 825 F
to a nearby General Electric Plant.  Operation is 7 days/week and
24 hours/day with a minimum of 2 billion pounds of steam to be delivered
annually.  Refuse is burned on a Wheelabrator/Von Roll moving grate sys-
tem.  Combustion temperatures are in the range 1000 to 1800°F.  Cooled
reaction gases pass through two Wheelabrator-Lurgi electrostatic pre-
cipitators which are designed to reduce particulate emissions to 0.025
grains/scf.  Fly ash is passed through a magnetic separator and sent to
landfills.  Quench water is discharged in wet ash or evaporated.  Blow-
down water is almost entirely consumed by transferring it to quench tanks.

There is not, as yet, any specific information on air emissions for waste
to energy facilities.  However, there is roughly a 1 to 1 correspondence
between the emissions from incineration only and waste to energy incinera-
tion processes.    Consequently, although air emissions from waste to
energy facilities are not known, they can be deduced from the known prop-
erties for normal incineration facilities.  Tables 106   and 107   list
the air emissions to be expected from waste to energy steam-producing
facilities.  Because refuse is a low sulfur fuel, typically of ~0.1 per-
cent sulfur content, no S0? scrubbing is performed on the stack gases.
                                                        £                C*^
NO  emissions ar?. expected to be below 0.5 pounds per 10  Btu heat input. ''
  X
Table 107 demonstrates the change in trace element emissions to be ex-
pected from the use of different control equipment.  Using  the emission
factors of Tables 106 and 107, pollutant loadings from the  firing of MR
for the production of steam for industrial purposes can be  calculated,
and these are given in Table 108.
The extent of potentially hazardous substances  from waste  to  energy in-
cineration processes has not yet been measured.  Odors  arising from the
refuse are destroyed at the incineration temperatures used.   Of special
concern in waste to energy processes is the occurrence  of  pollutants not
normally found in conventional energy generating processes.   For example,
the following compounds have all been found in  incinerator stack gases:
                                 288

-------
                                 Table 106.  AIR EMISSIONS  FROM REFUSE  INCINERATORS
                                                                                    3'58
Pollutant
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mineral particulate
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/ton of ash (ex. glass, metal)
Combustible particulate
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/ton of volatile carbon
i
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton of refuse
Nitrogen oxides (as NC^)
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/MM Btu
Hydrocarbons
Ib/ton of refuse
Polynuclear hydrocarbons
Ib/ton of refuse x 1(P
Ib/ton of volatile carbon x 1(P
Sulfur oxides (as 802)
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/ton of sulfur in refuse
Hydrogen chloride
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/ton of PVC resin
Volatile metals (as lead)
Ib/ton of refuse
Ib/ton of metals in refuse
Furnace type and average capacity
Rocking
grate,
350 tons/day
13.6
250
2.70
14
.1.
20.59
3.53
0.40
1.58
2.94
15.2
3.94
4000
0.99
1180
0.032
0.4
Reciprocating
grate,
350 tons /day
28.1
517
2.70
14
20.59
3.53
0.40
1.58
2.94
15.2
3.94
4000
0.99
1180
0.032
0.4
Traveling
grate,
350 tons/day
12.8
236
2.70
14
20.59
3.53
0.40
1.58
2.94
15.2
3.94
4000
0.99
1180
0.032
0.4
Suspension
burning ,
300 tons/day
48.9
900
1.93
10
14.72
3.44
0.39
1.13
2.10
10.8
3.94
4000
0.99
1180
0.032
0.4
N>
00
         Variations in composition of refuse may produce different values.

-------
      Table 107.   EMISSION  FACTORS  FOR MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS
                                                                   59
Element
Be
Cd
Mn
Hg
Ni
V
Pb
Sample conditions
Uncontrolled
After ESP
Uncontrolled
After wet scrubber
Uncontrolled
After ESP
Uncontrolled
After wet scrubber
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Emission factor,
Ib/ton refuse burned
0.00003
0.00003
0.003
0.0008
0.03
0.007
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.032
   Table 108.   TOTAL STACK EMISSIONS FOR BURNING MUNICIPAL  REFUSE*

2.2.40.0.0 Refuse
Tons
fuelb
1.88 x 106
io12c
Btu/yr
15
103 ton/yr
d
Particulate
1.3
so2
3.7
NOX
3.1
CO
17.6
HC
1.35



2.2.40.0.0 Refuse
ton/year
Polynuclear
hydrocarbons
0.003

HC1
0.93

Be
0.03

Cd
2.82

Mn
6.58

Hg
0.94

Ni
2.82

Pb
30.08

V
0.94
 Calculated  from information supplied in Tables 106 and 107.


 The plants  included in this category are (see Table 105):  Saugus, Ma.; Braintree,
Ma.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Chicago, II.; Nashville, Tn.; and Norfolk,  Va.

^
 Assuming  1  pound refuse =  4000 Btu, and 8760 operating hours at  capacity.


 Assuming  95 percent particulate removal efficiency.
                                   290

-------
formic, acetic, palraetic, stearic and oelic acids; methyl and ethyl ace-
tate and ethyl stearate; formaldehyde and acetaldehyde; hydrocarbons; and
phenols.  However, incineration of municipal refuse in stationary sources
is not now judged to be a significant contributor to total air hydrocarbon
emissions.
Water pollutants from waste to energy facilities, using the Saugus Plant
as a benchmark, are expected to be minimal.  This is because the water
handling system is essentially self-contained with make-up water being
supplied from the municipal water supply, and only small amounts of cool-
ing water are needed for process steam systems.  Leachates from the wet
ash should pose the only threat to water quality.  However, the use of
landfill liners should alleviate any problem that may exist.  Typical
refuse ash composition is listed in Table 109.    Reductions in volume
of municipal refuse by as much as 90 percent will minimize most solid
waste disposal problems associated with the volume of the waste.
          Table 109-  AIR CLASSIFIED REFUSE ASH COMPOSITION
                            (WEIGHT PERCENT)
                                                           60

P 0
2 5
Si02
Al O
^23
TiO-
Fe-0,
2 3
CaO
MgO
so3
K20
Na2°
Sn02
CuO
ZnO
PbO
Average
1.43

49.90
11.38

0.87
7.89

12.21
1.29
1.48
1.57
8.82
0.05
0.32
0.41
0.19
Maximum
2.04

58.10
26.90

1.52
22.19

15.80
2.32
3.75
2.91
19.20
0.10
1.74
2.25
0.73
Minimum
0.99

39.90
6.10

0.07
3.03

8.51
0.22
0.54
0.92
3.11
0.02
0.08
0.09
0.04
                                 291

-------
 The  Supplemental  Firing of  Industrial Wastes
 At  present,  the only large  scale  practitioners of supplementary firing of
 liquid  fuels are petroleum  refineries.     Liquid and sludge petroleum
 refinery wastes are mixed with  either  oil or gas and fired in conventional
 or  modified  boilers mainly  for  process  steam generation and heat.  Com-
 plete inventories of the facilities  utilizing the supplemental firing of
 industrial wastes are not available.   However, an industry survey has
 recently been made and, while not complete,  can serve as a lower limit
 of  the  pollutant  loadings  to  be  expected.
 are listed  in  Table  110.
                                          61
                           These pollutant loadings
       Table 110.
TOTAL STACK EMISSIONS FOR BURNING WASTE FUELS  IN
PETROLEUM REFINERIES

2.2.43.0.0 Industrial wastea
Tons
fuel
KA
10"
Btu/yr
of waste fuel
3.8
Emissions, 10^ ton/yr
Particulate
0.83
S02
15.13
KOX
12.8
CO
0.36
HC
-
  All calculations based on information given in reference 61.
 In  interpreting the  data  presented in Table 110 it should be noted that
 the emissions  reported  are for burning gas or oil and the supplementary
 waste  fuel.  Generally, this  mixture is -70/30 on a li&at basis.
Wood Wastes  as  a  Fuel

Pulp and paper  industries  are the main users of wood wastes for supple-
mentary fuel.   Secondary users of wood wastes are the logging and wood
manufacturing industries that burn bark and wood wastes in specially
                  62
designed boilers.

Table 111 lists the stack  emissions from wood wastes.  The consumption of
                                                                         3
wood was calculated from the  emissions reported in the 1972 NEDS Report.
                                  292

-------
The consumption figure was then updated using a growth factor of 0.012
for 1975.   The updated consumption data were used to calculate the emis-
sions.  The emission factors were taken from reference 28.
       Table 111.  TOTAL STACK EMISSIONS FOR BURNING WOOD WASTES

2.2.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Tons
fuel,
106 ton/yr
163
10"
Btu/yr
-
Emissions, 10^ ton/yr
Particulate
210
SO 2
18
NOX
140
CO
44
HC
31
                                 293

-------
 REFERENCES

 1.  Barrett, R. E. et al.  Assessment of Industrial Boiler Toxic and
     Hazardous Emission Control Needs.  Battelle Columbus Laboratories.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1323,
     Task Order No. 8.  October 1974.

 2.  Locklln, D. W. et al.  Design Trends and Operating Problems in
     Combustion Modification of Industrial Boilers.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publi-
     cation No. EPA-650/2-74-032.  April 1974.

 3.  National Emissions Data System.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

 4.  Data Compilation on Water Tube Boilers.  Data Compilation on Fire
     Tube Boilers.  Stationary Water Tube and Hot Water Generating Sales.
     American Boiler Manufacturing Association.

 5.  Steel Power Boiler Report,,Series MA 34-6.  U.S. Department of
     Commerce, Bureau of Census.  1962-1971.

 6.  Cato, G.A., H.J. Buening, C.C. DeVivo, B.C. Morton, and J.M. Robinson.
     Field Testing: Application of Combustion Modification to Control
     Pollutant Emissions From  Industrial Boilers - Phase 1.  -KVB Engineer-
     ing Inc. EPA-650/2-74-078a.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  October  1974.

 7.  Draft of Source Assessment Document for Coal-Fired Industrial/
     Commercial Boilers.  Monsanto Research Corporation.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1874.  April  1975.

 8.  Draft of Source Assessment Document for Oil-Fired Industrial/
     Commercial Boilers.  Monsanto Research Corporation.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.  EPA Contract No. 68-02-1874.  March  1975.

 9.  Particulate Pollutant Systems Study.  PB203-128 NTIS.  Midwest
     Research Institute.  May  1971.

10.  Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution, 1973.  Mineral Industry
     Surveys.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.  1974.

11.  Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosine in 1973.  Mineral Industry Surveys.
     U.S. Bureau of Mines.  1974.

12.  Natural Gas Production and Consumption, 1973.  Mineral Industry
     Surveys.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.  1974.

13.  Sales of Liquefied Petroleum Gases and Ethane  in 1973.  Mineral
     Industry Surveys.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.  1974.
                                  294

-------
14.  Energy Perspectives.  U.S. Department of the Interior.  February
     1975.

15.  Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United States.  OS&T.
     January 1972.

16.  1973 Gas Facts.  American Gas Association.  Arlington, Virginia.
     1974.

17.  Energy Use in 1974, Interior Department Preliminary Estimates.
     Bureau of National Affairs.  Washington, D.C.  March 10, 1975.

18.  Power From Waste.  Power.  February 1975.

19.  McGowin, C. R.  Stationary Internal Combustion Engines in the
     United States.  Shell Development Company.  April 1973.

20.  Barrett, R. E. et al.  Field Investigation of Emissions From
     Combustion Equipment for Space Heating.  U.S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency.  EPA Report No. R2-73-084a.  June 1973.

21.  Ehrenfeld, J. R. et al.  Systematic Study of Air Pollution from
     Intermediate-Size Fossil Fuel Combustion Equipment.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.  Report No. APTD-0924.
     July 1971.

22.  Paddock, R. E. and D. C. McMann.  Distributions of Industrial and
     Commercial/Institutional Esternal Combustion Boilers.  U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
     Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-021.  February 1975.

23.  C-E Bark Burning Boilers.  Combustion Engineering Inc.  Windsor,
     Connecticut.

24.  Flood, B. W.  Emissions from Bagasse Fired Boilers.  Clean Air.
     February 1974.

25.  Eller, W. M.  Power Generation in Cane Sugar Factories.  Combustion.
     September 1974.

26.  Liabilities into Assets.  Environmental Science and Technology.
     March 1974.

27.  Plant  Design Report.   Power.   November 1973.

28.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.   U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Pub.  AP-42.  Research Triangle Park, N. C.
     April  1973.
                                  295

-------
29.  Steam Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data Summary Report for
     the Year Ended December 31, 1971.  Federal Power Commission.
     Washington, D.C.  June 1974.

30.  Westram, Leonard.  Personal Communication.  U.S. Bureau of Mines.
     Washington, D.C.  May 1975.

31.  Shelton, E. M.  Burner Fuel Oils, 1974.  Bureau of Mines.  U.S.
     Department of the Interior.  Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  1975.

32.  Hangebrauck, R. P., D. J. von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.  Sources
     of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.  U.S. Department
     of Health, Education and Welfare.  Publication Number PHS No.
     999-AP-33.  1967.

33.  Magee, E. M., H. F. Hall, and G. M. Vaige, Jr.  Potential Pollutants
     in Fossil Fuels.  U.S. EPA Report No. R2-73-249.  Prepared by ESSO
     Research and Engineering Company, Linden, N. J.  June 1973.

34.  Zubovic, D. P., et al.  Distribution of Minor Elements in Some Coals
     in the Western and Southwestern Regions of the Interior Coal
     Province.  Geological Survey Bulletin 1117-D.  1967.

35.  Kessler, T., A. G. Sharrey, and R. A. Friedel.  Analysis of Trace
     Elements in Coal by Spark-Source Mass Spectrometry.  Pittsburgh
     Energy Res. Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.  U.S. Department of Interior,
     Bureau of Mines.  7714.

36.  Ruch, R. R., H. I. Glusroter, and N. F. Shimp.  Occurrence and
     Distribution of Potentially Volatile Trace Elements in Coal.  An
     Interim Report.  Illinois State Geological Survey.  April 1973.

37.  von Lehmden, D. J., Robert H. Jungers, and Robert E. Lee, Jr.
     Determination of Trace Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel Oil and
     Gasoline - A Preliminary Comparison of Selected Analytical Techniques.
     Analytical Chemistry.  46:239.  February 1974.

38.  von Lehmden, D. J.  Personal Communication.  June 1975.

39.  McAlpin, W. H., and B. B. Tyus.  Design Considerations  for  575 MW
     Units at Big Brown Steam Electric Station.  Proceedings:  Bureau of
     Mines - University of North Dakota Symposium, Grand Forks,  N.  D.
     May 1973.

40.  Validation of Neutron Activation Technique  for  Trace  Elements
     Determination in Petroleum Products.  Gulf  Radiation  Tech.
     August 1973.  API 4188.
                                 296

-------
41.  Davis,  D.  D.,  G. W. Sonal et al.  Study of the Emissions from Major
     Air Pollution Sources and Their Atmospheric Interactions.  University
     of Maryland, Department of Chemistry Progress Report.  November 1
     1972 -  October 31, 1973.

42.  Anderson,  D.  Emission Factors for Trace Substances.  U.S. Environ-
     mental  Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-450/2-73-001.

43.  Sahagian,  J.,  R. Hall, and N. Surprenant.  Waste Oil Recovery and
     Reuse Program - Residue Management.  Draft Final Report.  GCA Cor-
     poration,  GCA/Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts.  Pre-
     pared for the State of Maryland.

44.  Bartz,  D.  R. et al.  Control of Oxides of Nitrogen From Stationary
     Sources in the South Coast Air Basins of California.  KVB Engineering,
     Inc. , for California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California.
     Report  No. PB-237-688.  September 1974.

45.  Stratton,  C. L.- and G. F. Lee.  Cooling Towers and Water Quality.
     J Water Pollut Control Fed.  47:(7)1901-1912.  July 1975.

46.  Mills,  G.  A.,  H. R. Johnson and H. Perry.  Fuels Management in an
     Environmental Age.  Environmental Science and Technology.  5:(1)
     30-38.   January 1971.

47.  Feedwater Quality in Modern Industrial Boilers - A Concensus  of
     Profile Current Operating Practices.  Preliminary Report.  Indus-
     trial Boiler Water Subcommittee - A.S.M.E. Research Committee on
     Water in. Thermal Power Systems.  April 1975.

48.  Packaged Firetube Boiler Engineering Manual.  First Edition.
     Prepared by Technical Committee of Packaged Firetube Section.
     American Boiler Manufacturers Association.  1971.

49.  Steam Generation.  Power Magazine, 330 West 42nd Street, New York,
     New York.   June 1964.

50.  National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.

51.  86 Stat. 816 et seq.  Public Law 92-500.

52.  Combustion Equipment and Related Facilities for Nonresidential
     Heating Boilers.  Building Research Advisory Board, Division of
     Engineering and Industrial Research, National Research Council.
     Prepared for the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
     Publication No. 1294.  1966.

53.  Blackwood, T.  R. and A. W. Wachter.  Source Assessment of Coal
     Storage Piles.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contract
     No.  68-02-1874.

                                  297

-------
54.  Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources.  Midwest
     Research Institute.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Publi-
     cation No. EPA-450/3-74-037.  1974.

55.  Huang, C. J. and C. Dalton.  Energy Recovery from Solid Waste.
     Volume 2, Technical Report.  Prepared by University of Houston
     for Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space
     Administration.  NASA Report No. CR-2526.  April 1975.

56.  MacAdam, W. K.  Design and Pollution Control Features of the Saugus,
     Massachusetts, Steam Generating Refuse-Energy Plant.  (Presented at
     the 67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association.
     Denver, Colorado.  June 9-13, 1974.)

57.  Control of Environmental Impacts from Advanced Energy Sources.
     Prepared by Stanford Research Institute for U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-600/2-74-002.  March 1974.

58.  Systems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal Incineration.
     Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Report to National Air Pollution Control
     Administration, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
     Contract No. CPA-22-69-23.  March 1970.

59.  Anderson, David.  Emission Factors for Trace Substances.  U.S. En-
     vironmental Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-450/2-73-001
     December 1973.

60.  Klumb, David L.  Solid Waste Prototype for Recovery of Utility Fuel
     and Other Resources.  Union Electric Company.  May 1974.

61.  Mather, Gopal K.  Identification and Characterization of the Use
     of Mixed Conventional and Waste Fuels.  M. W. Ke.1 log Company, Re-
     search and Development, Houston, Texas.  Prepared for the U.S. En-
     vironmental Protection Agency.  Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-017.
     February 1975.

62.  Hendricksen, E. R. et al.  Control of Atmospheric Emissions in
     the Wood Pulping Industry.  Volumes I, II, and III.  Report No.
     PB 190 351.  March 15, 1970.
                                 298

-------
                             SECTION IV
             COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL COMBUSTION SOURCES

The commercial/institutional sector consists of all activities not
classified as electric utility, mining, manufacturing, transportation,
or residential.  It includes farms, wholesale and retail trade, office
buildings, hotels, restaurants, hospitals, schools, museums and govern-
ment facilities.   -Fuel consumed by the commercial/institutional sector
during 1973 was used for space heating (82 percent), water heating
(12 percent), cooking  (3 percent), and air conditioning (3 percent).
Essentially all the coal and oil was used for space heating.  Natural
gas was used for space heating (66 percent), water heating (23 percent),
cooking (6 percent), and air conditioning (5 percent).   Estimated 1973
fuel consumption by the commercial/institutional sector (external com-
bustion) is presented in Table 112:  approximately 3 percent of the com-
                                                                      2-6
mercial fuel was coal while 44 percent was oil and 53 percent was gas.
The greatest commercial/institutional application of internal combustion
engines is for the pumping of municipal water and sewage.  Internal com-
bustion engines are also used commercially to power pumps, compressors,
and emergency power generators.

COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT AND FUEL USAGE

Commercial/institutional combustion units range in size from 0.3 x 10
Btu/hr to units greater than 100 x 10  Btu/hr.  The biggest units are
used at large hospitals, office complexes, and government facilities
such as military bases.  Past studies have limited the term commercial
                                 299

-------
                                           ft        78
to boilers in the size range 0.3 to 10 x 10  Btu/hr. '   However, fuel
use data are only available for the total commercial/institutional sector,
so GCA attempted to define the emissions and boilers associated with the
available fuel use data.  All boilers in the size range 0.3 to 10 x 10
Btu/hr were assumed to be commercial boilers.  The commercial/institu-
tional boiler population in the size range above 10 x 10  Btu/hr was
estimated from NEDS data.  Since only boilers emitting more than 100
tons/year of one of the five criteria pollutants are included in the
NEDS system, the minimum size of boilers included depends on the fuel
used and the average yearly load factor.  In practice, some smaller
boilers are included, and the NEDS system covers 40 percent of the coal,
5 percent of the oil, and 8 percent of the gas burned by sources classi-
                                         9
fied as commercial/institutional boilers.
  Table 112.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION, 1973
.
3.0.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.20.0.0
3.1.21.0.0
3.1.22.0.0
3.1.30.0.0
Commercial/ Institutional
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite0
Lignite
Petroleum
Residual oild
Distillate oil6
Gasf
Total -
all uses,
101 Btu/yr
5,436
156
100
55
1
2,379
1,269
1,110
2,901
Space
heating,
1012 Btu/yr
4,449
156
100
55
1
2,379
1,269
1,110
1,914
   External combustion only.
  b22.4 x 106 Btu/ton.
  c         6
   26.0 x 10  Btu/ton.
   146,000 Btu/gal.
  e!40,000 Btu/gal.
  f                                       3
   Includes 8.5 percent LPG — 1,020 Btu/ft   (gas),  90,000 Btu/gal
  (liquid).
                                300

-------
The number,  capacity,  and fuel consumption of the commercial boilers in-
cluded in the NEDS system are summarized in Table 113.  We estimated fuel
use by commercial/institutional boilers as a function of size by assuming
that the boilers above 10 x 10  Btu/hr included in the NEDS system repre-
sented all the coal-fired boilers, one-half the oil-fired boilers, and one-
quarter of the gas-fired boilers (see Table 114) in that size range.

Commercial/institutional sector fuel use by combustion system category is
presented in Table 115.  Bituminous coal-fired commercial boilers above
10 x 10  Btu/hr were estimated to be 2 percent pulverized wet and 35 per-
cent pulverized dry, based on our recent survey of NEDS data.  All other
bituminous coal-fired boilers are stokers.  Anthracite coal is usually
burned only in stokers; the high ignition temperature of anthracite does
not allow the employment of spreader stokers.    Only a very small amount
of lignite is burned by commercial users, probably in small stokers.  The
amount of residual oil burned in tangentially-fired boilers was calculated
by assuming that boilers above 100 x 10  Btu/hr were similar to utility
boilers.  Because only a small fraction of oil utilized by the commercial/
institutional sector is burned in boilers above 100 x 10  Btu/hr, less
than 1 percent is burned in tangentially-fired units.  A similar analysis
of gas-fired boilers indicated that less than 4 percent of gas is burned
in tangentially-fired units.  The figure for wood/bark combustion repre-
sents data on file in the NEDS system and may repres2nt only a very small
fraction of the wood burned by the commercial/institutional sector.  Inter-
nal combustion fuel use was estimated by updating municipal internal com-
bustion fuel use data   from 1973.  The fuel used is 50 percent oil —
50 percent gas.
EMISSION SOURCES

Because oil and gas are clean fuels relative to coal, and because of the
small boiler sizes considered, many pollutant waste streams appear to be
                                301

-------
  Table 113.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS INCLUDED IN THE
              NEDS SYSTEM9
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Size,
106 Btu/hr
1-10
10-100
> 100
1-10
10-100
> 100
1-10
10-100
> 100
Number
249
355
40
893
779
107
349
288
72
Capacity,
106 btu/hr
1,226
14,186
7,617
2,994
28,080
25,836
732
7,000
27,228
Fuel consumption,
1012 Btu/yr
6.2
37.9
18.8
18.9
70.8
27.4
34.7
38.7
83.8
Table 114.  ESTIMATED COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FUEL CONSUMPTION
            BY BOILERS AS A FUNCTION OF SIZE
Fuel
Coal
Oil
Gas
Size,
10b Btu/hr
0.3-10
10-100
> 100
0.3-10
10-100
> 100
0.3-10
10-100
> 100
Number
40,000
355
40
882,000
1,560
220
578,000
1,160
280
Capacity,
106 Btu/hr
53,800b
14,200
7,600
l,090,000b
56,000
52,000
778,000b
28,000
108,000
Fuel consumption,
1012 Btu/yr
99
38
19
2,184
141
54
1,431
144
339
«a                                                         f
 The total number of boilers in the size range 0.3-10 x 10
Btu/hr has been estimated as 91,000 to 3,100,000.7  Commercial/
institutional and industrial oil-fired boilers are estimated to
                 O
number 1,100,000.   Industrial boilers represent a compara-
tively small number.  GCA estimated 1,500,000 boilers in the
range 0.3-10 x 10° Btu/hr.  The number was distributed based on
the fuel burned.  Data for boilers above 10 x 10^ Btu/hr are
discussed in the text.

 Based on an average yearly load factor of 21 percent.^
                             302

-------
Table 115.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FUEL USE, 1973*

3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.12.4.0
3.1.12.6.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
3.1.13.6.0
3.1.20.0.0
3.1.21.0.0
3.1.21.0.1'
3.1.21.0.2
3.1.22.0.0
3.1.22.0.1
3.1.22.0.2
3.1.30.0.0
3.1.30.0.1
3.1.30.0.2
3.1.40.0.0
3.1.42.0.0
3.2.00.0.0
3.2.20.0.0
3.2.30.0.0
Commercial/ Institutional
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous^
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Anthracite0
All Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Lignited
All Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil6
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oilf
Tangential Firing
All Other
GasS
Tangential Firing
All Other
Refuse
Wood/ Bar kh
Internal Combustion
Petroleum
Gas
Fuel use,
1012 Btu
4,500
4,450
y
156
100
20
1
79
55
55
0
1
1
0
2,379
1,269
10
1,259
»
1,110
11
1,099
1,914
32
1,832
1
1
50
25
25
aPrimarily space heating, except internal combustion
which is primarily water pumping by municipalities
and possibly a small amount of electric generation.

b22.4 x 106 Btu/ton.

C26.0 x 106 Btu/ton.

 16.0 x 10  Btu/ton.

e!46,000 Btu/gal.

f140,000 Btu/gal.

gl,022 Btu/ft3.

h!0.0 x 106 Btu/ton.
                         303

-------
inconsequential and in most cases nonexistent; e.g., cooling water dis-
charge, water treatment wastes, blowdown, etc.  Solid waste emissions
resulting from ash handling and coal storage operations are also minor,
due to the small amount of coal used by the commercial/institutional
sector.  The principal sources of emissions are from the combustion
stack.  However, even though these emissions are uncontrolled, they are
relatively minor in comparison with the electric utility and industrial
combustion areas.

EXTERNAL COMBUSTION SYSTEM EMISSIONS

Total nationwide emission estimates of particulates (including <3 micron
diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, polycyclic organic matter, and trace elements are pre-
sented in Table 116 for commercial/institutional stationary external
combustion sources.  Commercial/institutional external combustion sources
account for 1.0 percent of total particulates, 4.8 percent of sulfur
oxides, 3.2 percent of nitrogen oxides, 0.1 percent of hydrocarbons, and
0.06 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from all man-made sources.
They account for 4.8 percent of total particulates, 6.8 percent of sulfur
oxides, 7.0 percent of nitrogen oxides, 12 percent of hydrocarbons, and
7.3 percent of carbon monoxide emissions from statiorary combustion
sources as determined by this study.  The estimates are based on the
EPA-NEDS emission factors listed in Table 117, and on the methods de-
scribed in the notes following Table 116.  To obtain state emission
estimates for purposes of assigning priorities to the various combustion
systems, it will be necessary to prorate the nationwide values by multi-
plying by the ratio of the fuel consumption in a state  (ton/year)  to the
fuel consumption nationwide (ton/year).  Fuel consumption estimates  by
state are provided in Appendix B.  Additional data on  trace element
content are provided in Appendix C.
                                304

-------
             Table 116.  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL  EXTERNAL  COMBUSTION,  1973£
o
in

3.0.00.0.0 Commercial/ Ins t.
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3.1.10.0.0 Coal
3.1.11.0.0 Bituminous15
3.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
3.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
3. 1.11. A. 0 All Stokers
3.1.12.0.0 Anthracite0
3.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.13.0.0 Lignite
3.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.1.21.0.0 Residual Oild
3.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.21.0.2 All Other
3.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil6
3.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.22.0.2 All Other
3.1.30.0.0 Gasf
3.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.30.0.2 All Other
3.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark8
Particulates ,
103 tons/yr
Total
350"
340
0.70
0.50
0.60
4.8
50
21
21
0
0
0
0
150
92
0.73
91
59
0.59
58
9.1
0.39
8.7
1.4
< 3pp
150
150
4.4
3.0
2.0
0.08
0.97
0.41
0.41
0
0
0
0
140
83
0.66
82
53
0.53
52
8.2
0.35
7.9

Gases,
103 tons/yr
sox
1,500
1,500
230
210
4'2
2.1
170
20
20
0
0
0
0
1,300
1,200
9.5
1,200
130
1.3
130
0.56
0.024
0.54
0.10
NOV
ft.
800
770
30
14
2.8
0.14
11
16
16
0
0
0
0
630
320
1.3
320
310
1.6
310
110
4.7
105
0.69
HC
43
41
7.0
6.8
1.3
0.067
5.4
0.21
0.21
0
0
0
0
24
12
0.095
12
12
0.12
12
7.2
0.31
6.9
2.5
CO
83
78
25
23
4.6
0.023
18
' 2.1
2.1
0
0
0
0
32
16
0.13
16
16
0.16
16
19
0.81
18
2.1
Organics,
tons/yr
BSD
20,000
20,000
590
380
76
. 3.8
300
210
210
0
0
0
0
15,000
7,500
70
7,400
7,500
80
7,400
4,000
J.80
3,800

PPOM
6.8
6.8
3.5
2.3
0.44
0.022
1.8
1.2
1.2
0
0
0
0
2.0
1.0
0.008
1.0
1.0
0.01
1.0
1.3
0.056
1.2

BaP
1.7
1.7
0.86
0.56
0.11
Q. 0055
0.44
0.30
0.30
0
0
0
0
0.51
0.26
0.0021
0.26
0.25
0.0025
0.25
0.32
0.014
0.31


-------
Table 116 (continued).
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973a

3.0.00.0.0 Conmercial/Inst.
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3.1.10.0.0 Coalj
3.1.11.0.0 Bituminousk
3.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
3.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
3. 1.11. A. 0 All Stokers
3.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1
3.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.13.0.0 Lignite
3.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.1.21.0.0 .Residual Oil1"
3.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.21.0.2 All Other
3.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oiln
3.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.22.0.2 All Other
3.1.30.0.0 Gas£
3.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.30.0.2 All Other
3.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark8
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Sb
1.8
1.8
0.55
0.48
0.37
0.015
0.09
0.011
0.011
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.2
0.0095
1.2
ND '
ND
ND




As
39
39
28
27
21
0.85
5.0
1.1
1.1
0
0
0
0
11
9.4
0.075
9.3
1.3
0.013
1.3
•



Ba
60
60
40
34
26
1.0
6.6
6.1
6.1
0
0
0
0
20
20
0.16
20
ND
ND
ND




Be
54
54
2.6
2.3
1.8
0.072
0.43
0.31
0.31
0
0
0
0
2.8
2.8
0.022
2.8







Bi
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.73
0.029
0.19
0.011
0.011
0
0
0
0











B
54
54
50
50
39
1.6
9.6
' 0.11
0.11
0
0
0
0
3.3
3.3
0.026
3.3







Br
160
160
70
68
13
0.68
54
2.2
2.2
0
0
0
0
89
5.3
0.0053
5.3
84
0.83
83




Cd
59
59
0.41
0.40
0.31
0.012
0.016
0.011
0.011
0
0
0
0
59
59
0.47
58
ND
ND
ND




Cl
10,000
10,000
9,900
6,700
1,300
68
5,400
3,200
3,200
0
0
0
0
500
500
5.0
500







Cr
79
79
26
13
10
0.42
2.6
13
13
0
0
0
0
53
53
0.43
53
ND
ND
ND





-------
Table 116 (continued).
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL
EXTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973a

3.0.00.0.0 Commercial/Inst.
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3.1.10.0.0 CoalJ
3.1.11.0.0 Bituminousk
3.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
3.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
3.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1
3.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.13.0.0 Lignite
3.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil™
3.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.21.0.2 All Other
3.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oiln
3.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.22.0.2 All Other
3.1.30.0.0 Gas0
3.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.30.0.2 All Other
3.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark8
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Co
79
79
13
3.5
2.7
0.11
0.66
9.6
9.6
0
0
0
0
66
66
0.52
65







Cu
330
330
20
12
9.4
0.36
2.3
7.9
7.9
0
0
0
0
310
310
2.5
310-
0.66
0.0065
0.65




F
700
700
700
360
59
2.3
100
340
340
0
0
0
0
0.12
0.12
0.0012
0.12







Fe
4,100
4,100
4,100
3,400
2,600
100
660
710
710
0
0
0
0
220
220
1.7
220







Pb
19
19
9.5
8.6
6.6
0.26
1.7
0.94
0.94
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.2
0.0095
1.2







Mn
5.0
5.0
45
44
34
1.3
8.6
1.4
1.4
0
0
0
0
4.7
4.7
0.037
4.7
0.17
0.0017
0.17




Hg
1.7
1.7
1.1
0.57
0.11
0.0057
0.46
0.52
0.52
0
0
0
0
0.61
0.61
0.0061
0.61
ND
ND
ND




Mo
72
72
4.5
3.4
2.6
0.10
0.66
1.1
1.1
0
0
0
0
67
67
0.52
66







Ni
1,500
1,500
18
13
10
0.42
2.6
5.3
5.3
0
0
0
0
1,500
1,500
12
1,500
ND
ND
ND




Se
13.4
13.4
9.1
8.8
1.7
0.092
7..0
0.29
0.29
0
0
0
0
4.3
4.3
0.043
4.3
ND
ND
ND





-------
                     Table  116  (continued).   FLUE GAS

                                              EXTERNAL
EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL

COMBUSTION, 1973a
o
CO

3.0.00.0.0 Commercial/Inst.
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3.1.10.0.0 CoalJ
3.1.11.0.0 Bituminousk
3.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
3.1,11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
3,1.11.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1
3.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.13.0.0 Lignite
3.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.1.21.0.0 Residual "Oil"1
3.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.21.0.2 All Other
3.1,22.0.0 Distillate Oiln
3.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.22.0.2 All Other
3.1.30.0.0 Gas0
3.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.30.0.2 All Other
3.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark8
Trace elements,
ton/yr
Te
- 0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.23
0.0091
0.056
0.011
0.011
0
0
0
0




'

,




Tl
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.095
0.073
0.0029
0.019
0.011
0.011
0
0
0
0











Sn
16
16
1.0
0.90
0.70
0.027
0.17
0.11
0.11
0
0
0
0
15



15
0.15
15




Ti
880
880
620
560
430
18
110
63
63
0
0
0
0
160
160
1.3
160







U
55
55
14
14
11
0.44
2.7
0.29
0.29
0
0
0
0
41
41
0.32
41







V
1,700
1,700
26
26
20
0.78
. 4.7
1.4
1.4
0
0
0
0
1,700
1,700
13
1,700
ND
ND
ND




Zn
30
30
24
21
16
0.62
3.9
3.1
3.1
0
0
0
0
5.6
5.6
0.044
5.6
ND
ND
ND




Zr
49
49
49
44
34
1.4
8.6
5.0
5.0
0
0
0
0












-------
Table 116  (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL /INSTITUTIONAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973a


 Values in the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmosphere from conventional sta-
tionary combustion sources in the United States.  An entry of "ND" signifies that a trace element
has not been detected when measured, and an entry left blank signifies that no information is
available.  The emission factors used in this table are given in Table 117.

 The consumption of bituminous coal was determined by taking the data from Table II, page 39, of  .
reference 4 under the column headed "Retail Dealers" and subtracting the calculated residential
consumption.  The difference xjas believed to be the consumption by commercial/ institutional users.
The ash content was taken to be 13.8 percent by weight from Table 1-A, page 1, of reference 13.
The sulfur content was taken to be 2.4 percent from Table 1-A, page 1, of reference 13.
Q
 The consumption of anthracite was determined by subtracting the residential consumption from the
consumption data given in reference 6.  The ash content was assumed to be 10 percent; the sulfur.
content 0.5 percent.

 The consumption of residual oil was taken from Tables 6 and 12 of reference 2.   The sulfur content
was taken  from reference 14 for 1973 oils and averaged 1.87 percent by weight.
Q
 The consumption of distillate oil was determined by subtracting the residential consumption from
reference  2.  The sulfur content was taken from reference 14 for 1973 oils and averaged 0.225 per-
cent by weight.

 The consumption of gas by conventional stationary combustion systems was estimated to be 65 per-
cent of the value, in reference 3, for commercial and other consumers in 1973.

     consumption of wood was updated from the emissions in the 1972 NEDS report.
 The  emissions  of  BaP  and  BSO  from all fuels were calculated from emission factors in reference 15.
The emissions of particulate polycyclic organic matter (PPOM) from coal were based on a summation
of emission  factors  for  PYRENE, BENZO(a)PYRENE, BENZO(e)PYRENE, PERYLENE, BENZO(ghi)PERYLENE,
ANTHANTHRENE , CORONENE,  ANTHRACENE, PHENANTHRENE , AND FLUORANTHENE .  PPOM emissions from oil and
gas were  calculated  by assuming the same ratio to BaP as in the case of coal.  Emission factors
were  specific to intermediate  size combustion equipment.  No data were found on emissions of
polyhalogenated biphenyls  from commercial/ institutional systems.

-------
        Table 116  (continued).   FLUE  GAS  EMISSIONS  FROM  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973a


         The amount  of  each trace element,  i,  emitted  to the atmosphere was calculated as follows:

            (1)  The amount of  i in the fuel,  A., was

                                                  A± - C± x F±

                 where   C.  = concentration  of  i  in  the fuel, ppm

                         F.  = yearly consumption  of  fuel,  tons/year.

                 If  A^  was  calculated on  a  regional basis, results were summed to the national level.

            (2)  The amount emitted to  the  atmosphere, E , was
co
o                                                 E = A. x f.

                 where   f   = estimated  fraction  of  i emitted to the atmosphere.

                 For the coal-fired pulverized dry  bottom units f^ = 0.85, for pulverized wet bottom
                 units  f^ -  0.65, and for stokers f^ = 0.05.  Exceptions are Br, Cl, and F for which
                 f.£  = 1.0,  Hg for which f±  = 0.90,  and Se for which f± = 0.70.  For oil fi = 1.0.


        •^Data  for coal were  available for each of the  coal-producing regions defined by the U.S. Geological
        Survey.   Sources of  trace element concentration  data were publications by Magee,^-" Zubovic,^
        Kessler,18 Ruch,19 and von  Lehmden.20'21

        kFor each coal-producing region, concentrations  of As, Ba, Be, B, Cr, Co, Cu, F, Pb, Mn, Hg, Mo,
        Ni,  Sn,  U, V, and Zn in bituminous  coal were calculated using reference 16 as a primary source
        and  reference 17 as a supplementary source.  For  Cl, Br, and Ti, data from Illinois in reference
        19 were used as typical of  all  coal-producing  regions.  For Sb, Bi, Cd, Fe, Te, Tl, and Zr,  con-
        centrations were calculated by  using reference 18.  For Se, the single concentration cited by
        reference 21 was used.

-------
Table 116 (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EXTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973a


 For anthracite coal, typical trace element concentrations were taken from reference 18.

 For residual oil, trace element concentration data were available for As, Sb, Ba, Br, Cr, Mn, Ni,
V, and Zn from reference 22.  For the trace elements Be, B, Cd, Co, F, Fe, Pb, Hg, Mo, Se, Sn, Ti,
and U, reference 21 was used as the primary source and references 20, 23, 24, and 25 as supple-
mentary sources.

 For distillate oil, reference 22 reported concentrations for As, Br, Cu, Mn, and Sn and reported
that Sb, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Se, V, and Zn were not detectable.

 Hydrocarbon gases were assumed to be free of trace elements.

 For coal, emissions of < 3 micron particles were estimated as 2 percent of the total uncontrolled
particulate emissions.  For oil and gas, emissions of < 3 micron particles were estimated to be
90 percent of the particulate emissions.

-------
              Table  117.   EMISSION FACTORS  FOR  TABLE 116

3.0.00.0.0 Commercial/ Institutional
3.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
3.1.10.0.0 Coalb
3.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
3.1.11.1.0 Pulverized Dry
3.1.11.2.0 Pulverized Wet
3.1.11.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
3.1.12.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.12.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.13.0.0 Lignite
3.1.13.4.0 All Stokers
3.1.13.6.0 Spreader Stokers
3.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
3.1.21.0.0 Residual Oil
3.1.21.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.21.0.2 All Other
3.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
3.1.22.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.22.0.2 All Other
3.1.30.0.0 Gasd
3.1.30.0.1 Tangential Firing
3.1.30.0.2 All Other
3.1.42.0.0 Wood/Barkb
Particulates3
Total
NA
NA
NA
17A
13A
2A
2A
2A
2A
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
23
23
NA
15
15
10
10
10
15
Gases*
sox
NA
NA
NA
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
38S
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
159S
159S
NA
144S
144S
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.5
NOX
NA
NA
NA
18
30
10
10
6
6
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
40
80
NA
40
80
120
120
120
10
HC
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.3
3
3
0.2
0.2
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
3
3
NA
3
3
8
8
8
36
CO
NA
NA
NA
1
1
6
6
2
2
X
X
X
X
NA
NA
4
4
NA
4
4
20
20
20
31
 Abbreviations used  in  the table have the following meanings:
    A  = Multiply  by weight percent ash
    S  = Multiply  by weight percent sulfur
    X  = Fuel, consumed  in this combustion system is small;
         emission  is assumed to be negligible
    NA = Not applicable.
 The emission factors for coal and wood/bark give values  in  terms of pounds of
pollutant per ton  burned.
 The emission factors for oil give values in terms of  pounds of pollutant per
1000 gallons of oil  burned.
 The emission factors for gas give values in terms of  pounds of pollutant per
10^ cubic feet of  gas burned.
                                    312

-------
              o
Barrett et al.  have conducted an EPA-sponsored field test program to
measure criteria pollutant emissions from commercial oil-fired boilers.
A summary of their test data, and a comparison with NEDS emission factors,
is shown in Table 118.  The test values were determined in a field study
of eight distillate oil-fired, five residual oil-fired, and seven gas-
fired units.
       Table 118.  EMISSION FACTORS:  OIL-FIRED AND GAS-FIRED
                   COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS
                             (lb/106 Btu)
Fuel
Distillate oil

Residual oil

Natural Gas

Data source
Battelle8
EPA10
Battelle8
EPA10
Battelle8
EPA10
Particulate
0.01
0.1
0.26
0.16
0.006
0.02
S02
0.28
0.3a
2.5
1.9b
0.0006
0.0006
NOX
0.11
0.42
0.55
0.42
0.1
0.1
HC
0.001
0.02
0.002T
0.02
0.004
0.008
CO
0.0035
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
 o
 0.3 percent sulfur.

 2.0 percent sulfur.
INTERNAL COMBUSTION SYSTEM EMISSIONS

The greatest commercial/institutional application of internal combustion
engines is for the pumping of municipal water and sewage.  Internal com-
bustion engines are also used commercially to power pumps, compressors,
and emergency power generators.  In 1971, 167 million gallons of distil-
late oil and 22.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas were used by the
commercial/institutional internal combustion sector.

Total nationwide emission estimates are presented in Table 119.  The
estimates are based on the EPA-NEDS emission factors listed in Table 120,
and on the methods described in the notes following Table 119.  Commer-
cial/institutional internal combustion sources account for 0.006 percent
                                 313

-------
               Table  119.   AIR EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION,  1973£

3. 0. 00. 0. 0 Commercial/Institutional
3.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustionb
3.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.2.30.0.0 Gas
Particulates,
10-> tons/yr
Total
350
2.1
2.1
0
<3yc
150



Gases ,
10-^ tons/yr
sox
1,500
2.7
2.7
0.00068
NOX
800
33
25
7.5
HC
43
1.7
1.7
0
CO
83
4.5
4.5
0
Organics,
tons/yr
BSO
20,000



PPOM
6.8



BaP
1.7



to
H*
         Table 119  (continued).   AIR EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973C
                                                                    Trace elements,e
                                                                        tons/yr

3.0.00.0.0 Commercial/Institutional
3.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
3.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.2.30.0.0 Gas
Sb
1.8

ND

As
39
0.027
0.027

Ba
60

ND

Be
54



Bi
0.90



B
54



Br
160
1.7
1.7

Cd
59

ND

Cl
10,000

ND


-------
        Table 119  (continued).   AIR EMISSIONS  FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION, 1973*

3 . 0. 00. 0. 0 Commercial/ Institutional
3.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
3.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.2.30.0.0 Gas
Trace elements,6
tons/yr
Cr
170

ND

Co
79



Cu
330
0.014
0.014

F
700.



Fe
4,100



Pb
19



Mn
50
0.0039
0.0039

Hg
1.7
ND
ND

Mo
72



in
         Table  119 (continued).   AIR EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION,  1973'
                                                                   Trace  elements,e
                                                                       tons/yr

3 . 0 . 00 . 0 . 0 Commercial/ Institutional
3.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
3.2.20.0.0 Petroleum
3.2.30.0.0 Gas
Ni
1,500
ND
ND

Se
13
ND
ND

Te
0.31



Tl
0.12



Sn
16
0.24
0.24

Ti
880



U
55



V
1,700



Zn
30



Zr
49




-------
Table 119 (continued).  AIR EMISSIONS FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION,  1973&

a
 Values In the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmosphere from conventional
stationary combustion sources in the United States.  An entry of "ND" signifies that a trace
element has not been detected when measured; and an entry left blank signifies that no infor-
mation is available.  All emission factors used in this table are given in Table 120.

 Data on fuel consumption and capacities are from reference 11 and are based on 1971 values.
Q
 No data were available on emissions of < 3 micron particles.

 No data were available for emissions of organics.
/a
 Trace element emissions were based on consumption data and calculated trace element contents
of the fuel as listed in Appendix C.  These concentrations were multiplied by the fuel consump-
tion to determine the total emissions of trace elements.  For distillate oil, reference 22
reported concentrations for As, Br, Cu, Mn, and Sn, and reported that Sb, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni,
Se, V, and Zn were not detectable.  Hydrocarbon gases were assumed to be free of trace elements.

-------
 of total participates,  0.009 percent of sulfur  oxides,  0.14 percent of
 nitrogen oxides, 0.005  percent of hydrocarbons,  and 0.003 percent of car-
 bon monoxide emissions  from all man-made sources.   They account for 0.03
 percent of total particulates, 0.01 percent of  sulfur oxides, 0.3 percent
 of nitrogen oxides, 0.5 percent of hydrocarbons, and 0.4 percent of carbon
 monoxide emissions from stationary combustion sources.   To obtain state
 emission estimates for  purposes of assigning priorities to the various com-
 bustion systems, it will be necessary to prorate the nationwide values by
 multiplying by the ratio of the fuel consumption in a state to the fuel
 consumption nationwide.   Fuel consumption estimates by  state are provided
 in Appendix B.  Additional  data on trace element content are provided in
 Appendix C.

               Table 120.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TABLE 119


3.0.00.0.0 Coroner cial/Institutional
3.2.00.0.0 Internal Combustion
3.2.20.0.0 Petroleum1*
3.2.30.0.0 Gasc
Particulates2
Total
NA
NA
5
14
Gases3
sox
NA
NA
144S
0.6
NOX
NA
NA
68
413
HC
NA
NA
5.6
42
CO
NA
NA
15.4
115
     3Abbreviations  used in the table have the  following meanings:
         S = Multiply by weight percent sulfur
         NA = Not applicable; emissions for this combustion system were calcu-
             lated  as the totql of emissions from the appropriate subsystems.
     bThe emission factors for oil give values  in terms of pounds of pollutant
     per 1000 gallons of oil burned.
     CThe emission factors for gas give values  in terms of pounds of pollutant
     per 10^ cubic feet of gas burned.
ASH HANDLING

It has been  assumed that, because  of the small size of commercial/institu-
tional boilers,  dry collection and landfill disposal will be  the only method
of bottom ash  handling.  Fly ash is not a factor since the  application of
                                   317

-------
control equipment  is negligible  in  the commercial area except for some of
the larger  institutional boilers.   Ash generation and air emission esti-
mates from  landfill are given  in Table 121.   The ash generation values
given in  the  table are based on  the difference between the ash content of
the coal  and  the ash released  to the atmosphere through the stack.  The
air emission  values are based  on the application of an emission factor of
1 Ib/ton  of ash collected.  Solid waste pollutants resulting from leach-
ates from landfill operations  can be estimated from the bottom ash compo-
sition data presented in Section II and Appendix C for the coal fuels of
importance.   Ash from oil,  gas,  and other fuels will be negligible.
     Table 121.  ESTIMATED EMISSIONS  FROM COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL
                 ASH HANDLING, 1973a

3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.12.4.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
3.1.21.4.0
Commercial /Institutional
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Anthracite
All Stokers
Lignite
All Stokers
Residual Oil
Ash
generated,
tons/year
700,000
700,000
700,000
460,000
18,000
2,000
440,000
. 235,000
235,000
5.000
5,000
Nil
Storage
requirements ,
acre feet/year
319
319
319
209
8
1
200
105
105
5
5
Nil
Air emissions
from landfill,**
tons/year
350
350
350
230
9
1
220
110
110
5
5
Nil
   See Appendix C for fuel composition of bottom ash.
   Based on a landfill depth of 10 feet.
COOLING SYSTEMS

Cooling water requirements  are  not applicable to the commercial/institu-
tional sector.  The majority  of commercial/institutional boilers  are used
                                 318

-------
for space heating and do not -require  the use of cooling water.  The cooling
water required for the few larger institutional boilers will be negligible.

OTHER WASTEWATER SOURCES

These emission streams are of minor consequence in this combustion area
where small, low pressure boilers predominate.  Estimates of waste volumes
are less than 10  gallons per year.

COAL STORAGE
The coal storage requirements of commercial/institutional combustion sources
are provided in Table 122.  These values are based on an average storage re-
quirement of 10 days.  Storage pile height has been assumed to be 10 feet.
Air emissions from coal pile storage will be negligible — less than 1 ton
per year.  Coal pile drainage volumes have been estimated assuming 50 per-
cent open storage.  Coal pile drainage composition can be obtained from data
presented in Section II.

  Table 122.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL EMISSIONS FROM COAL STORAGE, 1973

3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
I
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.12.4.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
Commercial/ Institutional
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Anthracite
All Stokers
Lignite
All Stokers
Tons
stored


190,000
140,000
29,000
1,000
110,000
'49,000
49,000
1,000
1,000
Storage requirements
Area,
acres/year


12
9
2
-
7
3
3
-
-
Volume,
acre feet/year


120
90
20
-
70
30
30
-
-
Coal pile
drainage,3
10^ gal/year


6,500
4,800
950
50
3,800
1,660
1,660
40
40
Assumed  50 percent open storage.
                                319

-------
 REFERENCES

 1.  Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United States.   Stanford
     Research Institute.  Office of Science and Technology, Washington,
     D.C.  January 1972.

 2.  Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene in 1973.  Bureau of Mines, U.S.
     Department of the Interior.  Washington, D.C.  1974.

 3.  Natural Gas Production and Consumption, 1973.  Bureau of Mines,
     U.S. Department of the Interior.  Washington, D.C.  1974.

 4.  Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution 1973.  Bureau of Mines,
     U.S. Department of the Interior.  Washington, D.C.  1974.

 5.  Sales of Liquid Petroleum Gases and Ethane in 1973.  Bureau of
     Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior.  Washington,  D.C.  1974.

 6.  Production and Distribution of Pennsylvania Anthracite in 1973.
     Mineral Industry Surveys.  Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the
     Interior.  1974.

 7.  Moscowitz, C. M., R. F. Boland, and D. L. Zanders.  Source Assess-
     ment Document No. 15 - Oil-Fired Industrial Commercial Boilers
     (Draft Report).  Monsanto Research Corporation.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Contract No. 68-02-1320.  March 1975.

 8.  Barrett, R. E. et al.  A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel
     Oil Combustion for Space Heating.  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency Report No. R2-73-084a.  June 1973.

 9.  Paddock, R. E. and D. C. McMann.  Distribution of Industrial  and
     Commercial/Institutional External Combustion Boilers.  Research
     Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.   U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. EPA-650/2-75-021.
     February 1975.

10.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.  U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North  Carolina.  Publi-
     cation No. AP-42.  April 1973.

11.  McGowin, C. R.  Stationary Internal Combustion  Engines  in the United
     States.  Shell Development Company.  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency Report No. R2-73-210.  April 1973.

12.  Ehrenfeld, J. R., R. H. Bernstein et al.   Systematic  Study of Air
     Pollution from Intermediate-Size Fossil-Fuel  Combustion Equipment.
     Walden Research. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency,  Cincinnati,
     Ohio.  Report APTD No. 0924.  July 1971.
                                 320

-------
13.  Steam Plant Air and Water Quality Control Data Summary Report for
     the year ended December 31, 1971.  Federal Power Commission,
     Washington, D.C.  June 1974.

14.  Shelton, E. M.  Burner Fuel Oils, 1974.  Bureau of Mines,  U.S.
     Department of the Interior, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  1975.

15.  Hangebrauck, R. P., D. J. von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.   Sources
     of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.  U.S.  Department
     of Health, Education and Welfare.  Publication Number PHS  No.
     999-AP-33.  1967.

16.  Magee, E. M., H. F. Hall, and G. M. Vaige, Jr.  Potential  Pollutants
     in Fossil Fuels.  U.S. EPA Contract No. R2-73-249. Prepared  by ESSO
     Research and Engineering Company, Linden, N. J.  June 1973.

170  Zubovic, D. P., et al.  Distribution of Minor Elements in  Some  Coals
     in the Western and Southwestern Regions of the Interior Coal  Province
     Geological Survey Bulletin No. 1117-D.  1967

18.  Kessler, T., A. G. Sharrey, and R. A. Friedel.  Analysis of Trace
     Elements in Coal by Spark-Source Mass Spectrometry.  Pittsburgh Energy
     Research Center, Pittsburgh, Pa.  U.S. Department of  Interior,  Bureau
     of Mines.  RI7714.

19.  Ruch, R. R., H. I. Glusroter, and N. F. Shimp.  Occurrence and
     Distribution of Potentially Volatile Trace Elements in Coal.  An
     Interim Report.  Illinois State Geological Survey. April  1973.

20.  von Lehmden, D. J., Robert H. Jungers, and Robert'E.  Lee,  Jr.
     Determination of Trace Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel Oil and
     Gasoline - A Preliminary Comparison of Selected Analytical Techniques.
     Analytical Chemistry.  46:239.  February 1974.

21.  von Lehmden, D. J.  Personal Communication.  June 1975.

22.  Validation of Neutron Activation Technique for Trace  Element
     Determination in Petroleum Products.  Gulf Radiation  Technology.
     A.P.I. 4188.  August 1973.

23.  Anderson, D.  Emission Factors for Trace Substances.   U.S  EPA
     Contract No. 450/2-73-001.

24.  Sahagian, J., R. Hall, and N. Surprenant.  Waste Oil  Recovery and
     Reuse Program - Residue Management,  Draft Final Report.   GCA
     Corporation, GCA/Technology Division.

25.  Davis, D. D., G. W. Sonal, et al.  Study of the Emissions  from Major
     Air Pollution Sources and Their Atmospheric Interactions.  University
     of Maryland, Department of Chemistry Progress Report.  November 1,
     1972 - October 31, 1973.
                                  321

-------
                               SECTION V
                    RESIDENTIAL COMBUSTION SOURCES

Total fuel comsumption by the residential sector is estimated to be
           12
10,350 x 10   Btu/year, with 78 percent of this total utilized for space
heating.   The remainder is used for various purposes such as cooking,
water heating, air conditioning, etc.  Fuel consumption estimates for
the major fuel classifications are given in Table 123.  The percentage
of each fuel used for space heating is also provided in the table.  The
estimate of residential fuel usage is based on procedures described in
reference 2, using information from references 3 to 12.  The procedures
involve the apportionment of fuel usage data for the combined commercial/
residential sectors to the residential sector by considering the number
of dwelling units in a state using each fuel, the degree days within
each state, and the fuel requirements per degree day per dwelling unit.

                Table .123.  RESIDENTIAL FUEL USE, 1973

4.0.00.0.0
4.1.00.0.0
4.1.10.0.0
4.1.11.0.0
4.1.12.0.0
4.1.13.0.0
4.1.20.0.0
4.1.22.0.0
4.1.30.0.0
4.1.42.0.0
Residential
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum3
Distillate Oil
Gas
Wood

Space heating,
1012 Btu/yr
8,057
8,057
192
115
75
2
2,280
2,280
5,450
135
Percent of
fuel used for
space heating

78
100
100
100
100
94
94
70
100
    Over 95 percent No. 1 or No. 2 distillate oil.
                                 322

-------
NUMBER AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BOILERS
The literature contains few references to the number and characteristics
of residential combustion sources other than those provided by the Bureau
of Census.   The number of individual sources tabulated below has been
estimated from oil-fired equipment data:13
                      Oil-fired units
                      Gas-fired units
                      Coal-fired units
11 x 10
27 x 10*
 1 x 10*
                                                6
                                 Total   39 x 10 .
The population of coal- and gas-fired units was estimated by assuming
that the fuel unit population was a direct function of fuel consumption
used for space heating.  Sales data by type and size of oil-fired equip-
ment are also provided in reference 13 and are summarized in Tables 124
and 125.  Although a general survey of existing burner population by
detailed burner and system type is not available, data presented in
these tables provide guidelines for estimating population and selecting
representative equipment mix.  The size distribution -provided in Table 125
can be assumed to be representative of natural gas equipment also, although
variations due to geographic and climatic differences are conceivable.
          Table 124.  SALES OF DOMESTIC OIL BURNERS BY TYPE
                                                           13
Oil burner type
High- pressure gun burners
Low pressure burners
Vertical-rotary burners
Vaporizing burners
Miscellaneous types
1969,
percent
95.0
3.4
0.4
1.2
-
Pre-1941,
percent
71.7
6.2
11.0
10.8
0.3
                                323

-------
  Table 125.  DISTRIBUTION OF SIZES OF DOMESTIC OIL-FIRED EQUIPMENT
                                                                   13
a
By firing rates, gph,
all 1970 installations
Rate
< 1.0
1.0 - 1.35
1.35 - 1.65
1.66 - 2.0
2.01 - 3.0
> 3.0
Percent
32
37
12
7
7
5
By boiler sizes,
103 Btu/hr
Size
< 75
76 - 100
101 - 125
126 - 150
> 150

Percent
3
26
45
16
10

By furnace sizes,
10J Btu/hr
Size
< 50
50 - 75
76 - 100
101 - 125
> 125

Percent
2
11
42
32
13

   Gallons per hour.
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS

Total nationwide emission estimates of particulates (including < 3 micron
diameter particulates), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, polycyclic organic matter, and trace elements are pre-
sented in Table 126 for residential space heating combustion sources.
The estimates are based on the EPA-NEDS emission factors listed in
Table 127, and on the iaethods described in the notes following Table 126.

Residential combustion sources account for 0.7 percent of total particu-
lates, 4.2 percent of sulfur oxides, 1.5 percent of nitrogen oxides,
0.3 percent of hydrocarbons, and 0.3 percent of carbon monoxide emis-
sions from all man-made sources.  They account for 3.3 percent of  total
particulates, 6.3 percent of sulfur oxides, 3.2 percent of nitrogen
oxides, 31 percent of hydrocarbons, and 44 percent of carbon monoxide
emissions from the stationary combustion sources considered in this
study.
                                324

-------
                         Table  126.   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL  COMBUSTION,  1973'
u>
ro
Ul

4.0.00.0.0 Residential
4.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
4.1.10.0.0 Coal
4.1.11.0.0 Bit:uminousb>c
4.1.12.0.0 Anthrnciteb»d
4.1.13.0.0 Lignite6
4. 1 .20.0.0 Petroleum
4.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oilf
4.1.30.0.0 GasS
4.1.42.0.0 Wood/Barkh
I'iirt Li'.u l.'Hi'K ,
10* tons/yr
Total
230
230
69
53
15
1.4
82
82
52
25
<3./l
J20
120
1.3
1.0
0.29
0.027
74
74
47
0.49
Gases ,
10-* Lous/yr
SOX
1,400
1,400
240
210
27
1.0
1,200
1,200
1.5
3.7
NOX
350
350
12
7.9
4.3
0.3
98
98
210
25
!1C
110
110
57
53
3.6
0.05
25
25
21
5.0
CO
470
470
370
240
130
0.1
41
41
54
5.0
Organics ,
tons/yr
BSD
69,000
69,000
43,000
26,000
17,000
450
14,000
14,000
12,000
840
PPOM
4,100
4,100
4,000
2,400
1,600
42
11
5.2
6.3
77
BaP
390
390
380
230
150
3.6
1.1
0.50
0.60
7.4

-------
u>
                            Table 126 (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL
                                                    COMBUSTION, 1973a

4.0,00.0.0 Residential
4.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
4.1.10.0.0 Coalk
4.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
4.1.12.0.0 Anthracite1"
4.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
4.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
4.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil0
4.1.30.0.0 Gas?
4.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Iracc1 elements, J
Lons/yr
Sh
0.031
0.031
0.031
0.03
0.001

ND
ND


As
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.6
0.15

0.05
0.05


Ba
3.2
3.2
3.2
1.9
0.89
0.42
ND
ND


Be
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.04





Bi
0.053
0.053
0.053
0.05
0.001
0.002




B
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
0.015
0.057




Br
83
83
81
78
2.9

2.0
2.0


Cd
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.0010

ND
ND


Cl
12,000
12,000
12,000
7,800
4,400
16




Cr
2.4
2.4
2.4
0.7
1.7
0.006
ND
JCD



-------
UJ
NJ
                            Table 126 (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL
                                                    COMBUSTION, 1973a

A. 0.00. 0.0 Residential
A. 1.00. 0.0 External Combustion
A. 1.10. 0.0 Coalk
4.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
4.1.12.0.0 Anthracite"1
4.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
4.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
4.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil°
4.1.30.0.0 Gas?
4.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Trace elements,
tons/yr
Co
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.20
1.3
0.005




Cu
1.9
1.9
1.8
0.7
1.1
0.008
0.05
0.05


F
740
740
740
420
320





Fc
280
280
280
180
99





Pb
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.5
0.13
0.009




Mn
26
26
26
23
2.6
0.039
0.006
0.006


Hg
1.4
1.4
•1.4
0.65
0.78
0.002
• ND
ND


Mo
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.2
0.15
0.004




Ni
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.8
0.73

ND
ND


Se
10
10
10
10
0.4

ND
ND



-------
OJ
to
00
                             Table 126  (continued).   FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL

                                                      COMBUSTION,  1973a

A. 0.00. 0.0 Residential
4.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
A. 1.10. 0.0 Coalk
4.1.11.0.0 Bituminous1
4.1.12.0.0 Anthracite™
4.1.13.0.0 Lignite"
4.1.20.0.0 Petroleum
4.1.22.0.0 Distillate 011°
4.1.30.0.0 GasP
4.1.42.0.0 Wood/Bark
Trace elements,-1
tons/yr
Te
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.001





Tl
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.001





Sn
0.18
0.18
0.064
0.05
0.01
0.004
0.12
0.12


Ti
40
40
40
31
8.7





U
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.004





V
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
0.19
0.012
ND
ND


Zn
3.1
3.1
3.1
1.1
2.0
0.018
ND
ND


Zr
3.8
3.8
3.8
2.4
1.4






-------
                 Table 126  (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL COMBUSTION, 19733

      Values in the table represent total estimated emissions to the atmosphere from conventional stationary
     combustion sources in the United States.  An entry of "ND" signifies that a trace element has not been
     detected when measured; and an entry left blank signifies that no information is available.  All the
     emission factors used in this table are given in Table 127.

      The consumption data for anthracite and bituminous coal were calculated according to the formula
     described in reference 2.  This formula considers the number of dwelling units in a state using
     coal as a heating fuel, the degree days, and the coal heating requirement factor of 0.0012 ton coal
     per degree day per dwelling unit.  State total coal consumed = (Number of dwelling units x degree days X
     0.0012) ton/year.  The number of heating units was obtained from reference 3 and the degree days from
     reference 4.  The total residential coal consumption was calculated for the year 1970, for each state
     and combined by the geographical regions listed in reference 5.  The calculated coal consumption by
     households was ratioed to coal received by retail dealers in 1970 according to reference 6 to obtain
     the percentage of coal used by residential as opposed to commercial users.  This percentage was applied
u>    to the 1973 data obtained from reference 7 to obtain a more recent estimate.
to
     Anthracite consumption was obtained from reference 8.  According to reference 2, in states where
     anthracite consumption exceeded the total quantity of coal used in residential heating,  the total
     consumption was considered as anthracite.  In states where anthracite deliveries were  less than the
     consumption, the difference was assumed to be bituminous coal.  In states where anthracite was  not
     available, the total residential coal consumption was considered to be bituminous coal.
     ft
      The sulfur content was obtained from reference 5 for individual states.

      The sulfur content was assumed to be 0.5 percent.

      Lignite consumption was obtained from reference 12.  Sulfur content was  assumed to  be 0.6  percent;
     ash content 9.6 percent.

      Distillate oil consumption as residential fuel was calculated according  to  reference  3, by multiply-
     ing the number of dwelling units burning oil in a state taken from reference  4 by the  degree days and
     by the heating requirement factor of 0.18 gallon oil per degree day. State total consumed =  (Number of
     dwelling units x degree day x 0.18) gal/year.  Sulfur content was obtained from reference  9.

-------
             Table 126  (continued).  FLUE GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL COMBUSTION,  1973*

g
 Natural gas consumption was obtained from reference 10, page 8, under residential use.   Combined  resi-
dential and commercial  LPG consumption data were obtained from reference 11,  page 4.   The fraction used
in residential units as opposed  to commercial units in each state was assumed to be the  same  as  for
natural gas.  The emissions were combined for natural gas and LPG.

 Wood consumption as residential fuel was calculated according to reference 2,  by multiplying the
number of dwelling units burning wood taken from reference 3 with the degree  days in a given  state
taken from reference 4  and the heating requirement factor of 0.0017 ton of wood per dwelling  unit
degree day.  State total wood consumed = (Number of dwelling units x degree day x 0.0017) tons/year.
The wood consumption was combined for regions and for the country.  The value in the table includes also
emissions from the ten  million tons of wood burned in fireplaces annually in  the United  States,
estimated in reference  15.

"""The emissions of BaP and BSO from all fuels were calculated from emission factors in reference  16.
The emissions from coal of particulate polycyclic organic matter (PPOM) were  based on a  summation
of emission factors for PYRENE, BENZO(a)PYRENE, BENZO(e)PYRENE, PERYLENE, BENZO(ghi)PERYLENE, ANTHAN-
THRENE, CORONENE, ANTHRACENE, PHENANTHRENE, FLUORANTHENE.  PPOM emissions -from oil and gas were  cal-
culated  by assuming the same ratio of BaP as in the case of coal.  Emission  factors were specific
to residential size combustion equipment.  No data were found on emissions of polyhalogenated biphenyls
from residential combustion.

 The amount of each trace element, i/emitted to the atmosphere was calculated as follows:

    (1)  The amount of  i in the fuel, A., was

                                          A. - C± x F.

         where  C. = concentration of i in the fuel, ppm

                F. = yearly consumption of fuel, tons/year.

         If A.  was calculated on a regional basis, results were summed to the national level.

-------
                   Table  126 (continued).   FLUE GAS  EMISSIONS  FROM RESIDENTIAL  COMBUSTION,  1973a

          (2)  The  amount emitted  to  the atmosphere,  E.,  was

                                                E± -  A. x f.

              where   f.  = estimated  fraction  of i emitted to  the  atmosphere.

              Values  of  f.£ were small, as  a large fraction of the emissions are  soot.   For bituminous coal
              fi = 0.01, for  anthracite f± =  0.005,  for  lignite f± =  0.014, for  distillate oil  f± = 0.005.
              Exceptions are  Br,  Cl,  and F for which f.^  = 1.0, Hg for which f^ = 0.90  and  Se  for  which
              fi = 0.70.
     k
      Data  for  coal were available  for each of the  coal-producing regions defined by the U.S. Geological
     Survey.  Sources of trace element concentration data were publications by Magee,l' Zubovic,18 Ruch,/-^
     and  von  Lehmden.20>21
OJ    ^
M     For each  coal-producing region, concentrations of  As, Ba, Be, B, Cr, Co, Cu, F,  Pb,  Mn, Hg,  Mo,  Ni,  Sn,
     U. V,  and  Zn  in  bituminous coal were  calculated using reference  17 as a primary source and reference  18
     as a supplementary  source.   For Cl, Br,  and Ti, data from Illinois in reference 19 were used  as  typical
     of all coal-producing regions.   For Sb,  Bi, Cd, Fe,  Te,  Tl,  and  Zr, concentrations were calculated  by
     using  reference  22.  For se, the single  concentration cited  by reference  21 was used.

     mFor anthracite  coal, typical  trace element concentrations were  taken from  reference  22.

     nFor lignite, reference  17 supplied the  data for North Dakota lignite and reference 18 supplied  the data
      for  Texas  lignite.   Reference  17 contained data for  the  elements As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Br, Co, Cu, Cr, Mn,
     Mo,  Ni,  Sn,  V,  Zn,  and Zr.   Reference 18 contained  data  for  the  elements Be, Br, Co,  Cu, Mo, Ni, Sn, V,
     and  Zr.  A concentration of  Cl in lignite was  obtained from  reference 23.   Lignite consumption in 1974
     consisted  of  6.9 x  10^ tons  from North Dakota  and 5.7 x  10   tons from Texas, according to reference 11.

     °For distillate  oil, reference 24 reported concentrations for As, Br, Cu, Mn, and Sn and reported that
     Sb,  Ba,  Cd,  Cr,  Hg, Ni,  Se,  V,  and Zn were not  detectable.

     ^Hydrocarbon  gases  were  assumed to be free of  trace  elements.

     ^Emissions of <  3 microns particulates were assumed  to be 2  percent of the  total particulate emissions
     for  coal.   For  oil  and gas,  90 percent of the  particulates were  assumed to  be < 3 microns.

-------
               Table 127.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR TABLE 126

4.0.00.0.0 Residential
4.1.00.0.0 External Combustion
4.1.10.0.0 Coalb
4.1.11.0.0 Bituminous
4.1.12.0.0 Anthracite
4.1.13.0.0 Lignite
4.1.20.0.0 Petroleum0
4.1.22.0.0 Distillate Oil
4.1.30.0.0 Gasd
4.1.42.0.0 Wood/Barkb
Particulatesa
Total
NA
NA
NA
20
10
3A
10
10
10
10
Gases3
sox
NA
NA
NA
38S
36. 8S
30S
144S
144S
0.6
1.5
NOX
NA
NA
NA
3
3
6
12
12
80
10
HC
NA
NA
NA
20
2.5
1
3
3
8
36
CO
NA
NA
NA
90
90
2
5
5
20
31
 Abbreviations used in the table have the following meanings

       A = Multiply by weight percent ash
       S = Multiply by weight percent sulfur

      NA = Not applicable.

 The emission factors for coal and wood/bark give values in terms of
pounds of pollutant per ton burned.

c
 The emission factors for oil give values in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 1000 gallons of oil burned.

 The emission factors for gas give values in terms of pounds of pollutant
per 10" cubic feet of gas burned.
                                 332

-------
A comparison of recent field" measurements (for 30 oil-fired units14 and
2 gas-fired units  ) with EPA emission factors25 is presented in Table 128.
Hydrocarbon emissions from oil-fired units appear to be lower than re-
ported EPA emission factors.  Recent studies26"28 have provided more data
on residential emissions, including the effects of excess air and burner
modifications.  The particle size distribution of emissions from oil-fired
                        29
units has been measured.
            Table 128.  COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                        RESIDENTIAL COMBUSTION UNITS
Fuel
Oil-fired units
Reference 14
EPAa
Gas-fired units
Reference 13
EPAa
Emission factors, lb/106 Btu
Particulate

0.06
0.07

0.005
0.02
S02

0.3b
0.3b

0
0.0006
NOX

0.13
0.09

0.08
0.08
HC

0.005
0.02

0.004
0.008
CO

0.06
0.04

0.02
0.02
          Reference 25.
          For 0.3 percent sulfur.

Most emissions from residential combustion sources constitute minor
fractions of total combustion source emissions.  A notable exception in
the case of air emissions is the emission of polycyclic organic matter
(POM).  Although the data quality is not high, residential coal-fired
furnaces, because of their low combustion efficiency, are the principal
combustion source of POM.    Residential oil combustion is also suspected
                                                                  29
as a possible cause of high sulfate levels in eastern urban areas.

To obtain state emission estimates for purposes of assigning priorities
to the various combustion systems, it will be necessary to prorate the
                                 333

-------
nationwide values by multiplying by the ratio of the fuel consumption in
a state to the fuel consumption nationwide.  Fuel consumption estimates
by state are provided in Appendix B.  Additional data on trace element
content are provided in Appendix C.

OTHER EMISSIONS

The only other waste stream contributing to environmental pollution is
that due to ash disposal.  However, this is relatively minor since coal
and other high ash fuels are not consumed to any extent for residential
space heating.  Total ash produced is about 800,000 tons/year.  This ash
will be disposed of as landfill, with the major portion handled by munic-
ipal disposal methods.
                                334

-------
 REFERENCES
 1.  Patterns of Energy Consumption in the United States.  Office of
     Science and Technology.  Washington, D.C.  January 1972.

 2.  Guide for Compiling a Comprehensive Emission Inventory.  U.S. En-
     vironmental Protection Agency.  Report No. APT 1135.  March 1973.

 3.  1970 Census of Housing.  Detailed Housing Characteristics.   HC-B
     series.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census.  Washing-
     ton, D.C.  1970.

 4.  Gas Facts.  A Statistical Record of the Gas Industry.  American
     Gas Association, Department of Statistics.  1973.

 5.  Steam Electric Plant Air and Water Quality Data.  Federal Power
     Commission.  1973.

 6.  Mineral Industry Surveys.  Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution.
     Calendar Year 1970.  U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

 7.  Bituminous Coal and Lignite Distribution.  Calendar Year 1973.
     U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.

 8.  Minerals Yearbook 1972, Volume I.  Metals, Minerals and Fuels,  1972.
     U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  1974.

 9.  Shelton, E.M.  Burner Fuel Oils.  1974 Bureau of Mines.  U.S. Depart-
     ment of the Interior, Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  1975.

10.  Mineral Surveys.  Natural Gas Production and Consumption, 1973.
     U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.  August 1974.

11.  Mineral Industry Surveys.  Sales of Liquified Petroleum Gases and
     Ethane in 1973.  U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
     1974.

12.  Westerstrom, Leonard.  Personal Communication.  U.S. Bureau of Mines,
     Washington, D.C.  May 1975.

13.  Levy, A. et al.  A Field Investigation of Emissions from Fuel Oil
     Combustion for Space Heating.  API Publication 4099.  November 1971.

14.  Barrett, R. E. et al.  Field Investigation of Emissions from Com-
     bustion Equipment for Space Heating.  EPA-R-2-73-084a.  June 1973.

15.  Hydrocarbon Pollutant Systems Study.  Volume I.  Stationary Sources
     Effect and Control, M.S.A.  Research Corporation.  NTIS, U.S. Depart-
     ment of Commerce, P.B. 219073.


                                 335

-------
16.  Hangebrauck, R.  P.,  D.  J.  von Lehmden,  and J.  E. Meeker.   Sources
     of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.   U.S.  Department
     of Health, Education and Welfare,  Public Health Service,  PHS-999-
     AP-33.  1967.

17.  Magee, E. M., H. F.  Hall,  and G. M. Vaige, Jr.   Potential Pollu-
     tants in Fossil Fuels.   EPA R2-73-249.   Prepared by ESSO  Research
     and Engineering Co., Linden, N.J.   June 1973.

18.  Zubovic, D. P.,  et al.   Distribution of Minor  Elements  in Some
     Coals in the Western and Southwestern Regions  of the  Interior
     Coal Province.  Geol. Survey Bulletin 1117-D.   1967.

19.  Ruch, R. R., H.  I. Glusroter, and  N. F.  Shimp.   Occurrence and
     Distribution of Potentially Volatile Trace Elements in  Coal.  An
     Interim Report.   Illinois  State Geological Survey.  April 1973.

20.  von Lehmden, D.  J.,  Robert H. Jungers,  and Robert E.  Lee, Jr.
     Determination of Trace  Elements in Coal, Fly Ash, Fuel  Oil and
     Gasoline - A Preliminary Comparison of  Selected Analytical Tech-
     niques.  Analytical  Chemistry.  46:239.   February 1974.

21.  von Lehmden, D.  J.  Personal Communication. June 1975.

22.  Kessler, T., A.  G. Sharrey, and R. A. Friedel.   Analysis  of Trace
     Elements in Coal by  Spark-Source Mass Spectrometry.  Pittsburgh
     Energy Res. Center,  Pittsburgh, PA.  U.S. Department  of Interior,
     Bureau of Mines.  7714-

23-  McAlpin, W. H. and B. B. Tyus.  Design  Considerations for 575 MW
     Units at Big Brown Steam Electric  Station.  Proceedings:   Bureau
     of Mines - University of North Dakota Symposium, Grand  Forks, N.D.
     May 1973.

24.  Validation of Neutron Activation Technique for Trace Element Deter-
     mination in Petroleum Products. Gulf Radiation Tech.  Aug. 1973.
     A.P.I. 4188.

25.  Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, EPA No. AP-42-A.

26.  Combs, L. P., W. H.  Nurick, A. S.  Okuda.  Integrated Low  Emis-
     sion Residential Furnace.   Rockx^ell International.  EPA Contract
     Nos. 68-02-0017 and  68-02-1819-

27.  Hall, R. E., J.  H. Wasser, E. E. Berkau.  A Study  of Air  Pollu-
     tant Emissions From  Residential Heating  Systems.   EPA-650/2-74-
     003.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  January 1974.
                                336

-------
28.   Barrett,  R.  E.,  D.  W.  Locklin and S. E. Miller.   Investigation
     of  Particulate Emissions From Oil-Fired Residential Heating
     Units.  Battelle,  Columbus Laboratories.  EPA-650/2-74-026.
     Research  Triangle  Park, N.C.  March 1974.

29.   Air Quality and Stationary Source Emission Control.  Report to
     Congress.  Committee on Public Works.  Serial No. 94-4.
     March 1975.
                                  337

-------
                               SECTION VI
                    TRENDS IN FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION

The prediction of fossil fuel consumption patterns over the next 10 years
is dependent on political (local, state, national and international),
economic, environmental and technological considerations.  As an illus-
tration of this complexity, the factors affecting fuel and electricity
supply and demand over the past several years can be examined, since
these factors continue to change and influence the fuel supply and con-
sumption situation.  One extremely important factor is the pricing policy
of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC).  During the 1-year
period January 1973 to January 1974, OPEC increased the price of crude
oil by a factor of 4,  and as a result the price of refined oil as pur-
                                                         2
chased by U.S. steam electric plants subsequently tripled  (see Figure 30).
The price of oil affected the price of other energy sources, causing
coal and natural gas prices to rise sharply- although not nearly as rapidly
as oil prices.  During the 1960's the price of imported oil remained
relatively constant in the range of $1.50 to $1.75 per barrel,  and well
                                                  3
below the most current price of $13.50 per barrel.   Clearly, any studies
conducted during the 1960's to estimate fuel consumption patterns in the
1970's have been invalidated by the sudden changes in 1973.

Federal regulations and policies also strongly affect fuel-use patterns.
In the past, environmental laws encouraged utilities to switch from  coal
to oil.   At the present time, the Federal Energy Administration  is
involved in procedures to force many oil and/or gas burning utility  boilers
to switch back to coal and to force some new plants now being planned  to
burn coal.
                                  338

-------
                            HOKIHIT COS! Of fOSSIl fUtlS OUIVtHtO 10 Ui
                             -ucciftic UIIIIIT rums, zs UN on cnurci
              LINE I  OIL (ALL  TYPES)
              LINE a  COAL
              LINE 3  NATURAL  GAS
         1974
	YEAR 1973
              2
              tr
              i/>
              I-
              H
              UJ
              o
               J»
              H
              co
              O
              o
              UJ
              O
              u.
           Figure 30.   Monthly cost of fossil fuels delivered
                       to U.S. steam-electric utility plants,
                       25 MW or greater
The Federal  government is also involved in the pricing of  fossil  fuels,
thus affecting  energy-use patterns.  In the spring of 1975 the U.S.
Government imposed  a $2.00 per barrel tariff on  imported oil which raised
the total price to  $13.50 per barrel.  At the same time domestic  oil was
controlled at a price of $5.25 per barrel.  The  courts have since de-
clared the $2-.00 per barrel tariff to be illegal.    In addition,  the
price of domestic oil is scheduled to be decontrolled on August 31,  1975.
These variations in oil prices affect both the oil supply  and demand.

Only a few of the many factors affecting fuel-use patterns were discussed
in the above paragraphs.  Federal regulations and environmental considera-
tions strongly  influence the development of western  coal resources through
strip mining.   Development of mines, electric power  plants and  large
                                 339

-------
 equipment delivery are subject to very long lead times, in the range of
 2  to  7 years.  Manpower availability and training also affect the develop-
 ment  of  energy resources.  Advanced energy technologies such as coal
 gasification or liquifaction, magnetohydrodynamics, solar energy and
 fusion power are not expected to produce significant amounts of energy
 by 1985, although unexpected technological breakthroughs may alter the
          6
 situation.

 The majority of the trends discussed in this section are based on the
 Federal  Energy Administration's Project Independence Report published
 in November 1974.   Many other energy related references     were con-
 sulted and used to supplement the Project Independence Report, but the
 Project  Independence Report was judged to be the most recent and reliable
 analysis available.  However, the Project Independence studies only con-
 sidered  three prices for imported oil, $4, $7, and $11 per barrel.  The
 most  current price for imported oil is $13.50 per barrel, including the
 tariff,  and OPEC is considering a 30 to 40 percent increase for the fall
 cf 1975.    Therefore, the shift toward co;
 dieted in the Project Independence Report.
cf 1975.    Therefore,  the shift toward coal may be stronger than pre-
Analysis of fuel use and trend data indicates that energy use will in-
crease 29 percent from 1973 to 1985 in the conventional combustion sys-
tems considered in this study, as shown in Table 129-  Coal use will in-
crease 87 percent, oil use will decrease 2 percent and natural gas use
will increase 13 percent.  The large increase in coal consumption will
be confined to the electric utility and industrial sectors while the in-
crease in natural gas consumption will be confined to the commercial and
residential sectors.  These trends indicate a potential increase in
those pollutants associated with coal, either as an air, water, or solid
waste pollutant.  The actual change in emissions to the air will depend
on coal properties (i.e., ash, trace element, and sulfur content) and
the application and effectiveness of particulate and sulfur oxide control
equipment.  Additional water and solid waste pollutants will  be  generated
by the increased coal combustion and control equipment operation.   The use
                                 340

-------
   Table 129.
FUEL  CONSUMPTION TRENDS:   STATIONARY
COMBUSTION SOURCES3

Total
Coal
Oil
Gas
Electric Utilities
Coal
Oil
Gas
Industrial
Coal
Oil
Gas
Commercial /Institutional
Coal
Oil
Gas
Residential
Coal
Oil
Gas
1973b
fuel use,
1012 Btu
38,701C>d'8
10,220
9,958
18,523
15,387
8,502
3,351
3,534
11,300C
1,370
2,060
7,600
4 , 500d
156
2,404
1,939
8,057g
192
2,143
5,450
1985
fuel use,
1012 Btu
49,843e>f'8
19,095
9,801
20,947
22,531e
16,994
3,016
2,485
12,934E
1,945
2,966
7,600
4,941
70
2,019
2,851
9,258s
86
1,800
8,011
Percent
change,
1973b-1985
+29
+87
-2
+13
+46
+100
-10
-30
+14
+42
+44
+0
+10
-55
-16
+47
+15
-55
-16
+47
aElectric generation process steam,  space heating,  and stationary
engines.

^Utility  data  represents 1974.

cIncludes 250  x  1012 Btu wood and 20 x 10   Btu bagasse.

dIncludes 1 x  101  Btu wood.

elncludes 36 x 10   Btu refuse.

fIncludes AGO  x  1012 Btu wood and 23 x 1012 Btu bagasse.

                  12
Includes 135 x 10   Btu wood.
                           341

-------
of western coal (coal supply regions 16 to 23) will increase relative to
eastern coal, possibly causing a decrease in the amount of SC^ emitted
per unit of fuel burned, as discussed in detail in the electric generation
section.

ELECTRIC GENERATION

Fuel Use Trends

During the past 35 years the consumption of fossil fuels for the produc-
tion of electricity has increased at about 7 percent per year with a
doubling interval of about 10 years.  '    However, from 1973 to 1974
the consumption of fossil fuel by the electric utility industry declined
           1 Q
3.5 percent   due to the recession and the sharply increased energy costs.
As shown in Table 129, the consumption of fossil fuel by the electric
utility industry is expected to increase 46 percent from 1974 to 1985, a
growth rate of only 3.5 percent per year compared to the past growth rate
of 7 percent per year.  Total electric energy production (including hydro-
power and nuclear) is expected to increase at a higher rate of 5.9 per-
cent per year due to an expected fourteenfold increase in nuclear power.

Coal consumption will increase sharply     while oil and gas consumption
will decline. ' ' '    A decline in natural gas consumption was not un-
expected as it is due to limited domestic reserves and was predicted in
    Q
1972  before the sudden changes in energy prices.  Estimates of the in-
crease in coal consumption range from 50 to 100 percent.      Trends in
oil consumption are very uncertain due to the highly volatile price situa-
tion and still developing government programs.

Our estimates of electric utility fuel consumption trends are presented
in Table 130.  Specifically, the use of bituminous coal and  lignite will
increase sharply while the use of anthracite will decline.   Anthracite
consumption by the electric utility industry has declined from  2,240,000
tons in 1964 to 1,460,000 tons in 1974.  A study published  in 1970

                                 342

-------
predicted that anthracite consumption by the electric utility industry
would decline 6.5 percent per year to the year 2000.11  A more recent
study, based on an $11 per barrel crude oil price, predicted a decline in
demand of about 4 percent per year from 1974 to 1985 or a total decline
                                        1 2
in anthracite consumption of 50 percent.    The installed capacity of
lignite-fired electric generation boilers is expected to increase by a
                                    Q
factor of about 10 from 1974 to 1985  and thus the amount of lignite
burned should increase by a factor of 10.  We used the Project Indepen-
dence  coal estimate of an increase of 100 percent from 1974 to 1985,
based on business as usual with an $11 per barrel world market oil price.
The estimates of a 50-percent decline in anthracite, a tenfold increase
in lignite, and a 100-percent increase in coal, indicate an 81-percent
increase in bituminous coal consumption.
       Table 130.
SUMMARY OF ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION
TRENDS TO 1985

1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.30.0.0
1.1. 40. 0.0
1.2.00.0.0
1.3.00.0.0
1.3.20.0.0
1.3.30.0.0
1.4.00.0.0
1.4.20.0.0
1.4.30.0.0
Electric Generation
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Gas
Refuse
Internal Combustion
Turbine
Oil
Gas
Reciprocating.
Oil
Gas
1974
fuel use,
1012 Btu
15,387
14,798
8,502
8,264
38
200
3,039
2,901
138
3,257
0.6
589
515
286
229
74
26
48
1985
fuel use,
1012 Btu
22,531
20,932
16,994
14,975
19
2,000
2,172
2,060
99
1,780
36
1,549
1,467
815
652
82
29
53
Percent
change,
1974-1985
+46
+42
+100
+81
-50
+1000
-29
-29
-29
-55
+6000
+262
+285
+285
+285
+10
+10
+10
                                343

-------
Assuming business as usual and an .$11 per barrel world market price for
                                                          1 o
oil, oil use by the utility industry should be 3,000 x 10   Btu in 1985
                                                            12
(down 10 percent from 1974) and gas use should be 2,500 x 10   per year
(down 30 percent).   Gas and oil will be burned in conventional steam-
electric plants, combined cycle plants, simple turbines and reciprocating
engines.  Reciprocating engines consume a small fraction of utility fossil
fuel (0.5 percent) and the growth has been very slow (50 percent increase
in 25 years).  In line with the 1973 to 1974 increase in capacity of
1 percent, GCA estimates that oil and gas use in reciprocating engines
will increase by 10 percent from 1974 to 1985.  There is a comparatively
large uncertainty involved in estimating fuel use in turbine systems.
The Project  Independence Report estimated that combustion turbine capacity
would increase by a factor of 5 from 1973 to 1985, based primarily on a
very large increase in the use bf combined cycle plants.   This type of
plant was first commercially installed in 1971 and 1972, has a higher
efficiency than simple turbines or steam-electric systems, and looked
very promising for intermediate load operation.  However, combined cycle
plants use gaseous or premium liquid fuels (which are in  short supply and
are high priced) and have a capital cost 2.5 times greater than simple
turbines.    During the past few years, new orders for combined cycle
plants have been at a standstill and during 1974 orders for combustion
                      13
turbines fell sharply.    We estimated that the gas turbine growth will
be less than the Project Independence estimate of 500 percent and selected
the growth rate of the past few years (10 percent per year or 280 per-
cent to 1985) .  This estimate is based on a linear extrapolation of  the
growth rate experienced by gas turbines over the period 1968  to 1974 as
illustrated in Figure 31.  The fuel mix was assumed to be the same as  the
present mix.  The remaining oil and gas use, as estimated in  the Project
Independence Report, was assigned to the external combustion  category.
Thus,  oil burned in utility boilers should decline 29 percent by 1985  and
gas burned should decline 55 percent.  The ratio of residual  oil  to  dis-
tillate oil used by external combustion systems in 1985  is  assumed  to  be
the same as 1974.
                               344

-------
 45.000 -
  40,000
  35,000 -
  30.000 -
  25,000 -
 : 20,000}-
o
u
2
  15,000 -
  10.000 -
  5,000 -
     1963  456789  1970   I    Z    3   4
   Figure 31.  Total installed gas  turbine generating  capacity  in

                the  U.S.
                                   345

-------
The  combustion of refuse by utilities' to produce electricity is limited
at this  time, with only the Union Electric Meramac Plant in St. Louis
                                      19
County burning significant quantities.    At the present time Union Elec-
                                               20
trie can burn about 300 tons per day of refuse.    Contracts, however, have
been let for a $70 million project to expand Union Electric's refuse burn-
ing capacity to 8,000 tons per day — the total amount of refuse generated
                                   21
in the St. Louis metropolitan area.    Many cities are planning energy
recovery projects but most are not as large as the St. Louis project and
                                 22
are  in the early planning stages.    It is estimated that  refuse  combustion
by the utility industry will increase sixtyfold  (Union Electric's  increase
of 26 times plus a few other systems) from 1974  to 1985.
The most  important factor discussed above is the shift  from oil and gas
to coal,  and  the  large  increase  in coal  consumption.   Coal combustion
produces  much more particulate,  sulfur,  trace element  and possibly organic
emissions than natural  gas.  In  addition, coal  generally  (depending on
particulate or sulfur oxide control equipment and composition  of  specific
coals  and oils) produces more particulates and  trace elements  than oil and
relatively similar or slightly higher amounts of sulfur oxides.   In addi-
tion,  coal combustion produces much larger amounts  of  solid waste and po-
tential water pollutants.  Details on the amounts of various pollutants
resulting from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas have been  presented
in Section II.

A less significant trend is the  relatively greater  increase  in the  combus-
tion of western coal compared to the combustion of  eastern coal.  The
western coal  regions are regions 16 to 23 as presented in  Figure 32.  The
potential coal supply by region  has been estimated  for the year 1985  for a
                                                            14
business  as usual case  and an accelerated development  case.  "   The  1985
projected  supply and actual 1974 consumption are presented in  Table 131.
During 1974,  88 percent of the coal consumed was eastern  coal  and by  1985
the available supply will be 80  to 81 percent eastern  coal.  The supply
                                346

-------
OJ
.p-
                             Figure 32.  Map of the coal-producing districts of the United States

-------
 of western coal will increase by a.factor of from 3 to 6 but the per-
 centage of the total represented by western coal will only increase from
                                 14
 11.6 percent  to 19 or 20 percent.
           Table 131.  WESTERN COAL CONSUMPTION AND SUPPLY

Western
Eastern
Total
1974 consumption
103 tons
71,800
599,200
671,000
Percent
of total
11.6
88.4
100.0
1985 supply:
business as usual
3
10 tons
212,800
887,200
1,100,000
Percent
of total
19.7
80.3
100.0
1985 supply:
accelerated
development
3
10 tons
414,400
1,648,600
2,063,000
Percent
of total
20.1
79.9
100.0
 Coal reserves are commonly classified by depth  (0 to 1000 ft, 0  to 3000 ft,
 0  to 6000 ft) and by reliability of the estimate (measured, indicated, un-
 discovered) as well as by specific properties (sulfur content, coal type).
 The reserves most likely to be used in the next 10 years and on  which the
 most data are available are measured and indicated in the depth  range of
 0  to 1000 feet.  The coal reserve base is 433,900 million tons compared
                                                             14
 to the present yearly consumption of 600 to'700 million tons.    Bituminous
 coal represents 54 percent, subbituminous 38 percent, lignite 6  percent,
 and anthracite 2 percent of the reserves.  Western coal (54 percent of the
 total reserves) is predominantly subbituminous  (76 percent) and  lignite
 (8 percent).

Western coals contain less ash and sulfur, more moisture, and have a  lower
heating value than eastern coal, as shown in Table 132.  The major effect
of using western coal instead of eastern coal should be a reduction in the
potential S0? emissions per unit of fuel.  Actual SO- emissions  will  de-
pend on the actual coal mined (as only a small  fraction of  the  reserves
will be used and sulfur content varies from mine to mine) and  the applica-
tion of S09 controls.  There are extensive reserves  (compared  to current
                                 348

-------
consumption)  of less than 1 percent sulfur coal in the east,  but these
reserves have been used primarily for coke manufacture and have been too
                       24
costly for utility use.    The variation in ash content between eastern
and western coal is not significant.  Available data on the trace element
               25
content of coal   show wide variations (one to two orders of  magnitude)
within regions, and considering the limited accuracy of the data, there
is no clear difference between eastern and western coal.   However,  data
on western coal are very limited compared to other coals.  The use of
western coal will significantly affect the design and application of
control methods, including particulate, NO , and S09 methods.
                                          X        «£>
         Table 132.  AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF COAL RESERVE BASEC

Western
Eastern
Heat content,
Btu/lb
Dry
12,000
13,300
Raw coal
9,800
12,600
Moisture,
weight
23
5.7
Ash
Weight
7
to
dry
7.2
9.6
lb/106
Btu
6.0
7.2
Sulfur
Weight
7
to
dry
0.58
2.4
Btu
0.48
1.9
aCompiled by GCA from data in reference 14.

Trends in Boiler Population

The trends to 1985 for various boiler types were also estimated and are
presented in Table 133.  Based on the average age of stoker-fired boilers
(37 years in'1972) and the normal useful plant life of 35 to 40 years, we
estimated a 50 percent decline in bituminous coal stoker-fired boilers.
New source performance standards limiting N0x emissions from bituminous
coal-fired power plants to 0.7 lb/106 Btu will in effect prohibit the
construction of new cyclone boilers in sizes greater than 250 x 10  Btu/hr,
as NOY emissions from cyclone boilers are in the range of 1.5 to 2.3
     X
lb/106 Btu.   Many cyclone boilers are relatively new (capacity average
                                349

-------
Table 133.
ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION TRENDS
TO 1985

1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.11.1.0
1.1.11.2.0
1.1.11.3.0
1.1.11.4.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.12.1.0
1.1.12.2.0
1.1.12.3.0
1.1.12.4.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.13.1.0-
1.1.13.2.0
1.1.13.3.0
1.1.13.4.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.21.0.1
1.1.21.0.2
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.22.0.1
1.1.22.0.2
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.30.0.1
1.1.30.0.2
1.1.40.0.0
1.2.00.0.0
1.3.00.0.0
1.3.20.0.0
1 3.30.0.0
1.4.00.0.0
1.4.20.0.0
1.4.30.0.0
Electric Generation
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Anthracite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Lignite
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
Cyclone
All Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Refuse
Internal Combustion
Turbine
Oil
Gas
Reciprocating
Oil
Cas
1974
fuel use,
1012 Btu
15,387
14.798
8,502
8,264
5,971
1,118
1,118
57
38
13
0
0
25
200
120
30
30
20
3,039
2,901
1,128
1,773.
138
54
84
3,257
791
2,466
0.6
589
515
286
229
74
26
48
1985
no I use,
O12 Btu
22,531
20,932
16,994
14,976
11,877
1,952
1,118
29
19
Q
0
o
10
2,000
1,730
220
30
20
2,172
2,060
801
1,259
99
38
61
1,780
356
1,344
36
1,549
1,467
815
652
82
29
53
Percent
cl\;\nK<.',
1974-1935
+ 46
+ 42
+100
+ 81
+ 99
+ 75
+ 0
- 50
- 50
- 30
0
0
- 60
+1000
+1400
+730
+0
0
- 29
- 29
- 29
- 29
- 29
- 29
- 29
- 55
- 55
- 55
+6000
+262
+285
+285
+285
+ 10
+ 10
+ 10
                       350

-------
age in 1972 was 8 years) and will therefore continue to operate through
1985.  It was estimated that the use of cyclone boilers would remain
constant to 1985.

The increase in other bituminous coal-fired boilers was assumed to be
inversely proportional to their average ages  (see Table 13), and increases
of 99 percent and 75 percent were calculated  for pulverized dry bottom
and pulverized wet bottom boilers, respectively.  The population of
anthracite-fired boilers will decline sharply to 1985.  Since stoker-fired
boilers are older, it was assumed that they would decline twice as fast as
pulverized-fired boilers.

As shown in Table 130, lignite consumption by the utility industry is
expected to increase 1000 percent from 1974 to 1985.  In the past, small
stokers have been mainly used to burn lignite, but more recently the trend
                                                     27
has been to large pulverized coal or cyclone boilers.    Two new pul-
verized lignite dry bottom boilers with a total capacity of 1,150 MW
began operation in late 1971 and early 1972.  These two new boilers burned
about 20 percent of the lignite in 1974.  Another recently installed
                                         28
lignite-fired boiler is a 235 MW cyclone.    However, the future growth
of lignite-fired cyclone type boilers may be limited by anticipated new
                             29
source performance standards.    We estimated that the use of cyclone type
boilers to burn lignite would not increase to 1985.  In addition, it was
estimated that the use of stoker-fired boilers would not increase as the
trend is to larger boilers.  Although very little data were available, we
estimated that the growth rate of pulverized dry bottom boilers would
be twice the rate for pulverized wet bottom.

The ages of oil-tangential-fired boilers and other oil-fired boilers were
practically the same, so the same growth rates were assumed for these
systems.   Similarly, the ages of gas-tangential-fired boilers and other
gas-fired boilers were the same, so the same growth rate was assumed for
all gas-fired boilers.
                                351

-------
INDUSTRIAL

Fuel Use Trends

As is the case for the electric utility combustion sector, the forecast-
ing of developments in the industrial combustion sector is extremely dif-
ficult.  The changing energy picture, the impact of government regula-
tions, and the availability of clean fuels all contribute to the high
degree of uncertainty involved in forecasting future development.  Our
evaluation of industrial fuel consumption trends indicates an increase
from 1973 to 1985 of 14 percent within the categories discussed in this
study.  Project Independence predicts that the total industrial energy
consumption (including direct heat, feedstocks and electrical energy)
will increase about 27 percent, with utility generated electrical energy
consumption by the industrial sector increasing nearly 100 percent based
on business as usual and an $ll/barrel price for imported oil.  Industrial
fuel consumption trends are presented in Table 134.
     Table 134.  DETAILED INDUSTRIAL FUEL CONSUMPTION TRENDS TO 1985

2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.1.10.0.0
2.1.11.0.0
2.1.12.0.0
2.1.13.0.0
2.1.20.0.0
2.1.30.0.0
2.1.41.0.0
2.1.42.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
2.2.20.0.0
2.2.30.0.0
Industrial
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Gas
Bagasse
Wood /Bark
Internal Combustion
Petroleum
Gas
1973
fuel use,
1012 Btu
11,300
8,546
1,370
1,320
10
40
1,700
5,200
20
250
2,760
360
2,400
1985
fuel use,
1012 Btu
12,934
10,016
1,945
1,899
2
44
2,448
5,200
23
400
2,922
518
2,400
Percent
change,
1973-19S5
+14
+17
+42
+44
-80
+10
+44
+ 0
+13
+60
+ 6
+44
+ 0
                                 352

-------
In the industrial sector, the use of coal will increase over 42 percent.
This large increase may be attributable to the high price of oil and the
limited availability of natural gas.  We estimate that industrial con-
sumption of lignite will increase only 10 percent, as several problems
are involved in utilizing lignite including:  limited geographical dis-
tribution of deposits  (primarily in North Dakota); shipping difficulties
associated with the large volume required as a consequence of the low
heating value of lignite; and combustion problems (lignite ash tends to
foul heat exchange surfaces).  Utilities operating large power plants
can afford to solve lignite distribution and combustion problems.  How-
ever, lignite consumption by industrial users will be limited primarily
by distribution problems from producing to consuming areas.  Anthracite
consumption has been declining for decades   and we adopted the Project
            12
Independence   estimate of 14 percent/year to 1985 or a total decline of
80 percent.  Bituminous coal consumption will increase 44 percent with
the consumption of western subbituminous coal certainly increasing at a
greater rate than eastern coal.  Subbituminous coal has drawbacks similar
to lignite although much less severe, and these drawbacks will be compen-
sated for by the low sulfur content.  However, the increase in subbitumi-
nous coal consumption will be greater in the utility sector where unit
trains and other options, such as coal slurry pipelines and plant loca-
tion, can be implemented.

Petroleum consumption by the industrial sector will increase 44 percent.
Despite the high price of oil, many industrial consumers limited to choos-
ing between oil and coal will select oil.  Oil-fired boilers and auxiliary
equipment are less expensive and easier to operate than coal-fired boilers,
Small energy users will show a particularly strong preference for oil as
the economics will tend to favor oil-fired equipment.

Natural gas resources are limited and a decline in industrial consumption
of 5 percent from 1972 to 1985 was predicted.   However, consumption ac-
tually declined 5 percent from 1972 to 1973 so it was estimated that gas
consumption would remain constant from 1973 to 1985.
                                353

-------
Bagasse  (a sugar cane by-product or waste material) is burned to produce
steam and/or electricity.  Sugar cane production has fluctuated over the
past 10 years with no clear trends.    A growth rate of 1 percent/year
for the combustion of bagasse was selected, yielding a total increase of
13 percent.  Wood bark is burned extensively by the lumber and paper in-
dustry, with large amounts consumed in Washington and Oregon as well as
some areas in the south.  The lumber industry is expected to grow at a
                                                                    30
4 percent rate and the paper industry at a 3.6 percent rate to 1980.
In addition, all available waste wood materials are not utilized and the
                                           29
percent utilization will probably increase.    A
bark combustion of 4 percent/year was estimated.
                                           29
percent utilization will probably increase.     A growth rate for wood
Specific data on fuel use trends for internal combustion equipment were
not available.  Overall fuel use trends were applied to the industrial
internal combustion sector.

Trends in Boiler Population

The limited trend data available on those boiler characteristics con-
sidered in this project do not show definitive and significant trends.
We estimate that boiler characteristics in 1985 will be similar to 1973,
and the major changes will be the fuel use trends presented in Table 134.
The growth of particular boiler types should be the same as the growth
of the overall fuel type.  Thus, industrial coal-fired boilers will continue
to be predominantly pulverized (57 percent of coal consumed) and spreader
stokers (36 percent of coal consumed).  More than 79 percent of the coal
burned in industrial boilers is burned in boilers above 100 x 10  Btu/hr
capacity.   These large boilers will continue to be predominantly pulver-
ized coal-fired and spreader stokers although the prevalence of pulverized
coal firing may increase slightly.    The smaller boilers  (less than
100 x 10  Btu/hr) are primarily underfeed stokers at the present  time,  but
there is a trend toward more spreader stokers.
                                 354

-------
 COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL

 Fuel  Use  Trends

 The commercial sector consumed 12 percent of the fuel consumed by  sta-
.tionary combustion sources in 1973 (see Table 129).   Commercial  fuel was
 primarily oil and  gas with only minor amounts of coal.   Only  1.5 percent
 of the coal  consumed was consumed by the commercial  sector, and  coal rep-
 resented  only 3.4  percent of the commercial sector fuel  use.  The  avail-
 able  trend data  do not distinguish between the commercial  sector and the
 residential  sector, instead both sectors are combined.   Our estimates of
 commercial fuel  consumption trends were based on the assumption  that fuel
 trends are the same for both sectors.  Commercial fuel use trends  are
 presented in Table 135.  The data ;
 $ll/barrel price for imported oil.
presented in Table 135.  The data are based on business as usual  and an
 Coal  consumption by  the commercial residential sector will decline 55 per-
 cent  from 1973  to 1985.   Anthracite consumption will decline sharply in
 all consuming sectors.   The decline in the commercial sector will be
            12
 80 percent.     Lignite  is  an extremely minor commercial  fuel  (represent-
 ing only  0.02 percent of commercial fuel)  and we estimated no change in
 consumption.  A decline in bituminous coal consumption of 43 percent from
 1973  to 1985 was estimated.   The  decline in coal consumption is partly
 attributable to the  convenience of oil and gas for  the many small com-
 mercial consumers of fossil fuels.  However, commercial  consumption of
                                                         12
 oil is predicted to  decline 16 percent from 1973 to 1985.    Natural gas
 is the only commercial  residential fuel that is expected to be consumed
 in sharply larger quantities by 1985.  The change by 1985 is expected to
                              12
 be an increase  of 47 percent.    Wood is a ver;
 no change in consumption to 1985  is estimated.
                             12
be an increase of 47 percent.    Wood is a very minor commercial fuel and
Commercial internal combustion  sources  are primarily  engines  used  for
water pumping and possibly  generating small amounts of  electricity.   The
                                 355

-------
Table 135.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FUEL USE TRENDS, 1973-1985

3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.1.10.0.0
3.1.11.0.0
3.1.11.1.0
3.1.11.2.0
3.1.11.4.0
3.1.12.0.0
3.1.12.4.0
3.1.12.6.0
3.1.13.0.0
3.1.13.4.0
3.1.13.6.0
3.1.20.0.0
3.1.21.0.0
3.1.21.0.1
3.1.21.0.2
3.1.22.0.0
3.1.22.0.1
3.1.22.0.2
3.1.30.0.0
3.1.30.0.1
3.1.30.0.2
3.1.42.0.0
3.2.00.0.0
3.2.20.0.0
3.2.30.0.0
Commer c ial / Ins t .
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Pulverized Dry
Pulverized Wet
All Stokers
Anthracite
All Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Lignite
All Stokers
Spreader Stokers
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Distillate Oil
Tangential Firing
All Other
Gas
Tangential Firing
All Other
Wood /Bark
Internal Combustion
Petroleum
Gas
1973
fuel use,
1012 Btu

4450
156
101
20
1
80
55
55
0
1
1
0
2379
1269
10
1259
1110
11
1099
1914
82
.1832
1
50
25
25
1985
fuel use,
1012 Btu

4883
70
58
11
<1
46
11
11
0
1
1
0
1998
1066
8
1058
932
9
923
2814
121
2693
1
58
21
37
Percent
change,
1973-1985
+10
+10
-55
-43
-43
-43
-43
-80
-80
0
0.
0
0
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
-16
+47
+47
+47
0
+16
-16
+47
                               356

-------
trends for internal combustion were estimated to be the same as the par-
ticular fuels used.

The summation of the above trends, as presented in Table 135, indi-
cates a growth in commercial fuel consumption of 10 percent.  Overall
energy consumption by the commercial sector is expected to grow 40 per-
cent, mainly due to a 260 percent increase in electric energy consump-
tion.   The most significant point in the commercial fuel use trends is
that only natural gas consumption will increase, and it will increase
sharply (47 percent).

Trends in Boiler Population

Trends in boiler population were assumed to be the same as the fuel use
trends.  Data on trends for the specific categories considered in this
project were not available.

RESIDENTIAL

Residential space heating has shown an annual growth rate of 3.4 percent
                             •30
over the period 1960 to 1968.    The estimated fossil fuel consumption
for 1973 (Table 129) shows an increase of 15 to 20 percent from 1968 and
that the historical trend has continued through 1973.

Estimated residential fuel use trends, as shown in Table 136, are based on
Project Independence  projections for the commercial-residential sector.
As previously discussed, the Project Independence estimates were based
on business as usual and an $ll/barrel price for imported oil.  It was
assumed that the fuel use growth rates were the same for both the com-
mercial and residential sectors.
                                  357

-------
           Table 136.  RESIDENTIAL FUEL USE TRENDS, 1973-1985*

4.0.00.0.0
4.1.00.0.0
4.1.10.0.0
4.1.11.0.0
4.1.12.0.0
4.1.13.0.0
4.1.20.0.0
4.1.30.0.0
4.1.42.0.0
Residential
External Combustion
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Gas
Wood
1973
fuel use,
1012 Btu
8,057
8,057
192
115
75
2
2,280
5,450
135
1985
fuel use,
1012 Btu
9,258
9,258
86
69
15
2
1,026
8,011
135
Percent
change,
1973-1985
+15
+15
-55
-40
-80
0
-55
+47
0
   fj
   Space heating only.  Trends primarily from reference 7.

 Fuel  use for  space heating is expected to increase 15 percent from 1973 to
 1985.   The  growth rate will be 1.2 percent/year compared  to the historical
 growth  rate of  3.4 percent/year.  However, when electric  energy is in-
 cluded, the total energy growth rate for the residential  sector will be
 3  percent/year,• which is only slightly below the historical trend.
 Natural gas is  the major residential space heating fuel  (68 percent) and
 its share of  the residential sector will be even larger  in 1985 (88 per-
 cent).  Coal  is only a very minor residential fuel (3 percent) and its
 consumption will be even less in 1985  (about 1 percent of residential
 fuel  use).  Although there has been an increased interest in the  com-
 bustion of  wood for space heating, we estimate that  there will be no real
 growth in this area.

 SIGNIFICANCE  OF TRENDS

 Changes and trends in total energy consumption and fuel  use  patterns have
 the potential to affect the amounts and types of air, water  and  solid
waste pollutants.  In addition, the trends discussed in  the  previous
                                  358

-------
subsections will affect the design,and application of combustion equipment,
air pollution control methods  (particulate, SO^ and N(y and water pollu-
tion control methods as well as solid waste practices.  The actual future
pollutant quantities will be strongly affected by government regulations.

The most significant trend in  the overall picture is the large (87 per-
cent) increase in coal consumption.  Increased coal consumption is due
to normal growth and the limited growth of oil (~2 percent) and gas
(+13 percent).  Coal combustion tends to generate over 50 times as much
ash and most trace metals (either as an air pollutant or solid waste),
about twice as much NO , and three times as much SO  (based on current
average levels of 1 percent sulfur oil and 2 percent sulfur coal) as oil
combustion.  With the exception of NO , pollutants generated by gas com-
                                     X
bustion are insignificant compared to those generated by coal combustion.
The impact of ash emissions can be minimized by control equipment.  NO
                                                                      X
emissions from coal can be reduced to levels associated with gas and oil.
SO  emissions can, of course,  be controlled through the use of low sulfur
  X
fuels or SO  scrubbers.  Scrubbers do create potential water pollution
and solid waste problems.

The significance of increased  coal combustion will be amplified in the
electric utility sector where  coal consumption is expected to increase
100 percent while oil and gas  decline sharply - 10 and 30 percent, re-
spectively.  In addition, coal represents over 50 percent of utility fuel
use compared to only 25 percent of the total stationary source fuel use.
The combustion of refuse will  show the largest percent change (6000) but
will only be of local significance, as even by 1985, it will represent less
than 0.2 percent of electric utility fuel use.  Practically, all electric
utility plants will be subject to Federal and State air and water pollu-
tant regulations.  Air and water pollution control measures will play a
large role in the design of new coal-fired power plants.  The use of low
sulfur western coal may reduce the apparent need for S02 scrubbers.
However, the use of western coal may adversely affect particulate control
equipment.
                                359

-------
In the industrial sector the 'use of both coal and oil will increase
40-45 percent while the use of gas will remain constant.  As industrial
coal consumption represents only 16 percent of utility consumption, the
increase will be less stringent.  However, the overall shift from gas
(zero growth to 1985) will be very significant, tending to increase pollu-
tant quantities.

The majority of pollutants generated by the commercial/institutional
sector will decrease as only the use of natural gas will increase.  The
large decrease (55 percent) in coal combustion in the commercial sector
will be of minimum importance as coal is a very minor commercial fuel.
Wood/bark and refuse combustion will increase and may be important in
specific geographic areas.

Residential fuel use trends will be the same as commercial trends and
thus the significance will be similar.  However, the decrease in coal
combustion may be important, as the majority of the coal is consumed in
a relatively few states, and the ambient levels of organics (BaP and BSO)
                                                              33
have correlated well with residential coal consumption trends.
                                 360

-------
REFERENCES

 .1.  Ford Foundation.  A Time to Choose, America's Energy Future.
     Cambridge, Massachusetts.  1974.

 2.  Federal Power Commission.  FPC News.  Washington,  B.C.,  June  6,  1975.

 3.  Ford Plan May Boost Gas Prices.  Boston Globe.  July 13,  1975.

 4.  FEA Ordering Many Boilers to Burn Coal Instead of  Oil Power.   Federal
     Energy Administration.  July 1975.

 5.  Ford Veto Expected in Oil Fight.  Boston Globe.  August  15, 1975.

 6.  National Academy of Engineering.  U.S. Energy Prospects:   An  En-
     gineering Viewpoint.  Washington, D.C.  1974.

 7.  Federal Energy Administration.  Project Independence. Washington,
     D.C.  November 1974.

 8.  Dupree, W., Jr. and J.A. West.  United States Energy Through  the
     Year 2000.  U.S. Department of the Interior.   December 1972.

 9-  Federal Power Commission.  Staff Report on Electric Utility Expan-
     sion Plans.  Washington, D.C.  June 1974.

 10.  U.S. Department of the Interior.  Energy Perspectives.  February 1975.

 11.  U.S. Bureau -of Mines.  Mineral Facts and Problems.   Washington,  D.C.
     1970.

 12.  Federal Energy Administration.  National Energy Demand Forecasts
     (Draft Report),  Washington, D.C. August 5, 1974.

 13.  Plant Design Report.  Power.  November 1974.

 14.  Federal Energy Administration.  FEA Project Independence Blueprint
     Final Task Force Report - Coal.  Washington,  D.C.  November 1974.

 15.  Abelson, P.H.  Absence of U.S. Energy Leadership.   Science.
     July 4, 1975.

 16.  U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Statistical Abstracts  of the United
     States:  1974.  95th Edition.  Washington, D.C.  July 1974.

 17.  U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Statistical Abstracts  of the United
     States:  1965.  86th Edition.  Washington, D.C.   July 1965.

 18.  Federal Power Commission, FPC News, Washington, D.C.  June 6, 1975.
                                 361

-------
 19.  Shannon, L.J., M.P. Schrag, F.I.. Howe, A.D. Bendersky.  St Louis/
     Union Electric Refuse Firing Demonstration Air Pollution Test
     Report.  Midwest Research Institute.  Prepared for U.S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
     Publication Number EPA-650/2-74-073.  August 1974.

 20.  Klumb, D.L.  Union Electrics Solid Waste Utilization System.
     Presented at the 1974 Air Pollution Control Association Conference.

 21.  Bureau of National Affairs.  Refuse.  Environmental Reporter.
     March 14, 1975..

 22.  Schweigen, R.G.  Power From Waste.  Power.  February 1975.

 23.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Emissions From Coal-Fired Power
     Plants.  Publication Number AP-35.  1967.

 24.  Jimeson, R.M., R.S. Spinot.  Pollution Control and Energy Needs.
     American Chemical Society.  Washington, D.C.  1973.

 25.  Magee, E.M., H.J. Hall, and G.M. Vanga.  Potential Pollutants in
     Fossil Fuel.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
     Park, North Carolina.  Publication Number EPA-R2-73-249.  June 1973.

 26.  Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.  Federal
     Register.  36(247).  December 23, 1971.

 27.  Preliminary Edition of Supplement 5 to Compilation of Air Pollution
     Emission Factors.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publication Number AP-42.  April 1975.

 28.  Technology and Use of Lignite.  Proceedings:  Bureau of Mines -
     University of Norfh Dakota Symposium, 1973.  Bureau of Mines Publica-
     tion IC8650.  Washington, D.C.  1974.

 29.  Personal Communication, R.E. Hall, Combustion Research Section,
     Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
     Park, N.C.  October 1975.

 30.  Federal Energy Administration.  The Potential for Energy Conserva-
     tion in Nine Selected Industries.  Volume 8.  Washington, D.C.   1975.

 31.  Locklin, D.W. et al.  Design Trends and Operating Problems  in Com-
     bustion Modification of Industrial Boilers.  EPA-650/2-74-032,
     Research Triangle Park N.C.  April 1974.

 32.  1970 Census of Housing, "Detailed Housing Characteristics," HC-B
     series.  U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of  Census,
     Washington, D.C.  1970.

33.  Faero,  R.B.   Trends  in  Concentrations of Benzene Soluble Suspended
     Particulate  Fraction and  Benzo(a)pyrene.  JAPCA, 24(6).  June 1975.

                                 362

-------
                                SECTION VII
                     ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES

This section, summarizing on-going and planned activities, is based on a
review of current EPA contracts, the use of information retrieval services,
and contact with industrial and trade organizations concerned with emis-
sions from conventional stationary combustion sources.  Because of the
magnitude of the task, omissions undoubtedly have occurred.

The major emphasis of previous  studies dealing with the emissions
assessment of combustion sources has been placed on air emissions, and
their control, from electric utility plants.  These air emissions and con-
trol data are, in part, embodied in the National Emissions Data System
(NEDS).  However, existing NEDS emission factors, while generally good
to ± 25 percent for criteria pollutants, are based on limited test data
generally dating back to the 1960's.  Updating of these emission factors,
particularly for those combustion systems which predominate, should be
and is being undertaken to an increasing extent.  There is also a need
for expansion of NEDS to include potentially hazardous pollutant emissions,
and a new data handling system  (HATREMS) is being developed for this
purpose.

Although combustion source test data dealing with air, water, and solid
waste emissions are being collected at an ever increasing rate, most of
this information is not available in a central location for further analy-
sis.  Much of it is collected by utilities or industrial firms concerned
with compliance with state or federal regulations.  A centralized EPA
system,  Source Test Data System (SOTDAT), has been developed to assemble
                                363

-------
air emission data which can be used to determine accurate emission fac-
tors for criteria or other pollutants and evaluate control device per-
formance, but remains to be effectively implemented.  A major shortcoming
of this system, however, is its reliance on Source Classification Codes
(SCC) to identify the combustion systems.  The Source Classification Code
falls short of identifying all furnace and boiler characteristics which
can affect emissions.

Water emission data for most utilities and large industrial sources are
available in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .
This information, however, is scattered throughout the various EPA regions
and has not been fully assembled and analyzed.  Limited information on
cooling water, boiler water blowdown, and ash pond discharge is available
also for electric utilities from the FPC.  The FPC is also a source of
information for solid waste from ash and boiler water blowdown.

Table 137 lists the organizations that were contacted for information
concerning on-going and planned activities.  In addition, numerous EPA
contractors were contacted.  The identification of on-going activities
sponsored by EPA was a difficult task since only project titles were
readily available.  Thus, some confusion exists with regard to specific
program objectives and emphasis, and some pertinent programs may not have
been included.  It should be noted that a good indication of participa-
tion in on-going activities can probably be made by a perusal of refer-
ences provided in this text.  Companies which have contributed to past
programs are most likely still engaged in similar study areas, and  their
noninclusion within this section probably represents errors of omission.

The following discussions will highlight the present emphasis now being
placed on the environmental aspects of stationary combustion sources.
Companies and organizations now engaged in these activities will be iden-
tified, a brief abstract of program objectives will be  presented,  and
                                 364

-------
                                        Table  137.    SUMMARY  OF PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS'
              Organization
 1.   American Boiler Manufacturers  Association
 2.   American Petroleum  Institute
 3.   American Society of Mechanical Engineers
 4.   Eabcock and Ullcox
 5.   Batteile Colun.bus
 6.   Battelle Northwest
 7.   Betz Laboratories
 3,   h'ireau of Mines
 9.   Ci.arUs T. Main
10.   Ccrbust ion engineering
11,   Ldis^n Electric Institute
12.   Electric Pcwer i'.osearch  Institute
13.   Energy Research and Development Administration
14.   Exxun Corporation
15.   Federal Energy Administration
        Office of  Fuel  Utilization
        Environmental Branch
        F.e3''urce  Developr.ent
        Industrial  Technology
16.  Federal  Power CorjBission
17.  Foster Wheeler
13.  University  of Colorado
19.  University  of Illinois
20.  University  of Maryland
21.  University  of Notre Dams
22.  Hit:ran  Associates
23.   Institute of Can  Technology
 2i.  KVS
 25.  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 26.  National Academy of Sciences
 27.   t.at io;vil Coal Association
 23.   NUS Corporation
 29.   Oak P.u!;',e National Laboratory
 30.   Saratoga Associated
 31.   Tennessee Valley Authority
 32.   U.S. KnvLronnu-ntal Protection  Agency
        Office of  Solid Waste Mmagcment, Washington,  D.C.
        Office of  Planning anil Management, Washington,  D.C.
        ICRI,, Research Triangle I'ark, N.C.
        llier:..il Pollution Section,  Corvailis,  Oregon
        Hazardous  Waste  Research  Laboratory,  Cincinnati
        SOT DAT
        Source Testing
                                                                                   Person  contacted
William Axtiiwm
Krnie ditton, Walter Illsteaii
I'aul Colilsteln
Thomas MrN.iry, Nick Brovitch
W.irrt'ii Uerry
Heu .!.ihn:;ot\, Robert Dillon
.loo Sluu-k
X.ane Murphy, I..L. Fanelli, lly  Schultz
George Kru!u-n
I'.iul llry.mt, Peter llavitch, Fred  llanzalek
Dirk Thor.sell, Cordon Olsen, Bob  Palladino,  Steven Barusch
CurL Yi'aj'.er, H.irry Kornlierg, Tom'Castle,  Don Anson
Paul Jiinlan, Richard Corey, Howard  Smith
W. Dartok

Judy l.ersli, Susan Phillips, John  Deane
Ki-n WtiodiN.'ck
111 11 Porter
Ken I- reela hie
Bob .1 fitsicson , Alex Catnur
Henry Phillips
J, Ka;ikinen
U. Natuscli
n. Gordim, W. Zoller
T. Tin-is
Doug Harvey
Frank Srhora
Dick Tlioiiipson
I.. Cl l<-k':ni.in. Dr. Havleman, Dr.  Jirka
llunry Barker  (Ind. Boilers), Bob  Crozier  (Utilities),  Earl Evans, Ted Schad (Env. Studies)
Joe Mullens
D.I-.. Simon
ilill FulK'rsrm
D.III Wxzt-ik  (Power Plant  Siting)
U.C. Ni-Kinney, Bill  Fulkerson

Koheit  Lowe, M;irsha  Evarston,  D,  Sussman, Robert  Holloway
J im S|)i re
Hoberl  Hall ,  I.es Sparks
Frank itaiawater
Mike Run Her
(Ireg liujewskl
lid McC.iuU-y
 alhls table  is a summary  of  organizations  and  people contacted  during this  project  as  part  of  the  effort  of  outlining neu projects as well as
 the effort to obtain  recent  research  unJ develu;inont data.   Additional  organizations were contacted  and are  mentioned throughout the report.
 GCA/Technology is  in  continual  contact  with many  lil'A personnel  and  I'.I'A rxnt raciors,- and  trade,  organizations, and  did  not list all these people,

-------
the responsible personnel involved will be identified whenever possible.
Discussions are presented for the following areas of activities which
include all the major unit operations contributing to emissions:
    e   Combustion
    0   Flue Gas Emissions
          General
          Particulate
          Criteria Pollutants (Cases)
          Polycyclic Organic Materials
          Trace Elements
    a   Ash Handling
    «   Cooling Systems
    0   Boiler Water Treatment
    9   Fuels and Fuel Handling
    9   Flue Gas Desulfurization
    o   Particulate Control Devices.
Many programs, of course, are concerned with several of the areas listed.
These programs are included in a general category or are listed in what
was felt to be the area of most significant interest.

COMBUSTION

Activities in the combustion area are concerned with the design of new
furnaces, boilers, or internal combustion engines, or the modification
of existing units to improve combustion efficiency, lower pollutant
levels, or to allow the burning of different fuels.  An improvement  in
combustion efficiency can either reduce pollutant emissions  (e.g., HC,
CO, POM) or increase them (e.g., NO ).
                                   X

The design of combustion units is an activity that is largely  carried
out by industrial manufacturers or trade organizations such  as the
Electric Power Research Institute, the American Gas Association,  the
                                366

-------
American Petroleum Institute, etc.  However, their activities are to
some extent directed by existing and proposed emission regulations which
have been responsible, for example, for many developments in the design
of combustion units to meet NO  regulations.
                              -Jv

Many of the programs are concerned with the use of synthetic fuels
(solvent refined coal, low or high Btu gas, etc.) through the design of
advanced combustors or the modification of existing units.  Others are
concerned with new combustion concepts such as magnetohydrodynamic power
generation.  These aspects of combustion  are not  included in Table 138,
which lists on-going and planned  conventional combustion studies, the
supporting agency and  contractor,  the project manager, and a brief ab-
stract of the program.  Additional combustion studies, aimed at control
of  specific pollutants, will also  be  found in other appropriate
subsections.
                                 367

-------
       Table 138.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COMBUSTION
Title:
Contract No.:
Boiler Firing Test with Coal/Oil Emulsion

RP 527
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  General Motors
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Unknown

The objective of this 1-year project is to
test an 80,000 Ib/hr steam plant, firing a
coal/oil emulsion fuel.  The test will assess
the stability of the fuel, thermal performance,
stack emissions, ash removal, fouling and slag-
ging characteristics, and economic feasibility.
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Engineering Evaluation of Atmospheric Fluidized
Bed Combustion (AFBC)

RP 412

EPRI

Babcock and Wilcox

Unknown

The objective of this 16-month program is to
evaluate the adequancy of available informa-
tion for commercialization of the AFBC process.
The program includes a study of existing de-
signs of uitlity boilers using FBC.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Boiler Combustion Modifications
68-02-1415 (EPA), RP 200 (EPRI)
EPA and EPRI

Exxon Research and Engineering Company
W. Bartok

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and EPRI
are jointly funding a program to determine  the
effectiveness of combustion modification tech-
niques to control pollutant emissions from
utility boilers.  Pollutants of interest are
oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, hydrocar-
bons, carbon monoxide, and combustible  and  non-
combustible particulates.  The project  will be
completed by May 1977.
                                368

-------
 Table 138 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COMBUSTION
Title:
Contract No. :
Advanced Gas Turbine Development
RP 359
Supporting Organization:  EPRI  (D. Texeira)

Performing Organization:  Solar Div. of  International Harvester
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
This 15-month program will develop a combustion
process for conventional fuels to minimize for-
mation of NOX, carbon monoxide, and unburned
hydrocarbons from gas turbines while maintain-
ing satisfactory performance parameters.
Scheduled to be completed by June 1976.
Title:

Contract No. :
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Gas Turbine-Steam Boiler Repowering

RP 528
EPRI (D. Texeira)
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
         i-
Unknown

Results of this 1-year project will include
heat balances, required modifications,  and cost
estimates for a representative (ca. 300 MW)
steam boiler.  Principal fuels to be treated in
the study are natural gas and fuel oil.  Sev-
eral plants utilizing the heat in gas turbine
exhaust gases have been constructed and oper-
ated for over 10 years.  However, these plants
were "grass roots" installations, and not re-
powered systems.  The utilization of the hot
turbine exhaust (ca. 1000°F) in retrofit appli-
cations poses unique problems.  NOX reduction
is expected.  Scheduled to be completed by
August 1976.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Effects of Mixing on Kinetic Processes in
Pulverized Coal Combustion

RP 364
EPRI (R. Carr)
Brigham Young University
Dr. L. D. Smoot
                                369

-------
 Table 138 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COMBUSTION
Project Description:
This 38-month project will employ a small lab-
oratory combustor to determine the effect of
turbulent mixing on the kinetics of pulverized
coal and char combustion at atmospheric pres-
sure.  Scheduled to be completed by December
1977.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Combustion Dynamics as Related to Air Pollution
BR - 26 - 1
AGA
University of Michigan
Unknown
An analytical and experimental study of pollu-
tants resulting from the combustion of natural
gas.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Design and Scale-Up of Low Emission, High
Efficiency Boilers
68-02-1488
U.S. EPA (G. B. Martin)
Ultra Systems Inc.
M. Heap
Title:                    Combustion Process Analysis
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  University of Wisconsin
Principal Investigator:   H. K. Newhall
Project Description:
Work related to NOX and particulate formation
in diffusion flames.
                                370

-------
 Table 138 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COMBUSTION
Title:



Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization;

Principal Investigator:


Project Description:
Field Testing - Application of Combustion Modi-
fications  to Control Pollutant Emissions from
Industrial Boilers

68-02-1074

U.S. EPA (R. E. Hall)

KVB Engineering,  Inc.

.G. A. Cato, D. R. Bartz, C. Devito, B. G. Morton,
and L.  J.  Muzio

A determination of NOX  and other pollutants
emitted by industrial boilers and a study of
control measures  through testing of about 70
boilers.
                                  371

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - GENERAL

This subsection discusses programs which involve the characterization
of flue gas emissions in general from combustion sources rather than
emphasizing the measurement of a specific pollutant.  An attempt has
been made to determine the thrust of specific programs and to list
them under appropriate pollutant subsections.  The programs listed in
Table 139 are studies which involve an overall characterization of
emissions, including in many cases hazardous and trace material.
                               372

-------
             Table 139.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                         FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - GENERAL
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Systems Evaluation of the Use of Low Sulfur
                          Western Coal in an Existing Small and Inter-
                          mediate Size Boilers

                          68-02-1863

                          U.S. EPA (D. G. Lachapelle)

                          KVB Engineering Inc.
                          K. L. Maloney
                          KVB will survey and compile information on
                          small and intermediate size boilers, emphasiz-
                          ing those that can burn western coal.  Detailed
                          emissions.and performance tests will be con-
                          ducted on selected boiler/fuel combinations  in-
                          cluding both eastern and western coal.   Sched-
                          uled completion is October 1977.
Title:
Contract No.:
                          Stationary Source Assessment Documents
                          68-02-1320
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Monsanto Research Corporation
                          Unknown
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          In-depth environmental assessment on air emis-
                          sions from combustion and other sources.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
                          Modeling of Air Quality Impact of Selected
                          Power Plants
                          68-02-1480
                          U.S. EPA (Hears)
                          Walden Research, A Division of Abcor
                          P. Morgenstern
                                 373

-------
       Table 139 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - GENERAL

Title:                    Field Testing of Industrial Sources
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Monsanto Research Corporation
Principal Investigator:   W. R. Feairheller
Project Description:      This 3-year program involves the testing of
                          28 or more sources for mercury, acid mist,
                          fluoride or lead and many gaseous materials.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Domestic and Commercial Heating
U.S. EPA
EPA, IERL, RTP
R. E. Hall
A study of the effect of operational variables
and boiler components to determine particulate
and NOX emissions from residential and commer-
cial heating equipment using oil or gas as a
fuel.  A complete investigation will be made of
boiler types, burners, and fuels used in com-
mercial heating to select typical units for
future testing.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Characterization and Control of Air Pollutant
Emissions from Combustion of Fuels
U.S. EPA
EPA, IERL, RTP
G. B. Martin
A 5-year study of air pollutants from all fuels
and their potential for control using appropri-
ate combustors under controlled laboratory
conditions.
                                374

-------
       Table 139  (continued).
     ON-GOING AND  PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
     FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - GENERAL
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
 Effluents  from Coal-Fired Power Plants and
 Their  Interaction with  the Atmosphere
 RP  330
 EPRI

 University of  Washington
 Unknown

 A 3-year program to  characterize emissions from
 the Centralia,  Washington, 1400 MW coal-fired
 power  plant.   Stack  and plume measurements of
 particulates  (particle  size) and gaseous
 pollutants.
 Title:
Contract No. :
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Determination  of  the Feasibility of Ozone
Formation  in Power Plant Plumes

RP 572
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Meteorology Research, Inc.

Unknown
This 8-month project will determine the
extent of ozone formation in power plant
plumes.  Research will include a literature
survey, airborne plume monitoring at several
coal- and gas-fired power giants in dry
and humid regions of southern and south-
western United States, and development and
validation of a plume chemistry computer model,
Title:



Contract No. :

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Atmospheric  Dispersion  and  Interaction of
S02, H2S04, NO
               X,
                     and  Particulates of
 Stack Emissions  from Coal-Fired Power Plants


 U.S. EPA

TVA

T. L. Montgomery
A Study of emissions as determined by plant
operations and the changes in composition
which occur as a function of time.
                                 375

-------
       Table 139 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - GENERAL
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Fossil Fuels, General Combustion, Environmental

Exxon Corporation
Exxon Corporation
N. Alpert
R&D leading to novel processes and techniques
for cleaner combustion of fossil fuels.  In-
cludes control of SOX, NOX, particulates, noise,
odor, etc.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Technology Assessment and Planning Support

U.S. EPA
Aerospace Corporation
J. Meltzer
Characterization of emissions from sources and
their relevant control technology, evaluate
their effect on ambient air quality and identify
control technology gaps.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Emissions from Major Air Pollution Sources and
Their Atmospheric Interactions
U.S. National Science Foundation
University of Maryland
G. E. Gordon
                                376

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - PARTICULATES

The measurement of particulate emissions from electric utilities has been
an active area for many years and the data reported is probably good to
within ± 25 percent despite variations in test procedures.  The present
activity is being carried out by many testing and utility firms inter-
ested in compliance testing.  EPA is also conducting or sponsoring test
programs aimed at evaluating the effects of fuel, boiler design, and
control device performance.  In recent years the emphasis has shifted
from the measurement of total particulate to a determination of fine par-
ticle distributions and the emissions of potentially hazardous trace me-
tals and organic materials.  The interest in fine particulates basically
stems from their respirable nature and the tendency of many hazardous spe-
cies to be concentrated in the fine particle fraction.  Activities dealing
with these hazardous emissions will be discussed later in appropriate
subsections.

An extensive analysis of particulate emissions has been carried out by
Midwest Research Institute (MRI).  At the time of the initial study,
MRI estimated that most particle size data had been obtained by tech-
niques unsuitable for sampling and sizing particulates below 2 microns
in diameter.  Accordingly, it was necessary to extrapolate data for large
particles down to the size range of fine particulates.  A subsequent re-
vision of this study is based on recent tests using cascade impactors to
determine size distributions and the fractional efficiency of control
devices down to about 0.2 microns.  Recent and on-going studies have
adopted the use of impactors to determine fine particulates, and several
companies including SRI, KVB, and GCA have used condensation nuclei
counters to measure particles as small as 0.01 micron diameter.
                                377

-------
EPA at Research Triangle Park is currently undertaking studies aimed at
the overall fine particulate problem, including health effects, formation
and transformation, source identification, measurement, and control.
Proposed activities involve further characterization of emissions from
combustion sources and the evaluation of novel control devices.

Although somewhat beyond the scope of this program, there is a strong
interest now in the behavior (and formation) or particulates leaving the
stack.  Plume reactions and subsequent transformation and transport phe-
nomena are now being studied by several research organizations.  Aircraft
are being used by organizations such as Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri, and Brookhaven National Laboratories, New York, to monitor
emissions downwind-of a coal-fired utility boiler and an oil-fired util-
ity boiler stack, respectively.

Current programs dealing with particulates are listed in Table 140.  This
listing is a brief one, since many of the current activities are  to be
found in preceding subsections and in subsequent subsections dealing with
trace elements, POM, and control devices.
                                 378

-------
        Table 140.  ON-GOING'AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  FLUE GAS
                    EMISSIONS - PARTICULATES
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of an In-Stack Impactor/Precipita-
tor for Sizing Submicron Particles
RP 463
EPRI

Meteorology Research, Inc.
Unknown

Development of an electrostatic impactor with
a particulate size analysis range from 0.03-30
microns would serve at least two functions.
It would enable utilities to completely charac-
terize the fly ash emissions at a specific site,
thereby eliminating some of the guesswork in
purchasing particulate cleanup devices.  Also,
it would permit the characterization of par—
ticulate removal devices at the time of check-
out to ensure that the devices meet system
guarantees.  Scheduled to be completed by March
1976.
Title:
Contract No. :
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Particle Formation in High Temperature Systems


Public Service Co. of New Hampshire
University of New Hampshire
G- D. Ulrich
A correlation of fly ash properties from com-
mercial coal- and oil-fired boilers as a func-
tion of fuel composition and time-temperature
history.
                                379

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - SULFUR OXIDES

There is general agreement that almost all (-90 percent) of the sulfur
contained in the fuel is emitted from the stack.  This is generally true
for all fuels with the exception of some high mineral content fuels such
as certain lignites which can bind and retain up to 50 percent of the
sulfur in the ash.  Therefore, the emphasis has been on research to either
eliminate the sulfur prior to combustion or to control its emissions by
flue gas desulfurization.

There is general agreement that most of the sulfur oxides emitted are
largely S0? (-98 percent).  However, some SO  is emitted directly.  In
general, the leaner the fuel mixture, the more SO  is formed.  SO  forma-
tion is also a function of boiler design and method of firing.  Smaller
furnaces, such as those used in the commercial and residential sectors,
emit more SO  relative to SO  than do larger size installations.  The
reported emissions of SO  are reportedly higher for oil than for coal,
and oil combustion has been postulated as a major source of acid mist
which is found in high concentrations in the oil-burning eastern states.
The importance of SO,, emissions is highly speculative since the entire
question of SO,-, atmospheric transformation'and transport is still largely
unresolved.  Further work in this area is needed.  Instrumentation and
measurement techniques for S0?, sulfates and sulfuric acid are areas also
requiring additional study.

Table 141 lists a few pertinent studies with only one involving the
determination of sulfur distribution within a power plant.
                               380

-------
             Table 141.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                         FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - SO
Title:
Contract No,:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Sulfur Balance Study

New York Electric and Gas Corporation
Battelle Memorial Institute
Unknown
A study to determine sulfur losses in a coal-
fired power plant.  Sulfur losses will be
determined during pulverized coal firing and
distributions determined in fly ash,  bottom
ash, and fireside deposits.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Sulfur Dioxide Oxidation Rate in Oil-Fired
Power Plant Plumes
RP 382
EPRI
State University of New York, Albany
Unknown
The oxidation of S02 on solid surfaces will be
studied in the laboratory, using molecular beam
techniques.  Reaction products and rates will
be determined by mass spectrometry and Auger
spectroscopy on a variety of well-characterized
surfaces.  Pure metal/metal oxides, and even-
tually carefully studied fly ash from oil-fired
power plants will be used.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Preliminary Assessment of Sulfate Emissions
from Space Heating and Other Small Combustion
Devices
RP 574
EPRI
KVB Engineering Inc.
Unknown
                                 381

-------
       Table 141 (continued).
     ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
     FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - SO
                                                      x
Project Description:
The primary task of this 4-month project is to
measure sulfur dioxide and sulfates in flue
gases of operating residential space heating
and other small boilers in New York City.  In
addition, a limited literature survey on sulfur
oxide conversion mechanisms in fossil-fueled
boilers and examination of sulfur dioxide and
sulfate data in New York City for the last 10
years will be performed.
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Interaction of Sulfuric Acid Mist and Nitrogen
Dioxide

RP 201
EPRI, National Coal Association

Hazelton Laboratories, Inc.
Unknown

For several years Hazelton Laboratories, Inc.
has been conducting a study to determine the
physiological effects on monkeys and guinea
pigs of various concentrations of sulfur diox-
ide, sulfuric acid mist, and fly ash, and their
mixtures.  This recent effort addresses the
possible interaction between sulfuric acid mist
and nitrogen dioxide.  Since these two pollu-
tants rarely occur at levels known to be haz-
ardous to humans, reported detrimental effects
in humans may be due to combined action of the
pollutants.
                                382

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
                       2l

The reduction of NO  emissions from combustion sources is an active area
                   X
of study.  Programs are underway in such areas as collecting basic kinetic
data concerning fuel conversion and decomposition effects, boiler modifica-
tion and variation in operating parameters  (staged combustion, low excess
air, flue gas recirculation, etc.) on emissions, and noncombustion con-
trol measures such as catalytic stack gas removal, scrubbing, and alter-
natives to water injection  (turbines).  Table 142 lists some of these
projects.
                                 383

-------
             Table 142.  ON-GOING'AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                         FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO..
Title:
Bench Scale Studies of New Scrubbing Techniques
for the Abatement of NOX
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA \
Performing Organization:  U.S. EPA
Principal Investigator:   L. H. Garcia
Project Description:
The objective is to screen a variety of processes
for the abatement of NO  emissions
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Analysis of Flue Products from Gas-Fired
Appliances
EP-1-23
AGA
AGA
P. E. Suney
Development of burner designs to minimize flue
gas emissions.  Measurements of gas emissions
are being obtained for a variety of furnace and
burner designs.
Title:
Measuring the Environmental Impact of Domestic
Gas-fired Heating Systems
EP-94-1
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  AGA
Performing Organization:  The Research Corporation of New England
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:      A measurement and diffusion modeling study of
                          gas-fired home heating systems, largely dealing
                          with NO  emissions.
                                304

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
Title:
Grant No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Reduction of Nitric Oxide with Metal Sulfides
                          R-800682
                          U.S. EPA
                          Montana State University
                          Dr. F. P. McCandless
                          Investigation of reaction kinetics of nitric
                          oxides with metal sulfides to determine those
                          most effective in nitric oxide removal.
Title:

Grant No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Analysis of Test Data for NOX Control of
                          Utility Boilers
                          R-802366
                          U.S. EPA (R. E. Hall)
                          Aerospace Corporation
                          D. Dykema
                          A program to correlate gas- and oil-fired
                          boiler operation with NOX and other emissions
                          and to determine the effect of NOX control
                          measures on combustion.
Title:

Grant No.:
Supporting Organization:
                          Estimation of Combustion and Nitric Oxide
                          Kinetics
                          R-800798
                          U.S. EPA (S. Lanier)
Performing Organization:  Stanford Research Institute
Principal Investigator:   R. Shaw
                          Theoretical study of NOX formation mechanisms
Project Description:
                          and kinetics.
                               385

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
 Aerodynamic Control over Emissions of Nitrogen
 Oxides and Other Pollutants from Fossil Fuel
 Combustion
 68-02-0216
 U.S. EPA (D. G. Lachapelle)
. Institute of Gas Technology
 D. H. Larson
 A 5-year study to minimize NOX emissions from
 gas-fired boilers while maintaining system
 efficiency.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Fuel Addi-
 tives in Reducing Emissions in Coal and Oil
 Combustion
 68-02-0262
 U.S. EPA (W. S. Lanier)
 Battelle Memorial Institute
 D. W. Locklin, R. D. Giammar
 The objectives of this program are to assess
 the effectiveness of fuel additives in reducing
 emissions, to assess the potential to improve
 thermal efficiency, and to determine the effect
 of fuel and combustion conditions on emissions
 of polycyclic organic materials.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
 Pilot Field Test Program to Study Methods of
 NOX Formation in Tangentially  Coal-Fired Steam
 Generating Units
 68-02-1367
 U.S. EPA  (D. G. Lachapelle)
 Combustion Engineering  Inc.
 A. Selker
 An evaluation of NOX reduction methods followed
 by experimental measurements on a modified
 pilot plant unit.
                                336

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES-
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
      	:	.	X   	
                          Investigation to Determine the Effects of De-
                          sign and Operating Variables on NOX Formation
                          in Coal-Fired Furnaces
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          68-02-0634
                          U.S. EPA  (D. G. Lachapelle)
                          Babcock & Wilcox Company
                          W. L. Sage
                          Experimental study (5 years) to reduce NOX
                          emissions from wall-fired coal boilers.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Control of NOX Formation in Wall-Fired Coal
                          Utility Boilers
                          Interagency Agreement (IAG) - 137D
                          U.S. EPA (D. G. Lachapelle)
                          U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority
                          J. Hollinden
                          The purpose of this study is to investigate
                          biased firing techniques and their effects on
                          NOX emissions, boiler corrosion, slagging,
                          thermal efficiency, and operational performance.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Research Initiation - Nitric Oxide Formation
                          in Pulverized Coal Flames
                          National Science Foundation
                          Purdue University
                          N. M. Laurendeau
                          A study of the physical and chemical mechanisms
                          controlling NO  formation in coal burners.
                                387

-------
       Tabie 142 (continued)'.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
                                                      x
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Catalysis Studies Directed Towards the Reduc-
tion of Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and
CO Emissions from Stationary Sources
University of Southern California
University of Southern California
J. M. Whelan
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Nitric Oxide Reduction Test - Reeves, Person
and San Juan Station
Public Service Company of New Mexico
J. Grossman
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Catalytic Reduction of Nitrogen Oxides
BR-96-2
AGA
University of California
A study of the reduction of NOX with reductants,
such as NH^, CO, and hydrocarbons on catalysts.
                               388

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization;

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Organic Nitrogen  Compound Contribution to NOX
in Flat Flames

RP 223
EPRI

University of California, Berkeley

Unknown

The major goals of this effort by the Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, are to determine:
(1) the mechanism of conversion of certain fuel-
bound nitrogen compounds to oxides of nitrogen;
(2) the percentage of organic nitrogen con-
verted to NOX; and (3) the fate of nitrogen
that is not converted to NOX.  Expected to con-
tinue through 1977.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:


Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Determination of the Effects of Low NOX Firing
on the Corrosion, Slagging, and Other Opera-
tional Aspects of a Utility Boiler Firing
Western Coal

RP 529

EPRI
Arizona Public Service Company,
KVB Engineering Inc.

Unknown
EPRI will sponsor a 1-year program to evaluate
any of the potential side effects resulting
from low NOX fuel-rich firing techniques on low
sulfur western coal.  The program intent is to
study the long-term effects of NOX control on
one of the 755 MW Babcock & Wilcox units at the
Four Corners Power Plant in Farmington, New
Mexico.  Several wall tube test sections will
be installed in the unit, and tube wall thick-
ness measurements made prior to initiation of
fuel-rich firing and after several months of
low NO  operation.  Scheduled to be completed
by March 1976.
                                389

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
                                                      x
Title:



Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Effectiveness of Gas Recirculation into the
Combustion Air for Reducing NOX on a Large
Coal-Fired Utility Boiler

RP 530

EPRI
KVB Engineering Inc., Allegheny Power, B & W

Unknown
This 3-month program will determine the feasi-
bility of utilizing windbox gas recirculation
as a NOX reduction technique on coal-fired
utility boilers.  This will provide insight
into alternative methods of fuel-rich firing
techniques for meeting New Source Performance
Standards of 0.7 lb/106 Btu for coal-fired
boilers.  The program will also determine if
fuel-rich firing NOX reduction techniques can
be enhanced with gas recirculation and will
expose any operational problems that may re-
sult.  Scheduled to be completed by December
1975.
Title:



Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Field Testing:  Application of Combustion
Modification to Control NOX Emissions from
Power Generation

68-02-1415 (EPA), RP 200 (EPRI)

U.S. EPA (R. E. Hall) and EPRI (R. Carr)

Exxon Research and Engineering Company

W. Bartok

Basically a long-term corrosion test on eastern
coal using NOX reduction processes.
                                390

-------
       Table 142 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - NO
Title:
Contract No.:
Oxides of Nitrogen Decomposition in Reducing
Environments
RP 461
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  KVB Engineering Inc.
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
An alternative to processes that limit the
formation of NOX are processes that lead to
the destruction of NOX, usually, in the past,
by means of catalytic devices.  Recent labora-
tory tests, however, have documented the occur-
rence of NOX decomposition without catalytic
materials present.  Although application of the
technique to full-scale systems is still far
off, the results to date are encouraging.
Scheduled to be completed by January 1976.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Fate of Fuel Nitrogen in Backmixed Combustion
RP 241
EPRI
Washington State University
Unknown
In a 1-year study, Washington State University
will investigate the degree of conversion of
various fuel-bound nitrogen compounds to oxides
of nitrogen in a well-stirred laboratory com-
bustion reactor.  Scheduled to be completed by
September 1975.
                                391

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON MONOXIDE .

Table 143 lists three EPA projects dealing with hydrocarbons.  The hydro-
carbons (except for polycyclic organic materials) emitted from stationary
combustion sources do not make a large contribution to ambient hydrocarbon
levels and are not considered a problem.  Stationary combustion sources
are also minor sources of carbon monoxide.  Most programs dealing with
NO  reduction by combustion modifications will measure hydrocarbons and
  X
carbon monoxide since some modifications (e.g., low excess air) will tend
to reduce combustion efficiency and raise hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
emission levels.
                                392

-------
             Table 143.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                         FLUE GAS EMISSIONS -
                         HYDROCARBONS AND CARBON MONOXIDE
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization
Performing Organization
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of Methodology to Determine
Organic Composition of Particulates
U.S. EPA
Dr. E. Sawicki
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Laboratory Analysis of Nonmetallic Elements
in Particulates
U.S. EPA
J. D. Mulik
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Sampling System for Organic Products of
Combustion
RP 383
EPRI
Battelle, Columbus Lab.
Unknown
This 4-month project will develop a simple and
efficient sampling device for the collection of
organic components of stack gases from combus-
tion sources.
                                393

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - POM

In addition to the new or continuing projects cited in Table 144, there
are other EPA investigations now underway to determine the vapor phase
and particulate emissions of POM (and PHH) from stationary sources.
These include work being conducted by Monsanto Research Corporation (MRC)
for preparation of stationary source assessment documents, a recently
completed study of "Hazardous Emission Characterizations of Utility
Boilers by Midwest Research Corporation" (EPA-650/2-75-066), and the
Great Northern Plains Study of western coal-fired boilers (Radian Corpo-
ration).  Midwest Research Corporation (MRC) is also conducting a field
evaluation of a sampling procedure for POM emission measurements from
stationary sources (EPA Contract No. 68-02-2203).  Battelle, KVB Engi-
neering, Meteorology Research, Inc., and others are active in this area.

A number of long-term studies dealing with the analysis of POM compounds
are being conducted at EPA-RTP, with C. Golden, J. Sigsby, and Dr. E.
Sawicki listed as principal investigators.

No specific references to the measurement of POM from small residential
and commercial systems have been found other than some earlier laboratory
studies by Battelle and some work by KVB Engineering described previously.
                                394

-------
             Table 144.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                         FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - POM
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Instrumentation and Methodology for Assay of
Individual Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
68-02-0653
U.S. EPA
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
R. A. Brown
A study to develop instrumentation and meth-
odology for several POM compounds.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization;
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
A Study of Fine Particulate Sulfates and Poly-
cyclic Organics
68-02-0752
U.S. EPA
Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus Lab.
W. Henry
A study of the chemical composition of
respirable particulates.
Title:

Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Matrix Isolation Analysis of Pollutant Emissions
from Coal Conversion and Utilization Processes
RP 332
EPRI
University of Tennessee
Unknown
The class of chemical compounds known as poly-
cyclic organic matter (POM) presents many dif-
ficult analytical problems.  Various combinations
of spectroscopic techniques coupled with matrix
isolation will be investigated as an analytical
tool to determine if samples can be characterized
with less extensive preparation than is currently
required.
                                 395

-------
       Table 144 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - POM

Title:                    Development of Sampling Procedures for POM
                          and  PCB
Contract No.:              68-02-1255
Supporting Organization:   U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:   Langston Laboratories
Principal Investigator:    T. S. Herman
Project Description:      A program to design and test manual sampling
                          procedures for both POM and PCB.
                                396

-------
FLUE GAS EMISSIONS - TRACE ELEMENTS  '

Recently a great deal of  emphasis has  been placed on the determination of
trace elements resulting  from  combustion of  fossil fuels.  The variations
in fuel composition and problems encountered in sampling and analysis of
trace elements present significant difficulties.  Recent and on-going
activities have emphasized the material balance approach, requiring the
sampling and analysis of  input fuel and effluent streams, bottom and fly
ash.  Organizations active in  this area in recent years, in addition to
EPA, have included:  the  Tennessee Valley Authority; the Universities of
Illinois, Colorado, Maryland,  and West Virginia; the Bureau of Mines;
MRC; MRI; KVB; Battelle;  GCA;  Radian;  and other government contractors.
The general consensus of  opinion by those presently active in this area
is that air emissions from combustion  sources do not add significant
quantities of most trace  elements to the atmosphere.  Only beryllium was
cited in a recent Midwest Research Institute Report (EPA Contract No.
68-02-1324, Task Order No. 27) as potentially significant.  However, the
observed enhancement of many trace elements  in the fine particle fraction
of fly ash, while not significant in terms of the total mass distribution
of trace elements, may pose health hazards due to the respirable nature
of fine particulates.  The control of  fine -particulates and certain vola-
tile elements; e.g., msrcury,  selenium, etc., will require the development
of more efficient control devices.  Control  may be important, also, from
the standpoint of plume and atmospheric transformation processes, such as
minimizing the catalytic  transformation by metals (e.g., vanadium) of S02.

The changing energy picture has increased the interest in the trace ele-
ment area because of the  trend to greater use of coal.  As a result, tests
have been conducted on boilers burning eastern coal and are now being con-
ducted in the Great Northern Plains study on two subbituminous-fired units
and one lignite-fired unit by  Radian Corporation.  Fuel switching also
will affect control device performance due to changes in fly ash resistivity.
                                397

-------
Combustion system type will also influence emissions, including trace
element emissions.  Consideration should be given to the importance of
combustion system type in the design of future experimental programs.
Table 145 lists some on-going projects.
                                393

-------
        Table 145.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  FLUE GAS
                    EMISSIONS - TRACE ELEMENTS
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Environmental Pollutants from Electric Power
Generation Facilities
U.S. Energy Res. & Dev. Admin.
University of California
R. E. Ragaini, D. Jones, E. Morimoto,  R.  Ralston,
D. Garvis
A study of the environmental impact (trace metal
emissions) of coal-fired power  stations and
nuclear power stations (radionuclides).
Title:
Contract No. :
Trace Elements
Supporting Organization:  Southern California Edison Co.
Performing Organization:  Southern California Edison Co.
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
J. B. Moore
Identification of concentration of trace ele-
ments leaving the stack of fossil-fueled plants
as well as the concentration of elements in
bottom ash, precipitator ash, etc.  Development
of control methods if required, include preven-
tion of leaching .from ash.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Trace Elements in Combustion Systems
RP 122
Electric Power Research Institute
Battelle Memorial Institute
A. Levy and R. W. Coutant
A determination of the concentration of trace
elements in boiler slag, precitator ash, and
in fly ash and flue gas for four coals and one
oil.  This will be done in the Battelle furnace
facility.
                                399

-------
   Table 145 (continued).  ONGOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  FLUE GAS
                           EMISSIONS - TRACE ELEMENTS
 Title:

 Contract  No.:
 Supporting Organization:
 Performing Organization:
 Principal Investigator:

 Project Description:
Trace Elemental Analysis by Means of Heavy
Particle-Induced X-rays
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Atomic Energy Agency
Dr. S. Johansson, T. B. Johansson, R. Akselsson,
M. Ahlberg, and K. Malmovist
 Title:
 Contract No.:
To Conduct Research Relating to Toxic Metals
in Atmospheric Aerosols
 Supporting Organization:   Louis  & Maud Hill  Family  Foundation
 Performing Organization:
 Principal Investigator:
 Project  Description:
Oregon Grad. Ctr. Stu. & Res.
Unknown
Title:
Survey of Relative Burdens of Atmospherically
Borne Metals in Britain
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  United Kingdom Government
Performing Organization:  University of Wales
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
                                400

-------
  Table 145 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  FLUE GAS
                          EMISSIONS -' TRACE ELEMENTS
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Correlation of Hazardous Compounds  in  Coal,
Coal Ash, Fly Ash, and Other Emissions from
Combustion
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of the Interior
R. A. Friedel, A. G. Sharkey,  R.  G.  Lett,
and J. L. Shultz
Title:
Removal of Trace Elements from Combustion
Products
Contract No.;
Supporting Organization:  U.S. Department of the Interior
Performing Organization:  U.S. Department of the Interior
Principal Investigator:   D.  Bienstock, J. J. Demeter and C. R. McCann
Project Description:
 Title:
 Contract No.:.
 Supporting  Organization:   U.S.  EPA
 Performing  Organization:
 Principal Investigator:
 Project Description:
Potential Radioactive Pollutants Resulting
From  the Expanded Energy Programs:  Quality
Assurance Aspects
RFP Cl 75 0261
                                 401

-------
  Table 145  (continued).'  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  FLUE GAS
                          EMISSIONS - TRACE ELEMENTS
Title:
Contract No.:
Trace Elements in Coal
 Supporting Organization:  Ohio State Government
 Performing Organization:  State Department of Natural Resources
 Principal Investigator:   N. F. Knapp
 Project Description:
Title:
Evaluation of Pollution from Trace Elements
in Coal
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  U.S. Department of the Interior
Performing Organization:  U.S. Department of the Interior
Principal Investigator:   A. W. Deurbrouck
Project Description:
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Analytical Support to Include Comprehensive
Analysis of Hazardous Substances in Residual
Oil
RFP DU-75-4321
                               402

-------
ASH HANDLING

Coal combustion accounts for about 99 percent of all ash generated by
stationary combustion sources; almost all a product of electric utility
and industrial combustion.  Only a small percentage (-15 percent) of this
ash is utilized and the remainder constitutes the predominant source of
solid waste attributable to combustion processes.  Although ash handling
procedures are moderately.well defined for utilities, industrial practices
remain obscure and the present data base is poor.  There are a substantial
number of studies underway dealing with fly ash and bottom ash, primarily
in the area of ash utilization.  Other studies, such as those concerned
with trace emissions, indirectly address the ash problems by providing
information concerning control device efficiency, fly ash and bottom ash
distribution, and chemical composition of ash fractions as a function of
fuel used, control device, and boiler type.

Work in the areas of ash pond effluents, leachates and fugitive emissions
from ash transport and storage is limited.  EPA and other government agen-
cies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, TVA,
etc., do have a number of on-going or planned activities dealing with
leachates, fixation processes, use and durability of pond liners, etc.
Many are studies dealing with predictive models and laboratory measurement
of migration rates and concentration of metals and anions, effect of heavy
metals on various types of soil receptors, and interactions of metals and
organics.  Most of these studies are laboratory programs and the results
need to be correlated with field tests.

A listing of some individuals presently involved in these areas of activ-
ity, their affiliations, and a brief description of their current activ-
ities follows:
                                403

-------
        Leachates

        Dan Kranczk, EPA Corvallis - Chemical composition
        of leachates based on equilibrium concentrations
        which predict the concentration of metals and anions
        as free ions, bound species, and precipitated solids.

        Walt Sanders, Southeast Water Lab., Athens, Georgia -
        Similar to above study involving kinetics.

        Mike Roulier, EPA, Cincinnati and George Pinder,
        Princeton University - Migration rates of leachates.
        Model development based on soil column experiments.

        D. Whittemore, Kansas State University - Program
        sponsored by Department of Interior to study effect
        of combustion and landfill operations on water quality.

        Fixations and Liners

        Carlton Wiles, EPA, Cincinnati; Bob Landreth, EPA,
        Cincinnati; Rich Tabakin, Edison Laboratory;
        Dr. Richard Gullich, Richmond Field Station, Berkeley,
        California; TRW, Redondo Beach, California; and
        Metrecon, Oakland, California..
Table 146 lists projects dealing with the problems of ash handling and
utilization.
                                404

-------
      Table 146.  ON-GOING AND PLA1IN3D ACTIVITIES:  ASH HANDLING
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:-

Project Description:
                          Characterization of Effluents from Coal-Fired
                          Power Plants
                          U.S. EPA

                          Unknown

                          Unknown

                          This is a project consisting of six different
                          tasks.  Three of those tasks are related to the
                          FGD waste disposal program:  (1) Assessment of
                          pH Adjustment on Ash Pond Effluent, (2) Design
                          of an Effective Monitoring Program for Ash Pond
                          Effluent, and (3) Assessment of the Effect of
                          Ash Leachate on Ground Water.  The monitoring
                          program design is expected to be completed in
                          late 1975.  The pH adjustment study should be
                          completed by late 1976.  The ash leachate/ground
                          water study will be related to the EPA work with
                          the U.S. Army (Dugway); the in-situ ash pond
                          leachate and ground water characterization study
                          should be complete by early 1977.
Title:



Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:


Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
                          Geochemical Controls on Trace Element Concentra-
                          tions in Natural Waters of a Proposed Coal Ash
                          Landfill Site.
                          U.S. Department of the Interior; Office of
                          Water Research and Technology

                          Kansas State University

                          D. 0. Whittemore
                          Trace element concentrations will be determined
                          in surface and ground waters in the drainage
                          basins of a proposed landfill site.  Models of
                          the hydrologic cycle will be prepared.
                                 A 05

-------
Table U6 (continued).  Oil-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  ASH HANDLING
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Particle Characterization and Utilization of
Fly Ash Resources in Illinois
State of Illinois
State Geological Survey
R. D. Harvey
The variable character of fly ash produced in
coal-fired power plant is being examined to
determine potential uses.
Title:

Contract No. :
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Chemical and Physical Examination of Ash, Slag
and Fireside Reports from Lignite and Other
Western Coals
Bureau of Mines, Grand Forks,.N. D.
Bureau of Mines
W. W. Fowkes
A study to obtain fundamental data concerning
the properties and composition of coal ash
which influence deposition for a broad spectrum
of western coals.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Western Coal Ash

Bureau of Mines, Washington, B.C.
Bureau of Mines
Unknown
Research to develop fundamental data on  the
composition and properties of western coal ash
and to define mechanisms for removal of  objec-
tionable materials.
                                 406

-------
Table 146 (continued).  ON-GOIIIG AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  ASH HANDLING
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:.

Project Description:
Improve  the Thermal Efficiency and Availability
of Boilers Burning Western Coals and Lignite
Bureau of Mines, Grand Forks, N.D.
Bureau of Mines

,E. A. Sondreal

A commercial pulverized coal-fired boiler is
being used  to study fireside ash deposition.
Chemical analyses of coal and ash are being con-
ducted to establish the mechanism of fouling.
Title:

Contract No.:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
 In Vitro Toxicity Studies on Fly Ash Extracts

 RP 483
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Battelle Columbus Laboratories

Unknown

The objective of this 1-year project is to de-
termine the  toxicity of extractable fractions
from  fly ash samples from both the combustion
of coal and  residual fuel oil.  In addition,
possible synergistic effects of NOX and SOX and
polycyclic organic materials (POM) applied in
conjunction  with the fly ash extracts will be
investigated.
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Pilot Model  Study - Ash Pond Water Recirculation
TVA

TVA
W. S. Wilburn

A model  study  will be made at Shawnee to deter-
mine  problems  anticipated in recirculating high
pH ash pond water prior  to installation of a
full  scale system.
                                  407

-------
Table 145 (continued).  ON-GOING AMD PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   ASH HANDLING
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Studies of Methods to Prevent Saturation of
Closed-Loop Ash Pond Systems
TVA

TVA

B. G. McKinney

A study of method to desaturate closed-loop
ash pond systems to prevent scaling.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
                 i
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Effects of Coal By-Products in Soil
RP 202

EPRI
Radian Corporation

Unknown
The purpose of this research is to determine
the amounts of toxic elements in scrubber sludge
and fly ash and their leachability in various
types of soil.

Fly Ash Characterization and Disposal


U.S. EPA

TVA

Unknown

This is an expansion of a continuing project
at TVA to characterize coal, ash, and ash ef-
fluents.   Data will be compiled and summarized,
emphasizing the quantity and physical/
chemical characteristics.  An extensive
effort will be conducted for complete
characterization of physical properties and
chemical constituents of coal, ash, and ash
effluent.  A study of ash sluice water
treatment methods, which would allow recycle/
re-use, will be made.  Promising methods for
disposal and utilization of flyash will be
identified based on results of the efforts
just described.
                                408

-------
COOLING SYSTEMS

Current research into cooling systems for conventional combustion instal-
lations is quite diversified.  The principal organizations doing investi-
gations include the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Energy
Research and Development Administration  (ERDA), the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), the Battelle Memorial Institute, and various colleges
and universities.  The major emphasis of current projects centers upon
the reduction of water consumption, the elimination of salt drift, and
the reduction of thermal pollution and chemical contamination in water.

Battelle Memorial Institute is currently involved in studies on dry cool-
ing methods.  The "investigations cover a variety of aspects of dry cooling,
including an assessment of the state-of-the-art, optimum design of heat
exchangers, and proposed advanced concepts.  Battelle is currently oper-
ating a dry cooling test facility at the 30 MW Neil Simpson power plant
in Wyodak, Wyoming, owned by the Black Hills Power and Light Company.

The Environmental Protection Agency is sponsoring a number of studies on
dry and wet/dry cooling methods.  The emphasis of the investigations is
on optimization of design and operating characteristics from the view-
point of economics, efficiency, and reduction of environmental impact.
The programs are mainly demonstration projects which attempt to augment
and verify existing information on dry and wet/dry cooling towers in order
to optimize tower operation.

Salt drift or fallout from cooling tower plumes is a significant problem
in the localized area of the tower.  This has been a much investigated
problem in the recent past.  Further work is presently being done at the
Turkey Point Plant in Florida where a mechanical draft wet tower is used
for cooling condenser water.  This report will be available in the near
future.   In order to prevent drift and associated land and vegetation
                                409

-------
damage, various organizations are looking into the improvement of mechan-
ical drift eliminators, and the use of dry cooling towers.

A great deal of investigation and modeling of thermal water pollution is
currently being done.  Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology are very active in the field.  The major emphasis of current studies
concerns flow modeling, heat dissipation, and induced currents.  There is
also interest in determining near and far field heat distribution asso-
ciated with various cooling water discharge schemes.  The objective is to
prevent the use of heated ambient water.  In respect to this problem, MIT
will be developing near and far-field thermal diffusion models at the
Pilgrim Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts.  In addition, studies
will be carried out to develop circulation models in Boston Harbor.
Table 147 lists on-going activities in the cooling system area.
                                410

-------
          Table 147.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
Title:

Contract No. :

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Cooperative Salt Water Cooling Tower
                          Environmental Effects Study
                          U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                          Maryland State Government

                          Unknown

                          Cooperative study of the measurement of salt
                          drift and resulting salt deposition from the
                          operation of a large natural draft salt water
                          cooling tower.
Title:
Contract No.:
                          Chalk Point Cooling Tower Drift Study
Supporting Organization:  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Performing Organization:  Environmental Systems Corporation
Principal Investigator:   F. M. Shofner
Project Description:
                          The study provides a demonstration of the
                          drift performance of large natural draft
                          cooling towers fitted with improved drift
                          eliminators.  Favorable drift performance,
                          along with evidence that expected drift levels
                          will not have unacceptable environmental
                          impacts, will enhance the acceptability of
                          such salt water cooling towers systems for
                          use in future power plants, and will facili-
                          tate the siting of power plants in areas
                          where water supplies have high salt content.

                          The study will consist of:  a. Direct measure-
                          ments of drift rates at the large hyperbolic
                          natural draft salt water cooling tower at the
                          Chalk Point Power Station (Unit #4).  b.  Sup-
                          porting measurements in the tower and power
                          plant needed for analyses and interpretation
                          of the drift measurement data.  c.  Acquisi-
                          tion of data from a nearby meteorological
                          tower and atmospheric soundings, as required
                          for the analyses of general plume behavior
                          and predictions of salt deposition,  d.  De-
                          tailed meteorological measurements of the
                          cooling tower plume itself to thoroughly
                          characterize plume rise.  e.  Analyses of
                          data obtained during the course of the field
                          measurement study.
                              411

-------
    Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING
Title:
Contract No. :
Salt Water Cooling Tower Study
Supporting Organization:  Jersey Central Power & Light Company

Performing Organization:  Jersey Central Power & Light Company
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
J. F. McConnell
Investigation of engineering and environ-
mental feasibility of salt water cooling
towers for Forked River Unit #1.  Measure-
ment of drift from existing fresh water
towers in order to predict drift from salt
water towers and apply results to determine
environmental effects.  Investigation of
blowdown and chemical treatment effects and
establishment of general engineering refer-
ence design.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Cooling Tower Salt Drift, Post Operation
Monitoring Program
Atlantic City Electric Company

Atlantic City Electric Company

R, J. Waukner
J. Kovago

Atlantic City Electric Company completed
erection of the first sea water cooling tower
in the country in December 1974.

Ambient salt concentration and deposition
caused by natural conditions has been exten-
sively monitored for 1 year pre-op in order
to establish firm background information.
This salt monitoring will be continued in
the first year of tower operation and its
results will be compared to the natural
salt deposition data.  It is expected that
this study will reveal the true environ-
mental impact, if any, of a neutral  draft,
sea water cooling tower.
                                412

-------
    Table 147 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Research Initiation - Improvement of
Evaporative Cooling Tower Performance


U.S. National Science Foundation
Division of Engineering

Drexel University
School of Engineering

C. W. Savery, Thermal & Fluid Sciences

The objective of the program is to study the
processes occurring in evaporative cooling
towers.  The first phase of this research has
been devoted to analytical and experimental
study of packing performance.  Current
research concentrates on the problem of cool-
ing tower drift, with emphasis on methods of
reduction of drift particles containing dis-
solved salts which are emitted by cooling
towers circulating salt water.  The research
will include modeling of drift entrainment,
transport and deposition.  Experiments will
involve the use of drift eliminator devices
in conjunction with a model cooling tower.
Title:
Effects of Cooling Tower Slowdown
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Wisconsin State Government

University of Wisconsin
School of Engineering

G. F. Lee
The primary objective of the project is to
determine the characteristics of blowdown
from cooling towers.  The project is moti-
vated by questions of whether the utilization
of once-through cooling and the associated
heating of the waters in the region of the
discharge has a greater environmental impact
than the discharge of blowdown from cooling
towers used for waste heat dissipation.  The
study consists of monitoring cooling tower
blowdown from a wide variety of cooling
towers located in the upper Midwest.
                                  413

-------
    Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING
Title:
Cooling Tower and Cooling Pond Atmospheric
Impact
Contract No. :

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:   M.  A.  Wolf

Project Description:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Battelle Memorial Institute
Efforts range from a comprehensive state-of-
the-art review of pertinent research to
consideration of potential methods for
modifying recognized consequences.  Emphasis,
however, is placed on field studies for the
acquisition of an adequate data base to pro-
vide an understanding of the interaction with
the atmosphere of cooling towers and cooling
ponds.  Current models for the prediction of
plume rise and dispersion, cloud formation,
fogging, and icing are evaluated with these
data and adapted as necessary.  Additional
models are developed where appropriate.  The
field portion focuses attention on the plume
dynamics and on the microphysical and chem-
istry properties of the plumes.  Thus, a
variety of measurement techniques are
utilized in the definition of plume character-
istics on the meso- and microscales.
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
A Study of the Plume From a Brackish Water
Natural Draft Cooling Tower and  Its Effects
On  the Environment
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  Commission

University  of Maryland
Water Resources Research Center
J.  Pell

The object  of this  study is  to completely
characterize the  effluent plume  discharged
into the  atmosphere from a natural draft,
evaporative, cooling tower employing brackish
water and to determine the plume's effect on
the vicinity's meteorology,  air  quality,
vegetation, and soils.   Measurements will be
made from the top of the tower where the
                                 414

-------
   Table 147 (continued) .  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
                          plume enters the atmosphere, rather than
                          just above the fill.  Laser light scattering
                          will be used for the measurement of droplet
                          size distribution of the saline drift.  This
                          data will be complemented by isokinetic and
                          sensitive paper sampling.  Measurements will
                          also be made of the vertical updraft velocity,
                          and plume temperature and water vapor content.
                          Metric quality photographs of the plume will
                          also be taken.  A microwave tower, in the
                          vicinity of the plant, will be equipped with
                          instrumentation to measure local meteorologi-
                          cal data.  Vegetation and soil samples will be
                          taken before and after the cooling tower start
                          up to determine the effects of the plume.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:


Project Description:
Thermal Studies - Atlantic Generating Station
Public Service Electric and Gas Company,
New Jersey
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof. D. R. F. Harleman
Prof. K. D. Stolzenbach

Experimental studies will determine the inter-
action of the ocean bottom with heated sur-
face ana suosurface discharges.  The objec-
tive is to develop analytical or numerical
techniques for predicting near and far-field
temperature distribution in coastal waters.
Results of measurements of ocean currents and
temperature distribution and dye diffusion
observations at the proposed site have been
incorporated into a mathematical model of the
far-field temperature distribution.  Statisti-
cal characterization of receiving water states
are being developed in conjunction with the
application of this model.  The project is
scheduled for completion December 1975.
                                415

-------
    Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING
Title:

Contract No. :

Supporting Organization:


Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:



Project Description:
Dynamic of Shallow Cooling Ponds


Stone & Webster Eng. Corp. and
Virginia Electric Power Company

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Prof. D. R. F. Harleman
Prof. J. J. Connor
Dr. G. H. Jirka
(1) Basic study of the buoyance driven verti-
cal circulation of cooling water into long
shallow side arms of cooling ponds.  (2) De-
velopment of a transient cooling pond model
for heat distribution in shallow cooling
ponds with lateral and vertical restrictions.
This includes the development of a two-
layered finite element model for solution of
the mass heat and momentum conservation
equations.  Specific application of this
investigation is the North Anna Cooling Lake
in Virginia.
Title:
Contract No.:
Diffuser Induced Circulations in Shallow
Coastal Zones
Supporting Organization:  Waste Heat Management Research Program of the
                          MIT Energy Laboratory
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:



Project Description:
Massachusetts  Institute of Technology
Dr. D. R. F. Harleman
Dr. G. H. Jirka
Dr. J. G. Steele

Submerged multiport diffusers  for  the  dis-
posal of waste heat from  thermal-electric
power generating facilities  discharge  a  con-
siderable amount of cooling  water  with sub-
stantial momentum.  In shallow coastal waters
these diffusers have the  potential of
inducing currents  of considerable  magnitude.
An understanding of the induced current
pattern is necessary to assess potential heat
re-entrainment and the effect  on coastal
morphology.  A theoretical  investigation com-
bined with a series of basic experiments is
planned.
                                416

-------
    Table 147 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
Title:                    Design of Environmental Monitoring Programs
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:  MIT Energy Laboratory

Performing Organization:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Principal Investigator:   Prof. S. F. Moore
Project Description:      Development of quantitative methodologies for
                          the design of hydrothermal and biological
                          monitoring programs for waters subject to
                          heated water discharges.
Title:
Contract No. :
Supporting Organization;
Performing Organization;
Principal Investigator:
Program Description:
Physical, Chemical, and Biological Effects
of Heat Added to Missouri River by Lignite-
Fired Power Stations Near Stanton, North
Dakota
Basin Electric Power Corporation,  Inc.
University of North Dakota
J. K. Neel
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization;
Performing Organization;
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Power Plant Waste Heat Rejection System Using
Dry Cooling Tower
EPRI
Union Carbide, Linde Division
Unknown
This 1-year project will establish the
economic feasibility of a dry cooling con-
cept that utilizes advanced heat transfer
technology to achieve high heat transfer
rates, incorporating enhanced heat transfer
surfaces in conjunction with a phase change
of the dense fluid transporting heat between
the steam condenser and the cooling tower.
                                  417

-------
    Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING
Title:
Contract No. :
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Cooling Water Discharge

RP 49
EPRI
Johns Hopkins University

Unknown
Since 1962, the electric utility industry
has sponsored studies at Johns Hopkins
University on the effects of power plant
cooling water discharge on rivers, lakes,
and other bodies of water.  Fish entrap-
ment and the entrainment of organisms are
also under investigation.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Program Description:
Agricultural Waste Water for Power Plant
Cooling
RP 373
EPRI
California Department of Water Resources

Unknown

This 2-year project will:  (1) develop an
economical and reliable pretreatment method
for agricultural waste water to reduce its
scale-forming tendencies;  (2) develop
methods for allowing a cooling tower to
operate with a large concentration ratio;
(3) further the concentration of cooling
tower blowdown to a high total dissolved
solids level; and   (4) study regeneration of
the reactants used in the pretreatment
process.
                                418

-------
    Table 147 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
Title: :
Contract No. :
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Cherne Thermal Rotor Test Program
RP 420
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Cherne Industrial, Inc.

Unknown

The 8-month test program will be carried
out at a utility plant site and will involve
a significantly large installation and
requisite instrumentation to establish the
interference effects, wind sensitivity,  plume
characteristics, and drift performance,  as
well as the heat dissipative capacity, of the
Cherne Thermal Rotor System.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Thermal Discharge State-of-the-Art
RP 283
EPRI

Environmental Analysts, Inc.

Unknown
Environmental Analysts, Inc.,  is studying the
current state of technology on waste heat
management in electric power  plants.  It will
include:   (1) blowdown disposal;  (2) waste
water utilization;  (3) strategies in obtain-
ing low- or zero-discharge cooling systems;
(4) thermal discharge simulation;  (5) field
monitoring; and  (6) dry cooling systems.
Title:

Contract No. :
Supporting Organization;
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Performance, Economics, and Reliability of
Cooling Tower-Cooling Pond Mix

RP 321

EPRI
Auburn University

Unknown
This 1-year study will evaluate the perform-
ance and cost of employing a cooling tower-
cooling pond mix and compare the results by
using towers and ponds separately.  The study
                                 419

-------
   Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING

                          will also determine the geographic regions of
                          the U.S.  where the mixed-cooling concept might
                          be employed.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting  Organization:

Performing  Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Forecasting Power Plant Effects on the
Coastal Zone

RP 575
ERPI
EG&G, Environmental Consultants

Unknown
The objective of this on-going project is to
advance understanding of far-field dispersion
of emissions from power plants on an open
coast as affected by physical oceanographic
processes.  Air and sea temperatures and
current, wind, and tide data have been taken
for an area offshore the Pilgrim Power Station
near Plymouth, Mass.  The study will provide
for verification of mathematical models of
the coastal dispersion sites.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Cooling Tower/Stack Gas Plume Interaction
EHB 540 77ADA, Task 1

EPA, EPRI, State of Maryland
Unknown

Unknown

The purpose of this airborne monitoring project
is to:  (a) Characterize the heat and water
vapor plume emitted from a natural draft cooling
tower.  (b) Evaluate the interaction between
the cooling tower plume and three adjacent
fossil fuel power plant stack plumes to deter-
mine formation and fate of acid droplets.
(c) Evaluate aircraft safety relevant to turbu-
lence, icing potential, and visibility impair-
ment produced by the plume.  The study will be
done at Potomac Electric Power Company's Chalk
Point Power Plant and will run from June 1975 to
June 1976.
                                420

-------
    Table 147 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:  COOLING
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Optimizing Wet/Dry Cooling Towers for Water
Conservation and Plume Abatement
EHB 531 77AAY, Task 3
U.S. EPA

United Engineers, Inc.

Unknown

Assessment of the technical and economic feas-
ibility of minimizing water use and reducing
vapor plume discharges from wet/dry cooling
towers.  Analyses will be conducted at five
sites in the western U.S. and will include
consideration of meteorology, water quantity,
and water quality.  The project will be active
from June 1975 to June 1976.
Title:
Contract No. :
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Demonstration of a Wet/Dry Cooling Tower
EHB 531 77BBE, Task 3
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA

Performing Organization:  TVA
Unknown
The project will provide technical and economic
data on wet/dry cooling tower performance with
regard to wet/dry heat transfer mechanisms,
plume abatement, water conservation, and energy
requirements.  An extensively instrumented wet/
dry tower of highly variable operating capability
will be used.  The project is intended to yield
data to augment and verify analytical data pre-
sently available.  The project began in May
1975 and is scheduled for completion in June 1977,
                                421

-------
    Table 147 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:   COOLING
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Optimizing Design Specifications for Large
Dry Cooling Systems

1 BB 392 21 AZU, Task 33

U.S. EPA
PFR Engineering Systems, Inc., Marina Del Key,  Ca.

Unknown
The project is intended to develop a rigorous
and optimal procedure for evaluating dry cool-
ing tower performance and economics.  Mechanical
draft dry cooling towers and direct contact jet
condensers will be studied.  Variables consid-
ered will include tower height, water flow rate,
module design on bus-bar cost, and others.  The
project began June 10, 1975 and is scheduled
for completion August 10, 1976.
Title:


Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Dry Cooling Tower Demonstration and Performance
Study

EHB 531, 77AAY, Task 2

U.S. EPA
Town of Braintree, Massachusetts

Unknown

The project will demonstrate the use of a dry
cooling tower on a combined cycle  (gas turbine/
steam cycle) power plant in order  to evaluate
operating performance and environmental conse-
quences of the plant.  The study will assess
steam flow and distribution and temperature to
help define optimal design characteristics.
The project will also investigate  meteorological
effects, noise generation, and air quality in
order to determine the economic impact of design
and operational factors.  The project began in
June 1975 and is scheduled for completion some-
time in 1979.
                                 422

-------
BOILER WATER TREATMENT AND  OPERATION

Modern boilers operate at high  steam  pressures and,  therefore, are sus-
ceptible to a variety of hazards  associated with  the use of unacceptably
contaminated feed water.  The major problem areas are scale deposition
and corrosion in the boiler system and solid particle erosion and crack-
ing of turbine components.

A new trend in specifying proper  boiler water condition is the emphasis
on minimizing caustic alkalinity.  At low operating  pressure, alkalinity
will produce carryover problems at concentrations which do not promote
corrosion in the boiler system.   As pressure increases, corrosion becomes
very highly dependent upon  alkalinity and very strict limitations must
be made.  In conjunction with this, investigations are being made into
current boiler operation standards in order to establish the state-of-
the-art and recommend operating standards which should be altered.

The ASME Research Committee on  Water  in Thermal Power Systems is cur-
rently determining  the important  areas  of research required in order to
prevent or minimize turbine damage.   Selection of appropriate investiga-
tions is a difficult effort because turbine problems are generated by a
wide variety of factors.  It is possible that investigations will center
upon the dynamic behavior of contaminants saturated  in the steam as they
pass through the turbine.

Battelle Memorial Institute in  Columbus, Ohio, is investigating boiler
feed water chemistry with regard  to control of corrosion and scale deposi-
tion.  They are considering various volatile and nonvolatile agents and
will make recommendations on allowable  concentrations.

The Electric Power  Research Institute is currently sponsoring studies
which are applicable to conventional  boiler system feed water treatment
and control.  Combustion Engineering  is under contract to investigate
                                 423

-------
volatile chemistry treatment in nuclear steam generation systems.  The
results should be applicable to conventional fossil fuel boilers in that
corrosion of steam generator tubing will be simulated in a number of ways.
The study will simulate condenser leakage and the affects of changeover
from phosphate treatment to volatile chemistry (hydrazine and morpholine)
treatment.  Combustion Engineering is also looking into new methods of
boiler water tube acid cleaning and improvements in cleaning with in-
hibited hydrochloric acid.  The investigations include analysis of affects
on boiler materials by testing of failure samples.

Babcock and Wilcox is active in updating a manual on methods of high pur-
ity boiler water analysis.  High purity refers to detection of contami-
nants present in concentrations of parts per billion.

Much of the work being done regarding boiler feed water treatment and
specifications is proprietary information.  Only a minor number of pro-
jects were specifically identified and are not considered to be repre-
sentative of the major thrust of research.  However, some projects related
to corrosion and power plant waste water disposal are listed in Table 148.
                                 424

-------
Title:
Contract No.
Table 148.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
            BOILER WATER TREATMENT AND OPERATION

            Structural Design Concepts for Increased
            Reliability and Safety in Power Plant
            Condensing Systems
            RP 372
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Performing Organization:  . University  of Pennsylvania
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
            The objective of this 2-year program is to
            reevaluate  traditional condenser structural
            design methods by:   (1) establishing rational
            design criteria for  tube support plates;
            (2) establishing design rules relating to
            deformation of condenser flat-plate sections
            stayed by discrete pipes; and  (3) performing
            theoretical analyses and scale-model tests to
            determine the stress distributions in built-up
            pressure vessels such as condenser meter
            boxes.
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
            Preparation of Data Record on High Tempera-
            ture  Oxidation and Corrosion of Metals and
            Alloys  in Electrical Generating systems

            RP 538
            EPRI
            University of Liverpool, England
            Battelle Columbus Laboratories

            Unknown
            This  is an 18-month project.  Experience
            relating to the high temperature oxidation
            and corrosion of metals and alloys in circum-
            stances relevant to fossil-fuel-fired systems
            is very extensive and is dispersed over a
            wide  range of scientific and technical
            literature, governmental, and other reports,
            and unpublished experience within companies
            and utilities.  Collection of this into one
            record would greatly aid the designers and
            operators of fossil-fuel-fired systems in
            avoiding potentially corrosive situations.
                                 425

-------
       Table 148  (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               BOILER WATER TREATMENT AND OPERATION

Title:                    Overall Power Plant Water Recycle/Reuse
                          Studies - Pacific Northwest Environmental
                          Research Laboratory

Contract No. :

Supporting Organization:  U.S.  EPA

Performing Organization:  Radian Corporation

Principal Investigator:   Unknown

Project Description:      This  is a contract with Radian Corporation to
                          determine over-all power plant water manage-
                          ment  systems to minimize water use.  Recycle
                          and treatment/reuse process simulations,
                          using actual power plant field data  as input,
                          and preliminary system design and economic
                          studies will be made on four different power
                          plants representing four different areas  of
                          the United States.  This effort, which is
                          expected to be completed by mid-1976,  will be
                          coordinated with the TVA Fly Ash Characteriza-
                          tion and Power Plant Effluent Studies.  Pilot
                          plant testing based on results of this study
                          is expected to commence in early 1977.
                                426

-------
FUELS AND FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING

The anticipated growth in the use of  coal has spurred greater interest
in fuel conversion and coal properties  including chemical content, vola-
tility, ash fusibility, agglomerating tendencies, heat content, coal
size and grindability.  All of  the above chemical and physical properties
of coal influence furnace and firing  equipment design and maintenance
and have an important bearing on emissions and the use and performance
of control equipment.

Coal handling practices will vary greatly depending upon the size of the
combustion units, the type of combustion unit, land and storage area
availability, etc. ' EPRI, the National  Coal Association, and all users
of fuels have an interest in fuel storage and handling practices.  How-
ever, there is no typical plant and information on emissions from coal
storage and handling is practically nonexistent in the literature.  The
only known studies now underway or planned which deal with coal storage and
handling emissions are the Monsanto Research Corporation's stationary source
assessment studies which have dealt with air emissions and a planned TVA study
dealing with coal pile drainage slated  for completion in 1976.

One area that has not been covered in any detail in this report concerns
the reduction of sulfur prior to combustion by physical cleaning methods.
EPA has been conducting research for  a  number of years, with the Bureau
of Mines to improve coal washing processes.  EPA has also funded a charac-
terization of the washability of Northern Appalachian coal.  This approach
has been found to reduce the average  pyritic sulfur content from 2.05 per-
cent to 0.75 percent at a coal recovery yield of 90 percent.  Regardless
of yield the average organic sulfur content of the coals studied was 1.2
percent.  A recent summary of coal washability studies is presented in an
EPA report by L. Hoffman, et al., entitled "An Interpretive Compilation
of EPA Studies Related to Coal Quality  and Cleanability."  A list of pro-
grams relating to fuels and fuel handling is given in Table 149.
                                 427

-------
              Table 149.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                          FUELS AND FUEL HANDLING
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Characteristics  of  Coal  Slurries
                          RP 314
                          EPRI
                          Stanford University
                          Unknown
                          The objective  of this  3-year project  is to
                          develop improved design  criteria  for  the flow
                          of and heat transfer  from coal  slurry mixtures,
                          Viscometric coefficients and heat transfer
                          characteristics  of  slurries will  also be
                          measured.
                          Organic Sulfur Constituents  in Coal
                          RP 267
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:   EPRI
Performing Organization:   University of  Florida
Principal Investigator:    Unknown
Project Description:
                          This 3-year program will isolate the organic
                          sulfur in coal by chemical means and identify
                          the nature of the isolated organic sulfur
                          compounds.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Reduction of Inorganic Sulfur in Dry
                          Pulverized Coal Using High Intensity Mag-
                          netic Separation.
                          RP 540
                          EPRI
                          Indiana University Foundation
                          Unknown
                          The objective of this 1-year project is to
                          determine the relationship between magnetic
                          separation process variables and the extent
                          of pyritic sulfur reduction so that a meaning-
                          ful economic evaluation can be prepared.
                          Many highly pyritic Appalachian coals will
                          not meet environmental restrictions on
                                 428

-------
        Table 149 (continued).
      ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
      FUELS AND FUEL HANDLING
                          allowable sulfur content.  The sulfur content
                          of such coals may be reduced to acceptable
                          levels by utilization of high intensity mag-
                          netic separation to remove weak magnetic
                          pyritic sulfur compounds from a coal-air
                          mixture.
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Technology Assessment of Preparation of  Coal
for Combustion and Conversion
RP 466

EPRI

Unknown
Unknown

The objective of this 1-year project is  to
provide a comprehensive, authoritative,  and
responsible description of coal preparation
technologies.  Coal preparation refers to
those techniques and processes used  to im-
prove the quality of coal prior to its use
(removal of sulfur-hearing minerals, se-
paration of rocks, etc.)  Also included  are
those methods used to control the heating
value of coals through blending and  stock-
pile maintenance.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Review of Coal Cost and Production Studies

RP 335
EPRI
Pennsylvania State University

Unknown
This 1-year project will review recent and
ongoing studies to ascertain the state of
knowledge of coal supply.  Projections of
cost and output, and the methods by which the
projections are made, will be critically
analyzed.
                                 429

-------
        Table 149 (continued).
      ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
      FUELS AND FUEL HANDLING
Title:
Contract No.:
Review of Natural Gas Supply Studies

RP 436
Supporting Organization:   EPRI

Performing Organization:   Mathematica,  Inc.
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Unknown
A critical review and assessment and a com-
parative analysis of 12 gas supply studies,
including the Federal Energy Administration
and the National Petroleum Council studies,
will be performed in this 4-month project.
Title:



Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Assessment of Capability of the Existing
Transportation Network for the Movement of
Increased Amounts of Coal

RP 437
EPRI

Mathematica, Inc.

Unknown

The purpose of this 6-month study is to de-
velop a system of measures of aggregative
interregional transportation capacity and to
identify any of the links where transpor-
tation bottlenecks might occur.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Fuel Utilization in Residential Heating
RP 137

EPRI

Ohio State University

Unknown

Investigation  of a procedure  for  calculating
accurately the energy  requirements  of single
and multiple residential  housing  units.   It is
intended  that  the procedure be  applicable to
both electric  and fossil  fuel heating systems
in order  to determine  precisely the difference
in the amounts of fuel raw energy required to
heat houses of similar structure.
                                 430

-------
        Table 149 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FUELS AND FUEL HANDLING
Title:
Contract No.
Development of Models to Aid in Forecasting
Residential Energy Usage
RP 931
 Supporting Organization:  EPRI

 Performing Organization:  Data Resources,  Inc.
 Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
The purposes of this 1-year study are to de-
velop improved data bases and forecasting
methodology for energy use in the. residential
sector and to develop a data file on resi-
dential usage of electricity, natural gas,
and fuel oil, by state, for 1950 to 1973.
Title:
Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Forecasting the Industrial Demand for Energy
RP 433

EPRI

Econometrica International

Unknown
This 1-year project will have three phases:
(1) survey of existing work on industrial
energy demand, development of analytic
approaches, and review of data sources;
(2) analysis and empirical research into two
industries; and (3) application of knowledge
gained in (2)  to the full list of industries.
Title:                    Assessment of Energy Modeling (2 parts)

Contract No.:             RP 333
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Performing Organization:  Charles River Associates, Inc.

Principal Investigator:   Unknown
                                 431

-------
        Table 149 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FUELS AND FUEL HANDLING

Project Description:      Part  I:  An assessment of the state-of-the-
                                   art in electric power demand fore-
                                   casting techniques,  with special
                                   emphasis on forecasting reliability.

                          Part  II: An assessment of energy systems
                                   models that integrate supply,  demand,
                                   environmental, and other consider-
                                   ations, with emphasis on electric
                                   power problems.
                                432

-------
FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Present research into methods of SO  removal from combustion stack gases
                                   X
is extremely diversified.  Potential removal processes range from fuel
pretreatment for sulfur reduction to collection of SO  as it exits the
                                                     A
stack.  The EPA is sponsoring a great number of projects on flue gas
cleaning waste disposal.  They and other projects are listed in Table 150,
                                  433

-------
              Table 150.   ON-GOING  AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                          FLUE  GAS  DESULFURIZATION
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator;
Project Description:
Prototype Study of Limestone Scrubbing for
S02 - Dust Removal Systems
U.S. EPA
Bechtel Corporation

I.A. Raben
The objectives of this contract are:  to com-
plete the detailed design of a highly ver-
satile, prototype limestone wet scrubbing
facility; to procure major equipment; to de-
sign and conduct a 2-year test program to
evaluate limestone wet scrubbing processes;
and to analyze, evaluate, and report the test
results.
A comprehensive process and mechanical design
report will be issued.  The test program is
now being conducted at TVA's Shawnee Steam
Plant, near Paducah, Kentucky.
Title:
Contract No.;
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of Active Carbon SO  Sorption
and Sulfur Recovery Process
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Westvaco
F. J. Ball
The purpose of this effort is to determine
technical feasibility of the power plant flue
gas desulfurizing and elemental sulfur reco-
very process using activated carbon as SOX
sorbent.  The process essentially consists of
sulfur oxides sorption, sulfuric acid decom-
position and active carbon regeneration
stages.  The reactive gas, hydrogen sulfide,
needed for sulfuric acid decomposition,  is
generated internally in the active carbon
regeneration stage.  Elemental sulfur  is the
byproduct of this process.  Pilot plant  inves-
tigations, now in progress, are aimed  to de-
termine sets of principal operating parameters
                                 434

-------
        Table  150 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
                          for all process stages which then will be
                          integrated and run continuously for some
                          time in a cyclic manner.
Title:
Contract No.:
Wet Scrubber Study
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA

Performing Organization:  West Virginia University
Principal Investigator:   Dr. D. Y. Wen
Project Description:
The objective of this study is:  1) To
clearly define the reaction mechanism of
S02 absorption by various solutions, such
as CaO-, CaC03-, CaOH-, Na2COo- solutions.
2) Elucidate the phenomena taking place in
various types of wet scrubbers such as
venturi, packed tower, spray tower, and tur-
bulent bed contractor, both from the
mechanical and absorption-kinetic points of
view.  3) Find optimal operating conditions
and provide the design and scale-up criteria
of wet scrubber process which will result in
the most efficient and economic absorption
performance.  To achieve objectives, ma-
thematical models describing the phenomena
in these scrubber processes will be devised.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of the Stone & Webster Process
for S02 Removal and Recovery
U.S. EPA
Wisconsin Electric Power Company

C. W. Fay
The EPA and Wisconsin Electric Power Company
program is as follows:  Phase I - Design,
Installation and Operation of an integrated
pilot plant; development of prototype scale
electrolytic cell system; preliminary design
of 75 Mw prototype system and development of
detailed test programs and operating schedules,
                                  435

-------
        Table 150 (continued).
      ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
      FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
                          Based on evaluation of results  from Phase  I
                          and continued favorable assessment  of  tech-
                          nical and economic feasibility,  the program
                          will continue as follows:   Phase II -  De-
                          tailed design,  procurement  and  installation
                          of a 75 MW prototype system.  Phase III  -
                          Start-up and operation of the 75 MW proto-
                          type system.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Shell Flue Gas Desulfurization Process
Pilot Plant
Tampa Electric Company
                     'e
Tampa Electric Company

J. Pohlenz, D. J. Rankin

Purpose is to test the system on a coal-
fired boiler in an effort to determine
technical feasibility and operating param-
eters of the modular reactor and its
ability to remove SOX from flue gas.  Suc-
cessful operation could lead to further
development and/or application on a larger
or full sized utility boiler.
Title:
Contract No.:
Sulfur Dioxide Removal from Flue Gases
Supporting Organization:  Universal Oil Products Company
Performing Organization:  Universal Oil Products Company
Principal Investigator:   Dr. A. K. Sparks
Project Description:
The object of this work is the removal of
sulfur dioxide from flue gases - principally
from power generating stations that burn coal
or residual oil.  Two processes are currently
under development - one uses a liquid absorp-
tion system, the other utilizes a regenerable
solid adsorbent at high temperatures.  Both
processes yield elemental sulfur as the
product.
                                  436

-------
        Table 150 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Evaluation of Advanced Regenerable Flue Gas
Desulfurization Processes
RP535

EPRI

Radian Corporation

Unknown

The primary objective of this 6-month project
is to provide the utility industry with a
comparative state-of-the-art evaluation of
developmental regenerable flue-gas desulfur-
ization processes.
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Pilot Test and Evaluation of Three Prototype
Flue Gas Desulfurization Processes.

RP536 '

EPRI

Southern Services, Inc.

Unknown

The Southern Company has installed 20 MWe
pilot plants of three second-generation
flue-gas desulfurization processes at the
Scholtz Steam Plant of Gulf Power Co.  The
processes being evaluated during this 18-
morith period are:  (1) the A-, D. Little/Com-
bustion Equipment Associates Double Alkali
Process (Sodium/Calcium), (2) the Foster-
Wheeler/Bergbau-Forschung Dry Coal Char Ad-
sorption Process, and (3) the Chivoda
Thorobred 101 Dilute Acid Adsorption Process.
These prototype pilot plants have been de-
signed to permit operation in a utility con-
text over a wide variety of operating con-
ditions, fuel types, and gas-flow rates.
                                  437

-------
        Table 150 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of Improved Lime/Limestone
Scrubbing Technology
RP535
EPRI
TVA
Unknown
This 18-month project is directed to ex-
panding an existing development and process
evaluation program at the TVA Colbert Lime/
Limestone scrubbing pilot plant to include
four additional high priority tasks required
in achieving a commercial design base for
lime/limestone scrubbing on high-sulfur coal.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
S02 Removal from Stack Gases

Foster Wheeler Corporation
Dairyland Power Cooperative
Unknown
Injection of powdered dolomite into the hot
flue area of the boiler system.
Title:
Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Wet Scrubber Pilot Plant Test

Northern States Power Company
Northern States Power Company
J. A. Noer
A temporary installation for testing and
analysis of a 12,000 CFM wet scrubber on unit
No. 1 at Black Dog Generating Plant, will du-
plicate in reduced scale, the Combustion En-
gineering wet scrubber now being designed for
installation at the Sherburne County Generating
Plant.  The findings of this pilot  installation
will be used to verify the CE Design and assure
its ultimate full scale operation by investi-
gating S02 and particulate removal  rates,
scaling, water chemistry, ash hold-up pond
chemistry, materials corrosion, etc.
                                  438

-------
        Table 150  (continued).
       ON-GOING  AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
       FLUE  GAS  DESULFURIZATION
Title:


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Flue Gas Cleaning Waste Characterization
and Disposal Evaluation
U.S. EPA.

Aerospace Corporation

Unknown

'A broad-based study is being performed
(1) to identify environmental problems
associated with FGC waste disposal,
(2) to assess current FGC waste disposal
methods (both technically and economically),
and (3) to make recommendations regarding
alternate disposal approaches.  The  effort
includes chemical and physical character-
ization of untreated and treated (fixed,
oxidized, stabilized) FGC wastes,  tech-
nical support of the FGC waste disposal
demonstration at Shawnee, and coordinating
all FGD waste related R&D activities
(EPA, TVA, private industry) including
publishing an annual integrated report.
Title:
Contract No.:
Project Description:
Shawnee Field Evaluation of Flue Gas Cleaning
Waste Disposal Methods
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA

Performing Organization:
Interagency Agreement with TVA and the
Aerospace Corporation

The current program evaluates the Chemfix,
Dravo, and IUCS processes for chemical
fixation of scrubber wastes in three separate
disposal ponds.  Untreated lime and lime-
stone wastes are placed in two additional ponds,
Leachate, run-off and groundwater samples
as well as core samples of the wastes and
soil are being collected and analyzed to
evaluate environmental effects.  Both Aero-
space Corporation and TVA are performing
selected analyses; Aerospace is responsible
for data evaluation and reporting.  Future
plans call for evaluation of other disposal
approaches, including gypsum disposal.
                                 439

-------
        Table 150 (continued).
      ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
      FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Title:
Contract No.
Louisville Gas and Electric Lime Scrubbing
Waste Disposal Laboratory and Field Evaluation
Supporting Organization:   U.S.  EPA
Performing Organization:   Louisville Gas  and Electric
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Unknown
This is part of a contract with Louisville
Gas and Electric (LG&E) for lime and carbide
lime scrubbing tests and waste disposal
studies.  Both physical stabilization (e.g.,
by adding fly ash) and chemical fixation will
be evaluated in laboratory studies, subse-
quently followed by field evaluation of the
lab results.  The field evaluation will con-
sist of "swimming pool" tests in which all
leachate will be collected and disposal site
tests (similar to Shawnee) in which soil-
leachate interactions can be evaluated.
Title:


Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Laboratory and Field Evaluation of 1st and
2nd Generation Flue Gas Cleaning Waste
Treatment Processes
U.S. EPA
Interagency Agreement with U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers
Unknown
This program will evaluate fixation processes
for several industrial wastes, including FGC
wastes.  Initial efforts in this project were
similar to Aerospace laboratory studies of
Chemfix, Dravo, and IUCS processes except that
additional commercial processes are being
evaluated.  Independent studies of fixation,
including some of the Corps' own ideas, are
planned for the near future.   In addition,
field evaluation of current disposal practices
and small-scale field tests of fixation are
planned.
                                  440

-------
        Table 150  (continued).   ON-GOING  AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                 FLUE GAS  DESULFURIZATION
Title:
Contract No.:
Project Description:
                          Evaluation of Alternate Flue Gas Cleaning
                          Waste Disposal Sites
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Unknown
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
                          This project will technically and economically
                          assess the potential for using abandoned mines,
                          operating mines, and the ocean as FGC disposal
                          sites.  Small-scale field studies will be
                          initiated for those alternatives showing promise,
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Flue Gas Cleaning Waste Leachate/Soil Atten-
                          uation Studies
                          U.S. EPA
                          Interagency Agreement with the U.S.  Army
                          Material Command
                          Unknown
                          Experiments are being performed to determine
                          the extent to which heavy metals and other
                          chemicals from industrial wastes and FGC
                          Wastes can migrate through (or, conversely,
                          be attenuated by) soil in land disposal sites.
                          Currently, 13 industrial wastes and 3 untreat-
                          ed FGC wastes are included in the program.
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:


Principal Investigator:
 Project Description:
                          Flue Gas Cleaning Waste Leachate/Liner
                          Compatibility Studies
                          U.S. EPA
                          Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Army
                          Corps of Engineers

                          Unknown
                          This project will consist of physical testing
                          of approximately 18 liner materials which
                          have been exposed to 2 different FGC wastes
                                  441

-------
        Table 150  (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION

                          for periods  of 12 and  24 months.  An economic
                          study of material and  construction/placement
                          costs will also be performed.
Title:

Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Development of Flue Gas Cleaning Waste
Disposal Standards
U.S. EPA
Unknown

Unknown
The project will consist of the establishment
of criteria which can ultimately be used to
determine the best alternatives for a given
plant situation, the tentative selection (for
study purposes) of water quality standards
which could be applied to FGC waste disposal
standards or guidelines, the study of the
economic and other effects of applying the
standards selected, and drafting a prelim-
inary set of guidelines which can be used as
a basis for ultimately formulating final
guidelines and determining research and de-
velopment needed to support their formulation.
This effort is expected to take a minimum of
1 year.
Title:
Contract No. :
Kellogg Flue Gas Cleaning Waste Conversion
Pilot Studies
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  M. W. Kellogg
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Unknown

Performance of pilot studies of two process
steps which are part of the Kellogg "Kel-S"
process for converting sludge into CaC03 and
elemental S.  The process steps to be studied
are (1) the continuous drying/reduction kiln
conversion of FGC waste to CaS (using coal
as the reductant) and (2) the dissolution of
CaS and liberation of H2S.  This process
appears to represent a viable alternative to
FGC waste disposal.
                                 442

-------
       Table 150 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Title:
Contract No.;
Project Description:
Processing Lime/Limestone Wet Scrubbing Wastes
for Disposal or Utilization
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Unknown
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
This project consists of two tasks:  (1)  a
study of fertilizer production using lime/
limestone scrubbing wastes as a filler ma-
terial and (2) a study to characterize lime/
limestone scrubbing wastes physically and
chemically as a function of the operating con-
ditions under which they are produced.
Title:
Contract No.:
Principal Investigator:
                       \
Project Description:
Conceptual Design/Cost Study of Alternative
Methods for Lime/Limestone Scrubbing Waste
Disposal
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA

Performing Organization:  TVA
Unknown

This project is one of several tasks com-
prising the economic studies of major FGD
processes being conducted by TVA.   In this
study several FGD waste disposal methods and
FGD system design and operating premises will
be selected for a detailed economic evaluation
of FGD waste disposal.  Currently available
information, such as engineering cost estimates
from the Aerospace contract and fixation ven-
dor estimates from the Shawnee field evalu-
ation will be used in the initial efforts,
with updating as additional information be-
comes available.  Alternatives will very
likely include variations in mechanical de-
watering equipment, variations in treatment
(e.g., oxidation to gypsum, chemical fixation),
and variations in ultimate disposal (e.g.,
ponding, landfill).
                                  443

-------
       Table 150 (continued).
     ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
     FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION
Title:
Contract No. :
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Gypsum By-product Marketing Studies
Supporting Organization:  U.S.  EPA
TVA
Unknown

This project is one of several tasks comprising
the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) byproduct
marketing studies being conducted by TVA.  A
preliminary study conducted by TVA during early
1974 indicated the possibility that production
and sale of abatement gypsum offered a sub-
stantial economic advantage over FGD waste dis-
posal.  These new studies include a thorough
evaluation of gypsum producing processes (e.g.,
Chyoda, carbon absorption, CaS03 oxidation)
and a detailed U.S. marketing study of. abate-
ment gypsum for wallboard.  Future plans in-
clude studies of abatement gypsum for use in
Portland cement manufacture.
Title:

Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Stack Gas Pollution Control Coordination Center

RP209
EPRI
Battelle Memorial Institute
Battelle recently established an information
bank on the status of stack gas cleanup methods
being tested on a large scale at power stations.
In the current project, Battelle will focus on
specific technical problems emerging from
the Coordination Center data base and from
EPRI/Industry Workshops, and will also define
a SOX control research, development, and test-
ing program that would be most responsive to
industry needs.  The utility industry is cur-
rently operating, constructing, or planning
over 90 separate stack gas desulfurization
installations.
                                444

-------
       Table 150 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               FLUE GAS DESULFURIZATION

Title:                    Removal of Pollutants from Flue Gases
Contract No. :
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:  U.S. Department of the Interior
Principal Investigator:  . A. J. Forney, W. P. Haynes, J. P. Strakey,
                          G. Cinquegrane, and B. M. Harney
Project Description:      Research into various processes for the removal
                          of SO  and NO .
                               x       x
                                445

-------
PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES

Research and development directed to particulate control for stationary
combustion sources has been focused primarily on electrostatic precipita-
tors.  Particulate emissions from stationary combustion are primarily a
result of coal combustion.  The majority of coal is burned by the utility
sector where electrostatic precipitators have been applied to three-
quarters of the coal-burning capacity.  In recent years EPA has supported
many projects directed towards evaluating and improving the performance
of electrostatic precipitators.  Areas such as resistivity problems,
changing flow patterns, rapping losses and efficiency (both mass and fine
particulate) have been investigated by EPA and EPA contractors.  Much of
the work has been performed by Southern Research Institute including de-
velopment of a mathematical model to predict performance.  More recently,
EPRI has supported a number of projects directed towards electrostatic
precipitator performance and problems in the utility industry.

Installation of lime/limestone S0~ scrubbers in the coming years may lead
to more extensive use of wet scrubbers for partial or complete fly ash
removal.  Venturi scrubbers will be used in some cases to remove par-
ticulates before the stack gases enter the S0_ scrubber.  Some fly ash will
be collected in S02 scrubbers.  EPA is currently investigating the effi-
ciency and economics of wet scrubbers for fly ash collection.

In the last 2 years two utilities have installed fabric filters.  GCA/
Technology Division has tested fabric filters applied to utility boilers
in both Colorado and Pennsylvania under an EPA contract.  EPRI is spon-
soring further tests of the Colorado installation to be performed by
Meteorology Research Institute.

A list of new or continuing projects is presented in Table  151.
                                 446

-------
              Table 151.  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                          PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:
Contract No.
lonizer/Precipitator Fine Particulate Dust
Collection System
RP386
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  Air Pollution Systems, Inc.
Principal Investigator:   Unknown
Project Description:
This 1-year project is directed at accomplish-
ing a more effective collection of low-
conductivity fly ash from fossil-fuel-fired
boilers and fine particulate matter by imposing
a higher degree of ionization on the particles.
Scheduled to be completed by December 1975.
Title:
Contract No.
Performance Evaluation of Electrostatic
Precipitators

RP413
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  Southern Research Institute
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Unknown
Computer model studies will enable new pre-
cipitator installations to be analyzed.  The
mechanisms of electrode failure will be studied,
because these failures are a major source of
plant outages.  The study vill also consider
ash from oil-fired boilers.  Scheduled to be
completed by June 1977.
Title: '


Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Simultaneous Removal of Mercury and S02 From
Combustion and Smelter Flue Gases
U.S. EPA
South Dakota School of Mines

M. C. Fuerstenav
An evaluation of the feasibility of a process
for simultaneously removing both Mercury and

S02'
                                447

-------
        Table 151 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:



Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Assessment and Development of Control Technology
Technology Applicable to Removal of Mercury from
S02 Bearing Waste Gases

68-02-1097

U.S. EPA
Performing Organization: .Midwest Research Institute

Principal Investigator:   Dr.  I. Smith
Project Description:      Literature and bench-scale study of processes
                          for Mercury removal.
Title:
Contract No.
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Gas-Flow Modeling for Electrostatic Precipitators

RP531
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Flow Research
Unknown

The objectives of this 3-month project are to:
(1) perform a proof-of-concept study for a new
fluid dynamic collector, applicable to electro-
static precipitators, that would utilize fluid
dynamic forces to retain collected particles
and minimize rapping snd re-entrainment losses;
(2) evaluate the use of scale models and ana-
lytic models for the determination of proper
gas-flow distribution in electrostatic pre-
cipitators; and (3) provide case studies of
gas-flow modeling over the range of Reynolds
numbers expected.  Scheduled to be completed by
May 1976.
                                448

-------
          Table 151 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                  PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:
Contract No.
Electrostatic Precipitator Plate Rapping and
Reliability

RP532
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  Princeton University
Principal Investigator:  'Unknown
Project Description:
The rapping of collector plates and the depo-
sition of the collected ash into hoppers is a
key issue in the reduction of size and cost as
well as in the improved reliability and ef-
ficiency of the electrostatic precipitator for
the collection of fine particules.  This 1-year
project will be a fundamental analysis of the
structural mechanics of collector plate impac-
tion and vibration.  Scheduled to be completed
by December 1977.
Title:
Contract No.
Effects of Smoke- and Corrosion-Suppressant
Additives on Particulate and Gaseous Emissions
from a Utility Gas Turbine

RP462
Supporting Organization:  EPRI

Performing Organization:  KVB Engineering, Inc.
Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
Unknown

EPRI will perform a research program on a full-
scale gas turbine to characterize several
metallic-based fuel additives.  It is intent
of this effort to extract representative ex-
haust samples from a utility gas turbine for
analysis of particulate grain loading, partic-
ulate size distribution and composition, opac-
ity, chemical state of the additive-based trace
metals, analysis for polycyclic organic matter,
and gaseous emission levels with and without
fuel additives.  Scheduled to be completed by
December 1975.
                                 449

-------
Table 151 (continued).
                               ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                               PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:



Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
                   Development of Standard Laboratory Resistivity
                   Apparatus and Procedure for Fine Particulate
                   Characterizations

                   RP 464

                   EPRI
                   Denver Research Institute

                   Unknown
                   This 6-month project seeks a relative evaluation
                   of the various methods used to measure the lab-
                   oratory conductivity of fly ash and, if possible,
                   a determination of the best method to adopt as
                   an EPRI standard for future work.  Especially
                   with less than about 1 percent sulfur, the ash
                   conductivity becomes a vital parameter in the
                   determination of the precipitator design.
                   Scheduled to be completed by September 1975.
Title:

Contract No.

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                   Technology Evaluation of Particulate and S0«
                   Scrubbing by Alkali Powder Reactor Methods
                   RP491

                   EPRI

                   Bechtel Corporation

                   Unknown

                   The objectives of this 14-month project are:
                   (1) to evaluate the technology for dry removal
                   of particulates and sulfur dioxide by a con-
                   tactor of alkali powder; (2) to assess the
                   availability, mining, and transportation of
                   necessary raw materials; (3) to identify those
                   power stations that might benefit from the
                   technology; and (4) to conduct liaison between
                   organizations having special experience with
                   the technology.  Two variations of the process
                   are available:  dry powdered alkali on a fab-
                   ric filter and dry granular alkali in a fixed-
                   or moving-bed reactor.  Completed April 1975
                   but additional work is anticipated.
                                450

-------
        Table 151 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:



Contract No.:

Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization

Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Experimental Investigation of an Electrostatic
                          Precipitator with an Acoustic Preconditioner
                          and Using Resonant Effects

                          RP539

                          EPRI

                          State University at Buffalo, New York

                          Unknown

                          The objective of this 1-year research project
                          is to provide data sufficient to permit an
                          economic evaluation and design of a resonant
                          acoustic field as a preconditioner for the
                          efficient removal of submicron particles in
                          an electrostatic precipitator.  Two experi-
                          ments will be conducted.  In the first, the
                          optimum frequency and intensity for the ef-
                          fective coagulation of particles will be de-
                          termined.  In the second, the power savings
                          in power consumption using resonant acoustic
                          effects will be determined.
Title:
Contract No.
                          Development of Agglomerator and New Collector
                          for Electrostatic Precipitation

                          RP533
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Performing Organization:  Stanford University
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Unknown
                          This 1-year project involves basic studies
                          into means for the substantial reduction in
                          the size and cost of electrostatic precipitators
                          for the collection of fine particulates from
                          flue gases.  Specifically, the project will
                          develop two key items:  an agglomerator and a
                          nev? collector.  The agglomerator will collect
                          fine particles by interaction with coarse par-
                          ticles.  The new collector will employ advanced
                          electrical and boundary layer gas-flow tech-
                          niques and will be immunized against the effects
                          of high resistivity western fly ash.  Scheduled
                          to be completed by June 1976.
                                451

-------
        Table 151 (continued).   ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES

Title:                    Determination of the Fractional Efficiency,
                          Opacity Characteristics and Engineering and
                          Economic Aspects of a Fabric Filter Operating
                          on a Uility Boiler

                          RP534
Contract No.

Supporting Organization:

Performing Organization:

Principal Investigator:

Project Description:
                          EPRI

                          Meteorological Research, Inc.

                          Unknown

                          The purpose of this 10-month project is to
                          perform a complete engineering and economic
                          analysis of the fabric filter at the Nucla
                          Station of Colorado Ute.  This will include
                          determination of fabric filter fractional ef-
                          ficiency, opacity characteristics, and an en-
                          gineering analysis of the economics, relia-
                          bility, and maintenance of the opacity regula-
                          tions as a useful framework for comparing
                          fabric filter installations to other fly ash
                          collection devices.  Scheduled to be completed
                          by March 1976.
Title:
Contract No.
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                          Use of High Expansion Liquid Foams in Submicron
                          Particle Emission Control
                          RP362
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
                          Washington State University
                          Unknown
                          The objective of this 2-year program is to de-
                          termine the feasibility of using high- expansion
                          liquid foams to remove submicron particles from
                          stack gases.  Existing equipment will be modi-
                          fied and experiments conducted to determine the
                          relationship between operating variables and
                          collection efficiencies.  The system will be
                          modeled mathematically.
                                452

-------
Title:
 Table 151 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
	  PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
                   R&D Program for the Control of Fine Particu-
                   late Emissions from Stationary Sources
Contract No.
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Midwest Research Institute
Principal Investigator:  • L. Shannon
Project Description:
                   Evaluate existing equipment and new approaches
                   to control fine particulates.
Title:

Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                   Wet Precipitator Technology and Joint  Collection
                   of SOX and Particulates
                   68-02-1313
                   U.S. EPA
                   Southern Research Institute
                   Dr. J. P. Gooch
                   A review and evaluation of wet precipitator
                   technology, particularly with regard to the
                   joint removal of SO  and Particulates.
                                      X
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
                   Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler
                   Baghouse
                   68-02-1438
                   U.S. EPA (J. Turner)
                   GCA
                   R. Bradway
                   A field testing program to determine the per-
                   formance of coal-fired utility boiler baghouses
                   at Nucla, Colorado and Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
                   Field Testing was completed in April 1975.
                                 453

-------
        Table 151 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                PARTICIPATE CONTROL DEVICES
                     • • III  _   * INI • I ' fc -[-  — -- '     	~ •' "	 .- . -   ^ m  	^^^
Title:                    Evaluation of the Controllability of Power
                          Plants to  Meet Emission and Air Quality Stan-
                          dards and  the Convertibility of Gas and Oil-
                          fired Plants to Coal
Contract No.:             68-02-1477
Supporting Organization:  U.S. EPA
Performing Organization:  Pedco Environmental Specialists,  Inc.
Principal Investigator:    Unknown
Project Description:
Title:

Contract No.:
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Evaluation of Venturi Scrubber Systems for
Control of Particulate Emissions from a Coal-
fired Utility Boiler
68-02-1802
U.S. EPA
Meteorology Research, Inc.
Title:
Contract No.
Particle Migration Velocities in Electrostatic
Precipitators
RP363
Supporting Organization:  EPRI
Performing Organization:  Washington State University
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Unknown
The objective of this 2-year project is to
provide information required for better elec-
trostatic precipitator design and to reduce
the degree of empiricism.  Washington  State
University is the contractor.
                               454

-------
        Table 151 (continued).  ON-GOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:
                                PARTICULATE CONTROL DEVICES
Title:

Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Rapping Re-entrainment Losses from Electro-
static Precipltators
68-02-1875
U.S. EPA
Southern Research Institute
Title:
Contract No.
Supporting Organization:
Performing Organization:
Principal Investigator:
Project Description:
Fine Particle Charging System Development
68-02-1490
U.S. EPA
Southern Research Institute
                               455

-------
                      APPENDIX A

                        FORM 67
STEAM-ELECTRIC'PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
         FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,  1972
                        456

-------
m Fora 67
*•» (5-JO                                                           rOR*
   V} "'                                                           «uostr BUREAU
                                                                   No. 5«-TO08J
     STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

                  FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1972
RILL LEGAL NAME OF RESPONDENT
ADDRESS (Civ. Nu«btr, Strtit, City, SUU tnd Zip Codt)
                                                                PLANT COOEt
                                                          (USE THROUGHOUT THE REPORT)
 PUNT KAHE
PUNT LOCATION, INCLUDING COUNTY, STATE, NEAREST POST OFFICE, AkO ZIP CODE
                                REPORT TO THE
                         FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION


              Hote: This statement should be completed and filed in the

                           FEDERAL POWER CCMMISSIOH
                           555 Battery Street Room 1»15
                           San Francisco California

                             on or before May 1,  1973
           Name, title, and address of officer or other person to-whom
           should bQ addressed any communication concerning this report	
                                                       TELEPHONE NUMBER (ti»t Aril Cod*)
NAME AKO TITLE
ADDRESS
                                     457

-------
                            TABLE OF, COHTPfTS
                    PAR'LI  - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA.

 SCHEDULE A -  Fuel  Quality                                             2
   Section 1 - Plant Fuel Consumption Data                             2
   Section 2 - Plant Fuel Source Data                                 '3
 SCHEDULE B -  Operational Data
   Section 1 - Fuel Consumption at Boiler No. ___                     .5
   Section 2 - Boiler  Operation During Year, Boiler Mo.,,               5_
   Section 3 - Flue Gas Cleaning Equipment                             6.
 SCHEDULE C -  Disposal of Products Collected From Combustion Cycle
              at  Plant  .                                             7
 SCHEDULE D -  Air Quality Control, Plant Operation and Maintenance
              Expenses                                                ?
 SCHEDULE E -  Equipment (Design Parameters)
   Section 1 - Boiler  Data   .                                         . 9
   S«ctlon 2 - Flue Gaa Cleaning Equipment                            16
   Section 3 - Stack Data                                             H
 FOOTNOTES - Air  Quality Control Data                  .               12

                   PART I.I - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

 SCHEDULE A -  Operational Data
   Section 1 - Average Cooling Water Use of Plant - CFS              .14
   Section 2 - Maxinum Water Temperatures and Average Stream
               Flows During Months of Winter and Summer Systen
               Peak Power Loads                                      .14
   Section 3 - Amount  of Chemicals Used During the Year               14
 SCHEDULE B -  Operation and Maintenance Expenses, $1,000
   Section 1 - Cooling Water Operation at Plant                       1.4
   Section 2 - Boiler  Water Makeup and Boiler Slowdown treatment      14
 SCHEDULE C -  Water Use Authority and Liniting Criteria               16
 SCHEDULE D -  Cooling  Facilities
   Section 1 - General Decign Data                                    16
   Section 2 - Once Through Cooling                                   17
   Section 3 - Cooling Ponds                                          17
   Section 4 - Cooling Towers                                         17
 SCHEDULE E -  Cooling  Watar Supply
   Section 1 - Once Through Cooling                                   18
   Section 2 -  Cooling Ponds                                          18
   Section 3 -  Cooling Towers                                         18
 SCHEDULE F -  Water Treatmeut
   Section 1 -  Settling Ponds for Boiler Water Slowdown               19
   Section 2 -  Settling Ponds for Bottom Ash                         '19
   Section 3 -  Provisions for Plant Sewage Disposal                  .19
FOOTNOTES  - Water Quality Control Data                               20
                                 458

-------
                          GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(1)  An original and five-conformcd copies of this report form properly filled out and
    attested shall be filed with the Federal Power Commission on or before the first
    day of the fifth month following the close of the calendar or fiscal year for each
    plant operated by an electric utility with a steam-electric generating capacity of
    25 megawatts or greater during the year covered, provided the plant'is part of an
    electric utility system with a total capacity of !50 megawatts or more. This report
    form must also be filed for all plants with a steam-electric generating capacity
    of 25 megawatts or greater if the plants are located in a National Air Quality
    Control Region announced by the National Air Pollution Control Administration
    (Appendix A lists the National Air Quality  Control Regions) even if they are part
    of a system with a total capacity of less than 150 megawatts.

(2) Six copies of the completed form,  including the original if the report is typewritten,
    shall be returned to the Regional  Office of the Federal Power Commission indicated
    on the cover.  If more than one sheet is required for any pages label them Sheet 1;
    Sheet 2; etc. respectively.  Retain a copy of the form for your files.

(3) All entries shall be legible and the form shall be suitable for reproduction.

(4) Information shall be furnished for the calendar year. Information on equipment
    and facilities shall be reported as of the end of the calendar  year.

(5) Part I, Schedules A, B, C,  andD, and Part n, Schedules A and B should be  reported
    in full each year.  Part I, Schedule E, and Part II,  Schedules C, D, E, and F,
    should be completed for  1969 and  every fifth year thereafter  (1974, 1979,  etc.); in
    the intervening years (1970, 1971, 1972,  1973," 1975,  etc.) the data should be reported
    when equipment was: (a) placed in operation during the  year; (b) altered during the
    year (i. e.  installed,  remodeled,  removed or otherwise changed); or (c) not pre-
    viously reported.
           t
(6) Actual data are requested;  however, estimated or calculated data may be reported,
    provided all such data are noted.  Estimates should be identified by the letters "Est"
    following the entry, calculated data should be identified by the letters of "Cal."
    Estimates and calculations should be based on actual operating conditions during the
    year.  If other  conditions are assumed for  any estimates or calculations, they should
    be specified in a footnote.

(7) Inconsistencies within this form and with other FPC forms should be explained.

(8) No  deviation from these instructions should be undertaken without the approval of
    the Regional Office of the Federal Power Commission.

(9) Insert the word "none" where it is a true and complete  answer to any inquiry. Insert
    the words "not applicable"  in those sections or parts of sections which do not apply.

(10) All accounting words and phrases are to be interpreted in accordance with the
    Uniform System of Accounts for  Public  Utilities and Licensees prescribed by the
    Federal Power Commission.  To the extent possible, costs and expenses should be
    reported in accordance with the above-mentioned Uniform System of Accounts.


                                                                            rre for. 47
                                                                            «.. (6-70)
                                      459

-------
                         GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS fContMl


  (11) Additional statements inserted for the purpose of further explanation of sections or
      items should be made on durable paper conforming to this form in size and width
      or margin except for the optional plant one-line diagram which may be of a con-
      venient size as chosen by the respondent. Inserts should be securely bound in the
      report. Inserts should bear the titles of the sections and report form page numbers
      to which they pertain.

  (12) All communications concerning this-form and all requests for extra copies of in-
      dividual pages should be addressed to the indicated Regional Office of the
      Commission. Additional copies of the complete form may be obtained from the
      Federal Power Commission, Washington,  D. C. 20426 at 50 cents per copy.
                                  DEFINITIONS

   a,  "Respondent", wherever used in this report, means the electric utility, regardless
      of type of ownership,  in whose behalf the report is made.

   b.  The "capacity" of a generating unit is defined as the maximum generator nameplate
      rating at maximum hydrogen pressure.

   C.  Boilers having a "common breeching",  as used herein, means two or more boilers
      whose flue gas outlet ducts are connected to the same ductwork and stack.

   d.  The terminology and criteria for performance of the flue gas cleaning equipment
      shall  be as stated in the standards and publications of the Industrial Gas Cleaning
      Institute,  and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

   e.  The terminology and criteria for performance  of cooling towers shall be in ac-
      cordance with the standards  and publications of the Cooling Tower Institute.

  f.   The terminology and criteria for performance  of condensers shall be as stated in
      the standards and publications of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
                                 ABBREVIATIONS

      Abbreviations as used herein conform to U. S.  National Bureau of Standards
      Special Publication 304.
KCC Tar* ft
 *•* (6-70)
                                     460

-------
   STEAM-ELECTRIC-PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA


                   PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA


                         Schedules A,  B,  C, and D


                               Instructions



1. Report annually.

2.  Assign the same boiler designation to a specific boiler throughout the entire
   Part I of the form.

3.  All footnotes should be shown on page 12.

4, If more than one sheet is required for any pages label them, for example, as
   page 5,  sheet 1; page 5, sheet 2; etc,, respectively.
                                                                        m for* ft
                                                                        *•» (6-70)
                                   461

-------
•p-
o>
CO
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
CCKPHlY NAMC "
COMPANY - PLANT COOE
CLANT CAPACITY - MJ
PLANT NAMC
STATE
COUNTY
REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED
OECCMBfR Jl. U
rout OFFICL AMI «'ii' ccoi
                                                                 Schedule  A - Fuel Quality
SECTION 1 - Plant Fuel Consumption Data
R«(,-ert percent sul fur, ashf and motMure i

o
t-j
01
02
OJ
04
• e
cr-
c?
ce
09
10
11
12
.,
VONTH
JAt;.
FF8.
VAR.
AIR.
>'i1
-•;-.E
.'ol r
• 1,-j,
crp.
rcr.
NOV.
OIC.
rrn<
of coal or oil with distinctly
gilAIIJY llll'OHirO UN ' j 	 5 fll) ... "A-. b.,rr,e.l" 6.-).,
igures as weighted averages for the month to the nearest 0.1 percent (based on weight of fuel cunuuneo). Hrport f^cl
&j if quality is only available on "as received" basis, it may be so reported. If fuel represents a blend ef Jva or
different qualities* this should be described in a footnote.
COAL
CONSUMPTION
1000 Tons
(b)













DTU
per Pound













AVG. I
SULFUR
(d)














AVG. t
ASH












"
AVG. I
MOISTURE
(f)
•












0 1 L
CONSUMPTION
1000 Bbl>
(9) '













BTU
per Gal.
(h)




r








AVG. (
SULFUR
(i)








-




GAS
CONSUMPTION
1000 Vcf.
(j)













BTU
per cu. ft.
00













C"EC< fit
FCOTNOTI'
(1)














-------
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPANY NAME '
PIAHI SANE
COMPANY - PLANT CODE
REPORT fOH YEAR
DECEMBER 31,
ENDED
19 	
                                                        Schedule  A - Fuel Quality  (Cont'd)
Section 2 -  Plant Fuel Source Data
o
Z
w
z
_J
1»
1<
16
17
II
19
20
21
22

(.)
SOURCE 1
SOUPCE 2
SOURCE }
EOURCE 4
SOURCE 5
SOURCE 6
SOURCE 7
SOURCE 6
AIL otiitR
COH
SOURCE
(BUREAU OF MINES
COAL DISTRICTS)*
(b)









QUANT 1 TY
1000 Tom
U)









OIL
SOURCE
SUPPLIER **
(0)









REFINERY OR
POUT OF ENTRY •••
(«)






.

-

QUANTITY
1000 Bt>l»
(0










CHECK FOP
FOOTNOTE
M""









    •  Lilt ol Bureau of Mine* Coil Olitrlcti is attached. If tvtllable, glvt na«t and location  of «int» (in  footnota on piga 12) aupplying  aubatanlial portion*
      of  the coal uird at  th* plant and  the quantitie* tupplied bjr  each nine.
   •t  If  reiUutl oil i> delivered to  a  coeipany-wlde lank far* for  dlitrlbgtlon  to »ore than one plant, explain In footnota.
  •••  Indicate refinery by "(«)" before  refinery na«e| Port «f entry by "(P)"| Other by «{fl)".  Eaplaln "Other* in footnote.
 ••••  All footnote* ahoold bo ihown o* paje 12.

-------
     STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AER AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA


                    PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA


                      Schedule B --Operational Data


                                  Instructions

   (1) "Efficiency of  flue  gas cleaning  equipment  (tested or estimated) is  to be re-
       ported as the percent by weight of solids, or the percent by volume'of gases
       removed from the flue gas when the flue gas cleaning equipment and associated
       boiler(s) operate at design capacity, and at the capacity factor for the year.

   (2)  Efficiency of flue gas  cleaning equipment shall be reported to the nearest tenth
       of a percent.

   (3)  If a unit of flue gas cleaning equipment is multi-purpose indicate the units tested
       and estimated current efficiency in removing each emittant.

   (4)  If more than one unit  of flue gas cleaning equipment serves a boiler, show the
       data for each unit and indicate the combined efficiency and net emission rate in
       a footnote.  Report the operations of such combination of units in lines 25 - 31
       and indicate in a footnote the types of units  that are combined.

   (5)  For two or  more boilers connected with a common breeching:
       (a) Use a separate sheet number 5 for reporting individual boiler fuel consumption
          and operation during the year.
       (b) If a group of boilers is served by a common fuel feeder so that fuel consump-
          tion at the individual boilers is not obtainable, indicate in the appropriate
          space all boilers so served.
rrc For. 61
 R«. ((-70)
                                   464

-------
       STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
      	PART  I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PL*
COMPANY - PLANT CODE
                                            REPORT FOR YEAH ENOtO
                                                              DECEMBER 31, IS .
                      SCHEDULE B - OPERATIONAL DATA
  A separate sheet (including Sections 1 and 2) should be prepared for each plant boiler.
 01
    Section  1  - Fuel Consumption at Boiler No.
si
02
0}
04
OJ
06
°?
08
09
10
11
12
IT,
u
15
MONTH
(O
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
k-ARCH
APRIL
MAY
AINE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
KOVEK9ER
DECEMBER
TOTAL YEAR
COAL (j.000 Tons)
(b)













OIL (1000 Bbls)
(c)













CAS
(1000 Ncf)
(d)
.












CHECK FOR FOOTNOTE* •













Section 2 - Boiler Operation During Year, Boiler No.
Enter as appropriate the following codes 1 thru 7 in columns (b), (c)y (d), and (e),
hours of systen peak need not be shown.
Boiler Operation Code Boiler Operation^
C
L
5
U
o
X
UJ
z
U
17
18


ontinuous nociinal fi
css than full but ot

er ?5f lotd • • * 2


No*load hot atandby
No-load cold standb
Other (explain in f


lines 16, 1? and 18) Actual
Code .
. . 5


ootnote* pg> 12) • • 7
. - VEEKCArS WEEKENDS -* •
During Period
* Of SyStCR
(a)
Average for
consecut i v# four
hours of highest
output
(Code only)
ft)
WINTER FCAX wfFK
SUWI-'ER PEAK '.EEK
LOWEST PO.'EH
Average for Average for
consecutive four consecutive four
hours of lowest hours of highest
output output
(Code only) (Code only)
(c) (d)



Average for
consecutive four
hours of lowest CHECK FOB
^tput FOOTNOTE -
(Code onl.) "
(e) (0



TOTAL HCUF3 OF BOILER CPft">!IOII P"Hlf:G YtAKi . 	 ' — —
aniirp riPAflTY fArrro i»ll«uF n.iRI.'.C YFAR. f( hCEf.T : 	 ' 	 1
• If fuel consumption is for s group o< boilei-- served b, a co«»on lu.i """'"'"
s* indicate in footnote, .in. i«
    Llat all boiler numbers
    One-line diagran. .
  •• All footnotes should be shown en pag* If*
 ••• Midnight Friday t« »idniu.H Sunday.
                                  '•<«»
                                                                               FPC For. 67
                                                                               «.. 'e-70l
                                       465

-------
      STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT ADR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
      	PART  I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA	
COMPANY I.*»E
PLANT NAME
COMPANY - PL AM CODE
                                              REPCKT FCa YEAH C:.0£0
                                                                DECEMBER 51,  19
                     SCHEDULE  B - OPERATIONAL DATA (Cont'd)
Section 3 - Flue Gas Cleaning Equipment .
w
:e •
— o
-I 2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2S
30
$1
32
33
34
35
56
(0
BOILER MIW9ER
MECH1MCAL SEPARATORS*
TESTED EFFICIENCY
DATE OF TEST (YEAR/VOSTH/OAY)
ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY AT ANNUAL
OPERATING FACTOR (if no test
during year)
ELECTROSTATIC OR COMBINATION
MECHANICAL-
ELECTRICAL PRECIPITATORS:
TYPE (Code "E" for Electrostal ie,
or WC" for Combination)
TOTAL HOURS FOR THE YEAR DURING
WHICH ALL ELECTRICAL BUS SEC-
TIONS ARE ENERGIZED AND WHILE
BOILER IS OPERATING • 	
TESTED EFFICIENCY 	
DATE OF TEST (YEAR/MOUTH/DAY)
STATE NUMBER OF HOURS DURING YEAR
WHEN PRECIPITATOR IS NOT FULLY
OPERATIONAL WHILE BOILER IS
OPERATINC 	
ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY DURING
PERIODS WHEN BOILER IS OPERATING
BUT WHEN PRECIPITATOR IS NOT
FULLY OPERATIONAL
ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY AT ANNUAL
OPERATINC FACTOR ( If no Ust
during year) *
DESULFJRIZATION SYSTEK: •••
HOURS OF SERVICE DURICS YEAR • t.
TESTED EFFICIEHCY
DATE OF TEST (YEAR/MCI.TH/CAY) __.
ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY AT ANNUAL
OPERATING FACTOR (if no tist
during year)*
OTHER FLUE SAS CLEANING
TYPE (£«pl«in in footnote)
HOURS IN SERVICE DURI'.S »EAR«
BOILER NO.
M















	 — — • 	
BOILER t.:.
(O
















BOILER NO.
M



•











•H^MMUMm—l-l-IIBBWIBIIIBMVl^M-M
BOILER NO.
(«)









•






HECK FOR
COTMJTE
(O"















•••.[••••^•••l
    • E>pl*in in footnote unusual operating conditions
   ** All footnotes should be shown o<* page 12«
  *** Vhen oper»tional
FPC For* 67
 Re* (6-70)
                                         466

-------
    STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
    	PART I-AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                                     REPORT FOR YEAR ENDED
                                                      DECEMBER
                                                              19
SCHEDULE  C - Disposal of Products Collected from Combustion Cycle at Plant
Ul •
3L O
— Z
•L_
01
',!
AMOUNT OF ADDITIVES l;5EO (1000 tons')"

*
o
s=
t
— .
_j
02
UJ
••• •
SULFUR CIOXICE
OTHER SULFUR PRODUCT;..
OTHER PRODUCTS ••
LIVEStCKE
. (b)

DOLOMITE
(c)


OTHER ••
':!)

CHICK fCa
FCCTr.O'C
f,\ •••


QUANTITIES (1000 tons)'
TOTAL
COLLECTED
«...
M







SOLO
(c)







PUD
DISPOSAL
(*}







LAI.O
FILL
(e>







WATER
DISPOSAL
(0







OTHER
DISPOSAL
(o)







CHEW 'FOR
FCOTKCTE
(h) •"







** Specify in footnote • 	 . . . ipprontoitte the sum of columns. "c" through "9".
*** All footnotes should be shown on p*ge 12. «•••• [rter purity of acidr < by weight.
SCHEDULE D - Air Quality Control, Plant Operation and Maintenance Expenses
Uf
2o
_JZ
09
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
)7
\1
J,9
20

CHARGED TOi
(0
FLYASH COLLECTION At;D DISPOSAL
BOTTOM ASH COLL£CTiCK AND DISPOSAL
SULFUR A;.D SULFUR PRCCJCI COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF OTHER PRODUCTS
FRCK FLUE CAS (SPECIFY IN FOOTNOTE)
OTHER AIR QUALITY CONTROL EXPENSES (SPECIFY IN FOOTNOTE)
TOTAL AIR QUALITY CONTROL EXPENSE (TOTAL OF LIKES 09 THROUGH 13 )
REVfWFS FROV AIR CUHITY CONTROL OPERATIONS*
SALES OF FLYASH (IF SOLD AS FLYASH)
SALES OF DOTTOl' i^H (IF SOLD AS HOI TOW ASH)
SALES OF FLYAEH AI,D BOTIOM Aill (IF SOLO IMHiMIKCLEO)
SALES OF SULFUR AND SULFUR PRODUCTS
OTHER REVENUES FRCX AIR QUALITY COMROL OPERAIIONS (SPECIFY III
FOOTNOTE)
TOTAL BY-PRODUCT SALES REVENUE fROK AIR QUALIIY tONlROl
OPf RAT 'IONS (TOTAL OF LINCS 15 IHROUCH 19) iir-i 	 .,. 	 	
AMUKT
(»1000)
(b)
$











CHECiC FOR
FOOTtiO'E I/
fc5~"












I/ All footnolet ihoulll be shown on pi 9. 12.
                                                                       ff-C for* (7
                                                                       Re. («-?0)
                                  467

-------
       STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

                      PART  I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA

            INSTRUCTIONS - Schedule E - Equipment (Design Parameters)


 L Report every five years, or as specified in item (5) of General Instructions, page ii.

 2. Report separate data for each boiler and stack: Indicate which equipment and stack(s)
   are connected to which boiler by showing data for connected equipment in the same
   column.

 3. Fuel consumption should be reported as follows: Coal in tons per hour, Oil in barrels
   per hour, Gas in thousand  cubic feet per hour.

 4. Total air flow during full load is to be  reported in standard cubic feet per minute and
   also in terms of the percent of theoretical stoichiometric at 6CPF and atmospheric
   pressure.

 5. If more than one unit of one category of flue gas cleaning equipment serves a boiler,
   show the data for each unit and indicate the combined efficiency and the net emission
   rate.

 6. If a unit of flue gas cleaning equipment is multipurpose, indicate the efficiency and
   the mass emission rate for each emittant.

 7. Design efficiency of flue gas  cleaning equipment is to be stated as the percent by
   weight of emittant removed from the flue effluent when a plant and flue gas cleaning
   equipment  and the associated boiler(s) operate at design capacity.

 8. The design mass emission rate should be expressed  in pounds of particulate matter
   or pounds of SO£ (sulfur dioxide) per hour at the outlet from the flue gas cleaning
   equipment. It should be expressed in pounds  of particulate or in pounds.of specified
   other material collected under design conditions of both the plant  and the flue gas
   cleaning equipment and the associated  boiler(s), using current fuels.

 9. The flue, gas rate should be expressed  in terms of actual cubic feet per minute at
   the top of the stack.

 10. The exit gas temperature should be expressed in degrees Fahrenheit at the top
   of the stack.

 11. The exit gas velocity should be expressed in  feet per second at  the top of the stack.

 12. Cost  should be reported as the original costs recorded on the utility's books of
   accounts and unitizcd as prescribed in the FPC List of Units of Property effective
   January 1,  1961. It  is realized certain  items  called for in this report are not specifi-
   cally unitized in the referenced list of property units, In this case the most accurate
   figure available is  desired. In the case of stacks without foundation,  include the
   stack  cost  plus those added costs which are essential to the stack operation and
   support.
13. All footnotes should be shown on page  12.
 FPC for. (T
  M«  (6-70)
                                    468

-------
      STEAM-ELECTRIC  PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
     	PART  I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PLANT  NAME
COMPANY  - PLANT CODE
                                                         REPORT  fta YEAR ENDED
                                                                               DECEMBER 31,  19.
SCHEDULE  E - Equipment  (Design Parameters)
 PL£A3£ CIRCLE T^: APPROPRIATE '.UVHCRl

   (1) Regular Plant Report
(2)  Placed in Ope

(3)  Altered during
*tion duri«g  year
                (4) Not  previously  reported
                (5) Amended report
    Section  1 -  Boiler Data
       __..	(a)
    BOILER NO.
        (b)
BOILER -10.
    (O
                 BOILER WO.

                    (d)
BOILER NO.

    (e)
                                                             CHECK FOB
 01
    BOILER  KUV3ES(S)
 02 SERVED BY  STACK NUMBER

 03 RELATED TO GENERATOR NUMBER
 0« BOILER MANUFACTURER (Code is shown below)

 05 TEAR BOILER PLACED  IN SERVICE

    ASSCCIATEO TURBO-GENERATING CAPACITY
 06   (Megawatts)

     MAXIMUM CONTINUOUS  STEAM CAPACITY
 07    (Thousand pounds/hour)

      DESIGN FUEL CONSUMPTIONl  IQCjt BATING

 08  COAL (Tons/hour) 	
 05  RESIDUAL  OIL (Barrels/hour)	
 JQ  GAS  (Thousand cubic feet/hour) ,...,.

         PERCENT  BOILER EFF4CIENCY

 11  AT  100J LOAD	
 12  AT  75* LOAD	
 lj  AT  50} LOAD

           A IB FLOW AT  100? LOAD

     TOTAL AIR, 'STANDARD CUBIC  FEET/MINUTE
 14    (incl.  Excess Air)

 15  PERCENT^ EXCESS AIR USED	

     WET  OR DRY BOTTOM - (Code  as "Wet" or
 16    "Dry")(For Coal only)

     FLYASH REHUECTION -'(Code
 17    "Yes" or "No")       	^

     TYPE OF FIRING (Code  as
 18    shown below)*"       	
      • BOILER KAriUFACTURERSi
        BSW - The Babcock  S vi'lcox Cc.
        CE - Combustion Engineering,  Inc.
       ERIG - Erjie City Iron Workt
        FW - Foster Wheeler Corp.
       RILY - Riley Stoker Corp.
       VOOT - Henry Vogt Machine Co.,  Inc.
       OTHE <• Othtr (Specify  in footnou)
      *•  All footnote* should be »ho»n on ptje 12.
                  ••• TYPE Cf FIRING  (where applicable, use
                       •or* than one code):
                     PCFR ~ Pulverized  Coali  Front  Firing
                     PCOP - Pulverized  Coal:  Opposed Firing
                     PCTA - Pulverized  Coali  Tangential Firing
                     CYCL - Cyclone
                     SPRE - Spreader Stoker
                     OSTO - Cther Stoker
                     FLUI - Fluidized 3«d
                     RfRO - Residual Oil:  Front Firing
                     ROPP - Residual Oili  Opposed Firing
                     RTAN - Residual Oili  Tangential Firing
                     OFRO - Sas: Front  Firing
                     COPP - Casi Opposed Firing
                     GTAN - Cast Tangential Firing
                     OTHE - Other (Specify in footnote)
                                                                                                 fPC fora (7.
                                                                                                  «.. (6-70)
                                                   469

-------
        STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                            PART  I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPANY NAVE
 LAM
COMPANY  - PLANT coot
                                                             REPORT FOR TEAR ENDED
                                                                                  DECEMBER 31,  19
                 SCHEDULE  E  - Equipment (Design Parameters) - Continued
 Section  2  - Flue Gas Cleaning Equipment Data
                                                     BOILER NO.
                                                         (tO
                                                               BOILER NO.
                                                                  (c)
BOILER NO.
   (d)
                                                                                           BOILER NO.
CHECK FCR
FOOTIJOTf
  ... y
      BOILER NUMBERS (Enter sane Boiler  Numbers 41
        indicated on page  S, line 01)
               flA'E CtS CLSAMM
 19   TYPE  (Code as shown  below)* ....................
 20   DESIGN  EFFICIENCY (Percent) ................. ...
 21   MASS  EKISSIOU RATE (Founds per hour)** .........
 22   YEAR  PLACED III SERVICE .........................
 23   INSTALLED COST (Thousands of dollars)"* ........
 2*   MANUFACTURER (Code as shown below)"" ....... '.. ,
              ELECTROSTATIC AND CO'ai'.JTIfl.
           MECHANIC4L-ELECTRI Cil PPECIHTtTORS
 25   TYPE  (Code as "E" or "C") .....................
 26   DESIGN  EFFICIENCY (Percent) .............. .• .....
 2?   HASS  EKISSICIi RATE (Pounds per hour)" .........
 28   YEAR  PLACED IN SERVICE .........................
 29   INSTALLED COST (Thousands of dollars)**' ........
 50   MANUFACTURER (Code as shown below)**** .........
                0£SULFURI?ATlON SYSTEM
 31   TYPE  (indicate b/ footnote) .....................
 32   DESIGN  EFFICIENCY (Percent) ....................
 33   HASS  EMISSION RATE (Pounds per hour)** ..........
 34   YEAR  PLACED IN SERVICE .........................
 35   INSTALLED COST (Thousands of dollars)*" .......
 36   MANUFACTURER (Specify in footnote)  .............
           OTHER FLUE  OS CLEANING EQUIPMENT
 37   TYPE  (indicate by footnote) .....................
 38   DESIGN  EFFICIENCY (Percent) ....................
 39   MASS  EMISSION RATE (Pounds per hour)** .........
 40   YEAR  PLACED IN SERVICE ......................... .
 41   INSTALLED COST (Thousands 0* dollars)"* ........
 42   M:;i!FACTUR£R (Specify in footnote)
     I/All footnotes should be  shown on page i2»
     * Mechanical  Collectors -  Type (if nore tlun  one typ« is used in • scries,  indicate til' explicable codes »nd
       explain in  footnote)*
                                                             CTCl * Sirti^ht-througn-flow cyclone*
                                                             IVPE - Impeller  ccHector
                                                             VENT -, .et collectorl Venturi
                                                             wtIC - '.el Collector: Other  (Specify in footnote)
                                                             BACH - Bajhouie  (Fabric Collector)
   GRAV - Gravitational or  baffled chanper
   SCTA * Sin9le cyclone-Conventional reverse  flow,
          tangential inlet
   SCAX - Single cyclone-Conventionsl reverse  flow,
          axial inlet
   KCTA - Multiple cyclones-Conventional reverse
          flow) tangential  inlet*
   KCAI - Vulliple Cyclones-Conventional reverse
          flow; a>itl inlet
•• Pounds per hour « Grains/Actual Cu.Fl./ I /Actual Cu.Fl.Vol./Hr./
                                                             01 HE - Other (Specif/  in  footnote)
   •** S*t  Instruction 1?,  pa;)* $•
  • ••• Flut Cas riftmi.ii fi|ui|irri>t f*nufictur*rs  (r.«* ptigr 11 for CoU*»)
FPC forei 67
 Re. (6-70)
                                                 470

-------
         STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT ALK AND WATER QUALITY CQ/UlROL DATA
        	PART  I - AER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPANY NAME
PLANT HAKE
COKPANT - PLANT CODE
                                                          REPORT fCR
                                                                        ENDED
                                                                             DECEMBER 31,
          SCHEDULE  E - Equipment (Design Parameters) -  Continued
Section 3 - Stack Data
Ul
Ij 2
«5
44
<5
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
5*
55
56
5?
f.1
STACK NUMBERS
INSTALLED COST (Thousands of dollars) ( 1 nitruct ion
12, fig, 8) 	
STACK HEIGHT (Feet above Ground Elevation)
INSIDE DIAMETER OF FLUE AT TOP (inches)
FluE CAS RATE (CUBIC FEET/MI(;UTE)
AT 100J LOAD 	 	
AT 751 LOAD 	
AT 50* LOAD 	 	 	
em G« TfPERjTuftE (DECREES FSP.ENHEIT)
AT 100J LOAD ,
AT 75? LOAD . 	
AT 50* LOAD 	
EXIT CAS VELOCITY (FEET/SECOKO)
AT 100? LOAD
AT 75* LOAD 	
AT 50* LOAD 	
DISTANCE TO NEXT STACK, CENTER TO CENTER
(FEET)-' 	
ORIENTATION OF LINE OF STACKS - DEGREES CLOCK-
WISE FROM. TRUE NORTH*'
STACK
NUMBED
(b)















STACK
Nuvers
M















STACK ,
NUVBER
(dl















STACK
NUMBER
(e)















CHECK FC1
fOCTKCTE-
(f)















   All footnotes should be shown on ptge  12.
   Show position of sticks by stack number to correspond with the identificition in  lin« 4J. Enter tru* north on
     the diigri*.

      Sttcks Orientition DiagrtBI
   FLUE GAS CLEAN!»S EQUIP. MANUFACTURERS (See  pg. 10]
   AAFC - American Air Filter Co., Inc.
   AMST • American Standard,  Inc.
   BELC - Belco Pollution Control Corp.
   BUEL - Buell Engineering Co.,  Inc.
   DUCO - The Ducon Co., Inc.
   FIKL - Fischer-Klosternan, Inc.
   FULL - Fuller Co., Draco Product*
   KIRK - Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Co.
   KOPP - Koppers Co., Inc.
   PPCI - Prtcipitair Pollution Control,  Inc.
   PAOA - Precipitation Associates of America, Inc.
   PLVR - Pulverizing M.rf.nery Division
   COTT - Researc' CoC.rell,  Inc.
   SVRS - S*ver«<:r tlectronaton Corp.
   gOP   »'7i- Air Correction  Division
TORI  - The Torit Corp.
WEST  - Western Precipitation Division
WHEE  - Vheelabrator  Corp.
ZURN  - Zurn Industries, Inc.
OTHE  - Oth«r (Speoif» in footnoU)
                                                                                                FPC fort (7
                                                                                                 ««.  (4-70)
                                                471

-------
4>
•vl
N>
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART I - AIR QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPANY NAVE
PLANT NAME
COMPANY - PLANI C00£ JHEPORI FOR YCAR CNOEO
FOOTNOTES
f(
rise

JOTNOK i
SHECT

'ORi
LINE

FOOT
COLUMN

NOTE
TEXT
•

-------
     STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

                PART II - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

        (Applicable to Nuclear and Fossa Fueled Steam-Electric Plants)
                            Schedules A and B

                               Instructions

 1.  Report annually.

 2.  All footnotes should be shown on page 20.

 3.  General instructions on pages i and ii also apply to this part of the form.

                       Schedule A - Operational Data

                               Instructions

 1. In Section 1,  the cooling water withdrawals  should include amounts taken from lakes,
    reservoirs,  streams, wells, estuaries and the ocean. When a utility-owned cooling
    pond is used, show only the makeup quantities taken from the supplying water bodies.
    The discharges should include the amounts of water returned to the water bodies.

 2.  In Section 2, the maximum temperature "at diversion" refers to the water temper-
    ature in the water body prior to any effect by the plant or diverting facilities. The
    maximum temperature "at outfall" refers to the water temperature of the cooling
    water immediately before it joins the water body. It includes the  effects of  all
    devices  used to reduce the temperature.

                 Schedule B - Operation and Maintenance Expenses

                                Instructions

 1.  The operation and maintenance expenses in Section 1 should include such expenses
    for pumps,  ponds,  cooling towers,  fans, cooling water intakes and outlets, piping,
    and other costs associated with cooling water operation. The operation and main-
    tenance expenses for condenser  operation should not be included.  Costs should be
    in accordance with the FPC Uniform  System of Accounts prescribed for Public
    Utilities and Licensees.

2.  The cost of chemical additives should be excluded from the operation and main-
    tenance expenses and shown separately as indicated.
                                                                      FPC form (}
                                                                       *t» (6-70)
                                    473

-------
      STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AER AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                   PART  II - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
     	(Applicable to  Nuclear and Fossil Fueled Steam-Electric Plants)
                                                               FUR YEAR tSOEB
                                                               DECEMBER Jl, 19.
PL AM M
                                                         COMPANY - PLANT CODE
    CAF-ACIIY - My
                       iUIE
                                      COUNTY
                                                      POST OFFICE AND 2IP CCOE
                       SCHEDULE  A -OPERATIONAL DATA
Section 1 - Average Annual. Cooling Water Use of Plant - CFS
u>
X *
— o
_* z
01
02
03
M
AVERSE PATE CF WITHCR«««L FROM WATES BODY O'JRING YEAR
AV-S:;: ^AT£ CF OlSCHASiE TO WATER BODY CURIW YEAR
AVEBAC; R*TE CF CMSU*rTi;\ CUR INS YEAR
M



CHECK FOR
FOOTNOTE •
V,



Section 2 - Maximum Water Temperatures and Average Stream Flows
Durintr Months of Winter and Summer System Peak Power Loads
WINTER PEAK LCAO MONTH **
o
z
w
3E
—1
01
MAJIMUH TEMPERATURE
°e
AT
OIVERSICN
(a)

AT
OUTFALL
Tb)

MONTHLY AVERAGE
FLOW IN RECEIVING
HATER BODY, CFS
(e)

SUKWER PEAK LOAD WONTH ••
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE
f
AT
DIVERSION
(d)

AT
OUTFALL
f.l

MONTHLY AVERAGE
FLOW IN RECEIVING
WATER BCOY, CFS
(f)

CHECX FCR
FCOTMIE •
(?)

Section 3 - Amount of Chemicals used During the Year
UJ
Z .
3S
05
06
(a)
COCLINS ^ATCR
BOILER WATER
MAKEUP
PHOSPHATE
LBS.
(b)


CAUSTIC
SODA LSS.
(c)


HYDRAZINE
GALS.
M


LIME
LBS.
(«)


ALUM.
LBS.
(f)


CHLORINE
IBS.
M


OTHER
M


CHECK FCR
FOOTNOTE •
0)


     SCHEDULE  B - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES,  SI, OQO
Section 1 - Cooling Water Operation at Plant
*>
z •
— 0
J 2
0?
08
(.)
ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
ANNUAL COST OF CHEMICAL ADDITIVES
(b)


CHECK FOB
FOOTNOTE •
(t)


Section 2 - Boiler Water Makeup and Boiler Slowdown Treatment
u
X •
— CJ
W-i
09
10
(.)
ANKUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
ANNUAL COST OF CHEMICAL ADDITIVES
M

•
CHECK FCR
FCCTT;:TE •
(c)


   All footnotes should be shown on ptgr 20*
 ** Speci fy month.
FPC For* 6?
 «t» (6-70)
                                     474

-------
    STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

                 PART H - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA

                             Instructions

                       Schedules C, D, E. and F

1.  Report every five (5) years,  or as specified in item (5) of General Instructions, page L

2.  If more than one sheet is required for any pages label them, for example  as paee 16
   sheet 1; page 16, sheet 2; respectively.                                           '

3. Assign the same unit designation to a specific unit throughout the entire Part II of
   the form.

4. All footnotes should be shown on page 20.

            Schedule  C - Water Use Authority and Limiting Criteria

1. Footnote and explain if equipment for monitoring cooling water temperatures is
   located at other than points of diversion and outfall.

2. If requested distances do not properly define mixing zone, footnote and describe
   in necessary detail.

                       Schedule  D - Cooling Facilities

1. In Section 1, footnote and explain any seasonal use of cooling facilities.

2. Show by footnote in Section 3 if spray ponds are used.

3. The costs called for in Sections 2, 3, and 4 should be reported as the original' costs
  ' reported on the utility's books of accounts and unitized as prescribed in the FPC
   List of Units of Property effective January 1, 1961. In case  certain items'are not
   specifically unitized in the referenced list of property units, the most accurate
   figure available is desired. The costs should include amounts for  such items as
   pumps,  piping, canals, ducts,  intake and discharge structures, dams and dikes,
   reservoirs, cooling towers,  and appurtenant equipment.  The  costs of condensers
   should not be included.

4. In Section 4, show the water  cooling range-as the number of degrees (F)  the water
   is designed to be cooled in the cooling equipment.

                       Schedule  E - Cooling Water  Supply

1. The dependable flow requested is the seven-day average low flow discharge expected
   to occur not more frequently than once in 10 years.

2  In Section 2, include such other uses of cooling ponds as fishing, boating,  camping,
 " hiking,  residential development,  and industrial development.
                                                                       rn ror« <7
                                                                        »« (C-70)
                                     475

-------
       STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT Am AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                   PART II - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COUPMl* NAME
PLANT NAME
COMPANY - PLANT CODE
                                         REPORI FCR TEAR ENDED
                                                         DECEMBER Jl,
         SCHEDULE C - WATER USE AUTHORITY AND LIMITING CRITERIA
tu
z <
— c
01
02
0}
0*
UJ
z .
— o
05
06

OB
• („>
ISSUING AU'HORITIES OF LICENSES OR -t'wiISl CCL'HIY, STATE, FEDERAL,
OR OTHER. LIST AND DESCRIBE AU'HCRITIES IN FOOTNOTE.
FREQUENCY OF TEMPERATURE MONITORING "OF COOLING WATER EFFLUEMr
CONTINUOUSLY (C), HOURLY (H), DAILY (0), OR OTHER (0).
FOOTNOTE AND EXPLAIN IF OTHER.
DISTANCE »ix IKS zr';r EMENDS c~j:i~ £•.-". FT.
DISTANCE MIXING ZONE EXTENDS F?> :-t=E, FT.
' '•}
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TEWERAtURE RISE'CF COOLING WATER (°F)
AT OUTFALL TO RECEIVING WATER BCDY
AT LIMITS OF DEFINED Ml X!.',: ZCNE
HAXIMUH ALLOWABLE TEMPERATURE CF CCSuUS WATER (°f)
JT C'JTFALL TO RECEIVI'.'G WATER BDC"
AT LIMITS OF DEFINED MIXINi ;C!.E
(b)




SUMMER
(b)




WINTER
(c)




CHEC'. FCH
FOOTWE •
(c)




CHECK FOR
FOOTMTE •




                        SCHEDULE D - COOLING FACILITIES
SECTION 1 - GENERAL DESIGN DATA
iu
— c
_J 3!
09
10




11
12

1}

14

(«)
6ENERAT1NG UNIT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
RATED GENERATING CAPACITY, MW
TYPE COOLit.G: ONCE-THROUGH, FRESH (OTF)l
ONCE-THROUGH, SALINE (OTS): COOLING POND
(CP)l WET COOLING TO.'ER (wCT)l DRY
COOLING TOWER (OCT)i COMBINATION (C8).
FOOTNOTE AND EXPLAIN COKBINAT IONS.
YEAR COOLING FACILITIES INSTALLED
DESIGNED TEVPEflATUBE RISE ACROSS THE
CONDENSER, Of
DESIGNED RATE OF FLOW THROUGH THE CONOEKSfR,
CFS

(b)













(c)













(1)













(«) '













FOOTNOTE •
(f)












 •  ALL FOOTNOTES SHOULD BE SHOWN CK PACE 20.
fPC for. 67
 *«. (6-70)
                                   476

-------
PART II - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
,
PL*. I ;>M£
COMPANY - PLANT CODE

RFHORT fW T£«« EliOCO
0-CiuBER 51. 19
SCHEDULE D - COOLING FACILITIES - Continued
z.
t_J
x
_J
n
16
11
13
1.3
20
2i
<:£
23
21
25
SECTION 2 - ONCE THROUGH COOLING
(«) '
cmr-.eo RATE CF WITHORAWL AT FULL iP^o, crs
i:,-AKE LGCATICf.S: i/
a, HECTIC'; FROM cEi.ua OF PLAI;T, CESREES
C:C'A:;CE F=j'> CENTER CF PLANT, FT.
;;5TA:.CE FRC'-' S'iCaE, F~ .
iVtSiCj^ DISTANCE B£LO» «t'ER Su°FAC-:, FT.
CLTFiLL LCCA'ICfiSl \]
CIPECTICf. FROM Crr.TER CF PLAMT, CtGRcES
CISTA:.CC FRC1-' CCr.TER Cr PLA'tT, FT.
DISTANCE FRO1.1 SICHE, FT.
AVESAGE OISTA-.Cc BELC« /ATER SURFACE, f .
./ ARE DIFFUSERS USED? FOOTNOTE A;,0 DESCRIBE
1 F "YES."
INSTALLED COSTS, $1,000 ••
(b)











(c)





"





(a]











(*)











CHECK COS.
tOOTNOtJE^"
(0











ar
z
z
-J
25
2?
?S
SECTION 3 - COOLING PONDS
(»)
TCTS!_ SU?-"ACE ASEA, ACRES
"CTAt VCL'.VE, Av.fiE-fE£T
'•;ST;LLE; :CS'S, $1,000 **

M




(c)




(d)




(e)
-


CHECK FOR
FOOTNOTE •
(0



o
z
z
.J
29
1C
n
» 2
71
3*
SECTION 4 - COOLING TOWERS
(.)
T>PE CR1F7-VECKAMCAL (•'), NATURAL ,:.)
LE':CTH, IF AFPllCA3i.Er FEET
«ioT4 cs DIAMETER AT BASE, FEE"
HEIGHT, FEET
.A*ER rcCLII.C RANGE, °F
IHS1ALLEO COSTS, $1,000 **_. 	 	 	 	
fb)






(c)






(d)







(.)






CHECK FOB
FOOTNOTE '
(f)






 U  ALTHJUiH KOT REQUIRED, A SKETCH SHO.'.'.S THE LAYOUT CF THE COOLIHC SYSTEM IS DESIRABLE.
 •   ALL FOOT:.OTES SHCJLO BE SHOWN c:. PAGE 20.
«•   S» instruction }, SchtiluU 0, ptgt 15.
                                                    477

-------
       STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
                    PART II - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COHPANY NAME
PLANT SAME
COMPANY - PLASt CODE
                                            REPORI FOR
                                                        ENDED
                                                             DECEMBER 31,  19_
                      SCHEDULE E - COOLING WATER SUPPLY
SECTION 1 - ONCE THROUGH COOLING
0
z
w
z
_*
01
02
05
SOURCE(S)
OF
WATER
(0



?-OAY, 10 TEAR
DEPENDABLE FLOW
CFS .
00



AVERAGE
FLOW
CFS
(c)



GENERATING UNITS
SERVED
NO
(t)



NO
(«)



NO
(»)



NO
(S)
f


CHECK FOR
FOOTNOTE •
00



FOOTNOTE A.'.O EXPLAIN ANY DISCHARGE IliTO A DIFFERENT BODY OF WATER, AND .HEN DISCHARGE IS OTHER THAN
DOw;.STREAM FROM WATER INTAKE LOCATION.
SECTION 2 - COOLING PONDS
0
z
UJ
z
^
04
05
06
07
08
SOURCE(S)
OF
WATER
(0



7-DAY, 10 YEAR
DEPENDABLE FtOW
CFS
(b)



AVERAGE
FLOW
CFS
(c)



GENERATING UNITS
SERVED
KO
(•!)



KO
(O



NO
(*)



NO
(«)



PERIOD OF YEAR Pt>,0 IS USED FOR COOL IKS
OTHER USES OF PCI.O
CHECK FOR
FOOTNOTE •
M






SECTION 3 - COOLING TOWERS
O
2
Ul
z
— J
09
10
11
12
J1
TOWER
NO.
(a)





.SOURCE(S) OF
MAKEUP WATER
(b)





PERIOD OF YEAR
USED FOR COOLING
(c)





LOCATION OF
SLOWDOWN
DISCHARGE
(
-------
STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANT AIR AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
PART 0 - WATER QUALITY CONTROL DATA
COMPAN
PLANt
COKPA;,


a
x
*
01
02

NAVE
1 - PLAUI CODE




REPORT fO« IlUt tf.UEO
DECEMBER 31, 19 _^
SCHEDULE F - WATER TREATMENT
ECTION 1 - SETTLING PONDS FOR BOILER WATER SLOWDOWN
(a)
FIRST PCNO
SECC'.O P0\0
EVACUA'ICN PRCCES'JRE AND
FREQUENCY OF CLEANING
i'ETHOO
(b)


jiwES PER YEAR)


EST IMTED
PH
(0


SUSPENDED
SOLIDS !>**


OICCMARCE
VOLl'^E CU.
FT. PER YR.
' (0


t,»ye OF
WATER BODY
RECEIVINO-
THE DISCHARGE

1
CHEM f:»
FOCTNC'E •
M


SECTION 2 - SETTLING PONDS FOR BOTTOM ASH
i
UJ
X.
H
03
04
d
2
UJ
yt
3
0=;
06
;o
FIRST FOr.D
SECOI.O PCKO
EVA^UAfluf, FRvt-twUM^
AND fRE?UESCY CF CLEAMKS
KETHOO (TIKES F£» YEAR)
M (e)

•
(a)
FIRST POKD
SECCr.D POSO
EST I^AT £0
H
p
(<)


S'JSPEt.OEO
SOLIDS PF8
(«)


SOURCE CF SLUICIM;
AND CLEiMIiS rfATER
(b)


DISCHARGE
VOLUME -CU.
FT. PER YR.
(f)


NAME OF
WATER BODY
RECEIVING
THE DISCHARGE
(9)


AKOUNT Of ASH TREATED
TONS PER YEAR
(e)


CHiCH FOR
FOOTKCTE •
M


CHECK FOR
FOOTKCTE •
(0)


SECTION 3 - PROVISIONS FOR PLANT SEWAGE DISPOSAL
UJ
z .
_ o
07
g
UJ
X
OR
O"
10
CODE
(a) M
CODE FOR PUBLIC SEWER (PS), SEPTIC TANK (ST J SURFACE «ATER
BODY (SW), OR CTHER (OT). FOOTNOTE IF OTHER AND EXPLAIN.
EFFLUENT TREATMENT OESIGNi
CO
BEFORE TREATMENT
AFTER TREATMENT
•-AIER SCOY RECEIVIN5 THE OISCHARSE
BOD
PPM
(b)


H
l>
(c)


PHOSPHATES
PMM
(O


OTHER
(«)



CHECK FOR
FOOTNOTE •
(c)

CHECK fOR
FOOTNOTE •
(0



•   *Lt FOOTNOTES SHOULD  8E SHOWN ON PAGE 20,
                                                                                                FCC For* S?
                                                                                                 •t. (t-?0)
                                                 479

-------
                              APPENDIX B
          FUEL CONSUMPTION BY MAJOR USE CATEGORIES AND LOCATION

This appendix provides information concerning the consumption of various
fuels used by the electric utility, industrial, commercial/institutional
and residential use categories.  Data are presented for fuel use by state
and region.

The purpose of these tables is to provide input data on a statewide basis
to the priority model.  The ratio of state to national fuel consumption
can be used to estimate emissions by state from national emissions pre-
sented in the summary tables.
                                 480

-------
                             Table 152.  ELECTRIC UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE
oo

U.S. total
Key England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Kiddle Atlantic
Now Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
Vest North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota*
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
South Atlantic
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
External combustion
Bituminous
103 tons/yr
372,598
1,107
29
0
13
1,031
0
34
45,236
2,349
5,716
37,171
131,589
32,255
26,700
19,614
43,018
9,972
27,816
2,845
1,031
6,898
15,353
1,329
0
355
75,230
928
260
6,553
10,710
Anthracite
103 tona/yr
1,460
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,460
0
0
1,460
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o •
Lignite
103 tons/yr
12,500
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,400
0
0
0
0
0
6,400
o •
0
0
0
0
0
Residual oil
103 gol/yr
19,584,050
3,231,415
1,138,103
189,800
1,733,534
77,823
92,000
155
5,430,934
1,552,979
3,199,897
678,058
732,741
252,296
21,950
362,078
59,229
37,188
120,047
9,723
42 , 534
37,769
19,059
4,571
77
6,314
5,630,587
229,131
210,654
2,663,335
135,155
Distillate oil
103 gal/yr
1,117,817
5,232
4,826
0
0
0
406
0
0
0
0
0
140,871
48,561
16,310
51,815
11,568
12,617
75,567
14,667
12,524
27,398
11,048
8, -8 14
440
676
45,833
3,202
0
0
7,690
Gas
106 ft/yr
3,124,690
9,940
C
0
6,600
0
1,900
1,440
25.80Q-
7,700
12,700
5,400
103,400
26,700
9,100
33,000
13,200
21,400
330,700
53,800
153,200
31,200
41,700
42,700
0
3,100
. 186,820
640
0
132,000 '
37,400
Internal combustion
oil
103 gal/yr
2,229,210
102,325
35,470
6,250
43,728
5,341
1,532
9,999
1,051,217
406,392
472,393
172,432
357,442
182,820
7,735
61,772'
75,539
29,576
92,623
11,482
12.470
45,893
12,255
9,416
179
933
450,345
8,841
11,100
138,346
122,024
Gas
106 ft/yr
265,214
797
0
626
0
171
0
0
35,021
• 7,279
25,371
2,371
63,095
15,993
4,731
22,779
7,358
12,234
33,345
6,832
5,896
9,009
5,692
4,832
380
504
48,800
248
0
21,221
5,324

-------
                         Table 152 (continued).  ELECTRIC  UTILITY FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE'
oo
10

South Atlantic
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
East South Central
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
Heat South Central
Arkansas
Loulelana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico .
Utah
Wyoming
Pacific
California
Oregon
Washing ton
Alaska
Hawaii
External combustion
Bituminous
103 tons/yr

3,865
19,636
5,446
4,933
22,899
62,387
18,513
22,037
1,181
20,656
2,696
0
0
2
2,694
23,017
463
4,321
0
585
3,812
7,415
971
5,450
3,076
0
0
3,076
444
0
Anthracite
103 lons/yr

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
Lignite
103 tons/yr

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,700
0
0
0
5,700
400
0
0
0
400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Residual oil
103 gal/yr

978,505
212,939
159,830
1,018,365
22,623
84,253
0
4,687
79.566
0
682,706
318,769
143,096
7,476
213,365
77,319
232
25,024
0
2,750
18,788
15,069
12,667
2.789
3,263,658
3,261,024
542
2,092
232
330,158
Distillate oil
103 Eal/yr

0
14,643
17,524
2,774
0
169,851
0
909
168.942
0
410,146
13,850
172,380
3,399
220,517
230,868
195,770
1,890
0
5,808
5,656
21,320
424
0 •
39,449
22,491
0
16,958
0
0
Gas
106 ft/yr

3,500
390
12,200
320
370
44,690
4,900
4,990
34,800
0
1,960,800
38,800
334,000
283,000
1,305,000
185,540
25,600
63,300
8
0
28,200
64,600
3,100
730
277,000
27 7 ,.000
0
0
0
0
Internal combustion
Oil
103 gal/yr

66,356
27,096
31,351
44,451
780
55,094
37,694
246
3,130
14,024
10,795
751
3,775
3,406
2,863
38,820
29,012
5,740
52
750
943
911
195
1,217
36,282
14,134
20,422
1,726
24,002
10,260
Gas
106 ft/yr

9,938
314
9,126.
2,637
0
8,999
0
422
7,645
931
22,702
427
3,725
7,365
11,183
22,287
14,317
2.276
0
1,595
2,122
1,352
161
463
14,285
12,645
1,641
0
15,883
0

-------
                                       Table 153.   INDUSTRIAL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE

U.S. total
New England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pcnnsy Ivanla
East North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
West North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Bituminous
103 tons/yr
62.928
1A1
49
8
61
8
8
7
8068
78
2318
5672
27429
4261
5253
5954
9346
2615
5323
1459
414
970
1424
414
321
321
Anthracite
103 tona/yr
364
6.0

1

2

3
342
121
1.
220
8.778
0
0
0
7.000
1.778
1.222
0
0
1.222
0
0
0
0
Lignite
103 tons/yr
2,866
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
0
0
0
0
800
0
RcsMu.il oil
103 r.nl/yr
8,443,281
1,090,110
305,718
317,310
336,672
60,942
52,458
17,010
1,847,832
638,400
427,476
781,956
1,336,440
506,478
467,124
136,962
184,968
40,908
356,076
5,250
62,622
205,044
51,492
4,074
24,738
2,856
Distillate oil"
103 gal/yr
3,024,840
119,196
41,538
15,960
46,998
5,166
6,132
3,402
369,936
113,736
111,216
144,984
580,860
100,842
107,940
108,654
240,324
23,100
173,166
36,073 '
17,598
36,498
54,432
13,774
3,864
5,922
C.-,sa
106 £t3/yr
8,875,600
64,800
19,000
4,500
27,500
4,500
4,800
4,500
562,400
82,700
127,800
351,900
1,669,900
431,500
239,300
338,900
438,800
171,400
629,900
134,100
175,500
119,300
120,600
72,300
2,000
6,100
Bagasse
103 tons/yr
4,319
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wood
103 tons/yr
28,645
1.376
0
1,298
3
24
0
51
154
0
0
154
472
1
48
0
9
414
106
0
0
87
15
0
0
4
00
OJ
          'External and Internal combustion combined.

-------
Table 153 (continued).  INDUSTRIAL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE

South Atlantic
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Geornia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
East South Central
Alabama
Kentucky
Missifsippi
Tennessee
West South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
Ncv Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
gaclflc
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska

Bituminous
103 tons/yr
12,311
925
259
388
388
925
1,440
1,106
2,516
4,364
6,278
2,311
1,868
0
2,099
252
40
30
32
150
2,418
137
536
295
295
137
18
754
246
245
13
232
463
0
Anthracite
10 tona/yr
5.000
3.000
0
0
0
0
1.111
0.889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.333
0
0
1.333
0
0
Lignite
103 tons/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
66
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Residual oil
103 gal/yr
1,941,954
154,132
2,940
359,352
305,172
305,298
292,068
165,144
341,623
16,170
196,812
92,988
31,878
58,968
12,978
473,088
79,254
99,582
53,508
240,744
290,157
106,302
19,57?
1,365
37,800
18,774
•34,482
47,418
24,444
839,412
502,362
115,458
221,592
22,764
48,636
Distillate oil
103 gal/yr
477,834
10,584
1,134
65,436
67,284
69,384
103,152
50,442
80,684
29,734
205,086
60,060
42,924
30,492
71,610
363,678
28,644
102,312
55,440
177,282
313,698
10,122
38,724
30,996
56,910
1,680
21,924
113,862
39,480
398,454
246,582
72,618
79,254
11,970
10,962
Gas
106 ft3/yr
733,000
10,200
61,700
97,000
175,100
61,700
98,100
87,700
54,900
85,600
537,100
161,200
77,500
137,800
160,600
3,462,000
180,200
1,103,100
141,900
2,036,800
374,400
65,900
87,700
-
38,700
10,600
61,200
58,400
51,900
342,100
660,000
60,100
122,000
15,200
230
Bagasse
10 tons/yr
740
0
0
740
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
470
2
468
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,100
Wood
103 tor.s/yr
8,288
0
0
2,034
2,236
0
2,ol5
677
626
0
2,821
872
68
1.264
597
4,058
2,111
1,624
0
323
1,800
0
2
1,166
632
0
0
0
0
9,466
1,359
4,336
3,771
104
0

-------
                        Table 154.  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL  FUEL  CONSUMPTION  BY  STATE
00

U.S. total
Mew England
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Illinois
Ind inna
Michigan
Ohio
Wiscons in
West North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Bituminous
1Q3 tons/yr
4,519
47
14
0.75
30
0.75
0.75
0.75
737
59
21
657
2,046
245
284
349
789
379
343
35
8
198
56
5
20
21
Anthracite
10-* tons/yr
2,118
2.9
0
0
0.6
0
0
2.3
2,088
111
229
1,748
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Residual oil
103 a
-------
                   Table 154 (continued).  COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE
oo
-
South Atlantic
Delaware
District, of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
East South Central
Alabama
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
West South Central
Arkansas
Lnuiu iana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mounta In
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Utah
Wyoming
Pacific
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii
Bituminous
10-* tons/yr
581
6
4
13
14
26
238
160
120
0
585
40
0
31
514
0
0
0
0
0
180
0.62
112
37
30
0.29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Anthracite
103 tons/yr
21
11
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
o •
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
Restdunl oil
103 Ral/yr
872,046
44,772
213,234
106,890
104,664
221,676
83,874
8,400
71,442
17,094
60,984
40,866
8,862
2,772
8,484
73,122
19,614
630
4,410
48,468
84,336
0
25,662
6,930
8,736
3,402
2,814
23,436
13,356
399,966
133,098
138,852
128,016
546
3,528
Distillate oil
103 gal/yr
867,636
51,282
35,023
125,496
84,420
138,432
204,246
38,976
181,440
8,316
484,428
128,604
83,938
109,158
162, /08
807,744
80,724
99,540
86,352
541,128
347, SOS
34,230
70,938
27,426
17,472
8,904
66,360'
80,388
41,790
414,162
408,114
6,048
0
0
0
Gas
10° ft3/yr
170,300
2,400
3,200
26,800
35,800
26,500
18,500
13,100
26,600
17,400
119,100
28,300
34,700 '
21,400
34,700
221,800
31,000
41,500
32,900
116,400
139,600
22,300
51.000
7,400
13,900
9,500
18,800
6,300
10,000
190,400
157,800
10,000
221,000
8,400
0
Wood
1C3 tons/yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.4
0
2.5
3.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63.4
0
63.4
0
0
0

-------
                                 Table 155.   RESIDENTIAL  FUEL CONSUMPTION BY STATE
oo

U.S. total
New England
Connecticut
Matne
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
East North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
West North Central
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Bituminous
103 tons/yr
5,189
13.18
9
0.5
2.71
0.32
0.45
0.20
0
0
0
0
1413.4
689.3
165.6
212.1
267.2
79,2
208
9.2
8.1
49.2
135.4
6.1
0
0
Anlhracl te
103 tons/yr
2,904
55.6
6.3
8.3
26.9
3.5
1.3
9.3
2211.7
41.4
435.3
1735.0
340.6
64.0
40.9
100.0
127.9
7.8
10.6
0
0
10.6
0
0
0
0
I.tRnite
ID3 tons/yr
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
Distillate oil
103 g.-il/yr
16,244,690
2,993,390
713,790
375,280
1,300,120
240,490
213,140
150,570
6,012,720
1,048,880
3,676,150
1,287,690
2,878,260
541,660
445,780
698,230
480,730
711,860
1,288,170
278,830
10,220
623,680
118,800
54,110
143,460
109,070
Gas
105 fc3/yr
5,371,472
131,111
32,872
3,723
87.371
2,360
3,294
1,491
793,322
139,673
353,845
299,804
Wood
103 tons/yr
4.875
155
9
80
13
25
0.3
25
127
8
67
52
1,602,710 279
476,975
178,511
360,730
455,844
130,650
622,483
112,965
112,068
125,168
184,513
60,455
10,886
16,428
28
57
61
45
88
502
16
25
98
327
12
3
21

-------
                           Table  155  (continued) .   RESIDENTIAL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY  STATE
•p-
oo
00

South Atlantic
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Marylund
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
lEast South Central
AlaV-ma
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tennessee
West South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Texas
Mountain
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
Ktw Mexico
Utah
Wyaong
Pacific
California
Oregon
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii
Bituminous
103 tons/yr
851.7
0
20.5
24.7
20.0
0
143.3
69.9
330.3
243.0
1450.5
11.6
314.0
7.7
1117.2
883.1
90.6
170.0
120.0
502.5
337.6
.074
56.5
72.
72.
.016
0
187.
22.
32.
0
20.
12.
0
0
Anthracite
103 tons/yr
103.2
5.4
0
0
0
25.4
0
0
8.8
63.6
132.3
0
132.8
0
0
17.6
1.8
3.4
2.4
10.0
11.1
0
0
0
0
0
4.7
0
6.4
20.4
0
0
' 20.4
0
0
Lignite
103 tons/yr
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
Distillate oil
103 gal/yr
2,018,480
90,160
69,530
115,510
37,860
438,030
566,310
186,410
472,990
41,630
131,690
9,860
1,620
73,920
46,290
10,120
2,450
1,470
1,270
4,930
208,300
2,350
11,640
99,770
43,310
27,42(5
3,140
16,000
4,670
703,560
18,110
225,730
459,720
0
0
Cas
106 Ct3/yr
407,427
8,828
0
29,863
99,703
91,038
36,309
28,443
56,442
56,796
268,281
72,205 •
93,863
49,158
53,055
555,609
2,450
104,016
92,363
289,943
290,867
38,579
109,222
12,193
27,773
10,325
24,491
51,588
16,696
694,331
631,354
24,471
38.506
5,331
0
Wood
103 tons/yr
-1,380
6
1
39
350
49
350
247
300
38
994
270
198
200
326
469
287
40
81
88
337.7
66.8
14.7
58.3
56.4
12.9
109.6
10.
9.
604.
168.0
263.1
173.0
0
0

-------
                               APPENDIX C
              TRACE ELEMENT CONTENT OF ASH COLLECTED BY USE
                     CATEGORY  (TONS/YEAR) AND OF FUELS

The trace element content  of ash  collected in the utility, industrial,
commercial/institutional and residential sectors is presented in Tables
156 through 159.  These tables, in conjunction with the state fuel con-
sumption figures in Appendix B, can be used to estimate the trace element
content of the solid waste contribution of specific combustion systems.
Table 160 presents the trace element content (ppm) of the various -fuels.
These values have been used as the basis for the emission estimates pre-
sented in the text and for the derivation of Table 156 through 159-
                                  489

-------
Table 156.  ELECTRIC GENERATION: ASH TRACE ELEMENTSC

Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Bituminous
138
12,000
11,500
670
279
14,800
0
99
0
4,000
1,300
3,500
0
1,200,000
2,200
13,000
5
1,000
4,100
310
83
28
265
163,000
4,200
7,700
6,100
15,300
Anthracite
0.11
10.9
72
3.3
0.11
1.1
0
1.0
0
131
118
83
0
8,900
8.4
15.3
0.4
11
55
0.1
0.11
0.11
1.1
650
0.4
13
36
63
Lignite


3,100
2.1
15
380
0

0
38
50
77
0

51
520

14.5
26



27


75
•
140
900
       Tons bottom ash  and  collected fly ash, 1974.
                      490

-------
Table 157.  INDUSTRIAL:  ASH TRACE  ELEMENTS2

Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Situminous
28
1,200
1,600
100
42
2', 200
0
17
0
600
150
530
0
130,000
390
150
1.4
160
600
90
13
4.2
41
25,000
640
1,200
930
1,900
Anthracite
0.025
3.6
18
0.94
0.025
0.28
0
0.028
0
37
28
23
0
2,100
2.7
4.3
0.001
3.6
15
0.022
0.028
0.028
0.28
190
0.076
4.0
10
15
Lignite


710
0.51
4.4
96
0

0
9.6
9.8
19
0

15
9.0

3.6
6.4



6.9


20
30
190
   aTons,  1973, bottom ash and collected
   fly  ash.
                  491

-------
Table 158.  COMMERCIAL: ASH TRACE ELEMENTS'

Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V

Zn
Zr
Bituminous
1.9
100
130
8.5
2.6
140
0
1.5
0
62
13
45
0
12,400
32
60
0.069
13
52
3.8
i.o
0.35
3.4
2,140
54
99

77
161
Anthracite
0.21
20
120
6.0
0.21
2.1
0
0.21
0
240
160
150
.0
14,000
18
28
0.058
20
100
0.13
0.21
0.21
2.1
1,200
0.54
26
e
63
96
      Tons 1973,  bottom ash.
                 492

-------
Table 159.  RESIDENTIAL: ASH TRACE ELEMENTS3

Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bi
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Ti
U
V
Zn
Zr
Bituminous
2.5
166
190
12
5
273
0
2
0
74
19.6
65
0
18,000
46
18
0.007
19
74
4
1.6
0.5
5
3,000
77
143
112
Anthracite
0.3
30
172
9
0.3
3
0
0.3
0
359
270
224
0
20,000
27
42
0
30
148
0.2
0.3
0.3
3
1,790
0.8
39
98
240 1 I43
Lignite

Distillate
2.4
0
30
0.02
0.2
5
0
0
0
0.5
0.44
0.82
0

0.6
0.4
0
0.15
0.3



0.3


0.9
1.2
8
1 	 	


0

0


1.6
0


0.36






30




_l -.._j....i....
  aTons bottom ash.
                      493

-------
                                        Table 160.  TRACE ELEMENTS IN FUEL, ppm
VO

Sb
As
Ba
Be
Bt
B
Br
Cd
Cl
Cr
Co
Cu
F
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Mo
Ni
Se
Te
Tl
Sn
Tl
U
V
Zn
Zr
Bituminous
0.5
28.0
36.0
2.0
1.0
53.0
15.0
0.4
1500.0
14.0
4.0
13.0
81.0
3500.0
9.0
46.0
0.2
4.0
14.0
3.0
0.3
0.1
1.0
589.0
15.0
28.0
22.0
47.0
Anthracite
0.10
10.00
58.00
3.00
0.10
1.00
1.00
0.10
1500.00
120.00
90.00
75.00
110.00
6800.00
9.00
182.00
0.30
10.00
50.00
0.20
0.10
0.10
1.00
600.00
0.30
13.00
33.00
48.00
Lignite
*

303.0
0.2
1.6
41.0
0.1

2000.0
4.1
4.0
8.0


6.0
31.0

2.0
3.0



5.0


9.0
12.0
80.0
Residual
0.04
0.30
0.67
0.09

0.11
0.17
2.02
16.23
1.78
2.24
10.00

7.25
0.04
2.08
0.02
2.30
50.07
0.14



5.41
1.40
57.14
0.19

Distillate

0.04




0.01
.



0.03



0.13






0.49






-------
                               APPENDIX D
                     AIR AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AIR POLLUTANTS
 Standards
 Certain contaminants have been classified  by  law as pollutants and for
 which maximum allowed ambient levels  have  been established by the U.S.
 Environmental Protection Agency.   Table  161 contains a list of these
 ambient air standards.
Ambient  air quality standards  are  to  be  achieved by regulatory activities
as  specified in state implementation  plans  (SIP's) and approved by the
U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency.  The  SIP's contain emission stan-
dards for  various  types  of emission sources  and pollutants.  In addition,
the Federal government has promulgated new  source performance standards
for important classes of emission  sources such as coal burning boilers,
petroleum  refineries  and incinerators.   The  NSPS promulgated for stationary
fossil fuel boilers by the EPA are exemplified in Table 162.  State emis-
sion  standards  for several western states,  some of which are stricter
than  the Federal standards,  are presented in Table 163.

WATER POLLUTANTS

Standards

The EPA has  published proposed criteria  for water quality  for various
                                               3
types of aquatic environments.   These criteria,  which are  listed  in

                                 495

-------
                                                                    Table  161.    AMBIENT  AIR  STANDARDS'
vo
Species
SOX (as S02)



Farticulate


Carbon monoxide

Oxidant (as Oj)

HOX (as N02)



Nonmethane
Hydrocarbons
(as CH4)
Averaging
period*
AAM
24
8
3
ACM
24
8
8
1
8
1
AAM
24
8
1
8
3™
Air quality standards
Primary
80(0.03)
365(0.14), Ix


75
260, Ix

10.000(9), Ix
40,000(35), Ix

160(0.08), Ix
100(0. 05) L




160(0.24), Ix
Secondary
60(0.02)
260(0.09), Ix

1,300(0.49), Ix
60h
150, Ix

10.000(9), Ix
40,000(35), Ix

160(0.08), Ix
100(0. OS)1




160(0.24), Ix
Episode levels0
Alert

800(0.30)



375

17,000(15)


200(0,1)

282(0.15)

1,130(0.6)


Warning

1,000(0.33)



750

34,000(30)


800(0.4)

565(0.3)

2,260(1.2)


Emergency

2,100(0.79)



1,000

46,000(40)


1,200(0.6)

750(0.4)

3.000(1.6)


Industrial
healthd>e
TLV


13,000(4.9)



-(15)
55,000(47)

200(0. I)3



9,000(4.7)

-(16)

                                        'format  for  each  entry is as follows:  STANDARD vig/m  @  760 mmllg & 20°C (Equivalent Value, ppra).  The maximum allowable
                                        cxceedance rate,  if any, follows.  This refers  to  the maximum number of times  per year that the standard may  be
                                        exceeded.  For example, Ix means the standard may  be exceeded only once per year.

                                        ^''National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards," Federal Register 36, No. 84, pp 8186-8201.

                                        '"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans," Federal Register, 35, No. 158,
                                        pp  15486-15502.

                                        ^"Occupational Safety and Health Standards,  National Concensus Standards and Established Federal Standards,"  Federal
                                        Register, 35, No. 105, pp 10466-10714.

                                        '"Occupational Safety and Health Standards - Miscellaneous Amendments," Federal Register, 36, No. 157, pp 15101-15107.

                                        fThe averaging period is given in hours unless  otherwise specified.  AAM means Annual Arithmetic Mean Value and ACM
                                        •eans Annual Geometric Mean Value.

-------
Table 162.  PROMULGATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS -
            POWER PLANTS
   Source category and pollutant
 Fossil-fuel-fired steam generating
  with >63 x 106 keal/hr (250 x 10*
        Btu/hr) of heat input
 Coal-burning plants

  Particulates


  Sulfur dioxide


  Nitrogen  oxides  (as  NO )


 Oil-burning plants

  Particulates


  Sulfur dioxide


  Nitrogen  oxides  (as  N02>


 Gas-burning plants

  Particulates


  Nitrogen  oxides  (as  Nt^)
      New source
 performance standard
(maximum 2-hr average)
0.18 g/10  cal heat
input (0.10 lb/106 Btu)

2.2 g/106 cal heat
input (1.2 lb/106 Btu)

1.26 g/106 cal heat
input' (0.70 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/10b cal heat
input (0.10 lb/10b Btu)

1.4 g/106 cal heat
input (0.80 lb/106 Btu)

0.54 g/106 cal heat
input (0.30 lb/106 Btu)
0.18 g/10  cal heat
input  (0.10 lb/106 Btu)

0.36 g/106 cal heat
input  (0.20 lb/106 Btu)
  aAt this time there is no NSPS for N0x emissions from lignite-
  fired steam generators.
                          497

-------
  Table  163.   EMISSION  STANDARDS  FOR NEW COAL-
                FIRED  POWER PLANT  IN THE WESTERN
                UNITED STATES2.a
State
S02
lb/106 Btu
Particulate
lb/106 Btu
NOX
Xb/106 Btu
                        Federal standards

1.2
0.10
0.70f
                         State standards
New Mexico
Nevada
Arizona
Montana
Missouri
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Dakota
Colorado
Minnesota
Washington
Nebraska
Idaho
Kansas
North Dakota
Texas
lova
Wyoming
California
Utah
0.34
0.40
0.80
1.00
1.17
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.28d
1.75
2.33
2.50
2.78
3.00
3.00
3.00
6.00b
_ e
0.15b
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.10b
0.10
0.12
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.40
0.20.
0.15b
0.14
0.14b
0.27b
0.30
0.60
0.10b
0.45
_ c
0.70
_ c
_ c
0.70
0.70
_ c
0.70
0.70
_ c
_ c
0.67
_ c
0.90
_ c
_ c
_ c
0.70
No statewide standards, local standards vary
i i
No standards
 Standards given are those in effect  in May 1975.  Where plant
size affects  the emission standard, values are based on 500 MW.
All standards have been converted to  units of lb/10^ Btu.  Con-
versions from gr/dscf, where performed, were based on combustion
of coal having a noisture-free analysis of 65 pet carbon and
10,800 Btu/lb,  burned with 30 pet excess air.  County standards
are not included in this table.

 The units presented in the regulation are "Ib/hr/MM Btu."

 Indicates there are no statewide standards.

 Effective January 1, 1980, S02 is restricted to 0.35 Ib/MM Btu.

 The current  Wyoming 503 emission standard applied to sulfuric
acid plants.   There is no current standard for power plants.

 The Federal  Standard for KCx does not apply to lignite.
                          498

-------
Table 164, includes not only  chemical  pollutants but also bilogical
contaminants, heat  (temperature  limits)  and other pollutant forms.
Effluent standards  for many source  classes have been proposed and are
promulgated by the  U.S. EPA.  Proposed effluent standards for steam
electric power generating  point  sources  have been published (see Sec-
tion E of this Appendix).
Organic Pollutants

Organic pollutants  are  particularly  troublesome because'of their high
activity with other water  stream  contaminants.  A prime example of this
type of interaction is  the large  concentration of "possibly carcinogenic
chlorohydrocarbons  recently found in the New Orleans drinking water
supply.   This  situation was  brought about by the chlorination of pro-
cessed industrial water containing significant concentrations of hydro-
carbons.  Thus,  the presumably  beneficial effect of chlorine addition
to the drinking water supply  may  have been negated by its subsequent
reaction with the low level contaminant.

Various organisms are able to methylate mercury by oxidizing the elemental
metal to its divalent state from  which it reacts with naturally occurring
hydrocarbons to form methyl mercury.  Similar reactions also occur with
elements such as cadmium and  selenium.

SOLID WASTE POLLUTANTS

Of the three pollutant  media, air, water and solid, the emissions and
effects of emissions in the solid state are least understood.  In fact,
the delineation between solid effluents and solid contaminants remains
a gray area.  One is often faced  with the vexing question - Does solid
waste used as landfill  constitute pollution and, if so, at what stage?
In general, a solid waste  pile  can be considered neutral (other than
as perhaps an eyesore)  with respect  to the ambient environment until the
                                 499

-------
                              Table 164.  TABULAR  SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA"
Constituent
pH
Alkalinity
Acidity
BOD
Al
HH,
Sb
A*
Ra
».
Bi
'
»r
Agriculture
(Irrigation)
4.3-9.0
—
—
No limit
5.0 mg/1
20.0 mg/1
(20 yr«)
—
—
0.10 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
(20 yrs)
*
0.1 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
(20 yrs)
—
0.75 mg/1 Sen.
1.0 mg/1 Seml-
Tol.
2.0 mg/1 Tol.
—
Agriculture
(livestock)

—
--
—
5.0 ng/1
—
—
0.2 ng/1
—
No limit
—
S.O mg/1
—
Freshwater
(aquatic life)
6.0-9.0
751 natural level
Addition of acids
unacceptable
—

1/20 (0.05)
0.61? Bg/1
—
--
-~
— —
—
•
~
Freshwoter
(wildlife)
6.0-9.0
30-130 mg/1
—
—

— •
~
—
"—
~ *•
—

~~
Freshwater
(public supply)
5.0-9.0
No limit3
No Unit
—

0.5 ng/1
—
0.1 og/1
1.0 og/1
"•"
~
1.0 Bg/1
"~
Marine water
(aquatic life)
6.5-8.5
—
—
—
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr LC5Q
1.5 mg/1
1/19 LD50
0.4 ng/1
1/50 (0.02)b
96-hr LC50
0.2 og/1
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr LC50
0.05 mg/1
1/20 (0.05)
LD50
1.0 tng/1
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr LC50
1.5 mg/1
No limit
1/10 (0.1)
96-hr LC50
0.1 vg/1 (free)
100 ng/1 (Ionic)
Recreational waters
Acceptable -
6.5-8.3
Must be -
5.0 - 9.0
—
—
—

~
—
"*
•••

—

w
o
o

-------
Table 164  (continued).  TABULAR SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA'
Constituent
HC03
Cd
Cl
(free)
C12
(Chloride)
Cr
CO
Cu
(CM)
r
V
r«
pb
u
Agriculture
(irrigation)
No limit
0.01 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
(20 yrs)
No limit
Ho limit
0.1 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
(20 yrs)
0.05 mg/1
S.O 
-------
                       Table 164  (continued).   TABULAR SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA:
Constituent
Ha
Hg
Inorganic
Bg
Organic
Ko
«l
(N03)
(H02>
r
s*
Ka
*4
Agriculture
(irrigation)
0.20 ng/1
10.0 og/1
(20 yr.)


0.01 ng/1
0.05 ng/1
0.2 mg/1
2.0 mg/1
(20 yrs)
No limit
—

0.02 ng/1
No limit
—
Agriculture
(livestock)
Ho limit
1.0 Mg/1
«MK>
No Halt
«••
100 mg/1
Combined
(NOj) & (N02)
10 ng/1

0.05 Dg/1
—
— •
Freshwater
(aquatic life)
——
0.2 ug/1
Tot. cone.
0.05 ug/1
Avg. cone.
0.5 ug/g
Body burden
Cone. Total Hg
0.2 ug/1
Tot. cone.
0.05 ug/l
Avg. cone.
0.5 ug/g
Body burden
Cone. Totl. Kg
—
1/50
96-hr LC_0
""*
—

—
—
•••
Freshwater
(wildlife)
—
O.S vg/g
In fish

—
"
"
—

—
—
"
Freshwater
(public supply)
0.05 ng/1
0.002 ng/1
Total

—
™"
10 mg/1
1 »g/l
No limit
0.01 ng/1
No Unit
0.05 Dg/1
Marine water
(aquatic life)
1/50 (0.20)
96-hr LC50
0.01 Dg/1
1/100 (0.01)
•
1/20 (0.05)
96-hr LCJO
1/50 (0.02)
96-hr LC,.-
0.1 Bg/lio
~
—
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr LC,»
0.1 ug/1 °
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr LC5Q
0.01 mg/1
—
1/20 (0.50)
96-hr LC50
5.0 ug/1
Recreational water*
—


—
~
"
—
25 ug/1
Lakes & res.
50 ug/1
At conflueaca
100 ug/1
Streams
—
—

O
ro

-------
                        Table 164  (continued).   TABULAR SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA"
Constituent
Tl
U
V
Zn
Viruses
Micro-
Organlsma
Fecal
Conforms
Dissolved
Solids (tot)
Hardness
Suspended &
Settleable
Solids
Temperature
Agriculture
(irrigation)
— —
—
—
•—
~
--
1000/100 ml
2000-5000 mg/1
(Tolerant)
500-1000 mg/1
(Sensitive)
—
No Unit
No Unit
Agriculture
(livestock)
— —
-—
0.1 iag/1
25 mg/1
—
5000 coli- .
forms/ 100 ml"
20.000/100 al"
1000/100 ml"
4000/100 mlb
"
—
~
*•
Freshwater
(aquatic life)
™
— •
—
3/1000 (0.003)
96-hr LCSO
—
™

Bloassay*
(See T.D.S.)
80 ng/1
•
Freshwater
(wildlife)
—
—
—
~-
—
2000/100 nl
2000/100 nl
"
—
—
(Minimized)
maintain nat-
ural pattern
Freshwater
(public supply)
~
™
—
S ng/1
No limit
10,000/100 ml
2000/100 nl
No limit
No limit
— —
Not to detract
from potability
Marine vater
(aquatic life)
1/20 (0.05)
96-hr LC50
0.1 ng/1
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr. LC5Q
0.5 ng/1
1/20 (0.05)
96-hr LC50
1/100- (0.01)
96-hr LCSQ
O.l.mg/1 "
—
— •

"
—
-—
2.0 (3.6F)9-5
1.0 (1.8F)6-8
Recreational waters
—
—
—
—
—
—
2000/100 ml avg.
4000/100 al max.
log mean 2n
200/100 ol
<10Z samples in
30 days to exceed
400/100 ml
"
—
— •
66 P
Ul
o

-------
Table 164  (continued).  TABULAR SUMMARY OF  WATER QUALITY  CRITERIA
                                                                 ;3
Constituent
Toxic
Algae
Botulism
Pesticides
Da la poo
TCA
2.4-D
Insecti-
cide*
Turbidity
Carbon
Adsorbable
Foaming
Agents
NTA
Phenols
Color
Agriculture
(Irrigation)
~
"""

0.2 ug/1
0.2 v&ll
0.1 pg/1
Ho Unit
—
—
M
—
—
Agriculture
(livestock)
Heavy growth of
blue-green not
accepatble
—
See Public
Water Send*.
. ..
—
**
—
._
—
:
—
~
Freshuater
(aquatic life)
— —
—
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr t,C50
Those for which
no toxlclty date
available
—
~
..
—
<10Z change In
C.P.
—
1
—
Comp. pt. not
changed by >10X
Freshwater
(wildlife)
No limit
Minimizes fac-
tors which pro-
mote disease

—
—
~
DDT 1 ag/kg
wet weight
—
—

—
™
Freshuater
(public supply)
—
—

Silvex 0.03
2,3,5-T 0.002
0,02 VB/1
Organophos-
phates 0.1 ng/1
Ho Unit
0.3 mg/1 CCE
1.5 CAE
0.5 mg/1
(ABS)
No limit
1 Mg/1
75 platinum-
cobalt unit*
Marine water
(aquatic life)
—
— •
1/100 (0.01)
96-hr «50

~
—
—
—
—

—
•"~
Recreatiooal waters
— -
—

~
--
•••
—
Clarity - 4 ft.
Secchi
— •

—
"***

-------
                     Table 164  (continued).   TABULAR SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY CRITERIA"
Constituent
Radio-
activity
Salinity
D.O.
Sulfate
Sulfide*
Detergent*
Oil*
Phthalste
Ester*
PCB'e
Tainting
Substance*
Odor
Light
Agriculture
(Irrigation)
See Federal
Drinking Water
Standard*
•~
~~
—
—
•Mk

—
"
—
~
—
Agriculture
(livestock)
See Federal
Drinking Water
Standard*
3000 ng
soluble
•alts/1
— ••
—
—
~~

—
"
--
—
—
Freshwater
(aquatic Ufa)
See Federal
Drinking Water
Standard*
--
See Table
Section V
—
0.002 mg/1
1/20 (0.05) (LAS)
96-hr LC50
0.2 mg/1 max.
No vlslblo oil
1/20 (0.05)
96-hr LD5Q
Hexonc extract-
able sediment*
1000 mg/kg
0.3 Mg/1
0.002 Mg/1
(In. water)
0.5 pg/g
(in tissue)
Tables 314
—
—
Freshwater
(wildlife)
~
No rapid
fluctuation
—
—
--
"-
No visibl*
floating oil*
—
Ho Increase
—
—
<10% change
in C.P.
Freshwater
(public oupply)
See Federal
Drinking Water
Standards
—
No limit
saturation
preferred
250 Dg/1
—
—

No Unit
No Unit
~
Free
—
Marine water
(aquatic life)
See Federal
Drinking Water
Standards
~
6.0 ng/1
~
—
~
No film or odor
No tainting of
fish
No onshore oil
deposit
—
~
—
—
—
Recreational water*
—
—
—
—
—
~

—
•w
—
—
—
*"No  Holt," where it appear* in this table,  refer* to constituent* that were addressed but for which it vaa  indicated that insufficient data existed
for prescribing  limits.
bLCjQ values are the concentration levels which if exceeded over the tine period specified will prove fatal to 50 percent of fish.

clf cooper or zinc 1* present > 1 Bg/l, then  AT - 0.001 LC$o>

 Average Of a •Inlenu* of 2 *uple* per Bonth.

'individual •*•?!*.

-------
constituents of the waste pile interact with air, water (ground or
surface) or soil.  Since solid wastes are often placed in clay, asphalt,
rubber or plastic liners, these cross media effects often have a long
time lag before environmental degradation begins.  Therefore, in assess-
ing solid waste effects, factors such as liner breakage, diffusion rates
through liners, evaporation rates, leaching rates, and runoff composition
must be estimated in order to determine which solid effluents eventually
appear in which media and at what rates.  For these reasons there are
no emission or ambient solid waste standards; however, effluents to air
and water which are initially removed as solid waste must be taken into
account in emissions to the former media.

Since solid samples are considerably more difficult to analyze chemically
than air or water samples, solid waste piles are usually characterized
by broad parameters such as pH, BOD, COD, anion content, bilogical param-
eters, etc.  Leaching rates from solid waste piles determine the magnitude
and type of solid and water pollution.  Since leaching rates range from
almost nothing to 100 feet per year depending upon soil type, runoff,
ground water levels, and liner permeability, pollution problems associ-
ated with solid waste disposal may develop immediately or may have time
lags of several years from plant start-up dates.

Ground and surface water pollution from sanitary landfills occurs through
two different leaching processes.  The first process  is the dissolving
of solid and liquid pollutants present in a landfill by excess water  and
their subsequent transportation out of the fill  into  surface or ground
water reservoirs.  The second process is the solution of (XL produced by
bacterial action on organic compounds, in the ground water adjacent  to
the fill, and the consequent solution of minerals, mainly carbonates  and
bicarbonates, resulting in excessive alkalinity  and hardness of the  ground
water.
                                 506

-------
OTHER POLLUTANTS

Thermal Water Pollution  '

Introduction - A power plant can release heat into the environment in
several ways.  Some of the heat generated during fossil fuel combustion
will escape through stacks.  An even greater amount is lost to cooling
water used in condensers.  The amount of heat rejected to cooling water
represents about 45 percent of the heating value of fossil fuels used
in the most efficient plants.  Overall, more than 80 percent of all
thermal water pollution  in the United States comes from electricity gen-
               9                       10
erating plants.   It has been predicted   that by the year 2000 the
electric power industry will require four times as much cooling as was
needed in 1965, thereby  presenting a potential fourfold increase in
thermal water pollution.  In the cooling process heat can be released
directly to a nearby body of water or indirectly via water droplets
evaporated from a cooling tower.

Effects11'   of ThermalPollution

The deleterious effects  of higher than ambient water temperature are:
    (a) Decreased dissolved oxygen content;

     (b) Increased reaction rates between primary contaminants
        which yield secondary  pollutants;
     (c) Lethal or harmful effects on  fish and other aquatic
        organisms;
     (d) Harboring of pathogenic disease causing organism;
     (e) Decrease in attractiveness of recreational waters;
     (f) Adverse effects on adjoining  land ecology;
     (g) Decreased crop growth  and yields due to decreased
        effectiveness of irrigation water;
     (h) Decreased ability of surface  waters to self-purify.

                                507

-------
 The last effect is a direct result of (a) since dissolved oxygen is
 necessary to oxidize organic pollutants.  An example  of harmful effects
 upon aquatic organisms is the rate of shell growth of the clam  Meroenaria
 mercenaria  as a function of temperature which peaks at 20 C  and falls
 off symmetrically with a half width at 12°C.
 Standards - Since surface water temperatures vary widely with  geographical
 location and climate, no fixed criteria for ambient temperatures  can be
 set.  However, standard regulating thermal discharges  have been proposed.
 The following conditions are considered to detract from water  quality:

    •   Water temperature higher than 85°F (29.4°C);
    •   More than 5 F water temperature increase in excess  of that
        caused by ambient conditions;
    •   More than 1 F hourly temperature variation over that caused
        by ambient conditions;
    •   Any water temperature change which adversely affects the
        biota, taste, odor, or the chemistry of the water:
    •   Any water temperature variation or change which adversely
        affects water treatment plant operation (e.g.,  speed of
        chemical reactions, sedimentation basin hydraulics, filter
        wash requirements, etc.);
    e   Any water temperature change that decreases the acceptance
        of the water for cooling and drinking purposes;
    •   Any irrigation water temperature which significantly in-
        fluences soil temperature.
Cooling Tower Plumes - As a result of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, once-through cooling systems have begun to be replaced by
several alternative heat removal techniques.  Among these alternatives
are cooling towers which are basically air-water heat exchangers which
allow for the transfer of much of the cooling water heat content to
ambient air.  One of the principal environmental disadvantages of cool-
ing towers, particularly the more common wet variety, is the formation of
visible plumes of water droplets.

                                 508

-------
The more serious visible pollution associated with plume formation are
ground level fog,  icing, snow  formation and salt deposition.  These
effects, as well as the extent of the  plume, are functions of ambient
temperature, wind  conditions, water droplet composition, cooling tower
emission rate, and relative humidity.

A frequently invoked, yet  incorrect, criteria for plume visibility is
the attainment of  100 percent  relative humidity.  In fact, three pro-
cesses lengthen the visible part of the plume:  nonuniform distribution
of water vapor droplets in the plume,  finite droplet evaporation time
and droplet vapor  pressure lowering due to dissolved condensation nuclei.

Visible pollution  resulting from plume formation is generally quite
localized and becomes problematic only in certain situations, such as
low level fogging  of a highway or interference with airplane navigation.
Natural fog formation is generally more common and more severe.
Noise
Noise can be defined as unwanted sound or sound without intrinsic value.
In general, the higher the noise level the larger the disturbance and the
more intermittent, the greater the annoyance.  Some of the complex effects
                                                         13
of noise pollution, considered important by the EPA, are:

    •   Hearing damage;
    •   Other health effects such as alteration of the function
        of the endocrine, cardiovascular, and nervous system;
    •   Behavioral effects such as interference with concentra-
        tion ability;
    •   Sleep interference;
    •   Communication interference;
    •   Effects on animals;
                                  509

-------
While there are no federal regulations proposed for ambient noise levels,

                                    14
the EPA has identified noise levels,   which, if exceeded, may be dele-


terious to the public health and welfare.
                               510

-------
     EFFLUENT  GUIDELINES  AND  STANDARDS.FOR  STEAM  ELECTRIC  POWER
     vCc, „**.„ ^            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR STEAM ELECTRIC  POWER GENERATING
              40 CFR  423; 39 FR  36186, October  8,  1974,  Effective November 7  1974- 40 FR
         7095, February 19, 1975: 40 FR 23987. June  4, 1975)
  TMe 40—Protection of the Environment
     CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL   -
         PROTECTION AGENCY
             IFBL 274-6]
SUBCHAPTER N—EFF1.UENT GUIDELINES AND
              STANDARDS
  PART 423—STEAM ELECTRIC POWER
GENERATING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
  AUTHORITY:  Sees. 301, 304  (b)  and (c),
306 (b) and  (c), 307(c)  and  501(a.) at the
Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act,  as
amended  (33 U.S.C. 1215, 1311, 1314 (b) and
(c). 1316  (b) and (c), 1317(c) and 1361(a)),
68 Stat. 816 et seq.: Pub.  L. 92-500.
Subpart A—Generating Unit Subcategory
§ 423.10  Applicability;  description  of
     the generating unit subcalegory.
  The provisions  of this subpart are ap-
plicable to discharges resulting from th3
operation of a generating unit by an es-
tablishment  primarily  engaged in the
generation of electricity for distribution
and sale which results prims rilv from a
process  utilizing  fossil-type  fuel  (coal.
oil, or gas)  or nuclear fuel in conjunc-
tion with a thermal cycle employing the
steam-water system as  the  thermcdy-
namie medium.
§423.11  Specialized definitions.
  For the purpose of this subpart:
   (a)  Except as provided below, the
general  definitions, abbrtv;ations  and
methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR
Part 401 shall apply to this subpart.
   (b) The term "generating unit" shall
mean any generating unit subject to ll.e
provisions of this  part, except those units
definec' below as small, or old.
     The  term "once  through cooling-
 water"  shall mean water passed through
 the main cooling  condensers in one or
 two passes  for  the purpose of removing
 waste heat from the generating unit.
   (1)  The  term  "recirculatcd cooling
 water" shall mean water which Is passed
 through the main cooling condensers for
 the purpose of removing waste heat from
 the generating unit, passed  through  a
 coohnr device for the purpose of remov-
 ing such heat from  the water and then
 passed   axam,  except  for  blowdown.
 through the main cooling condensers.
    |40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975|
   im>  The term  "cooline pond" shall
 moan any manmnde water impoundment
 which  does  not  impede the  How of  a
 navigable stream and  which is used to
remove waste heat from heated con-
denser water prior to  returning the  re-
circulatcd coaling water to the  main
condenser.
  (n) The  term  "cooling  lake"  shall
mean any  manmarie  water impound-
ment \\hich impedes the flow of a navi-
gable stream  and which  is  ur,ed to  re-
move waste heat from heated condenser
water prior to recirculating the water to
the main condenser.
§ 423.12   Effluent limitation* £iii
    representing l!u* decree of diluent re-
    duction attainaMc by tlie. application
    of llie bcM practicable control Iceli-
    lioloRj- current!? available.

  
-------
   (b) The following limitations establish
the quantity or quality of  pollutants or
pollutant  properties, controlled by  this
section, which may be discharged by a
point source subject to the provisions of
this subixu I after application of the best
practicable  control technology currently
available:
   (1) The pH of all discharges, except
once  through cooling water,  shall be
within the range of 6.0-9.0.
   (2) There  shall be  no  discharge of
polychlotinstcd biphcnyl compounds such as
those  commonly  used for transformer fluid.
[40 FR 7095. February 19, 1975)
   (3) The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
charged from low volume waste sources
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by multiplying  the flow of low volume
waste  sources times the concentration
listed in the following table:
                            Averaee of d:\ily
     Effluent      Maximum for  values for ilnriy
   characteristic    any one day  consrcuiivcdays
                            shall not exceed
 TSS	 lOOms/l	30m»/l.
 Oil and Grease	20 nig/1		15 mg/1.

   (4) The  quantity   of   pollutants  dis-
 aharged in ash transport water shall not
 exceed the quantity determined by multi-
 plying the flow of ash  transport water
 times the concentration listed in the fol-
 lowing table:
 (40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975]
                            Arerace of daily
     Effluent      Maximum for  values for llnriy
   characterisUc     auy one day  consecutive days
                            suall not exceed
 TSS	100n«/l	30 me/I.
 Oil aud Grease	  20 r.ig/1	 15 mg,1.

   (5) The quantity  of pollutants  dis-
 charged in metal cleaning wastes shall
 not exceed the  quantity determined by
 multiplying the  flow  of  metal  cleaning
 wastes times the concentration  listed in
 the following table:
     Effluent
   characteristic
                                  e of daily
                 Maximum for   values for linn v
                 any one day
                            consecutive days
                            aliau not exceed
TSS		 100 well-	30 me/I.
OH and Grruse	'.'Omul	 15 me/1.
•,'opper. Tolcl	l.Omc/1	 1.0 mc/L
Irou, Total	— l.Omg.'l,	 1.0 me/).

   (6) The  quantity of pollutants  dis-
charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-
ceed  the  quantity determined by multi-
plying the flow of boiler blowdown times
the concentration listed in the following
table:
                            Averace ofdally
     Effluent     Maximum for  values for thirty
   characteristic     any one day  consecutive d;iy3
                            Bhall not exceed
TSS	 I00mj/l	MmR/l.
Ot! and Orrasc	20 jric/1	15 mfifl.
Copl*T. Total	 1.0 nd	.— 1.0 rug/1.
Iron, Total	l.Ocig.l	. 1.0 mg/L
  (7)  The quantity  of pollutants dis-
charged In once  through  cooling  water
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by multiplying the flow of once through
cooling water sources times the concen-
tration listed in the following table:
    Effluent       Maximum       Avcrw
  Characteristic    Concentration  ConceaitraUon
Free available     0.5 mgfl	0.2 mg/t
 chlorine.

   (8)  The quantity of pollutants dis-
charged in cooling tower blowdown shall
not exceed the quantity  determined  by
multiplying  the fiov- of cooling  tower
blowdown sources times the  concentra-
tion listed in the following table:
    Effluent       Maximum       Avera-n
  Characteristic    Concentration   Concentration
Free available     O.img/1	OJmg/L
 chlorine.

  (9) Neither free available chlorine nor
total residual chlorine may be discharged
from any unit for more than two hours in
any one day and not more than one unit
in any plant may discharge  free  avail-
able or total residual chlorine at any one
time unless  the utility  can demonstrate
to the  regional administrator or State, if
the State has NPDES permit  issuing au-
thority,  that the  units in a particular
location cannot operate at or below this
level of chlorination.
  (10) In the event that waste streams
from various sources are  combined  for
treatment or discharge, the quantity ot
each pollutant or pollutant property con-
trolled  in paragraphs  (b)  (1)   through
(9)   of this section attributable to each
controlled waste source shall not exceed
the  specified limitation for  that  waste
source.
     [40 FR  7095. February 19, 1975J

§ 423.13  Effluent limitations fruidclines
     representing  the decree of effluent
     reduction attainable  by the applica-
     tion ot"  the best nvailablc technology
     economically achievable.
  The following limitations establish the
quantity or  quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this sec-
tion, which may be discharged by a point
source  subject to  the provisions of this
subpart  after application of  the  best
available    technology    economically
achievable:
  (a)  The pH of all discharges, except
once through  cooling water,  shall  be
within the range  of 6.0-9.0
  
-------
    Effluent       Maximum      Average
  Clurftclorfetlc   Concentration   ConctmlruUoa
Frw
               O.Smg/1	OJmg/1.
                           Average of dally
                Maximum for  values for thirty
                anyone day  consoculivcdays
                           shull not exceed
Zinc	1.0 me/I	 t.omcl.
Chromium	0/2 niL'/l		0.2 mcA.
'Ptimphonls	SO in;:/!	5.0 mc/1,
OUie* corrosion    Limit to be established on a case
  Inhibiting       by case ba^is.
  materials.

   (j) Neither free available chlorine nor
total residual chlorine may be discharged
from any unit for more than two hours in
any one day and not more  than one unit
in any plant may discharge free avail-
able  or total residual  chlorine  at  any
one time unless the utility can demon-
strate to the regional  administrator or
state, if the state has NPDES permit
issuing  authority, that the  units  in  a
particular location cannot operate  r.t or
below this level of chlorination.
   (k) In the 'event  that waste streams
from  various  sources are  combined for
treatment or discharge, the  quantity of
each pollutant or pollutant property con-
trolled in paragraphs la) through (j) of
this  section  attributable  to each con-
trolled waste source shall not exceed the
specified limitation for that waste source.
   (1) There shall be no  discharge of heat
from the main condensers except:
   (1)  Heat  may be discharged in blow-
down from  recirculated cooling water
systems  provided the  temperature at
which the  blowdown is discharged does
not exceed at any: time the lowest tem-
perature of recirculating  cooling water
prior  to the  addition  of  the  make-up
 water.
   (2) Heat may be discharged In blow-
down from  recirculated cooling water
systems which have Leen designed to dis-
charge  blowdown  water at  a  tempera-
ture above  the lowest temperature of re-
 circulated  cooling water  prior to the
addition of  make-up  water  providing
such recirculating cooling systems have
been  placed  in  operation  or are under
construction prior to the  effective date
of this regulation.
   (3)  Heat  may be discharged In blow-
down (overflow) from a cooling pond or
cooling lake  where the owner  or opera-
tor of a unit otherwise subject to this
limitation can demonstrate that a  cool-
Ing  pond, or cooling lake In service or
under construction  as  of the  effective
date of this regulation, is used to cool re-
circulated cooling water before it is re-
circulated to the main  condensers.
 [40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975)
   (4)  Heat  may  be discharged  where
the owner or operator of a unit  otherwise
subject  to  this  limitation can demon-
strate that sufficient land for the con-
struction and operation  of  mechanical
draft  evaporative cooling  towers is not
available (after consideration  of alter-
nate land use assignments) on the prem-
ises or on adjoining  property under the
ownership or control  of the  owner or
operator as  of March 4. 1974.  and that
no alternate recirculatlng cooling system
Is practicable.
   (5)  Heat  may be  discharged  where
the owner or operator of a unit  other-
wise subject to this limitation can dem-
onstrate that the  total dissolved solids
concentration in blowdown exceeds 30,-
000 ing/1 and land not  owned or con-
trolled  by  the owner  or operator as  of
March  4.  1974.  is  located  within 150
meters (500 feet) in the prevailing down-
wind direction of every practicable loca-
tion for mechanical drnft cooling  towers
and that no alternate  recirculating cool-
ing system is practicable.
   (6) Heat may be discharged where the
owner or operator of a  unit  otherwise
subject to this "limitation can demon-
strate  to the regional administrator or
State,  if the  State  has NPDES permit
issuing  authority, that the plume  which
must  necessarily  emit from a cooling
tower would cause a substantial hazard
to commercial aviation and that no alter-
nate recirculated cooling water system
is practicable. In making such demon-
stration to the regional administrator or
State the owner or operator of such unit
must  include a finding  by the Federal
Aviation Administration that the  visible
plume emitted from a well -opera ted cool-
ing tower would in fact cause a substan-
tial hazard to commerical aviation in the
vicinity of a major commercial airport.
   (m) The   limiuiion   ol  parjirjph  "1"
of this section shall become effective on
July 1,1981.
   >n)  In the event that a regional re-
liability council, or when no functioning
regional reliability council exists, a major
utility  or  consortium  of utilities,  can
demonstrate to the regional administra-
tor or  State, if  the State  has NPDES
permit issuing authority, that the system
reliability  would be seriously  impacted
by complying with the effective date set
forth in paragraph (m)  above, the re-
gional administrator may accept  an al-
ternative proposed schedule of compli-
ance  on  the port  of all  the utilities
concerned  providing, however, that such
schedule of compliance will require that
units representing not less than 50 per-
cent of the affected generating capacity
shall  meet the  compliance  date, that
units representing not less than an addi-
tional  30   percent  of  the   generating
capacity shall  comply  not  later than
JtU" 1.1932 and the balance of units shall
comply not later than July 1,1983.

§ 423.14   (Reserved]

§ 423.15   Standards of performance for
     new sources.
   The following standards of perform-
ance establish the quantity or quality  of
pollutants  or pollutant  properties, con-
trolled  by  this section,  which may  be
discharged by a new source subject  to
the provisions of this subpart:
   (a)  The pH of all  discharges,  except
once  through cooling  water,  shall  be
within the ranee of 6.0-9.0.
   (b)  There  shall  be no discliarge  of
polychlormated  biphcnyl    compounds
such  as those commonly used for trans-
former fluid.
(40 FR 7095. February 19,1975]
   (c)  The  quantity of  pollutants dis-
charged from low  volume waste sources
,shall not exceed the quantity determined
 by multiplying  the flow of low volume
 waste sources  times the concentration
 listed in the following table:
                                                                                     Effluent
                                                                                   characteristic
                Maximum ftr  values for thirty
                any one day  coiwvutive days
TSS ................ lOOmir/l ......... 30 me/t
Oil and Crease ..... 20 jiig/1 ........ ..
  (d) The quantity  of  pollutants  dis-
charged in bottom ash transport water
shall not exceed the quantity determined
hy multiplying the How of bottom ash
transport water times the concentration
listed in the following table and dividing
the product by 20:
E (Burnt
characteristic
Maximum for
auy OD« day
Average of tluily
values for thirty
CGitsoculivc day*
EbaJl not exceed
TSS	 looms;!.	SOmit/!.
Oil and Grease	20mgA	 15 ing/l.
  (e) There shall be no discharge of TS3
or oil  and  grease in fly ash transport
water.
  (f) The quantity of  pollutants  dis-
charged from metal cleaning wastes shall
not  exceed  the  quantity determined by
multiplying the flow of metal cleaning
wastes times the concentration listed In
the following table:

                           Average of daily
    Effluent     Maximum for  Tallies for thirty
  characteristic    any one day   cons-xutive dayl
                           shall not rxcev-tt
                       .
Oil and C.rease	'JO me/t		15 mg/l.
CopiH-r. Total	. 1.0rriE/l	 1.0 roft.1.
Iron, Total	. l.Omg/1...	 1.0 rug/U

   (S> The  quantity  of  pollutants  dis-
charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-
ceed  the quantity determined by multi-
plying the flow of boiler  blowdown times
the concentration listed in the following
table:
                           Average of daily
     Effluent      Maximum for  values fur thirty
   characteristic    any one day   con>wutive days
                           shall nut exceed
TSS ............. 100 roe/1 ......... 30in«1.
Oil and Crease ..... 20ms/) .......... 15 mf/l.
Copper. Total ...... l.Omp/1 ......... 1.0 nifiL
Iron, Total ........ l.Omg/l ......... I.Oms/1.
   (h)  The  quantity of pollutant?  dis-
charged in  once through cooling water
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by multiplying the flow of once through
cooling  water times the concentration
listed in the following table:
Effluent
Characteristic

chJorioo,
Maximum
Concentration
05 mg/l . ...

Avenwr*
ConcealtttUos
02mc/t

   (i) The quantity  of pollutants dis-
 charged  in  cooling   tower  blowdown
 shall not exceed the quantity determined
 by multiplying the flow of cooling tower
 blowdown sources  times the concentra-
 tion listed In the following table:
                                                    513

-------
     Kfflumt
                  Minimum
                Coiict>ntTBUon
                            Conc*nli*Uon
 Free
  clilorine.
               0.5 mc/1.	0.2 ing/).
                                  f   of this section attributable to -each
 controlled waste source shall not exceed
 the specified  limitation  for  that waste
 source.
   (1)  There shall be  no  discharge  of
 heat from  the main condensers except:

   (1)  Heat may be discharged in blow-
 down  from recirculated cooling  water
 systems  provided the temperature  at
 which the  blowdown is discharged does
 not exceed at any time the lowest tem-
 perature of recirculated cooling water
 prior  to the  addition  of the make-up
 water.
   (2)  Heat may be discharged in blow-
 down  from  cooling ponds  provided the
 temperature at which  the  blowdown is
 discharged does not exceed at any time
 the lowest temperature  of recirculated
 cooling  water prior  to the addition  of
 the make-up water.

 § -123.16  Prctrealmem  standards for new
     sources.
  The pretreatment standards under sec-
 tion 307(c>  of the  Act for  a source within
 the generating unit subcategory. which is
 a  user of a publicly owned treatment
 works  (and which would be a new source
 subject to section 306  oi the Act, if it
 were  to  discharge  pollutants to  the
 navigable waters), shall be the standard
 set forth in 40 CFR Part 128, except that,
 for the purpose of this section, 40 CFR
 128.133 shall  be  amended to  read  as
 follows:
  In addition to the prohibitions set forth In
 40 CI-R 123131. the preueatment standard
 lor incompat'ble pollutants Introduced Inlo a
 puohcly ou-nt3 treatment works shall be the
Mandaid  ol  performance lor new sources
spc;il:ed in 40 CFR 423.15 except lor the foi-
lou'ini:  pollutants or pollutant  parameters
for which the following pretreaTment stand-
ards are established:
 Pollutant or pollutant       Pretreatment
    parameter:              standard
   Heat	 No limitation.
   free available chlorine	 No linmatum.
   Total residual chlorine	 No limitation.
   If the publicly owned  treatment  u-orks
 u-hlch receives the pollutants Is committed,
 in Its  KTDKS permit, to remove ft specllicd
 percentage  of  any  incompatible pollutant,
 the prttrcntment standard applicable  to
 users of siicu treatment works shall, except
 in the case of standards  providing  for no
 discharge of pollutants, be correspondingly
 reduced in stringency for that pollutant.
 (40 FR 7095, February  19,1975]

    Subpart D—Small Unit Subcategory
 §423.20 .Applicability;   dcwriplion of
     liicsniuli unit su!>culc£ory.
   The provisions of this  subpart are ap-
 plicable to discharges resulting from the
 operation of a small unit  by an establish-
 ment primarily  engaged  in the genera-
 tion of electricity for distribution and
 sale which results primarily from a proc-
 ess utilizing fossil-type fuel (coal, oil, or
 gas) or nuclear fuel in conjunction with
 a thermal cycle  employing the steam-
 water system  as  the   thermodynamic
 medium.
 § 423-21   Specialized definitions.
   For the  purpose of this subpart:
   (a)  Except as  provided below, the
 general  definitions,   abbreviations  and
 methods of analysis set forth  in 40 CPR
 Part 401 shall apply  to this subpart.
   (b)  The term "smDll unit" shall mean
 any generating unit subject to ths pro-
 visions of  this p-rt.  except  a unit de-
 nned below as old, of  less than 25 mega-
 watts  rated net generating capacity or
 any unit which  is part  of r.n electric
 utilities  system with a   total  net  gen-
 erating capacity of less than  150 mega-
 watts.
   (c)  The term "old unit" sh?H  mean
 any generating unit, subject to the pro-
 visions of this part, of 500 megawatts or
 greater rated net  generating capacity
 which was first placed in service  on or
 before January 1, 1970 and any.generat-
 ing unit of  less than 500 megawatts rated
 net generating capacity  which was first
 placed in service on or before January 1
 1974.
    The  term "blowdown" shall mean
 the minimum discharge of reclrculatlng
 water  for  the purpose  ol discharging
 materials contained  In the process, the
 further buildup of which would  cause
 concentrations or  amounts  exceeding
 limits  established by best  engineering
 practice.
 (40 FR 7095, February 19,1975)
   (e) The term "free available chlorine"
shrill m?nn the value obtained using the
amperometric titration method for free
available chlorine described in "Stand-
ard  Methods  for  the Examination  of
Water and  Wastewater", page 112  (13th
Edition).

   (i)  The term  "low   volume   waste
sources"  shall mean, taken collectively
as if Ircm  one source, wastewater  from
all sources  except   those  for  which
specific limitations are otherwise estab-
lished in this subpart. Low volume waste
 sources would Include but are not limited
 to wastcwaters from wet  scrubber air
 pollution control systems. Ion exchange
 wafer treatment systems,  water treat-
 ment  evaporator  blowdown, laboratory
 and sampling streams, lloor  drainage,
 cooling tower basin cleaning wastes and
 blowdown from rccirculatlng house serv-
 ice water systems.  Sanitary wastes and
 air conditioning  wastes are specifically
 not included  In  low  volume  waste
 sources.
 [40 FR 7095, February  19,1975]
   (g)  The term  "ash transport -water"
 shil! moan water used in the  hydraulic
 transport of either fly ash or bottom ash.
   (h)   The   term  "metal   cleaning
 wastes"  shall mean  any cleaning  com-
 pounds rinse waters, or any other wr.ter-
 borne  residues derived from  cleaning
 any metal process  equipment including.
 but not  limited to, boiler tube cleaning,
 boiler  firsside cleaning and  air   pre-
 heater cleaning.
   (ij The term "once through cooling
 water" shall mean water passed through
 the main cooling  condensers in one or
 two passes for the  purpose of removing
 waste;  heat from the generating unit.
   (j)  The term  "recirculated  cooling
 water" shall mean water which is passed
 through the main cooling condensers for
 the purpose of removing waste heat from
 the generating unit, passed through a
 cooling device for the purpose of remov-
 ing such heat from the water and  then
 passed  again,  except  for  blowdown,
 through the main cooling condensers.
|40 FR 7095, February 19,1975]
   (k)  Th;.  term "cooling  pond"  shall
mean any manmade water impoundment
which  does not impede the flow  of a
navigable stream and which is used to
remove  waste  heat  from   heated  con-
denser water prior  to reluming the re-
circulated cooling water to the main con-
denser.
§ 423.22  Effluent limitations guidelines
    rcpresentini  the dc.ircc of diluent
    reduction attainable by  tlic appHcA*
    lion of the best  practicable control
     technology currently availnblc.
   (a> In establishing the limitations set
forth in  this section. EPA took into ac-
count all information it  »vas able to col-
lect, develop and solicit with respect to
factors (such as  ase and size of pliir.t,
utilization of facilities, raw materials.
manufacturing  processes,   non-water
quality environmentr.l  impacts, control
and  treatment  technology  available,
enerpy  requirements and  costs)  which
can affect the industry subcatesorizatlon
and effluent levels established- It is, how-
 ever, possible  that  data  which  would
affect  these  linvtations have  not  been
available and.  as a result,  these limita-
tions  should  be  adjusted   for certain
plants in this industry. An individual dis-
charger  or other interested person may
 submit evidence to  the Regional Admin-
 istrator  (or to the State, if  the State has
 the authority to  issue NPDES permits)
that factors relitmr.to the  equipment or
facilities involved, the process applied, or
other  such factors related  to such dis-
charger   are   fundamentally   different
                                                   514

-------
from the factors considered In the estab-
lishment ol the  guidelines. On the  basis
of such evidence or oth"r available Infor-
mation. the Hcgion.il Administrator (or
the  State)  will  make  a written finding
that such  factors  are or are  not funda-
mentally different for that facility  com-
pared  to those specified in the Develop-
ment Document. If  such fundamentally
different factors are found to exist, the
Rcmonal   Administrator   or  the   State
shall establish for thn discharner effluent
limitations in the NPDES permit either
more or less stringent  than  the limita-
tions established  herein,  to  the extent
dictated by surh  fundamentally differ-
ent  factors. Such limitations must be ap-
proved by the Administrator of  the En-
vironmental   Protection   Agency.   The
Administrator ma  approve or disap-
prove   such  limitations,  specify   other
limitations, or initiate proceedings to re-
vise these retaliations.
      The  quantity of pollutants dis-
charged from low volume waste sources
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by  multiplying  the  flov-r of  low volume
waste  sources times the  concentration
listed in the following table:

                            ATprap? of dtr'.r
     Effluent      Maximum lor  vanics lor ihiny
   characteristic    any  one day  consocmivt da>7
                            shall not  •xixV'l
 TS?  ............ 100mjr/\ ......... 3lnu:.1.
 Oil and Cn&x ..... 10 mg,Q ........... U xc;/L
   (4)  The  quantity  of  pollutants  dis-
 chareed in ash transport water shall not
 exceed the quantity determined by mul-
 tiplying the flow of ash transport water
 tirr.cs  the concentration toted  in the
 following table:          _ _

                             Average of tlai'.r
     EflJrjprt      MMiaium for  valu.-i for thirty
   characteristic    any one day   confecuuve rt.iys
                             shall not ucoca
 TSS ......... - ..... 100 mr/l. ........ JOmsA
 Oil and Grease _____ 20mg,l ........ —
   (5)  The  quantity  of  pollutants dis-
 charged in  metal  cleaning wastes shall
 not exceed  the quantity determined  by
 multiplying  the flow of metal  cleaning
 wastes times the concentration listed In
 the following table:
  Effluent
ebarftcterLstte
                 Mextmam fir
                             ^iUu.-j for thirtr
                             coiK-Tuuve-iUTi;
                             Entail IUH exceed
 TSS       	ioonw/1	»mt/l.
 OH «nd lirea™	y>mtH	— li nw/V.
 (•orj*T. Tuva!	 1.0m*A	1.0 mc.T.
 Irou, TouJ	1.0 xus/1	1.8ui|A
                                         <6)  The'quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                       charged In boiler blowdown shall not ex-
                                       ceed the  quantity determined by  mul-
                                       tiplying  the  flow of  boiler  blowdown
                                       times  the concentration listed  In the
                                       following table:
                                           7. n.u«nt
                                         ehartwusriatio
.,  ,     t    	-,-of'Jally
Maximum for  valum fur tinny
auy one day   consecutive Oays
            shall not excoe4
                                                            .........     .
                                       Oil and Ortass ..... lOrriRrt .......... IS mcfl.
                                       Copper, Total ______ l.o mu/1 ______ , 10nur/l
                                       Iron. Total ......... 1.0 mj/i ......... 1.0
                                         (7) The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                       charged in once through cooling water
                                       shall not exceed the quantity determined
                                       by multiplying the flow of once through
                                       cooling water sources times the concen-
                                       tration listed in the following  table:
                                           Effluent       Maximum      Averaee
                                         Characteristic    Coucentration  Coaccnwatloa


                                       Frea available     0.5 mg/l	0.2 mcA.
                                        cb tonne.
                                          (8) The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                       charged in cooling tower blowdown shall
                                       not exceed the quantity determined by
                                       multiplying  the flow  of  cooling tower
                                       blowdown sources  times the concentra-
                                       tion listed in the following table:
                                           Eflluant
                                         Characteristic
 MaUmtxm
Concentration
                              A Tenure
                            Concentration
                                       Free available
                                         chJortDa.
                                                      04 rng/l	0.2m&/t
  (9) Neither free available chlorine nor
total residual chlorine may be discharged
from  any unit for more than two hours
In any one day and not more than one
unit in  any  plant may discharge free
available or  total residual chlorine at
any one  time unless the utility can dem-
onstrate to the regional administrator or
state, if  the  state has NPDES permit is-
suing authority, that the units in a par-
ticular  location   cannot operate at or
below this level of chlorination.
  (10) In  the  event   that  waste  sircams
from various sources are  combined  for
treatment or discharge, the quantity of
each pollutant or pollutant property con-
trolled  in paragraphs  (b)  (1) through
(9) of this  section attributable to each
controlled waste source shall not exceed
the  specified limitation for that waste
source.
(40 FR7095, February 19,1975)

§ 423.23  Effluent limitations cuidrlinc*
     representing  the decree  of  effluent
     reduction attainable by the,  applica-
     tion of  the bc.*l available technology
     economically achievable.
  The following limitations establish the
quantity or  quality of pollutants or pol-
lutant properties, controlled by this sec-
tion, which may be discharged by a point
source   subject   to  the   provisions  of
this  subpart  after  application of  the
br.st  available technology  economically
achievable:
   (a)  The pH of all discharges, except
once through cooling water, shall  be
within the ranee of 6.0-9.0.
   (b)  There shall be  no  discharge of
                                          polvchlorlnated    biphenyl   compounds
                                          such as those commonly used for trans-
                                          former fluid.
                                            (c)  The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                          charged from low volume waste  sources
                                          shall not exceed the quantity determined
                                          by multiplying  the flow of low  volumo
                                          waste sources  times  the concentration
                                          listed In the following table:
                                              _,                      Avenge of dally
                                              Effluent      Maifmum for  »alu*-s for Ihlrtf
                                            cbaracicristic    any one day  eor>$r<-utlv« day*
                                                                    shall not U£oe tngX.IIIIIIII 15 m^/C

   (d) Th?  quantity of .pollutants dis-
charged in  bottom  ash transport water
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by multiplying  the  flow of bottom ash
transport water times the concentration
listed in the following  table and dividing
the product by 12.5..

                           AT«rageof dtfljr
    Effluent      M&xJmtim lor  values lor thirty
  characteristic    &ay one day  oonstcuUve d&yt
                           that! cot exceed

T55S	 lOOntffA.	 30tag/L
Oil and Crease..... 2£> mg/1	*.	. li ID£/L

  (e)  The quantity of pollutants dis-
charged in fly ash transport wate* shall
not exceed  the  quantity determined  by
multiplying the flow of fly ash transport
water times the concentration listed In
the  following table:

                           Arerijr«ofdtJ3y
    Efflu*^t      MarimiiTG for  values lor thirty
   characteristic    &ny one day  consecutive dnyt
                           shall not exceed
                                                                                 TS3                 .
                                                                                 OU and Grease _____ 20m£/1 ----------
                                                                                   (f)  The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                                                                 charged in metal cleaning  wastes shall
                                                                                 not exceed the quantity determined by
                                                                                 multiplying the flow of metal cleaning
                                                                                 wastes times the concentration listed in
                                                                                 the following table:

                                                                                                            Aver&ce of dally
                                                                                     Efluent      Marimnm for  values for thirty
                                                                                   characiehstio     any one day   consecuUve cay*
                                                                                                            shall act exceed
                                                                                 TS3 ................ 1001T5.1
                                                                                 Oil and Grease _____ 20mg/l ...... ____ 15 mj[A.
                                                                                 Copier, Total ______ l.OniK.t _________ l.OinicA.
                                                                                 Iron, Tola! _________ 1.0 mgil ______ ...
                                                                                   (g) The quantity  of pollutants dis-
                                                                                 charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-
                                                                                 ceed the quantity determined by multi-
                                                                                 plying the flow of boiler blowdown times
                                                                                 the concentration listed in the following
                                                                                 table:
Effluent
chan-ct^rtaUc
Mariinum for
any one Uay
Avirrart Ofds/Iy
Tftlurs Jor thirty
consrcutLvf d*yi
tvbail not exceed
                          TSS		100n-.r,/L	SOmjtfl.
                          Oil and tlrt-aw	"."U uig/l.'....	IS mi/I,
                          Copprr Total	 l-0i,i,;/l	1-OirjtA.
                          Iron.lalil	l.OJi^.l	l.Omi/1.

                             (h) The  quantity of  pollutants dis-
                          charged in once through condenser water
                          shall not exceed the quantity determined
                                                          515

-------
by multiplying the flow of once through
condenser water sources times the con-
centration listed in the following  table:
                 Maiimum
               CouccntraLiOQ
Frw available
 c&lorlne.
  (1)  The quantity  of pollutants dis~
charged in cooling tower blowdown shall
not exceed  the quantity determined  by
multiplying the flow of cooling tower blow-
down  times  the concentration listed  in the
following table:
    Effluent
  Characteristic
 Maximum       Average   *
Concern ration  CoiiceulraUon
Jrr*
 chlorine.
               0.5 mg/l.._.:,„. 0.2 mgA-
                           Average of duily
                Maximum for  values for th;i ly
                Miy one day   consecutive daya
                           sbail not exceed
Zinc	 l.Orofr/l	1.0mp,1
Chromium..	0.2 me/1	o.'-i IUR./L
I'-.'.^'KT^S	5.Qms/l	5.0 mgil.
Other corrosion    Linut 10 I* established on a case by
 inhibiting        case bans.
 materials.

{40 FR7095, February 19, 1975]

   (j) Neither free  available chlorine nor
total residual chlorine may be discharged
from any unit for  more than two hours
In any one day and not more than one
unit in  any plant may discharge free
available or total residual chlorine at
any one  time unless  the  utility  can
demonstrate to the regional administra-
tor or state, if  the  state has NPDES per-
mit Issuing authority, that the units in a
particular location cannot operate at or
below this level of chlorination.
    The  quantity of poUutaists dis-
                           charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-
                           ceed the quantity determined by multi-
                           plying the flow of boiler blowdown times
                           the concentration listed in the following
                           table:
                                                      Averse* of 'Tatty
                               EtBuent      Maximum for  value* lor thirty
                             characteristic     any one day  consocuuve days
                                                      shall not eiceca
                           TSS	 100mc/L	30 me/1.
                           Oil and Grease	20 me/1	 15 mp;l.
                           Copper. Total	l.OnicA	 1.0 nie/U
                           Iron. Total	 1.0mg/l._	 1.0 cupA.
                             (h)  The  quantity of pollutants dis-
                           charged in  once through  cooling  water
                           shall not exceed the quantity determined
                           by multiplying the flow of once through
                           cooling water  times the  concentration
                           listed in the following table:
                               Fifiucnt       Maximum      Averapf
                             Characteristic   Concentration   Concentration
                           Free available
                            chlorine.
                                          O.Smg,1
                             (11  The quantity  of pollutants dis-
                           charged in cocllns tower blowdown shall
                           not exceed the  quantity determined  by
                           multiplying the flow of  cooling  tower
                           blowdown sources times the concentra-
                           tion listed in  the following  table:
                                                                        Effluent
                                                                     CbtmutlertsUc
                                                       MrulmtiRi
                                                      ConcauLrutton
                                                                                               Conwu (ration
                                                                                   Free available
                                                                                    cbloriu«.
                                                                                                  0.5 mg/l _________ 0.2
                                                                  Average of dally
                                                      Maximum for  valurs for tliiily
                                                      any ooc day   consecutive days
                                                                  •hall not Hce«4
Materials added
 ti>r corrosion in-
 hibilion loclud.
 iiiS «»!«.
 chromium,
 phosphorus and
               No detectable
                amount.
                                                                  No detectable
                                                                    auiouut.
  (j) Neither free available chlorine nor
total residual chlorine may be discharged
from any unit for more than two hours
in any one day and not more than one
unit in  any plant  may discharge  free
available or total residual chlorine at any
one  time unless  the utility can demon-
strate to tiie regional administrator  or
state, if  th; state has NPDES permit is-
suing authority,  that the units In a par-
ticular location cannot operate at or be-
low this  level of chlorination.
  (fc)  In the  event that waste steams
from various sources are combined  for
treatment, or discharge, the quantity of
each pollutant or pollutant property con-
trolled in paragraphs (a)  through (jj of
this section attributable to  each  con-
trolled waste source shall not exceed the
specified  limitation   for  that  waste
source.
  (1) There  shall  be no discharge  of
heat from the main condensers except:
  (1) Pleat may be discharged  In blow-
down  from  recirculated  cooling water
systems  provided  the  temperature  at
which the blowdown is discharged does
not  exceed at any time the lowest tem-
perature of recirculated cooling water
prior to the addition  of  the make-up
water.
  (2) Heat may be discharged  In blow-
down from  cooling  ponds provided  the
temperature at  which the  blowdown Is
discharged does  not exceed at any  time
the  lowest temperature  of recirculated
cooling  water prior to the  addition of
the make-up water.

§ 423.26 Prctrcalmcnt ttandarils for new
     sources.
  The  pretreatment standards  under
section  307 (c.1 of the  Act for a source
within the srnan  unit subcategory, which
is a user of  a  publicly owned treatment
works (and which would be a new source
subject to section 306 of the Act, If it were
to discharge pollutants to the navigable
•waters), shall be the standard  set forth
in 40 CFR Part  128. except that, for the
purpose of this  section, 40 CFR 128.133
shall be amended *o read as follows:
  In addition to the prohibitions set forth la
*0 CFR  128 131. the  pretreatment  standard
lor Incompatible pollutants Introduced into
a publicly  owned treatment works shall b*
the  standard of performance lor new sources
specified in 40 CFR  42:1 25 except for  tho
following pollutants or pollutant parameter*
(or which the following pretreatment stand-
ards are  established:
                                                        516

-------
 FoUiiranf or pollutant    Pretrcatmcnt
       parameter
                                    .
Frw available chlorine..  No limitation
Toul residual chlorln. .  No (imitation.
   If the  publicly owned trentment works
which receives the pollutants Is committed
Jn Its  NPDES permit, to remove  a specified
percentage of any  incompatible  pollutant.
tfeo  .pretreatment sianrtwd  applicable  to
usar3 of such treatment, works shall', except
In the case or standards providing for' no dis-
charge of  pollutants, be correspondingly re-
duced  In  stringency  for that pollutant.
[40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975)

     Subpart C — Old Unit Subcategory
§ 423.30   Applicalii!;:y;  description  of
     the old unit subcaiegory.
   The provisions of this subpart are ap-
plicable to discharge:; resulting  from the
operation of an old 111114. by an establish-
ment  primarily  engarred in the genera-
tion  of electricity  for distribution and
sale  which results primarily from  a process
utilizing fossil-type  fuel  {coal, oil, »as) or
nuclear fuel  in conjunction with  a thermal
cycle employing the steam-water system as trie
thcrmodynamic  medium.
    [40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975|
                              ..
§ 423.31   Specialized definitions.
   For the purpose of this subpart:
   (a)  Except as provided below, the gen-
eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-
ods of. analysis set forth in 40 CFR Part
401 shall  apply to this subpart.
   (b)  The terra "old unit"  shall mean
any generating unit, subject to  the  pro-
visions of this part, of 500 megawatts or
greater rated net  generating  capacity
which  was flrst placed la service on or
before January  1, 1970  and any gener-
ating  unit of less  than 500 megawatts
rated  net generating capacity which was
flrst placed  in service on or before Jan-
uary 1, 1974.
   (c)  The term "blowdown" shall mean
the minimum discharge of rectrculatine
water for th? purpose of discharging ma-
terials contained in tne process, the fur-
ther buildup of  which would cause  con-
centrations  or amounts exceeding limits
established by best engineering  practice.
(40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975]
   (d)  The  term "free  available chlo-
rine" shali mean the value obtained using
the amperometric titration method for
free   available  chlorine  described in
"Standard  Methods  for  the  Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater", page
112 (13th Edition).
   (e)   The  term   'low  volume waste
sources" shall mean, taken collectively as
If from one  source, wnstewatcr  from all
sources except those  for which specific
limitations are otherwise established in
this subpart. Low  volume waste sources
would  include  but are not limited  to
wastewaters from wet scmbber air pollu-
tion control  systems, ion exchange water
treatment  systems,  water   treatment
evaporator  blowdown,  laboratory  and
sampling  streams, lloor dralnaiTC. cooling
tower  basin  cleaning wastes and blow-
down  from  rccirculatins house service
water  systems. Salutary wastes ana air
conditloninK wastes are specifically not
Included in low volume waste sources.
[40 FR 7095,  February 19, 1975)
     The  term "ash  transport  water"
shall mean water used in the hydraulic
transport of either fly  ash or bottom
tish.
   (R)  The term "metal cleaning wastes"
shall,  mean any cleaning  compounds,
rinse  waters, or any other waterborne
residues  derived  from   cleaning  any
metal  process  equipment including, but
not limited to.  boiler  tube   cleaning,
boiler  fireside cleaning and air preheater
cleaning.
  '(h)  The  term "onco through cooling
water" shall mean water  passed through
the -main cooling condensers  in one  or
two passes  for the purpose of removing
waste heat from the generating unit.
     |40 I:R 7095, February 19. 19751
   (i)  The  term "recirculated cooling
water" shall mean water  which is passed
through the main cooling condensers for
the purpose of removing waste  heat from
the generating unit,  passed through a
cooling device for the purpose of remov-
ing such, heat from the water and  then
passed  again,  except   for  blowdown,
through the main cooling condensers.
     [40 FR 7095, February 19,  1975|

§ 423.32  Effluent limitations  euiJelines
     representing the  deprce of ctllucnt
     reduction  attainable  by  tlte applica-
     tion of the best  practicable control
     technology currently  available.
   (a)  In  establishing the  limitations
set forth" In this section, EPA took into
account all information  it was able  to
collect, develop and solicit with respect
to factors (such as age and size of plant,
utilization of facilities,  raw materials,
manufacturing   processes,   non-water
quality environmental impacts, control
and   treatment technology  available,
energy requirements  and costs)  which
can affect  the  industry  subcategoriza-
tion and effluent levels  established.  It
is,  however, possible  that data  which
would  affect these limitations have not
been available  and. as  a result,  these
limitations  should  be adjusted for  cer •
tain plants in this iudustry. An individ-
ual discharger or other Interested person
may submit evidence to the Regional Ad-
mmistrator (or to the State,  if the State
has the authority to issue NPDES  per-
mits)  that factors relating to the equip-
ment  or  facilities involved  the process
applied, or other such factors related  to
such discharger are fundamentally dif-
ferent  from the  factors considered in the
establishment of the guidelines. On the
basis of such evidence or  other available
information, the Rceional Administrator
(or the State* will make  a written find-
ing that such factors are  or are not  fun-
damentally  different  for that  facility
compared to those specified m the De-
veioomcr.t  Document. If such funda-
mentally  different factors are found  to
exist, the Regional Administrator or the
Stale shall  est?bli.-.h for  the cHschartrer
cl!K:cnt limitations in the  Nl'DCS permit
cither  more  or  less  strinnent  than the
limitations establirhcd hcrum, to the ex-
tent dictated by such Umdamcntully dif-
ferent  factors. Such limitations must be
approved by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Apcncy.  The
Administrator   may   approve   or  dis-
approve such limitations, specify other
 limitations, or  Initiate  proceedings to
 revise these regulations.
   (b) The following limitations estab-
 lish the quantity or quality of pollutants
 or poilutant  properties, controlled  by
 this  section,  which  may be discharged,
 by n point source subject to  the provi-
 sions of this subpart after application of
 trie best practicable .control technology
 currently available:
   (1) The pll of all discharges, except
 once  tlirough cooling water,  shall  be
 within the range of B.0-9.0.
   (2) There  shall  be no discharge of
 polychlorinatcd bcplicnyl compounds such as
 unosc commonly used for transiotmer fluid.
 [40 FR 7095, February 19,1975J
   (3)  The quantity of  pollutants  dis-
 charged from  low volume waste sources
 shall not exceed the quantity determined
 by multiplying the  flow  of  low volume
 waste sources times the concentration
 listed in the following table:
                           Av«rs£e of doily
     Effluent      Mailmum tor  values (or thiny
   cbaraclcmu'o    any one day   consrculive daji
                           aaall cot exceed
TS3	 100 m«/l_
Oil and Grease	?Onie/!.._	 15
   (4)  The quantity of pollutants dis-
 charged in ash transport water shall not
 exceed the quantity determined by mul-
 tiplying the flow of ash transport water
 times the concentration listed in the fol-
 lowing table.
                           Avera£« of d ally
     Effluent      Maximum for  values Tor thirty
   characteristic    aoyoaeday   conv«jtiTe days
                           sball Dot eucxd
T?3	— 100 rosfl	JOms/U
Oil ar.d Grease	"20 mg.1	
   (5)  The  quantity  of pollutants dis-
 charged in metal cleaning wastes shall
 not exceed the quantity determined  by
 multiplying the  flow of metal cleaning
wastes times the concentration listed in
the following table:
  characu-riiUc
               Maiimuro for
                 aoy 1 day
                           Avenge o
                            values for 3o
                           coos^culiredays
TSS
Oil ftii'l <'r<-:i5e
     .
Iron, Toul
             -  JOmcA- ....... . 30 mtli.
               -0 ir.c.'l ......... - 15 DDK;!.
               lJ>n..'/l ......... 1.0 ro?/L
               1-OniB/l ......... LOnn/L
  cliaructensiic
                ,.          Averaccofdaily
                Maximum for   v»lucs lor 30
                 any 1 day
TSS	 100 mcA-	30 me/I.
O:l n:id   The  quantity of  pollutants dis-
 charged in boiler blowdown shall not ex-
 ceed  the quantity determined by multi-
 plying the ilow of boiler blowdown timcj
 the concentration listed in the following
 table:
   <7)  The  quantity of  pollutants dls-
 charn-d in once throurh cooling  water
 sh lU not exceed tlu- nu.mtity determine*.
 by'multlplvinc the flow ot once through
 coolim' water sources times the concen-
 tration listed in the following table:
                                                      517

-------
                  Madmum
                CoucmilniUoa
                                    .
                             Concentration
                0.5 mefl
   (8)  The  quantity or  pollutants  dis-
 charged In cooling tower blowdown shall
 not exceed  the quantity determined by
 multiplying the  How or  cooling  tower
 blowdown  sources  times  the  concen-
 tration listed  in the following  table:

     Affluent       Maximum      Avcra£i*
   CharactensUc   Concentration   Couamlrutton
 Fre« svoltahla     0.5 mgA	0.2 mg/l.
  calortrto.
   (9) Neither free available chlorine nor
 total residual chlorine may be discharged
 from any unit for more than two hours
 in any one day  and not more than one
 unit  in any  plant may  discharge free
 available or  total  residual  chlorine at
 any one time unless the utility can dem-
 onstrate  to  the reslonal administrator
 or state,  if the state has NPDES  permit
 Issuing authority,  that  the  units in  a
 particular location  cannot operate at or
 below this level of chlorination.
   (10)  In the event that waste streams
 from various  sources arc combined for
 treatment or discharge,  the quantity of
 each pcilutant or pollutant property con-
 trolled in paragraphs (b)  (1)  through
 (9) of this section attributable to each
 controlled waste source shall  not  exceed
 the specified limitation for ihit \\3\te source.

     (40 FR 7095, February 19, 1975]

 % 423.33   Effluent  limitations jruidolines
     rtprcsciitins llie (icprcc  of  diluent
     reduction attainable l*y  the applica-
     tion  of the best available technology
     economically achievable.

  The following  limitation?  establish the
 quantity  or quality of polluta its or pol-
 lutant properties, controlled by this sec-
 tion, which may  be discharge ' by a point
 source subject to the provisions of this
 subpart after application  cf the  best
 available technology:
 available technolosy economically achievable.
 [40 FR 7095, February 19. 1975)

  (a)  The pH of all  discharges,  except
once  through cooling  water, shall be
within the range  of 6.0-9.0.
  (b)  There  shall  be no  discharge  of
polychlorinated   biphcnyi   compounds
such as those commonly used for  trans-
former fluid.
     [40 f R 7095. February 19, 1975)
  (c)  The  quantity  of  pollutants dis-
charged from  low volume waste sources
shall not exceed the quantity determined
by multiplying the flow of low  volume
waste sources times  the concentration
listed in the following table:
                                           (d)  The quantity  of pollutants dis-
                                        charged in bottom ash transport  water
                                        shall not exceed the quantity determined
                                        by multiplying the flow of  bottom ash
                                        transport water  tunes the concentration
                                        listed In the following table and dividing
                                        the product by 12.5:
                                                                    Avenge of dally
                                             Effluent      Maximum tor  value* lor tlilrly
                                           crmracleristio    anyone day   const.utlve flays
                                                                    sliaU not exceed—
                                                                                      CilurjfU'ristio
                                                                                                    Minimum      Avoroire
                                                                                                   Com-enlruuoa  Concentration
                                            f daily
                                              Effluent      Maximum for   values for thnry
                                            cbai selenitic    any one day  rorts*vutived;\>s
                                                                     snail HOI exceed
                                          TSS	 100 mft/1	30mR/l.
                                          Oil and (Jreasw	00 tried	 15 rng/1.
                                          Copper, Total	 1.0 iMjra	 1.0 i»c,1.
                                          Iron, Total	- 1.0 mg/l	 1.0 nig;!.
                                            (h> The quantity  of pollutants dis-
                                         charged in once throurh  cooling water shall
                                         not exceed the quanm> dc'.crmined by multi-
                                         plying the How of once throufji cooling water
                                         sources times the concentration listed m the
                                         following table:
                                              Effluent
                                            Characteristic
                                                         Maximum
                                                        Concentration
   A vr-rrjn1
Concent nmon
                                          Fref a?ni!ab!e     O.S mjr/l	0.2D1R/1.
                                           chlorine.
                           A „.„,.,, 0,nAi,y       [40 FR 7095, February 19. 1975]
   EfBumt      M.niiruro for   v»invj inr tinny      The qunntity of  pollutants dis-
 char»c«ri5tlc     any one day   ™«™X^4?_  charged in coolme tower bloudown shall
_______	  not exceed  the quantity determined  by
                                        multiplying the  lluw ol Limiin^ tovicr bluw-
                                        dow n    times me concentration listed In
                                      •  the following table:
                                                                                    Firit itvnllnblB
                                                                                     chlorine.
                                                                                                  0.5 mg/1......... 0.2 mg/L
                                        TS3	 100ni!/U	30ms,1.
                                        Oil and Grease	20 mg.'l	 15 uig/1.

                                             The  quantity of  pollutants  dis-
                                        charged in fly ash transport water shall
                                        not  exceed the quantity determined by
                                        multiplying the flow of ily ash transport
                                        water  times the concentration listed in
                                        the following table:
                                                                     Average of daily
                                              Effluent     Maximut for    values for 3l>
                                            characteristic      any 1 day   couycultve days
                                                                     shall not exceed—
                                          TSS	 100 mgA	BGriieA
                                          Oil and Grease	*'0u)&;l	 15 ing/L
                                            (f)  The  quantity  of pollutants dis-
                                          charged in metal cleaning wastes shall
                                          not  exceed  the  quantity  determined
                                          by multiplying the flow of metal cleaning
                                          wastes times the concentration listed in
                                          the following table:

                                                                     Averare of dally
                                              Effluent       Maximum for    valuer for 30
                                            churacterisUc      any 1 day    consecutive days
                                                                     shall not eiceco.—
                                          TSS	 100 mgA	30rr.ii/l.
                                          Oil and (jre.iM	20 me.'!	 15m>;1.
                                          Copper, Total	 l.OmK'T...	- 1.0mc,X
                                          iron. Total	 1.0 nig/	- 1.0 mi/1.
                                                                                                               Avoroce of dally
                                                                                                   Maximum tor    valutifur3U
                                                                                                    tuiy 1 day    constvulfvc dayf
                                                                                                               &h.ill not exceed—

                                                                                   Zinc	.	 1.0 roir/1	 LODic/L
                                                                                   Chromium	0:.! nic/L..	 0.? niR/1.
                                                                                   IllOiphorus 	5.0 ni,1:,'!..	5.0 inp/l.
                                                                                   Ollirr corrosion    Liniil lobe established on acoseby
                                                                                     inhibiting        casa basbu
r,3            ]nur/l ......... Mnw/l.
oii uid'urease. ..... 20 un/i .......... u tuc/1.
 [40 FR 7095, February 19,1975]
   (j)  Neither free available chlorine nor
 total residual chlorine may be discharged
 from any unit for more than two hours
 in any one day and not more than one
 unit  in  any  plant may  discharge free
 available or total residual chlorine at any
 one time unless the utility can  dcmon»
 strate to the  regional  administrator or
 state, If the state has NPDES  permit
 issuing authority, that the units in a par-
 ticular location  cannot  operate  at or
 below this level of chlorination.
   Ik)  In the  event that waste  streams
 from various sources are  combined for
 treatment or discharge, the quantity of
 each pollutant or pollutant property con-
 trolled in paragraphs ia.> through (j) of
 this  section  attributable  to  each  con-
 trolled waste source sha':l not exceed the
 specified limitation for that waste source.
 §423.34   [Reserved]
   Subpart D—Area Runoff Subcategory
 § 423.40   Applicability;  dr.tt-riplion  of
     the area runoif subcalegory.
  The provisions of this subpart are ap-
 plicable  to  discharges   resulting from ma-
 terial storage runoff  and  construction
 runoff which are used in or derived from
 units subject to the limitations  in sub-
 parts A, B.  or C of this part.
 [40 FR 7095, February 19,1975]

 § 423.41  Specialized definitions.
  For the purpose of  this subpart:
   ta) Except as provided below, the gen-
 eral definitions, abbreviations and meth-
 ods  of analysis set  forth in  40  CFK
 Part 401 shall apply to  this subpart.
  (b)  The term "material  storage  run-
off" shall mean the rainfall runorf from
 or through any coal, ash  or  other ma-
 terial storage pile.
   
-------
§ 423.42   Fflturnt liminniont guitlrlinc*
     represemin"  l!1(- ilr^-rrc of  rlllitrnl
     rciluotmn allaiiuiMc by the applirn.
     lion  of the l>e>t praclirnlile control
     terhnolos) currently available.

  In establishing  the  limitations  set
forth in this section, EPA took into ac-
count all information it was able to col-
lect, develop and solicit with respect to
factors (such as age and size of plant,
utilization of  facilities, raw materials',
manufacturing   processes,   non-water
quality environmental  impacts, control
and treatment technology available, en-
ergy requirements and  costs) which can
affect  the  industry  subcategorizatior.
and effluent levels established. It is, hew-
ever, possible that data which would af-'
feet  these  limitations  have not  been
available  and,  as a  result, these limita-
tions  should  be adjusted for  certain
plants  In  this industry. An individual
discharger  or  other interested person
may submit evidence to the Regiona1. Ad-
ministrator (or to the State, if the State
has the authority to issue NPDES per-
mits)  that factors relating to the equip-
ment  or  facilities involved,  the process
applied, or other such factors related to
such  discharger   are   fundamentally
different from  the factors considered in
the establisliment of the guidelines. On
the basis of such evidence or other avail-
able information, the Regional Adminis-
trator (or the  State) will make a writ-
ten finding that such factors are or are
not fundamentally different for that fa-
cility compared to those specified in the
Development Document. If such funda-
mentally  different factors are found to
exist, the Regional Administrator or the
State  shall establish for the discharger
eSluent limitations in the NPDES permit
either more  or less stringent than the
limitations established herein, to the ex-
tent dictated  by such  fundamentally
different  factors. Such limitations must
be  approved by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The
Administrator  may approve of disap-
prove such limitations, specify other lim-
itations,  or initiate proceedings to revise
these regulations:
  (a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph   of this section, the following
limitations  establish  the  quantity or
quality of pollutants or pollutant prop-
erties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to  the  provisions  of  this subpart
after application of the best practicabla
control technology  currently available:
Effluent                Effluent
  characteristic:        limitations
TSS	* Not to exceed 50 rag/I.
pn	 -\Vlthln me range 6.0 to 9.0.

  (b) Any untreated  overflow from fa-
cilities  desiencd, constructed and  oper-
ated to treat the volume of material stor-
age runoff and construction runolf which
is associated with a 10 year, 24 hour rain-
fall event shall  not  be subject to  the
limitations in subparagraph (a) of this
section.

§ 423.43  Effluent  KmituUons  guidelines
     representing liic  ticprce  of elfiuent
     reduction attainable by the applica-
     tion of the best available technology
     economically achievable.
  (a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (b)  of this section,  the following
limitations   establish  the  quantity  or
quality of  pollutants or pollutant  prop-
erties, controlled by this section, which
may be discharged by a point source sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart after
application of the  best practicable con-
trol technology currently available:
  Effluent              Effluent
    characteristic:       limitations
  TSS 	  Not to exceed 50 mg/t.
  ph	  Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
  (b) Any untreated overflow from fa-
cilities  designed, constructed and  oper-
ated to treat the volume of material stor-
age runoff and construction runoff v.-hich
results  from a 10 year, 24  hour rainfall
event shall not be subject to the limita-
tions in paragraph (a) of this section.

§ 423.44  [Reserved]
§ 423.45  Stumlun!* of performative for
     new sourer*.
  (a) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph  ib) of this section, the following
standards of performance establish  the
quantity or  quality of  pollutants or pol-
i I'.nr.t  properties,  which  may be  dis-
charged by  a new source subject to the
provisions of this subpart:
  Effluent               Effluent
   characteristic:       limitation}
  TSS	   Not to  exceed 50 mg/l.
  pn.	   Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.

  (b)  Any untreated  overflow from' fa-
cilities designed, constructed  and  oper-
ated to treat the volume of material stor-
age runofl and construction runoff which
results from a  10 year, 2-1 hour rainfall
event, shall not be subject to the ph  and
TSG limitations stipulated in paragraph.
(a) of  this section.
§ 423.46  Frclrcalment   standard*   for
     new sources.
  The  pretreatment  standards  under
section 307(c)  of the Act  for  a  source
within the  area  runoff  subcategory,
which is a user of a publicly owned treat-
ment works (and which would be a near
source subject  to section  306 of the Act,
if it were to discharge pollutants to the
navigable waters), shall be the standard
set forth in  40 CFR Part 123, except that,
for the purpose of this section, 40  CFR
128.133  shall be  amended  to read as
follows:
  In addition to the promotions set forth In
40 CFU 128.131. the pretreatrnent stj.ndird
for Incompatible pollutaivts introduced !mo
a publicly owned treatment works shall be
the standard of perlermrmce for new sources
specified in  40 CFR 423 45:  Prorided, Tha..
if the publicly owned treatment works which
receives t-he  pollutants  is committed, in us
NPDES permit,  to remove  a specified  per-
centape of any  incompatible pcUutant. the
pretreatmcnt standard applicable to users of
such treatment works  shall, except  in the
case of standards providing for no discharge
• of pollutants. b& correspondingly reduced in
stringency for that pollutant.
                                                         519

-------
REFERENCES


 1. Edwards, J. B.   Combustion:   The Formation and Emission of Trace
    Species.  Ann Arbor,  Michigan,  Ann Arbor Science Publishers,  Inc.,
    1974.

 2. Sondreal, E. A. and P.  H.  Tufte.  Scrubber Developments in the West.
    Presented at the 1975 Lignite Symposium, Grand Forks,  North Dakota,
    May 14-15, 1975.

 3. Proposed Criteria for Water  Quality.   Volume I.   U.S.  Environmental
    Protection Agency.   October  1973.

 4. Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Steam Electric Power
    Generating.  Fed Regist.  135:0541, April 18,  1975.

 5- Epstein, S. S.   Potential  Carcenogenic Hazards Due to  New Orleans
    Drinking Water.  Testimony Before the House Committee  on Health
    and Welfare, Louisiana House of Representatives.  February 21, 1975.

 6. Principles for Evaluating  Chemicals in the Environmental.  National
    Academy of Sciences,  National Academy of Engineering and Committee on
    Toxicology, National Research Council.  1975.

 7. Instrumentation for Environmental Monitoring - Water.   Lawrence
    Berkeley Labs,  NSF February  2,  1973.   LBL-I, Vol. 2.

 8. Proceedings of Symposium on  Energy Production and Thermal Effects.
    Oak Brook, Illinois,  September, 1973.  Ann Arbor, Michigan, Ann
    Arbor Science Pub., Inc.,  1974.

 9. Mills, G. A., H. Perry, and  H.  R. Johnson.  Fuels Management in an
    Environmental Age.   Environ  Sci Technol.  5(1):30, 1971.

10. Levin, A. E. , T. J. Birch, R. E. Hillman, and G. E.  Raines.  Thermal
    Discharges:  Ecological Effects.  Environ Sci Technol.  6(3):224,
    1972.

11. Water Quality Criteria.  Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
    tion, 168.  Report of the  National Technical Advisory Committee to
    the Secretary of the Interior.   Available from the U.S. Government
    Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

12. Meyer, J. H., T. W. Eages, L. C. Kohlenstein, J. A.  Kagan, and
    W.  D. Stanbus.   Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Visible Plume
    Behavior:  Measurements, Models, Predictions.  In:  Cooling Tower
    Environment - 1974.  Technical Information Center, Office of  Public
    Affairs, ERDA,  1973.   p. 307-352.
                                  520

-------
13.  Federal Noise Effects Research FY73-FY75.  U.S. Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency.  Report No. EPA-600/1-75-001.  March 1975.

14.  Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
    Public Health and Welfare With Adequate Margin of Safety.  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.  Report No. EPA-550/9-74-004.
    March, 1974.
                                   521

-------
                              APPENDIX E
                    COMBUSTION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

 The  rows  of the .summary tables, as presented in the main body of this
 report, define the combustion systems to be evaluated for air, water,
 and  solid waste pollutants.  These systems are identified by function,
 combustion type (external or internal), fuel, furnace type, and firing
 method.   A classification coding system identifying the above factors,
 and  others such as size, the use of fly ash reinjection, and control
 device  application, has been developed to aid in the possible computer-
 ization of the data base.

 The  specific classifications used in the summary tables were chosen pri-
 marily  to identify factors that affect pollutant properties or quantities
 or to indicate the state-of-the-art of combustion technology.  Table 165
 presents  an overview of the Combustion System Classification by listing
 the  function, combustion types and fuels for the electric generation
 function  and combustion type for the industrial, commercial and residen-
 tial functions.  Table 166 further expands the classification system to
 include all of the factors that can be used to define the system dis-
 cussed  in Section II of the report for Electric Generation-External
 Combustion-Bituminous Coal-Pulverized Dry-Tangential Firing.  This table
 is also condensed since a full expansion of all classifications under the
 above heading by Electric Generation-External Combustion-Bituminous Coal
would require 576 rows to include furnace types, firing patterns, size
 and fly ash reinjection (excluding control devices).  If full use is  to
 be made of this classification system, the need for computerization  is
 obvious.  Computerization will require also that a classification coding
                                  522

-------
system be developed for the unit processes and pollutants which comprise
the columns of the summary tables.  Approximately 300 columns have been
used in this document to define the pollutants emitted from combustion
sources and their associated  operations.
                                   523

-------
Table 165.  OVERVIEW OF COMBUSTION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
1.0.00.0.0
1.1.00.0.0
1.1.10.0.0
1.1.11.0.0
1.1.12.0.0
1.1.13.0.0
1.1.20.0.0
1.1.21.0.0
1.1.22.0.0
1.1.23.0.0
1.1.24.0.0
1.1.25.0.0
1.1.26.0.0
1.1.30.0.0
1.1.31.0.0
1.1.32.0.0
1.1.33.0.0
1.1.40.0.0
1.1.41.0.0
1.1.42.0.0
1.1.43.0.0
1.2.00.0.0
1.3.00.0.0
1.4.00.0.0
1.4.20.0.0
1.4.22.0.0
1.4.30.0.0
1.4.31.0.0
2.0.00.0.0
2.1.00.0.0
2.2.00.0.0
3.0.00.0.0
3.1.00.0.0
3.2.00.0.0
4.0.00.0.0
4.1.00.0.0
Electric Generation
External Combustion (all fuels)
Coal
Bituminous
Anthracite
Lignite
Petroleum
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Crude Oil
Kerosene
Diesel Fuel
Gasoline
Gas
Natural Gas
Process Gas
LPG
Waste
Bagasse
Wood/Back
Other
Internal Combustion (All)
Internal Combustion - Turbines
Internal Combustion - Reciprocating
Petroleum
Distillate Oil
Gas
Natural Gas
Industrial
External Combustion
Internal Combustion
Commercial
External Combustion
Internal Combustion
Residential
External Combustion
                          524

-------
                              Table 166.   EXAMPLE OF COMBUSTION CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
                                          FOR ELECTRIC GENERATION, EXTERNAL COMBUSTION
                  1.0.00.0.0   Electric Generation
                  1.1.00.0.0     External Combustion
                  1.1.10.0.0       Coal
                  1.1.11.0.0         Bituminous
                  1.1.11.1.0           Pulverized Dry
£>                 1.1.11.1.1             Tangential
                  1.1.11.1.1.1             > 5000 x 106 Btu/hr
                  1.1.11.1.1.2               1500 - 5000 x 106 Btu/hr
                  1.1.11.1.1.3               . 500 - 1500 x 106 Btu/hr
                  1.1.11.1.1.3.1                    with fly ash reinjection
                  1.1.11.1.1.3.1.1                     with ESP
                  1.1.11.1.1.3.1.1.1                      with ESP and limestone scrubber
                  1.1.11.1.1.3.1.1.1.1                      with ESP, limestone scrubber and staged firing
                  1.1.11.1.1.3.1.x.x.l                      with staged firing: no other control device

-------
                               APPENDIX F

                           CONVERSION FACTORS
 CAPACITY,  ENERGY, FORCE, HEAT
       Multiply
    By
    To obtain
 Btu
 Btu/min
 Btu/min
 Btu/min
 Btu/min
 Btu/min

 Horsepower  (boiler)
 Horsepower  (boiler)
 Horsepower-hours
 Kilowatts
 Kilowatts
 Kilowatt-hours
 Kilowatt-hours
 Megawatts
 Pound/hr steam
0.2520
3.927 x 10-4
2.928 x 10~4
0.02356
0.01757
10-3

33,479
9.803
0.7457
56.92
 1.341
3415
1.341
1360
0.454
Kilogram-calories
Horsepower-hrs
Kilowatt-hrs
Horsepower
Kilowatts
Pound/hr steam

Btu/hr
Kilowatts
Kilowatt-hours
Btu/min
Horsepower
Btu
Horsepower-hrs
Kilogram/hr steam
Kg/hr
Energy equivalences of various fuels:

Bituminous coal - 22.4 x 106 Btu/ton, 1971-1973
                  21.9 x 106 Btu/ton, 1974

Anthracite coal - 26.0 x 106 Btu/ton

   Lignite coal - 16.0 x 106 Btu/ton

   Residual oil - 147,000 Btu/gal

Distillate oil  - 140,000 Btu/gal

   Natural gas  - 1,022 Btu/ft3

1 Ib of water evaporated from and at 212 F equals:

            0.2844 Kilowatt-hours
            0.3814 Horsepower-hours
            970.2  Btu
                                 526

-------
FLOW
Multiply
Cubic feet /minute
Cubic feet/second
Cubic feet /second
Cubic meter/sec.
Cubic meter/sec.
Gal Ions /year
Gal Ions /min.
Liters /min.
Liters /min.
Million gals /day
Million gals /day
Million gals /day
Pounds of vater/min.
LENGTH, AREA, VOLUME
Multiply
Acres
Acres
Acres
fitv*> ^**f
Acre-feet
Acre- feet
Acre- feet
Barrels-oil
Barrels-oil
Centimeters
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic feet
Cubic meters
Cubic meters

Feet
Feet
By
0.1247
0.646317
448.831
22.8
8.32 x 109
10.37 x 10-6
2.228 x 10-3
5.886 x 10'4
4.403 x ID'3
1.54723
0.044
695
2.679 x 10-4

By
43,560
4047
1.562 x 10--*
43,560
325,851
1233.49
0.156
42
0.3937
2.832 x 104
1728
0.02832
0.03704
7.48052
28.32
35.31
264.2
^0 48
«/ \J * *TW
0.3048
To obtain
Gallons/sec.
Million gals /day
Gallons /min
Million gals /day
Gal Ions /year
m^/day
Cubic feet/sec.
Cubic ft/sec,
Gals/sec.
Cubic ft/sec.
Cubic meters. secibd
Gal Ions /min.
Cubic ft/sec.

To obtain
Square feet '
Square meters
Square miles
Cubic feet
Gallons
Cubic meters
Cubic meters
Gallons-oil
Inches
Cubic cms.
Cubic inches
Cubic meters
Cubic yards
Gallons
Liters
Cubic feet
Gallons
Centimeters
Meters
                                  527

-------
Gallons
Gallons

Gallons, Imperial
Gallons water

Liters

Meters
Meters
Square feet
Square feet

Square meters
Square meters

Square miles
0.1337
3.785 x 10'3
1.20095
8.3453
0.2642
3.281
39.37
2.296 x 10"5
0.09290
2.471 x 10~4
10.76
640
                                         Cubic feet
                                         Cubic meters
                                         U.S. gallons
                                         Pounds of water
                                         Gallons
                                         Feet
                                         Inches
                                         Acres
                                         Square meters
                                         Acres
                                         Square feet
                                         Acres
MASS, PRESSURE, TEMPERATURE, CONCENTRATION
       Multiply
Pounds
Pounds of water
Pounds of water

Pounds/sq.  inch
Pounds/sq.  inch
Pounds/sq.  inch

Temp. (°C) + 17.78
Temp. (°F)  - 32

Tons (metric)

Tons (short)
Tons (short)
Tons (short)
    By
                                             To obtain
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Atmospheres
Grams
Grams /liter
Grams /liter
Grams /liter
Kilograms
Parts /million
Parts /million
29.92
33.90
14.70
15.43
58.417
8.345
0.062427
2.2046
0.0584
8.345
Inches of mercury
Feet of water
Lbs/sq. inch
Grains (troy)
Grains /gal
Pounds /1000 gals.
Pounds /cubic ft
Pounds
Grains /U.S. gal
Lbs /million gal
                          453.5924
                          2205

                          2000
                          0.89287
                          0.9975
               Grams
0.01602
0.1198
0.06804
2.307
2.036
1.8
0.555
Cubic feet
Gallons
Atmospheres
Feet of water
Inches of mercury
Temp. (°F.)
Temp. (°C.)
               Pounds
               Pounds
               Tons (long)
               Tons (metric)
                                 528

-------
ABMA
ASME
BaP
BOD
BSD
Btu
COD
EPA
FGC
FGD
FEA
FPC
IERL
kWh
MR
MW
MWh
NEDS
NPDES
PBB
PCB
PHH
POM
PPOM
SOTDAT
            APPENDIX G
MAJOR ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT

   American Boiler Manufacturer's  Association
   American Society of Mechanical  Engineers
   Benzo(a)pyrene
   Biological Oxygen Demand
   Benzene Soluble Organics
   British Thermal Units
   Chemical Oxygen Demand
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Flue Gas Cleaning
   Flue Gas Desulfurization
   Federal Energy Administration
   Federal Power Commission
   Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
   Kilowatt Hours
   Municipal Refuse
   Megawatts
   Megawatt Hours
   National Emission Data System
   National Pollution Discharge Elimination  System
   Polybrominated Biphenyls
   Polychlorinated Biphenyls
   Polyhalogenated Hydrocarbons
   Polycyclic Organic Matter
   Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter
   Source Test Data System
                     529

-------
TS        Total Solids.
IDS       Total Dissolved Solids
TSS       Total Suspended Solids
TLV       Threshold Limit Value
TVA       Tennessee Valley Authority
                     530

-------
I. REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2-76-046b
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          incase read lnunn-iuma tin the rcnrsc bcjon- completing
                                                      3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANOSU3TITLE
 Preliminary Emissions Assessment of Conventional
 Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume II—Final
 Report
                                                      5. REPORT DATE
                                                      March 1976
                                                      6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 '•AUTKORU)NormanSurprenant,  Robert Hall, Steven Sla-
 ter, Thomas Susa, Martin Suss man, Charles Young
                                                      8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
                                                       GCA-TR-75-26-G(2)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 GCA/Technology Division
 GCA Corporation
 Bedford, Massachusetts  01730
                                                      10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                      EHB525; ROAP AAU-002
                                                      11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                      68-02-1316, Task 11
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                       13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                       Task Final: 3/75-12/75
                                                       14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                        EPA-ORD
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES u
                   Project officer for this report is R. A. Venezia, Ext 2547.
 i6.ABSTRACT The report gives results of Q. preliminary emissions assessment of the air,
 water, and solid waste pollutants produced by conventional stationary combustion
 systems.  It gives results in four principal categories: utilities (electric generation),
 industrial (steam generation,  space heating,  and stationary engines), commercial/
 institutional (space heating and stationary engines), and residential (space heating).
 For each principal combustion system category, it gives: process  types and oper-
 ating efficiencies, fuel consumption, pollutant sources and characteristics,  major
 research and development trends, fuel consumption trends, -and technical areas
 where emission data are incomplete or unreliable.  It also gives the pollutant emis-
 sions from applicable  unit operations  for each of 56 source classifications, using a
 uniform combustion source classification system.' It identifies major gaps in avail-
 able data regarding the population and capacity of combustion systems, application of
 control measures,  fuel composition, and other parameters which significantly
 influence pollutant characteristics and emission rates.
17.
                              KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                 DESCRIPTORS
 Pollution
 Combustion
 Utilities
 Industries
 Industrial Wastes
 Residential Buildings
                    Steam Electric
                      Power Generation
                    Space Heating
                    Stationary Engines
            STATEMENT
                                           b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                   c. COS3.TI Field/Croup
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Emissions Assessment
                                          19. SECURITY CLAi
                                           Unclassified
13B
21B

05C
10A
13A
21G
                                                                          PAGES
                                                                      555
EPA Form 2220-1 19-73)
                                         531

-------